CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee11ooff3399

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG 532 20th Street, N.W., Apt. #706 Washington, DC 20006,
AMY CHASTAIN 709 Fillmore Street, Apt. 4 San Francisco, CA 94117
YOUNGCHOI 1204 Manor Lane Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464
MEAGHAN ENRIGHT 1900 South Eads St. #128 Arlington, VA 22202
LEANNE LEE Chez Michel Reuss 113 Rue Caulaincourt 75018,Paris France
ELIZABETH L. YOUNG 542 Linden Street #3 San Francisco, CA 941 02
CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI 2100 Connecticut Avenue NW, Apt. B1 Washington, DC 20008,
Plaintiffs, v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Office of the Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA John A. Wilson Building, 6th floor 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSOLIDATED:

)

CASE NUMBER 1:02CV02010

)

)

JUDGE: Emmet G. Sullivan

)

DECK TYPE: General Civil

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

268520.6

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee22ooff3399

)

ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,

)

in his official capacity as

)

Mayor of the District of Columbia

)

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

)

1849 C Street, N.W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20240,

)

)

RICHARD MURPHY,

)

in his official capacity as a

)

Major, U.S. Park Police, and in his individual

)

and personal capacity

)

1849 C Street, N.W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20240,

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY

)

in his official capacity as

)

Chief Executive Officer of the

)

Metropolitan Police Department, and in his

)

individual and personal capacity

)

300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

)

Washington, DC 20001,

)

)

MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD,

)

In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the )

Metropolitan Police Department and in his

)

individual and personal capacity

)

300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

BRIAN K. JORDAN,

)

In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the )

Metropolitan Police Department and in his

)

individual and personal capacity

)

300 Indiana Avenue, N. W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

PETER J. NEWSHAM,

)

in his official capacity as

)

Assistant Chief of the

)

Metropolitan Police Department, and in his

)

individual and personal capacity

)

300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

)

268520.6

-2-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee33ooff3399

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

B. DIGIROLAMO,

)

an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department )

on September 27, 2002, with badge #0497, in

)

his individual and personal capacity

)

)

A. HARRISON,

)

an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department )

on September 27, 2002, with badge #2046, in

)

his individual and personal capacity

)

)

M. SMITH,

)

An officer of the Metropolitan Police Department )

On September 27, 2002, with badge #3486, in

)

his individual and personal capacity

)

)

FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S

)

DEPARTMENT,

)

411 0 Chain Bridge Road

)

Fairfax, V.A. 22030

)

)

JOHN or JANE DOES 1-10

)

)

Defendants.

)

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs RayMing Chang, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan Enright, Leanne Lee, Elizabeth Young, and Christopher Zarconi (hereinafter "the Plaintiffs") bring this Complaint and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the
public from a policy, custom and/or practice of "trap-and-arrest" in which police surround persons, including persons engaged in no illegal conduct, who receive no order

268520.6

-3 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee44ooff3399

to disperse and who, even if such an order to disperse is given, are deprived of any ability

to leave the area.

2.

This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the

public from a policy, custom and/or practice of arresting journalists, bystanders, and

observers who are caught within trap-and-arrest zones during demonstrations.

3.

This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the

public from the policy, custom and/or practice of using excessive force to prevent

individuals from leaving trap-and-arrest zones.

4.

This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the

public from a policy, custom and/or practice of keeping arrested individuals in restraints

or handcuffs for excessive periods, of up to 24 hours or more, including handcuffing

individuals in a fetal position by handcuffing one wrist to the person's opposing ankle

(e.g., handcuffing a person's right wrist to that person's left ankle).

5.

This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the

public from a policy, custom and/or practice of using abusive confinement and/or the

threats of abusive confinement to secure no contest pleas.

6.

This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the

public from the policy, custom and/or practice of denying arrestees their right of access

to counsel and of denying arrestees other Miranda rights.

7.

This action further seeks damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs which were

caused by the Defendants' unlawful actions.

268520.6

-4 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee55ooff3399

8.

This action further seeks damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs which were

caused by the Defendants' conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional

rights.

9.

This action further seeks damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs which were

caused by certain Defendants' negligence in failing to prevent the other Defendants' from depriving the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights.

10. This action further seeks damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs which were

caused by certain Defendants' negligence in failing to prevent the other Defendants' conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1996). 12. Venue is proper pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) & (e) (1996). 13. This Court has the authority to render injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (1996).

THE PARTIES Definitions
14. General John.G. Pershing Park ("Pershing Park") is an area of federal park land located between 14th and 15th Streets, N.W., on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. "Freedom Plaza" is located between 13th and 14th Streets, N.W., on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Both are four to five blocks from the main buildings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ("IMF"), and on the other side of the White House-Treasury Department complex.

268520.6

-5-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee66ooff3399
15. The Hatchet is an independent newspaper servicing the George Washington University and the surrounding community. The Hatchet has been in existence for 101 years, has a circulation of 11 ,500, is distributed at over 70 locations, and is published twice a week. The Hatchet has received numerous awards for journalism and photojournalism, including awards from the Society of Professional Journalists.
16. The Metropolitan Police Academy (the "Academy") is a facility of the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") of the District of Columbia, located at 4665 Blue Plains Drive, S.W., Washington, D.C.
17. Judiciary Square is a District of Columbia government facility located at or near 409 F. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
18. The National Lawyers Guild ("NLG") is a national organization founded in 1937 which works for legal reform and social justice.
19. The Fairfax County Sheriffs Department ("Fairfax County") is responsible for public safety in Fairfax County, Virginia.
20. The George Washington University is located next to two of the institutions targeted by some protesters, the World Bank and the IMF. Some individual schools of the University, including the George Washington University Law School, and some student dormitories are located directly across the street from these sites. The University is also located within a few blocks of the White House and the United States State Department. Students on campus could see or hear the protests at these various locations and, by simply walking out the doors of their schools or dormitories, were within the general protest area. The Plaintiffs

268520.6

-6-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee77ooff3399
21. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, RayMing Chang was a first-year law student at the George Washington University. Mr. Chang was, and continues to be, a resident of the District of Columbia.
22. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Amy Chastain was a third-year law student at the George Washington University. Ms. Chastain was a resident of Maryland at the time of the arrest. Ms. Chastain is currently a resident of the State of California.
23. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Young Choi was an undergraduate student at the George Washington University. Mr. Choi was a resident of the District of Columbia at the time of the arrest. Mr. Choi is currently a resident of the State of South Carolina.
24. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Meaghan Enright was an undergraduate student at the George Washington University. Ms. Enright was a resident of the District of Columbia at the time of the arrest. Ms. Enright is currently a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
25. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Leanne Lee was an undergraduate student at the George Washington University. Ms. Lee was a resident of the District of Columbia at the time of her arrest. Ms. Lee is currently a resident of Paris, France.
26. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Elizabeth Young was a second-year law student at the George Washington University. Ms. Young was a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time of her arrest. Ms. Young is currently a resident of the State of California.

268520.6

-7-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee88ooff3399
27. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Christopher Zarconi was an undergraduate student at the George Washington University. Mr. Zarconi was, and continues to be, a resident of the District of Columbia. The Chang Defendants
28. The United States is an interested party because various federal agencies, including but not limited to the United States Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, participated in the planning and carrying out of the arrests and detentions described in this Complaint. The Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia represent the Executive Branch of the United States Government in such matters.
29. The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation and constitutes the city government of Washington, D.C. It was created by and exists under the laws of the United States.
30. Anthony A. Williams is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, the mayor of the District of Columbia.
31. The National Park Service ("Park Service") is part of the United States Department of the Interior. The Park Service has police authority over Pershing Park and some of the other areas in which arrests were made.
32. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Richard Murphy was a Major in the Park Police. Defendant Murphy was on the scene at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and was in command of those officers present from the Park Police.
33. Charles Ramsey is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, the Chief of the MPD. The MPD is the agency responsible for policing the District of Columbia.

268520.6

-8-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee99ooff3399
34. Michael J. Fitzgerald is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, the Executive Assistant Chief of the MPD.
35. Brian K. Jordan is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, an Assistant Chief of the MPD.
36. Peter J. Newsham is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, an Assistant Chief of the MPD. At the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, Defendant Newsham was in charge of the Office of Professional Responsibility. Defendant Newsham was on duty at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and was responsible for Area IV of the World Bank/IMF demonstration detail, which encompassed Pershing Park.
37. B. Digirolamo was an officer of the MPD with badge number 0497 at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint. On information and belief, B. Digirolamo is currently an officer of the MPD.
38. A. Harrison was an officer of the MPD with badge number 2046 at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint. On information and belief, A. Harrison is currently an officer of the MPD.
39. M. Smith was an officer of the MPD with badge number 3486 at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint. On information and belief, M. Smith is currently an officer of the MPD.
40. The Fairfax County Sheriffs Department is, and was at the time of the events that are the subject of this Complaint, a county public safety agency located in Fairfax County, Virginia.

268520.6

-9-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1100ooff3399

41. John or Jane Does 1-10 are, as yet, unidentified agents, officers, or officials of the federal government, the District of Columbia, or state or local governments, who were responsible for, personally participated in, or observed and took no action to correct or prevent, the illegal and unconstitutional arrests described in this Complaint, including, among others: the trap-and-arrest practices; the policy of extended detention; the practice of using restraints for excessive periods of time, including the use of restraints to restrict arrestees to a fetal position; the policy of denying arrestees their access to counsel; and the practice of using abusive confinement and threats to secure no contest pleas.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Trap-and-Arrest Practice 42. The instant matter comes before the Court after hundreds of arrests were carried out by
the MPD, the Park Service, Fairfax County, and other state, local, and federal police departments. 43. Arrests occurred on the weekend of September 27, 2002, at Pershing Park and various locations around Washington, D.C. 44. Before September 27, 2002, the MPD estimated that it planned on arresting more than 3000 people. 45. The U.S. government and District of Columbia government assembled a huge police force, including police officers from other states and local governments, including Fairfax County, to deal with expected demonstrations. Ultimately, it was reported that the number of protesters was so small that 650 of 1700 police officers assembled from numerous police forces were sent home. Defendant Ramsey admitted there was "no justification" for keeping such a large police force given the small size of the protests.

268520.6

-10-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1111ooff3399
46. The protests were directed against the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund ("IMF"), and the United States government as they relate to a host of concerns including the environment, worker rights, third-world debt and the rights of indigenous people.
47. Reportedly, while there were limited incidents of property damage, the protests were largely peaceful and did not result in significant property damage.
48. Announcements about the protests were publicized weeks in advance and described a variety of exhibitions ranging from live music to giant puppet shows to bicycle groups.
49. Given the prior media coverage, a significant number of individuals in addition to the protesters themselves were present to witness the activities. In addition to bystanders and protesters, there was a large contingent ofjournalists in the area of the protests, including ones from the nearby George Washington University, as well as individuals serving as observers to record any abusive conduct by the police.
50. Prior to and during the protests, neither police nor public officials closed nearby institutions, including the George Washington University, or prohibited observers or journalists from viewing the protests or the actions of the protesters or police, and had not warned observers or journalists that they could be arrested if found within the area of the protests.
51. In various locations including Pershing Park, police officers from the MPD, the Park Service, Fairfax County, and other jurisdictions surrounded large numbers of individuals and cut off all exits. Individuals were caught within these zones and were arrested in that they were prevented from leaving, were compressed into a smaller area by formations of police in riot gear advancing toward each other or some natural or previously erected

268520.6

- 11 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1122ooff3399
barrier (such as a security fence) with the individuals caught between them and unable to exit. Eventually, the persons caught in such traps were hand-cuffed and taken onto busses by the police. 52. Police officers at Pershing Park, including those officers in command, knew or should have known that there was no probable cause to arrest most, or all, of these people, and that many of the individuals held against their will within Pershing Park had not committed any illegal act. 53. Defendants Ramsey, Fitzgerald, Jordan and Newsham met and decided to arrest and take into custody all the individuals trapped within Pershing Park. 54. During that meeting, these officers knew, or should have known there was no probable cause for arresting all or most of these individuals and most of the individuals within Pershing Park had not committed an illegal act. 55. During that meeting, these officers knew, or should have known, that most of the individuals within Pershing Park had not been given an order to disperse, or been given any warning to leave Pershing Park. 56. During that meeting, these officers knew, or should have known, that many of the individuals within Pershing Park had been, and were being, denied an opportunity to disperse. 57. Defendants Ramsey, Fitzgerald, Jordan, and/or Newsham communicated the order to the officers surrounding Pershing Park to surround the individuals in Pershing Park restrain them from leaving the Park, and, ultimately, handcuff them and take them into custody.

268520.6

-12-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1133ooff3399
58. Defendant Murphy was on the scene at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and was in command of the officers present from the Park Police and the officers present from Fairfax County.
59. Defendant Murphy knew that there was no probable cause for arresting most of the individuals in Pershing Park, and that most of these individuals had not committed an illegal act.
60. Defendant Murphy knew that the conduct of the individuals in Pershing Park did not meet the criteria applied by the Park Service required to conduct a mass arrest.
61. Defendant Murphy informed Defendant Newsham and possibly others that the conduct in Pershing Park did not meet the criteria applied by the Park Service for mass arrests.
62. Nevertheless, Defendant Murphy commanded the Park Police and Fairfax County Sheriffs officers under his direct and/or indirect command to assist the MPD to carry out the mass arrests by positioning Park Police around a portion of the perimeter of Pershing Park.
63. At the urging of the MPD, the Park Police and Fairfax County Sheriffs Department agreed to assist in the arrest of all individuals present in Pershing Park.
64. Commander Basilio Cachuela, Jr., an officer of the Fairfax County Sheriffs Department, assisted the MPD and/or Park Police to carry out the mass arrests by positioning Fairfax County Sheriffs officers on a portion of the perimeter of Pershing Park and ordering those officers to prevent anyone from leaving the Park and by supplying generally personnel and resources to the enforcement effort.
65. The Defendants arrested individuals within Pershing Park who they knew, or should have known, had not committed an illegal act. The Defendants knew or should have known

268520.6

- 13 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1144ooff3399
that these arrests were made without probable cause to suspect that those individuals had committed an illegal act. 66. The trapping and arresting of protesters, and anyone else in their vicinity, has been utilized in the past by Defendants as a method of suppressing demonstrations by removing large numbers of individuals for a period of time from the vicinity of a demonstration and from the city streets. 67. These actions demonstrate an apparent policy, custom and/or practice of encircling, trapping, and arresting protesters and everyone else in their vicinity as a method of suppressing the demonstrations by removing large numbers of individuals from the vicinity. 68. It was reported that this trap-and-arrest technique resulted in almost 700 arrests by midafternoon on the first day, September 27, 2002. 69. After the fact, Defendant Ramsey explained that anyone caught in these zones "had no business in the street" and that he viewed such presence as a cause for arrest. 70. Defendant Ramsey further stated publicly that "mayhem" would result unless he arrested anyone deemed to be "blocking a street." 71. Witnesses in the media observed this technique and noted that bystanders, observers, and journalists were often arrested with protesters when they were unable to leave the arrest zones. 72. Defendant Ramsey reportedly heralded these arrests as instrumental to the police's ability to keep control over the protests. Of the mass arrests, he observed that "a lot of wind was taken out of their sails Friday."

268520.6

-14-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1155ooff3399

73. An investigation was conducted, and a Final Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct Made at the October 24,2003, Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia Concerning the IMF/World Bank Protests (hereinafter "Final Report") was made by the MPD.
74. The Final Report confirms that there were possibly individuals in the park that were not protesters and who had arrived there lawfully, that it cannot be established that all of the persons in the park were part of any particular group engaged in unlawful behavior, and that no warnings were given to the demonstrators in the park prior to their arrest. The Arrests ofthe Plaintiffs
75. All of the Plaintiffs are George Washington University students who were present at the protests as journalists, bystanders, or observers.
76. Mr. Chang was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Mr. Chang was not a protester. Given the allegations of abusive police conduct at other anti-globalization protests, Mr. Chang and his fellow observers were asked by the NLG to observe the protests and keep a log of events and any abusive conduct. Consequently, Mr. Chang was in the Pershing Park area prior to his arrest in the capacity of a legal observer for the NLG. Mr. Chang was wearing a badge which identified him as an NLG member. Mr. Chang never heard a demand to disperse, he was never given an order to disperse, and he was not engaged in any protest activity. Mr. Chang attempted to leave the area but was prevented from doing so. Mr. Chang was trapped within a closed perimeter and then arrested.
77. Ms. Chastain was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Chastain was not a protester but was in that area in her capacity as a legal observer for the NLG. Ms. Chastain was wearing a green hat

268520.6

-15-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1166ooff3399
clearly marked with the letters NLG and an identification tag to identify her as an observer for the NLG. Ms. Chastain never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse and was not engaged in any protest activity. Ms. Chastain observed other people, including some who appeared to be tourists, being denied exit when they tried to leave the area. Ms. Chastain was herded into a comer of Pershing Park with all the other people caught inside the trap-and-arrest perimeter. Ms. Chastain was arrested, handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy and then to Judiciary Square for allegedly disobeying an order. 78. Mr. Choi was arrested on September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Mr. Choi was not a protester but was in that area in his capacity as a photographer for The Hatchet. Mr. Choi never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse and was not engaged in any protest activity. Mr. Choi was standing with a group of people encircled by police in riot gear. Mr. Choi attempted to leave that group but he was prevented from doing so by police officers. Although he explained to the officers that he was a staff photographer with The Hatchet, and displayed his press ID, he was not allowed to leave. Mr. Choi was arrested, handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse. 79. Ms. Enright was arrested on September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Enright was not a protester but was in that area in her capacity as a photographer for The Hatchet. Ms. Enright never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse, and was not engaged in any protest activity. When Ms. Enright tried to leave Pershing Park, she was denied an exit, and when she asked

268520.6

- 16-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1177ooff3399
why she was being detained, the officers would not answer. After approximately an hour, the police began closing the perimeter until everyone inside the perimeter was herded into one comer of the plaza. The officers then arrested everyone inside the perimeter, including Ms. Enright. The officers confiscated Ms. Enright's camera equipment and, after telling her that they would not be responsible for any loss or damage, threw it onto a pile of confiscated possessions. 80. Ms. Lee was arrested on September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Lee was not a protester but was in that area in her capacity as a photographer and as a journalist for The Hatchet. Ms. Lee never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse, and was not engaged in any protest activity. Ms. Lee attempted several times to leave Pershing Park. During one of those attempts, she explained that she needed to leave to go to her internship at Agence France Presse ("AFP"), a French news service. Each time she attempted to leave the park she was denied exit. Ms. Lee used her cellular phone to call her employer at AFP several times during her detention to advise him that she was being detained and was unable to get to the AFP office. Ms. Lee was handcuffed and an officer used a knife to cut the strap on a camera equipment bag that she was holding before she was moved to a bus. 81. Ms. Young was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Young was not a protester but was in that area in her capacity as a legal observer for the NLG. Ms. Young was wearing a green hat emblazoned with the letters NLG and a badge which clearly identified her as an observer for the NLG. Ms. Young never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse, and was not engaged in any protest activity. Ms. Young asked to leave

268520.6

- 17-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1188ooff3399
Pershing Park and was repeatedly denied an exit. Ms. Young was arrested, handcuffed, and loaded onto a Metro bus. 82. Mr. Zarconi was arrested on the morning of September 27,2002, in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Mr. Zarconi was not a protester but was in that area in his capacity as a photographer and photo-editor of The Hatchet. Mr. Zarconi never heard a demand to disperse, was never given an order to disperse and was not engaged in any protest activity. After being informed by another journalist that police in riot gear had formed a perimeter and were denying everyone exit from the plaza, Mr. Zarconi made his way to the perimeter to seek exit. Mr. Zarconi displayed his press pass and asked to be allowed to leave, but the officers denied his request and told him that nobody was allowed to leave the area. Mr. Zarconi, along with everyone else in the perimeter, was then corralled into one comer of the plaza by police in riot gear in a trap-and-arrest maneuver. Before being loaded onto a Metro bus, Mr. Zarconi again displayed his press pass and asked to be allowed to leave. He was denied once again. His camera bag was confiscated and thrown onto a pile of other confiscated bags, and he was not given a receipt of any sort for his equipment, some of which was expensive. Mr. Zarconi was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order. 83. According to the records of the MPD, Defendant Digirolamo arrested Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Zarconi on September 27,2002, at 15th and Pennsylvania in Washington, DC. Defendant Digirolamo charged Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee and Mr. Zarconi with failure to obey a police order.

268520.6

-18-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee1199ooff3399
84. In truth and in fact, Defendant Digirolamo did not give Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee, or Mr. Zarconi any orders which were not followed, nor did he witness any other authorized government official give them any orders which were not followed.
85. On information and belief, Defendant Digirolamo had no reason to believe that Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee, or Mr. Zarconi had failed to obey any order given from any other police officer, and arrested Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee and Mr. Zarconi without probable cause.
86. According to the records of the MPD, Defendant Harrison arrested Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young on September 27, 2002, at 15th and Pennsylvania in Washington, DC. Defendant Harrison charged Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain and Ms. Young with failure to obey a police order.
87. In truth and in fact, Defendant Harrison did not give Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young any orders which were not followed, nor did he witness any other authorized government official give them any orders which were not followed.
88. On information and belief, Defendant Harrison had no reason to believe that Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young had failed to obey any order given from any other police officer, and arrested Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young without probable cause.
89. According to the records of the MPD, Defendant Smith arrested Mr. Choi on September 27, 2002, at 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. Defendant Smith charged Mr. Choi with failure to obey a police order.
90. In truth and in fact, Defendant Smith did not give Mr. Choi any orders which were not followed, nor did he witness any other authorized government official give Mr. Choi any orders which were not followed.

268520.6

- 19-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2200ooff3399

91. On information and belief, Defendant Smith had no reason to believe that Mr. Choi had failed to obey any order given from any other police officer, and arrested Mr. Choi without probable cause. The Confinement and Release Conditions
92. Four of the Plaintiffs were held at the Academy until the afternoon of Saturday, September 28, 2002, and three of the Plaintiffs were held at Judiciary Square until the early morning hours of Saturday, September 28, 2002.
93. After being arrested, Mr. Chang was loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy and then to Judiciary Square. Mr. Chang was held for approximately 18 hours by the MPD, most of which was on a bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. He was handcuffed during 13 of those hours. The discomfort of being handcuffed prevented Mr. Chang from sleeping during this time. After sitting on the full bus for approximately 13 hours, Mr. Chang was taken to cellblock Bin the Judiciary Center. Mr. Chang was not given access to individual counsel before being asked by police officers to plead to criminal charges. Mr. Chang was told that he was charged with "Failure to Obey" and was given three options: (1) remain in custody until an arraignment on Saturday or Monday, (2) pay $100 and "forfeit," or (3) pay $100 and schedule a hearing at Superior Court later. Mr. Chang selected the third option because he did not want to remain in custody. Despite having made his selection clear, the station clerk marked Mr. Chang's collateral receipt as "forfeit." Mr. Chang was released after 3:00 a.m. on September 28, 2002.
94. After being arrested, Ms. Chastain was handcuffed and placed on a metro bus. Ms. Chastain was held for approximately 18 hours by the MPD, most of which was on the metro bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. She was later taken to Judiciary

268520.6

-20-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2211ooff3399
Square for processing and held there until her release. Ms. Chastain was not given access to individual counsel before being asked by police officers to plead to criminal charges. During processing, Ms. Chastain was asked about her involvement in the protests and was asked her purposes for being in the arrest zones. She was told by an officer that she had to choose between remaining in custody until arraignment or paying $1 00 to "post and forfeit." In order to end her confinement, Ms. Chastain opted to pay the $100 fine. Ms. Chastain was released after 3:00a.m. on September 28,2002, after paying a $100 fine. 95. After being arrested, Mr. Choi was held for approximately 16 hours by the MPD. Approximately 6 hours of that time he was handcuffed on a bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. After he was removed from the bus, he was processed, taken to a mat in the Academy and handcuffed in a fetal position, wrist to opposite ankle, for approximately 8 hours. Mr. Choi was not given access to individual counsel before being questioned by police officers and being asked to plead to criminal charges. Mr. Choi was not released until he agreed to "forfeit collateral" and pay a $50 fee for allegedly failing to obey a lawful order. When he asked for an explanation, the officers told him that he could either be released at that time by paying $50 or he could stay in custody until as late as Tuesday to attend court. Mr. Choi paid the fine and was released around 2:00 a.m. on September 28, 2002. 96. After being arrested, Ms. Enright was held for approximately 27 hours by the MPD, approximately 10 hours of which was spent handcuffed on a metro bus. She was unloaded from the bus at the Academy and processed at approximately 8:30p.m. The rest of her belongings, except her identification and $50 to "pay out," were confiscated,

268520.6

-21 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2222ooff3399
including shoelaces and drawstrings. Ms. Enright was not given access to individual counsel before being questioned by police officers and being asked to plead to criminal charges. During processing, Ms. Enright was briefly asked about her involvement in the protests and was asked her purposes for being in the arrest zones. She was taken to a mat on the floor of the Academy gymnasium and her right wrist was handcuffed to her left ankle. She was forced to remain in this fetal position for most of the time until she was released at approximately 2:00p.m. on September 28,2002. Ms. Enright's mother sent a lawyer to the Academy to represent her daughter, but Ms. Enright was denied access to her counsel. The officers told Ms. Enright that she did not have a right to an attorney because she was not being interrogated. Any questions or messages Ms. Enright had for her attorney were to be relayed via an officer. Ms. Enright was told that she had three options: (1) pay $50 and be released, (2) plead guilty, or (3) plead not guilty and remain in custody until Monday. Ms. Enright was not given the opportunity to discuss this choice with her counsel. She paid the fine in order to secure her release. Ms. Enright was released at approximately 2:00p.m. on September 28,2002. 97. After being arrested, Ms. Lee was held by the MPD for approximately 27 hours. Several hours of her confinement occurred on a Metro bus at the Academy waiting to be processed. Ms. Lee was not given access to individual counsel before being asked by police officers to plead to criminal charges. She was denied a vegetarian meal; the only food she had during her more than 24 hours of detention consisted of a granola bar she successfully begged from a passing officer and a cookie. While still handcuffed, Ms. Lee was moved to a mat with seven or eight other people. An officer then handcuffed Ms. Lee's right wrist to her left ankle and left Ms. Lee to sleep in this fetal position. She

268520.6

-22-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2233ooff3399
remained handcuffed in this fetal position until approximately 1 p.m. the following day, September 28, 2002. Ms. Lee was told by an officer that if she challenged the arrest, she would be held until Monday. In order to end this confinement, she finally agreed to plead no contest, paid a $50 fine, and was then released. 98. After being arrested, Ms. Young was held for approximately 15 hours by the MPD, most of which was on a bus while handcuffed. For almost two hours, the police refused her repeated requests to have her restraints loosened despite her complaints of pain in her wrists. Ms. Young was eventually taken to Judiciary Square. Ms. Young was not given access to individual counsel before being asked by police officers to plead to criminal charges. Ms. Young was given three options: (1) remain in custody until an arraignment on Saturday or Monday, (2) pay $100 and "forfeit," or (3) pay $100 and schedule a hearing at Superior Court later. Ms. Young selected the third option because she did not want to remain in custody. Despite having communicated this choice to the station clerk, Ms. Young's collateral receipt was marked "forfeit." Ms. Young was released at approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 28, 2002. 99. After being arrested, Mr. Zarconi was held for approximately 26 hours. Approximately 10 hours of this time Mr. Zarconi was held in restraints on a metro bus. He and the other arrestees had to ask permission to use the restroom, and, when permission was granted, they were taken in small groups. When Mr. Zarconi was allowed off the bus, he was taken into the Academy to be "processed." At the Academy, the rest of Mr. Zarconi's belongings, including shoelaces and drawstrings, were confiscated and placed in an evidence bag. Mr. Zarconi was photographed and fingerprinted and allowed to use the automated teller machine to withdraw $50, which he was told he would need if he

268520.6

-23-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2244ooff3399
wanted to leave custody before Tuesday. Mr. Zarconi was not given access to individual counsel before being questioned by police officers. At one point during processing, Mr. Zarconi was asked about his "cause;" Mr. Zarconi explained he was not a protester but was a member of the press. Nonetheless, he was then led to a wrestling mat on the floor of the gymnasium and handcuffed right wrist to left ankle. Mr. Zarconi was forced to remain in this fetal position for over 12 hours until approximately 1:00 p.m. Saturday, September 28, 2002. Mr. Zarconi was required to pay $50 before being released from custody. 100. With regard to similar arrests made of other individuals who were lawfully within Pershing Park, Chief Ramsey has stated "The District of Columbia government has carefully examined the events of September 27 and 28, 2002, concerning arrests and detentions that occurred on those days. Our investigation shows that our handling of various aspects of those events was flawed. Our investigation also shows that you should not have been arrested or detained. On my own behalf, and that of the Government of the District of Columbia, we sincerely regret any hardship that our mistakes of September 27 and 28,2002 may have caused your or persons close to you."
Alleged Injuries and Standing 101. The Plaintiffs suffered direct and significant injuries due to the violations described in
this Complaint. 102. The arrest practices described in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs to be subject to
improper arrest and confinement, some for 24 hours or more. 103. The arrest practices described in this Complaint further caused the Plaintiffs to be subject
to criminal charges and criminal fines.

268520.6

-24-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2255ooff3399
104. The arrest practices described in this Complaint further prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in protected activities, including the exercise of their rights of free press, free association, and assembly.
105. The confinement practices described in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs to be restrained for excessive periods without proper cause or authority.
106. The confinement practices described in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs physical harm and discomfort by being denied proper food and movement during the time that they were in custody.
107. The arrest and confinement practices further harmed the Plaintiffs by coercing no contest pleas to criminal charges under the threat of longer confinement under abusive, illegal conditions, resulting in the creation of criminal records against them, and requiring them to pay fines.
108. The arrest and confinement practices further harmed the Plaintiffs by subjecting them to reputational and professional injury stemming from their arrest for allegedly disobeying police orders to disperse while performing their roles as journalists and observers.
109. The Plaintiffs suffered direct injury to their reputations and status in the denial of their right to counsel before being asked to plead no contest to criminal charges.
110. The Plaintiffs suffered direct injury to their reputations and status in the denial of Miranda warnings before being questioned and asked to plead in a criminal matter.
111. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated persons, remain at risk of future arrests if arrest and detention procedures similar to those described in this Complaint occur while witnessing future protests and demonstrations, including ones planned for the coming months.

268520.6

-25-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2266ooff3399
112. The Defendants unlawful actions have chilled the Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated persons, from engaging in future observation, participation, or media coverage of future demonstrations.
113. As individuals directly harmed by unconstitutional and unlawful practices of arrest and confinement, the Plaintiffs have standing to seek relief before this Court for an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act and to seek damages and other appropriate relief, including injunctive relief. The Aftermath
114. Following the arrests of the Plaintiffs and others, based on allegations of official misconduct, the MPD conducted an investigation.
115. Reports containing the results of the internal investigations were provided to both Defendant Ramsey and Mayor Williams in 2003. Copies of those investigative materials and report (the "Report") have been provided to the parties and posted on the docket by the Court.
116. The Report found that the order to arrest the individuals in Pershing Park was given by Defendant Newsham.
117. The Report found that it was possible that there were individuals in Pershing Park that were not part of any protest group. The Report also found that it was possible that numerous individuals inside Pershing Park had arrived there lawfully.
118. The Report found there was no evidence that Pershing Park had been cleared before any larger groups of protesters entered the park.
119. The Report found that the information and details on each arrest form - specifically indicating that an arrestee had been given an order to leave Pershing Park was "exposed"

268520.6

-26-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2277ooff3399
as inaccurate- in fact, none of the officers could actually testify that any individual was actually given a warning to leave. 120. The Report found that each arrestee was subject to "an improper charge for this particular event" and that the "arrest paperwork could not support the claim that each officer personally warned each of the defendants listed in the form." 121. The Report found that the MPD's policy of at least two documented warnings prior to an arrest being made was not followed in this case as "no warnings were given" to the individuals in Pershing Park. 122. The Report found that Defendant Newsham, Defendant Murphy, and others stated they heard "no warnings to disperse given by police." 123. Indeed, the Report also found there was no evidence that individuals were given warnings before entering Pershing Park. 124. Finally, the Report concluded that "police officials on the scene made procedural errors as it relates to the affecting of arrests, choice of criminal charges, and manner of arrest documentation." 125. An investigation was conducted by the Judiciary Committee of the District of Columbia City Council of the events described in this Complaint and of the Final Report. 126. With regard to the arrests, the Judiciary Committee found that the MPD made a "preemptive mass arrest" at Pershing Park, that Defendant Ramsey had set a tone that allowed for and approved of the preemptive arrests, that MPD commanders did not have probable cause to arrest everyone in the park on the basis of the alleged unlawful activity, that the arrests were done without first giving orders or warnings, in violation of MPD policy, and that Defendant Ramsey is responsible for the arrests.

268520.6

-27-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2288ooff3399
127. With regard to the Final Report, and the investigation leading to the Final Report, the Judiciary Committee found that the MPD violated its own general orders in failing to promptly initiate the investigation that led to the Final Report, that at the direction of Chief Ramsey and in violation of MPD general orders, changes were made to the investigative report after it was completed by the Office of Professional Responsibility, that these changes served to weaken criticism of the Department and the nature of the arrests, that clear conflicts of interest were present during the investigation, and that the investigation and release of the final report were marked by evasions and misstatements by senior officials including Defendant Ramsey, giving rise to the appearance of an attempt to cover up Defendant Ramsey's role in ordering the Pershing Park arrests.
128. With regard to similar arrests made of other individuals who were lawfully within Pershing Park, Chief Ramsey has stated "The District of Columbia government has carefully examined the events of September 27 and 28, 2002, concerning arrests and detentions that occurred on those days. Our investigation shows that our handling of various aspects of those events was flawed. Our investigation also shows that you should not have been arrested or detained. On my own behalf, and that of the Government of the District of Columbia, we sincerely regret any hardship that our mistakes of September 27 and 28, 2002 may have caused your or persons close to you."
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (First Amendment)
129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 128 as if set forth fully herein.

268520.6

- 28 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee2299ooff3399

130. The arrest and confinement described in this Complaint, including the policy, custom and/or practice of performing such arrests, violates the Plaintiffs rights of free assembly, association, and press guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable for such violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFederal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fourth Amendment)
131. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 130 as if set forth fully herein.
132. The search and seizure described in this Complaint, including the policy, custom and/or practice of performing such searches and seizures, violates the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable for such violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and/or Bivens, 403 U.S. at 388.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Due Process)
133. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 132 as if set forth fully herein.
134. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, described in this Complaint, including the policy, custom and/or practice of performing conducting such arrests and detentions, violates the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable for

268520.6

-29-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3300ooff3399
such violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and/or Bivens, 403 U.S. at 388.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Provide Miranda Warning) 135. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 134 as if set forth fully herein. 136. The failure to advise Plaintiffs of their Miranda rights, including the policy, custom and/or practice of failing to do so, violates the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable for such violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and/or Bivens, 403 U.S. at 388.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Right to Counsel)
137. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 136 as if set forth fully herein.
138. The failure to advise Plaintiffs of their right to counsel, including the policy, custom and/or practice of failing to do so, violates the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable for such violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and/or Bivens, 403 U.S. at 388.

268520.6

-30-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3311ooff3399
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Conspiracy 42 U.S.C. § 1985) 139. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 138 as if set forth fully herein. 140. Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs, and others in their class, of their civil rights or privileges, including their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 141. Upon information and belief, prior to or on September 27, 2002, Defendants, and others not yet identified, conspired and agreed to utilize the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest described in this Complaint~ instructed the law enforcement officers who would attend the protests to use the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver~ or instructed the law enforcement officers who would attend the protests on how to perform the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver. 142. Prior to September 27, 2002, Defendants agreed upon a cost-sharing plan for the law enforcement presence, which was to include, and did include, the use of the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver. 143. Defendants took additional steps in furtherance of this conspiracy, including, but not limited to, failing to give an audible order to disperse or giving such an order and denying the Plaintiffs the ability to disperse~ unlawfully arresting the Plaintiffs~ denying the Plaintiffs access to counsel~ failing to inform the Plaintiffs of their Miranda rights~ and placing the Plaintiffs in restraints unnecessarily, including restraining them in a fetal position, and leaving them in such restraints for excessive periods of time.

268520.6

-31 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3322ooff3399
144. Defendants targeted the Plaintiffs because of their perception of the Plaintiffs' political beliefs and associations, which Defendant presumed because of their youth and student status.
145. Similarly situated journalists and observers who appeared to be older than the average college student were allowed to leave the trap-and-arrest area while the Plaintiffs were forbidden an exit.
146. The Plaintiffs were injured by the Defendants' conspiracy to deprive them of their Constitutional rights.
147. The Defendants' conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights not only created direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage of future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied their constitutional rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness, observe, or associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy, 42 U.S.C. § 1986) 148. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 147 as if set forth fully herein.

268520.6

-32-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3333ooff3399

149. Some or all of the Defendants, and others not yet identified, were aware of the conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs' rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and neglected to prevent it.
150. Upon information and belief, several of the Defendants knew of the conspiracy and yet participated in the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver, or made no attempt to stop the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver.
151. These Defendants were negligent in failing to prevent this conspiracy. 152. The Plaintiffs were injured by the Defendants' negligent failure to prevent this
conspiracy. 153. The Defendants' negligent failure to prevent this conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of
their constitutional rights not only created direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage of future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied their Constitutional rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Common Law Conspiracy)
154. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 153 as if set forth fully herein.

268520.6

- 33 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3344ooff3399
155. Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of their civil rights or privileges, including their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
156. Upon information and belief, prior to or on September 27, 2002, Defendants agreed the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver would be utilized; instructed the law enforcement officers who would attend the protests to use the unconstitutional trap-andarrest maneuver; or instructed the law enforcement officers who would attend the protests on how to perform the unconstitutional trap-and-arrest maneuver.
157. Defendants took additional steps in furtherance of this conspiracy, including, but not limited to, failing to give an audible order to disperse or giving such an order and denying the Plaintiffs the ability to disperse; unlawfully arresting the Plaintiffs; denying the Plaintiffs access to counsel; failing to inform the Plaintiffs of their Miranda rights; and placing the Plaintiffs in restraints unnecessarily, including restraining them in a fetal position, and leaving them in such restraints for excessive periods of time.
158. The Plaintiffs were injured by the Defendants' conspiracy to deprive them of their Constitutional rights.
159. The Defendants' conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights not only created direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage of future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied their constitutional rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington,

268520.6

-34-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3355ooff3399
D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (False Arrest)
160. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 159 as if set forth fully herein.
161. Defendants unlawfully detained the Plaintiffs when they arrested the Plaintiffs on September 27, 2002.
162. The false arrests have caused the Plaintiffs reputation injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrests and pleas in common employment applications and future school applications.
163. The Defendants' unlawful arrest of the Plaintiffs not only created direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage of future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being unlawfully arrested if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.

268520.6

-35-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3366ooff3399

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (False Imprisonment)
164. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 163 as if set forth fully herein.
165. Defendants unlawfully detained the Plaintiffs when they arrested and imprisoned the Plaintiffs on September 27, 2002, and September 28, 2002.
166. The Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived of their freedom by Defendants' use of actual force and threats of force.
167. Defendants acted intentionally in unlawfully imprisoning the Plaintiffs. 168. Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young were confined in cells at Judiciary Square until
their release on September 28, 2002. 169. Mr. Choi, Ms. Enright, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Zarconi were detained at the Academy,
handcuffed wrist to ankle for the majority of the time, until their release on September 28, 2002. 170. The false imprisonments have caused the Plaintiffs reputation injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrests and pleas in common employment applications and future school applications. 171. The Defendants' unlawful imprisonment of the Plaintiffs not only created direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage of future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being unlawfully imprisoned if caught in similar trap-and-arrest

268520.6

-36-

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3377ooff3399

maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

a.

Enter an order declaring that the trap-and-arrest and confinement policies and practices

described in this Complaint violate the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the

Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983, 1985, and 1986;

b. Order injunctive relief to require clear and audible warnings to disperse at future protests

with an opportunity for individuals to exit areas of protest;

c.

Order injunctive relief to compel the District of Columbia authorities to expunge the

record of the Plaintiffs and reimburse any fines paid to secure release;

d.

Order injunctive relief to compel the District of Columbia authorities to expunge the

record of any individuals unlawfully arrested and charged as part of the trap-and-arrest

practices, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiffs;

e.

Order injunctive relief to require the reimbursement of criminal fines by those subject to

these unlawful arrests, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs;

f.

Award the Plaintiffs actual damages for harms caused by the Defendants' unlawful

conduct;

g. Award the Plaintiffs punitive damages where allowed by law;

268520.6

- 37 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3388ooff3399

h. Award the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in maintaining this

action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (1994 & Supp.

1996);

1.

Award the Plaintiffs damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

maintaining this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

J.

Award such other relief as it may deem just and proper.

268520.6

-38 -

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e3n3t 15F3ileFdil0e2d/017/21090/055 PPaaggee3399ooff3399
JURY DEMAND The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by a jury of twelve on all issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar 417674) 2000 H St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 (202) 994-7001
~M=
Daniel C. Schwartz (D.C. Bar No. 17749) BRYAN CAVE LLP 700 Thirteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 508-6000 Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Dated: ~_2jljor

268520.6

-39-

 
 Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
2002 WL 32934520 (D.D.C.) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, District of Columbia. Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan Enright, Leanne Lee, Elizabeth L. Young, Christopher
Zarconi, Plaintiffs, v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The District of Columbia, The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, John or Jane Does 1-10, John or Jane Does 11-20, Defendants. No. 02CV02010. October 15, 2002.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar 417674), 2000 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20052, (202) 994-7001, Daniel C. Schwartz (D.C. Bar No. 17749), Vanessa Y. Chandler (D.C. Bar No. 459137), Bryan Cave LLP, 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 508-6000, Counsel for Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs RayMing Chang, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan Enright, Leanne Lee, Elizabeth L. Young, and Christopher Zarconi (hereinafter ”“the Plaintiffs‘’) bring this Complaint and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from a policy or practice of ”“trap-and-arrest‘’ in which police surround persons, including persons engaged in no illegal conduct, who receive no order to disperse and who, even if such an order to disperse is given, are deprived of any ability to leave the area.
2. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from a policy of arresting journalists, bystanders, and observers who are caught within trap-and- arrest zones during demonstrations.
3. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from the use of excessive force in preventing individuals from leaving trap-and-arrest zones.
4. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from a practice or policy of keeping arrested individuals in restraints or handcuffs for excessive periods, of up to 24 hours or more, including handcuffing individuals in a fetal position by handcuffing one wrist to the person’s opposing ankle (e.g., handcuffing a person’s right wrist to that person’s left ankle).
5. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from the use of abusive confinement and threats to secure no contest pleas.
6. This action further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs and the public from the practice of denying arrestees their right to access to counsel and other Miranda rights.
7. This action further seeks damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs which were caused by the Defendants’ unlawful actions.
1

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
8. These challenged policies and practices deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violated laws governing the proper conditions for arrest, use of restraints, and processing of individuals in custody.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1996).
10. Venue is proper pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (e) (1996).
11. This Court has the authority to render injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (1996).
THE PARTIES
Definitions 12. General John G. Pershing Park (”“Pershing Park‘’) is located between 14th and 15th Streets, N.W., on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. ” “Freedom Plaza‘’ is located between 13th and 14th Streets, N.W., on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Both are four to five blocks, and on the other side of the White House-Treasury Department complex, from the main buildings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (”“IMF‘’). 13. The Hatchet is a newspaper published by George Washington University. The Hatchet has been in existence for 99 years, has a circulation of 11,500, is distributed at over 70 locations, and is published twice a week. The Hatchet has received numerous awards for journalism and photojournalism, including awards from the Society of Professional Journalists.
14. The Metropolitan Police Academy (the ”“Academy‘’) is a facility of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, located at 4665 Blue Plains Drive, S.W., Washington, D.C.
15. Judiciary Square is a District of Columbia government facility located at or near 409 F. St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
16. The National Lawyers Guild is a national organization founded in 1937 which works for legal reform and social justice.
Plaintiffs 17. The Plaintiff’s are current students enrolled at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Five of the Plaintiffs are residents of the District of Columbia, one is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and one is a resident of Maryland.
18. RayMing Chang is a first-year law student at the George Washington University and a resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chang was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Mr. Chang was not a protester but was in that area in his capacity as a legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Mr. Chang was held for approximately 18 hours by the MPD, most of which was on a bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. His hands were handcuffed behind his back during 13 of those hours. He was released after 3:00 a.m. on September 28, 2002, after paying a $100 fine. 19. Amy Chastain is a law student at the George Washington University and a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland. Ms.
2

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
Chastain was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Chastain was not a protester but was in that area in her capacity as a legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Ms. Chastain was wearing a green hat clearly marked with the letters ”“NLG‘’ and an identification tag to identify her as an observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Ms. Chastain was held for approximately 18 hours by the MPD, most of which was on a bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. Her hands were handcuffed behind his back during 13 of those hours. She was released after 3:00 a.m. September 28, 2002, after paying a $100 fine.
20. Young Choi is an undergraduate student at George Washington University. He is the staff photographer for The Hatchet. On September 27, 2002, Mr. Choi was in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza taking photographs for The Hatchet. He was not a protester. Mr. Choi was part of the group encircled by police in riot gear. Mr. Choi tried to explain to the officers that he was a staff photographer with The Hatchet, but he was not allowed to leave. He was arrested, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy. Mr. Choi was held on the fully loaded bus for approximately 15 hours, after which time he was ” “processed,‘’ and then handcuffed ankle to wrist until his release. Mr. Choi was not released until he agreed to ”“forfeit collateral‘’ and pay a $50 fine for allegedly failing to obey a lawful order. When he asked for an explanation, the officers told him that he could either be released at that time by paying $50 or he could stay in custody until as late as Tuesday to attend court. Mr. Choi paid the fine and was released on the afternoon of September 28, 2002.
21. Meaghan Enright is an undergraduate student at George Washington University. Ms. Enright was in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza on September 27, 2002 taking photographs of the protester and police activities which she hoped to have published in The Hatchet. Ms. Enright was not a protester. When police officers in riot gear from several jurisdictions, including MPD, surrounded the plaza at approximately 10:00 a.m., Ms. Enright was denied an exit and was arrested, along with everyone else within the perimeter. Ms. Enright was handcuffed with her hands behind her, loaded onto a Metro bus, and driven to the Academy. She was held on the bus until she was taken off to be processed at approximately 8:30 p.m. Then, she was taken to a mat on the floor of the Academy gymnasium and her right wrist was handcuffed to her left ankle. She was forced to remain in this fetal position for most of the rest of the time until she was released at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 28, 2002. Ms. Enright’s mother sent a lawyer to the Academy to represent her daughter, but Ms. Enright was denied access to her counsel.
22. Leanne Lee is an undergraduate student at the George Washington University and a resident of Washington, D.C. Ms. Lee was arrested on September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while on a photo assignment as a journalist with The Hatchet. Ms. Lee was not a protester. After being arrested, Ms. Lee remained in handcuffs until her release at approximately 1 p.m. on September 28th after spending the night with her wrist shackled to her ankle at the Academy. After being told that she would not be released until Monday if she challenged her arrest, she agreed to plead no contest to a charge of failing to obey an order to disperse and pay a $50 fine.
23. Elizabeth Young is a second-year law student at the George Washington University and is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia. She was arrested at approximately 9:30 a.m. on September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza. Ms. Young was present as an observer for the National Lawyers Guild when she noticed that the police had surrounded the area and were compressing the trapped crowd into a small area by using lines of riot police. Ms. Young asked to leave, explaining that she was not a protester. She was repeatedly denied an exit and was handcuffed at 10:45 a.m. She was held in handcuffs by the police on a bus at Judiciary Square in Washington, D.C. for most of the time that she was detained. Ms. Young was released at approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 28, 2002 after paying a $100 fine.
24. Christopher Zarconi is an undergraduate student at George Washington University. He is a paid employee of The Hatchet where he works as the photo-editor. On September 27, 2002, Mr. Zarconi was in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza taking photographs for the newspaper. He was not a protester. After the police surrounded the area, Mr. Zarconi displayed his press pass and asked to be allowed to leave, but the officers denied his request and told him that nobody was allowed to leave the plaza. Mr. Zarconi, along with everyone else in the perimeter, was then corralled into one corner of the plaza by police in riot gear in a trap-and-arrest maneuver and arrested, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy, where he was held on the bus for over 10 hours and then in a fetal position for over 12 hours. Mr. Zarconi was released about 1:00 p.m. Saturday, September 28, 2002, after paying a $50 fine.
3

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
Defendants
25. The United States Government is an interested party because various federal agencies, including but not limited to the United States Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, reportedly participated in the planning and carrying out of the arrests and detentions described in this Complaint. The Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia represent the Executive Branch of the United States Government in such matters.
26. The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation and constitutes the city government of Washington, D.C. It was created by and exists under the laws of the United States. The District of Columbia is responsible for the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Department in arresting, confining, and processing the Plaintiffs.
27. The National Park Service (”“Park Service‘’) is part of the United States Department of the Interior. The Park Service is responsible for some of the areas in which arrests were made. Park Service police participated in the trap-and-arrest practices described in this Complaint and supplied both personnel and resources to the enforcement effort during the protests.
28. The Metropolitan Police Department (”“MPD‘’) is the agency responsible for policing the District of Columbia. MPD officers participated in the trap-and-arrest practices described in this Complaint and supplied personnel and resources to the enforcement effort during the protests. The MPD officers also participated in the detention of the Plaintiffs and other arrestees, including restraining them, depriving them of counsel, and coercing no contest pleas from them in exchange for release.
29. John or Jane Does 1-10 are, as yet, unidentified agents, officers, or officials of the federal government or the District of Columbia who were responsible for, personally participated in, or observed and took no action to correct or prevent, the illegal and unconstitutional arrests described in this Complaint, including: the trap-and-arrest practices; the policy of extended detention; the practice of using restraints for excessive periods of time, including the use of restraints to restrict arrestees to a fetal position; the policy of denying arrestees their access to counsel; and the practice of using abusive confinement and threats to secure no contest pleas.
30. John or Jane Does 11-20 are, as yet, unidentified agents, officers, or officials of the District of Columbia government or other state or local governments who were responsible for, personally participated in, or observed and took no action to correct or prevent, the illegal and unconstitutional arrests described in this Complaint, including: the trap-and-arrest practices; the policy of extended detention; the practice of using restraints for excessive periods of time, including the use of restraints to restrict arrestees to a fetal position; the policy of denying arrestees their access to counsel; and the practice of using abusive confinement and threats to secure no contest pleas.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Trap-and-Arrest Practice
31. The instant matter comes before the Court after hundreds of arrests were carried out by MPD, Park Service police, and other state, local, and federal police departments.
32. The protests occurred on the weekend of September 27, 2002, at various locations around Washington, D.C.
33. The number of protesters was estimated by the police to be between 3000 and 5000 people.
34. The U.S. government and District of Columbia government assembled a huge police force to deal with expected demonstrations. Ultimately, it was reported that the number of protesters was so small that 650 of 1700 police officers assembled from numerous police forces were sent home and D.C. Chief of Police Charles H. Ramsey admitted that there was
4

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
”“no justification‘’ for keeping such a large police force given the small size of the protests.
35. The protests were directed against the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (”“IMF‘’), and the United States government as they relate to a host of concerns ranging from the environment to worker rights to third world debt to the rights of indigenous people.
36. Reportedly, while there were limited incidents of property damage, the protests were largely peaceful and did not result in significant property damage.
37. Announcements about the protests were publicized weeks in advance and described a variety of exhibitions ranging from live music to giant puppets to bicycle groups.
38. Given the prior media coverage, a significant number of individuals in addition to the protesters themselves were present to witness the activities. In addition to bystanders and protesters, there was a large contingent of journalists in the area of the protests, including ones from the nearby George Washington University, as well as individuals serving as observers to record any abusive conduct by the police.
39. The George Washington University is located next to two of the institutions targeted by some protesters, the World Bank and the IMF. Some individual schools, including the George Washington Law School, and some student dormitories are located directly across the street from these sites. The University is also located within a few blocks of the White House and the United States State Department. Students on campus could see or hear the protests at these various locations and, by simply walking out the doors of their schools or dormitories, were within the general protest area.
40. Prior to and during the protests, neither police nor public officials had closed nearby institutions, including the George Washington University, or prohibited observers or journalists from viewing the protests or the actions of the protesters or police, and had not warned observers or journalists that they could be arrested if found within the area of the protests.
41. In various locations in which protests occurred, the police surrounded large numbers of individuals and cut off all exits. Individuals caught within these zones were often prevented from leaving for up to two hours, after being compressed into a smaller area by formations of police in riot gear advancing toward each other or some natural barrier (such as a wall), with the individuals caught between them and unable to exit. Eventually, the persons caught in such traps were arrested. These actions demonstrated an apparent pattern and practice of encircling, trapping, and arresting protesters and everyone else in their vicinity as a method of suppressing the demonstrations by removing large numbers of individuals from the vicinity.
42. It was reported that this trap-and-arrest technique resulted in almost 700 arrests reported by mid-afternoon on the first day, September 27, 2002.
43. After the fact, D.C. Chief of Police Ramsey was reported as explaining that anyone caught in these zones ”“had no business in the street‘’ and that he viewed such presence as a cause for arrest. D.C. Chief of Police Ramsey further stated publicly that ”“mayhem‘’ would result unless he arrested anyone deemed to be ”“blocking a street.‘’
44. Witnesses in the media observed this technique and noted that bystanders, observers, and journalists were often arrested with protesters when they were unable to leave the arrest zones.
45. D.C. Chief of Police Ramsey reportedly heralded these arrests as instrumental to the police’s ability to keep control over the protests. Of the mass arrests, he observed that ”“a lot of wind was taken out of their sails Friday.‘’
The Arrests of the Plaintiffs
46. All of the plaintiffs are George Washington University students who were present at the protests as journalists,
5

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
bystanders, or observers.
47. Raying Chang was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while serving as a legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Given the allegations of abusive police conduct at other anti-globalization protests, Mr. Chang and his fellow observers were asked to observe the protests and to keep a log of events and any abusive conduct. Mr. Chang never heard a demand to disperse, he was never given an order to disperse, and he was not engaged in any protest activity. Mr. Chang attempted to leave the area but was prevented from doing so. Mr. Chang was trapped within a closed perimeter and then arrested. He was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy and then to Judiciary Square for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
48. Amy Chastain was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while serving as an observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Ms. Chastain was never given an order to disperse. She was not engaged in any protest activity. Ms. Chastain observed other people, including some who appeared to be tourists, being denied exit when they tried to leave the area. Although Ms. Chastain was wearing a green hat clearly marked with the letter (”“NLG‘’) and an identification tag identifying her as an observer for the National Lawyers Guild, she was herded into a corner with all the other people caught inside the trap-and-arrest perimeter and arrested. She was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy and then to Judiciary Square for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
49. Young Choi is an undergraduate student at George Washington University. He is the staff photographer for The Hatchet. He was not engaged in any protest activity. On September 27, 2002, Mr. Choi was in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza taking photographs for The Hatchet. He was part of the group encircled by police in riot gear. Mr. Choi tried to explain to the officers that he was a staff photographer with The Hatchet, but he was not allowed to leave. He was handcuffed and loaded onto a Metro bus and taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
50. Meaghan Enright was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while taking photographs she hoped to have published in The Hatchet. Police officers in riot gear from several jurisdictions, including MPD, surrounded the plaza at approximately 10:00 a.m. When Ms. Enright tried to leave, she was denied an exit, and when she asked why she was being detained, the officers would not answer. After approximately an hour, the police began closing the perimeter until everyone inside the perimeter was herded into one corner of the plaza. The officers then arrested everyone inside the perimeter, including Ms. Enright. The officers confiscated Ms. Enright’s camera equipment and, after telling her that they would not be responsible for any loss or damage, threw it onto a pile of confiscated possessions. She was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
51. Leanne Lee was arrested on September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while on a photo assignment as a journalist with The Hatchet. She was arrested after being surrounded and confined in trap-and-arrest zone. Ms. Lee never heard an order to disperse. She was not engaged in any protest activity and desired to leave the area but was prevented from doing so. She was repeatedly denied such an exit by the police when she approached officers to explain that she needed to leave to go to her internship at Agence France Presse (”“AFP‘’), a French news service. Ms. Lee used her cellular phone to call her employer at AFP several times during her detention to advise him that she was being detained and was unable to get to the AFP office. Ms. Lee was handcuffed and an officer used a knife to cut the strap on a camera equipment bag that she was holding before she was moved to a bus. She was taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
52. Elizabeth Young was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while serving as an observer for the National Lawyers Guild. Ms. Young was never given an order to disperse. She was not engaged in any protest activity. Ms. Young asked to leave and was repeatedly denied an exit. She was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy and then to Judiciary Square for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
53. Chris Zarconi was arrested on the morning of September 27, 2002 in the vicinity of Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza while taking photographs in his capacity as photo-editor of The Hatchet. Mr. Zarconi was never given an order to disperse. He was not engaged in any protest activity. After being informed by another journalist that police in riot gear had formed a perimeter and were denying everyone exit from the plaza, Mr. Zarconi made his way to the perimeter to seek exit. Mr.
6

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
Zarconi displayed his press pass and asked to be allowed to leave, but the officers denied his request and told him that nobody was allowed to leave the plaza. Mr. Zarconi, along with everyone else in the perimeter, was then corralled into one corner of the plaza by police in riot gear in a trap-and-arrest maneuver. Before being loaded onto a Metro bus, Mr. Zarconi again displayed his press pass and asked to be allowed to leave. He was denied once again. His camera bag was confiscated and thrown onto a pile of other confiscated bags, and he was not given a receipt of any sort for his equipment, some of which was expensive. Mr. Zarconi was handcuffed, loaded onto a Metro bus, and taken to the Academy for allegedly disobeying an order to disperse.
The Confinement and Release Conditions
54. Four of the Plaintiffs were held at the Academy until the afternoon of Saturday, September 28, 2002, and three of the Plaintiffs were held at Judiciary Square until the early morning hours of Saturday, September 28, 2002.
55. RayMing Chang was held for approximately 18 hours, most of which was spent handcuffed, the discomfort of which prevented him from sleeping. After sitting on the full bus for 13 hours, Mr. Chang was taken to cellblock B in the Judiciary Center. Mr. Chang was told that he was charged with ”“Failure to Obey an Order to Disperse‘’ and was given three options: (1) remain in custody until an arraignment on Saturday or Monday, (2) pay $100 and ”“forfeit,‘’ or (3) pay $100 and schedule a hearing at Superior Court later. Mr. Chang selected the third option because he did not want to remain in custody. Despite having made his selection clear, the station clerk marked Mr. Chang’s collateral receipt as ”“forfeit.‘’
56. Amy Chastain was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 to the afternoon of September 28, 2002. She remained handcuffed for most of this period. She was told by a government official that she had to choose between remaining in custody until arraignment or paying $100 to ”“post and forfeit.‘’ In order to end her confinement, Ms. Chastain opted to pay the $100 fine, and then she was released.
57. Young Choi was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 until the afternoon of September 28, 2002. He remained handcuffed for most of this time, including over 12 hours in a fetal position. Mr. Choi was not released until he agreed to ”“forfeit collateral‘’ and pay a $50 fee for allegedly failing to obey a lawful order. When he asked for an explanation, the officers told him that he could either be released at that time by paying $50 or he could stay in custody until as late as Tuesday to attend court. Mr. Choi paid the fine and was released on the afternoon of September 28, 2002.
58. Meaghan Enright was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 to the afternoon of September 28, 2002. After she was arrested, she was handcuffed with her hands behind her, loaded onto a Metro bus, and driven to the Academy. She was unloaded from the bus and processed at approximately 8:30 p.m. The rest of her belongings, except her identification and $50 to ”“pay out,‘’ were confiscated, including shoelaces and drawstrings. She was taken to a mat on the floor of the Academy gymnasium and her right wrist was handcuffed to her left ankle. She was forced to remain in this fetal position for most of the rest of the time until she was released at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 28, 2002. Ms. Enright’s mother sent a lawyer to the Academy to represent her daughter, but Ms. Enright was denied access to her counsel. The officers told Ms. Enright that she did not have a right to an attorney because she was not being interrogated. Ms. Enright was told that she had three options: (1) pay $50 and be released, (2) plead guilty, or (3) plead not guilty and remain in custody until Monday. Ms. Enright was not given the opportunity to discuss this choice with her counsel. She paid the fine in order to secure her release.
59. Leanne Lee was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 to the afternoon of September 28, 2002. She was denied a vegetarian meal; the only food she had during her more than 24 hours of detention consisted of a granola bar she successfully begged from a passing officer. While still handcuffed, Ms. Lee was moved to a mat with seven or eight other people. Then, an officer handcuffed Ms. Lee’s right wrist to her left ankle and left Ms. Lee to sleep in this fetal position. She remained handcuffed in this fetal position until approximately 1 p.m. the following day, September 28, 2002. Ms. Lee was told by a government official that, if she challenged the arrest, she would be held until Monday. In order to end this confinement, she finally agreed to plead no contest and pay a $50 fine. Then, her handcuffs were removed and she was released.
7

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
60. Elizabeth Young was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 to the afternoon of September 28, 2002. She remained handcuffed for most of this period, and the police refused her repeated requests to have the restraints loosened despite her complaints of pain in her wrists. Ms. Young was given three options: (1) remain in custody until an arraignment on Saturday or Monday, (2) pay $100 and ”“forfeit,‘’ or (3) pay $100 and schedule a hearing at Superior Court later. Ms. Young selected the third option because she did not want to remain in custody. Despite having made her selection clear, the station clerk marked Ms. Young’s collateral receipt as ”“forfeit.‘’
61. Christopher Zarconi was held from the morning of September 27, 2002 until the afternoon of September 28, 2002. After he was placed on a Metro bus, he was driven to the Academy. Mr. Zarconi was forced to sit handcuffed on this fully loaded bus from approximately 11:00 a.m. until approximately 9:30 p.m. He and the other arrestees had to ask permission to use the restroom, and then they were taken in small groups. When Mr. Zarconi was allowed off the bus, he was taken into the Academy to be ”“processed.‘’ The rest of his belongings, including shoelaces and drawstrings, were confiscated and placed in an evidence bag. Mr. Zarconi was photographed and fingerprinted and allowed to use the automated teller machine to withdraw $50, which he was told he would need if he wanted to leave custody before Tuesday. He was then led to a wrestling mat on the floor of the gymnasium and handcuffed right wrist to left ankle. Mr. Zarconi was forced to remain in this fetal position until 1:00 p.m. Saturday, September 28, 2002, or over 12 hours. Mr. Zarconi was required to pay $50 before being released from custody.
ALLEGED INJURIES AND STANDING
62. The Plaintiffs suffered direct and significant injuries due to the violations described in this Complaint.
63. The arrest practices described in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs to be subject to improper arrest and confinement, some for twenty-four hours or more.
64. The arrest practices described in this Complaint further caused the Plaintiffs to be subject to criminal charges and criminal fines.
65. The arrest practices described in this Complaint further prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in protected activities, including the exercise of their rights of free speech and association.
66. The confinement practices described in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs to be restrained for excessive periods without proper cause or authority.
67. The confinement practices describ ed in this Complaint caused the Plaintiffs physical harm and discomfort by being denied proper food and movement during the time that they were in custody.
68. The arrest and confinement practices further harmed the Plaintiffs by coercing no contest pleas to criminal charges under the threat of longer confinement under abusive, illegal conditions, resulting in the creation of criminal records against them, and requiring them to pay fines.
69. The arrest and confinement practices farther harmed the Plaintiffs by subjecting them to reputational and professional injury stemming from their arrest for disobeying police orders to disperse while performing their roles as journalists and observers.
70. The Plaintiffs suffered direct injury to their reputations and status in the denial of their right to counsel before being asked to plead no contest to criminal charges.
71. The Plaintiffs suffered direct injury to their reputations and status in the denial of Miranda warnings before being questioned and asked to plead in a criminal matter.
8

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
72. Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated persons, remain at risk of future arrests if arrest and detention procedures similar to those described in this Complaint occur while witnessing future protests and demonstrations, including ones planned for the coming months.
73. As individuals directly harmed by unconstitutional and unlawful practices of arrest and confinement, Plaintiffs have standing to seek relief before this Court for an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act and to seek damages and other appropriate relief including injunctive relief.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Right of Assembly and Association)
74. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 73 as if set forth fully herein.
75. The arrest and confinement practices and policies described in this Complaint violate the rights of free speech and association guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
76. The First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, a free press and the right to peaceably assemble. Richmond New spapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 576 (1980). These rights ”“share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government.‘’ Id. Public streets and sidewalks are ”“public fora‘’ and restrictions on activities in such fora are ”“subject to a particularly high degree of scrutiny.‘’ United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983); NAACP Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984); Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1371 (9th Cir. 1996). By merely leaving their residences and schools, however, George Washington students, including the Plaintiffs, were subject to trap-and-arrest.
77. The arrest and confinement practices and policies described in this Complaint violate the right of citizens to walk, to associate, and to observe events under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs were not in violation of any law by appearing on public streets to witness or record events. The Defendants prevented the Plaintiffs from continuing these protected activities without cause and without warning.
78. The Plaintiffs were prevented from exercising their right of association with both media and others observing the protests, including public interest groups. For example, Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young were present at the demonstrations in their association with the National Lawyers Guild, as part of a large group of observers. The practice trap-and-arrest, as described in this Complaint, prevented Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young from associating with the media, the general public and other observers.
79. Ms. Lee, Ms. Enright, Mr. Zarconi, and Mr. Choi have also been hindered in their right to associate with the public, observers and other members of the media, including other student journalists, observing and reporting on the demonstration and the police reaction to the demonstration because of the policy of trap-and-arrest described in this Complaint.
80. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
9

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Free Press)
81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 80 as if set forth fully herein.
82. The arrest and confinement practices and policies described in this Complaint violate the rights of free press guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
83. The Plaintiffs were engaged in the exercise of free press activities that included media coverage and human rights monitoring. Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young were present to observe, record, and ultimately report potential human rights violations. Ms. Lee, Ms. Enright, Mr. Zarconi, and Mr. Choi were present at the demonstrations in their association with a student newspaper, which has used their photographs taken before the arrests.
84. The Defendants prevented the Plaintiffs from continuing these protected activities without cause and without warning. The Plaintiffs were not in violation of any law by recording events for the media.
85. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness, observe, and report on protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and - arrest maneuvers are practiced.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Illegal Search and Seizure)
86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth fully herein.
87. The policies and practices alleged in this Complaint violate the Fourth amendment of the United States Constitution in subjecting the Plaintiffs to unlawful searches and seizures.
88. The Plaintiffs were encircled and trapped within arrest zones and denied opportunities to exit these zones. The Plaintiffs were arrested and searched without any probable cause basis for the charge of failing to obey an order to disperse. Since they never received such an order and, even if such an order were given, they were denied the opportunity to disperse or otherwise leave the area, the search and seizure led to the unlawful confinement of all of the Plaintiffs.
89. The search and seizure led to property damage to some of the Plaintiffs, including Ms. Lee.
90. Plaintiffs have been injured by the violation of Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
91. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fourth Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being subject to unlawful searches and seizures if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
10

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Due Process) 92. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 91 as if set forth fully herein.
93. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment the Plaintiffs are protected against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). This includes a protection against false arrests and unlawful confinement.
94. The Plaintiffs were subject to false arrest and unlawful confinement as a result of the practices and policies described in this Complaint. The Plaintiffs were not engaged in any illegal activity and were not given a warning or opportunity to disperse. The Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest the Plaintiffs for any criminal violation.
95. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied due process if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Due Process) 96. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 95 as if set forth fully herein.
97. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to certain Defendants via the Fourteenth Amendment. Armstrong v. District of Columbia, 154 F. Supp. 2d 67, 80 (D.D.C. 2001). Under the due process clause, the Plaintiffs are protected against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). This includes a protection against false arrests and unlawful confinement.
98. The Plaintiffs were subject to false arrest and unlawful confinement as a result of the practices and policies described in this Complaint. The Plaintiffs were not engaged in any illegal activity and were not given a warning or opportunity to disperse. These Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest the Plaintiffs for any criminal violation.
99. The trap-and-arrest practice, and subsequent abusive detention, created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied due process if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and - arrest maneuvers are practiced.
11

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Failure to provide Miranda Warning)
100. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 99 as if set forth fully herein.
101. The Fifth Amendment applies to any individuals in federal custody. Under the Fifth Amendment, individuals in custody are entitled to be informed of their Miranda rights, including their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that Miranda is a constitutional rule binding on the arresting officers. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 433 (2000).
102. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights at the time of their arrest.
103. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights at the time of questioning by police officers.
104. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights when asked to plead in a criminal matter.
105. The failure of the Defendants to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their status or their ability to refuse to speak to officers. This failure to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their right to seek counsel before pleading no contest to criminal charges.
106. The resulting pleas entered for the Plaintiffs have caused them reputational and financial injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrest and pleas in common employment applications and future school applications.
107. The Defendants’ failure to advise the Plaintiffs of their Miranda rights created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of not being advised of their Miranda rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Failure to provide Miranda Warning)
108. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 107 as if set forth fully herein.
109. The Fifth Amendment applies to any individuals placed into custody by state or local officers, including certain Defendants, via the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fifth Amendment, individuals in custody are entitled to be informed of their Miranda rights, including their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that Miranda is a constitutional rule binding on the arresting officers. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 433 (2000).
110. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights at the time of their arrest.
111. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights at the time of questioning by police officers. 12

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
112. None of the Plaintiffs were given their Miranda rights when asked to plead in a criminal matter.
113. The failure of these Defendants to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their status or their ability to refuse to speak to officers. This failure to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their right to seek counsel before pleading no contest to criminal charges.
114. The resulting pleas entered for the Plaintiffs have caused them reputational and financial injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrest and pleas in common employment applications and future school applications.
115. These Defendants’ failure to advise the Plaintiffs of their Miranda rights created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment rights, via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of not being advised of their Miranda rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap- and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Right to Counsel)
116. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 115 as if set forth fully herein.
117. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution affords the right to counsel before questioning individuals who are in federal custody.
118. The Plaintiffs were placed in custody on the morning of September 27, 2002, but were never given individual access to counsel before they were questioned by police officers. The Plaintiffs were questioned about their involvement in the protests, purposes for being in the arrest zones, and ultimately asked to plead to criminal charges.
119. Counsel for the National Lawyers Guild observers, Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young, attempted to gain access to the students but were refused such access to individuals. Instead, counsel was limited to briefly addressing the bus of students at Judiciary Square and collecting ATM cards to withdraw money for the students to use to secure their release. An attorney for Ms. Enright was retained by her family and personally sought access to Ms. Enright at the Academy but was refused. Ms. Enright also specifically asked to speak with her attorney but was denied. The officers told her that she did not have a right to counsel. None of the Plaintiffs were offered access to public defenders or volunteer counsel before being asked to plead to criminal charges.
120. The failure of the Defendants to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their status or their ability to refuse to speak to officers. This failure to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their right to seek counsel before pleading no contest to criminal charges.
121. Individuals in custody are entitled to be informed of their Miranda rights, including their right to remain silent and their right to counsel, but the Plaintiffs were never informed of these rights.
122. The refusal of access to counsel resulted in direct injury to the Plaintiffs who proceeded to plead to criminal charges
13

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
without advice on its meaning, implications, or their rights. The resulting pleas entered for the Plaintiffs have caused them reputational and financial injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrest and pleas in common employment applications and graduate school applications.
123. The Defendants’ failure to allow the Plaintiffs access to counsel created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied access to counsel if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Right to Counsel)
124. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
125. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to state and local officers, including certain of the Defendants, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and requires that individuals in their custody be afforded the right to counsel before questioning.
126. The Plaintiffs were placed in custody on the morning of September 27, 2002, but were never given individual access to counsel before they were questioned by police officers. The Plaintiffs were questioned about their involvement in the protests, purposes for being in the arrest zones, and ultimately asked to plead to criminal charges.
127. Counsel for the National Lawyers Guild observers, Mr. Chang, Ms. Chastain, and Ms. Young, attempted to gain access to the students but were refused such access to individuals. Instead, counsel was limited to briefly addressing the bus of students at Judiciary Square and collecting ATM cards to withdraw money for the students to use to secure their release. An attorney for Ms. Enright was retained by her family and personally sought access to Ms. Enright at the Academy but was refused. Ms. Enright also specifically asked to speak with her attorney but was denied. The officers told her that she did not have a right to counsel. None of the Plaintiffs were offered access to public defenders or volunteer counsel before being asked to plead to criminal charges.
128. The failure of the se Defendants to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their status or their ability to refuse to speak to officers. This failure to inform the Plaintiffs of their rights left them uncertain of their right to seek counsel before pleading no contest to criminal charges.
129. Individuals in custody are entitled to be informed of their Miranda rights, including their right to remain silent and their right to counsel, but the Plaintiffs were never informed of these rights.
130. The refusal of access to counsel resulted in direct injury to the Plaintiffs who proceeded to plead to criminal charges without advice on its meaning, implications, or their rights. The resulting pleas entered for the Plaintiffs have caused them reputational and financial injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrest and pleas in common employment applications and graduate school applications.
14

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
131. These Defendants’ failure to allow the Plaintiffs access to counsel created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Fifth Amendment rights, via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied access to counsel if caught in similar trap- and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Right to Counsel)
132. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 131 as if set forth fully herein.
133. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution affords the right to counsel for individuals at a critical stage of their criminal cases, such as preliminary hearings or arraignments. White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963).
134. The Plaintiffs were denied their Sixth Amendment right to counsel when they were asked to plead no contest to criminal misdemeanors without access to legal representation. The students serving as legal observers were denied their Sixth Amendment rights when their counsel was denied individual access to them before they were asked to plead to the charges. Ms. Enright was denied her Sixth Amendment rights when an attorney, retained by her family and present at the Academy, was denied access to her before she was asked to plead to the criminal charge.
135. All of the students were denied individual access to public defenders or volunteer counsel before being asked to plead to criminal charges.
136. Individuals in custody are entitled to be informed of their Miranda rights, including their right to remain silent and their right to counsel, but the Plaintiffs were not informed of these rights.
137. The refusal of counsel resulted in direct injury to the Plaintiffs who proceeded to plead to criminal charges without advice on its meaning, implications, or their rights. The resulting pleas entered for the Plaintiffs have caused them reputational injury. The fact of an arrest and a guilty plea will require the law students to report these facts to their respective bar associations and face potential further inquiry as to their fitness to enter the practice of law. All of the Plaintiffs also will have to report the fact of their arrest and pleas in common employment applications and graduate school applications, including but not limited to law school applications.
138. The Defendants’ failure to allow the Plaintiffs access to counsel created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs by violating their Sixth Amendment rights, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied access to counsel if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
139. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 138 as if set forth fully herein.
140. The District of Columbia, MPD, and John or Jane Doe 11-20 Defendants engaged in widespread false arrests and constitutional violations during these demonstrations that violated 42 U.S. C. § 1983.
141. The Plaintiffs were deprived of their well established constitutional rights afforded by the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment.
142. The pattern and practice of trap-and-arrest and subsequent confinements were intended, as a policy of the District of Columbia, MPD, and John or Jane Doe 11-20 Defendants, to ensure the arrest and confinement of large numbers of individuals, regardless of whether there was any probable cause to believe each of those individuals had committed an illegal or criminal act, as a method of controlling and suppressing demonstrations. The Plaintiffs were subject to false arrest and deprived of their constitutional rights as a direct result of this policy.
143. The Plaintiffs were further injured as a part of the unconstitutional practice of leaving prisoners handcuffed over the course of more than 12 hours. The widespread use of restraints reflects a policy on the part of the District of Columbia, MPD, and John or Jane Doe 11-20 Defendants in these demonstrations.
144. The John or Jane Doe 11-20 Defendants acted in their individual capacities to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
145. The MPD, District of Columbia, and John or Jane Doe 11 -20 Defendants acted intentionally, or with reckless disregard, in undertaking such actions as would violate clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs. The acts of these Defendants were malicious and in willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights.
146. Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages as a result of the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the practice and policy of a trap-and-arrest policy as well as the practice and policy of abusive confinement described this Complaint.
147. The District of Columbia, MPD, and John or Jane Doe 11-20 Defendants’ deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied their constitutional rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Bivens Action)
148. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 147 as if set forth fully herein.
149. The United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants engaged in widespread false arrests and constitutional violations during these demonstrations.
150. The Plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional rights by the United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants, including deprivation their constitutional rights afforded by the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment
16

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520...
151. The pattern and practice of trap-and-arrest and subsequent confinements were intended, as a policy of the United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants, to ensure the arrest and confinement of large numbers of individuals, regardless of whether there was any probable cause to believe each of those individuals had committed an illegal or criminal act, as a method of controlling and suppressing demonstrations. The Plaintiffs were subject to false arrest and deprived of their constitutional rights as a direct result of this policy.
152. The Plaintiffs were further injured as a part of the unconstitutional practice of leaving prisoners handcuffed over the course of more than 12 hours. The widespread use of restraints reflects a policy on the part of the United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants in these demonstrations.
153. The John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants acted in their individual capacities to violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
154. The United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants acted intentionally, or with reckless disregard, in undertaking such actions as would violate clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs. The acts of these Defendants were malicious and in willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights.
155. The Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages caused by the United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants’ constitutional violations in the policy and practice of a trap-and-arrest maneuver and the policy and practice of abusive confinement described in this Complaint.
156. Federal agents are liable for constitutional violations. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
157. The United States of America, Park Service, and John or Jane Doe 1-10 Defendants’ deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights created not just direct injury to the Plaintiffs, but also creates a chilling effect for them and other similarly situated persons for future observation or media coverage during future demonstrations. If this conduct is not enjoined, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons remain at risk in the future of being denied their constitutional rights if caught in similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers when they seek to witness or observe, and associate with others witnessing and observing, protests and demonstrations in the Washington, D.C. area, including protests and demonstrations planned for the coming months, and in any other area in which similar trap-and-arrest maneuvers are practiced.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Enter an order declaring that the trap-and-arrest and confinement policies and practices described in this Complaint violate the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
b. Order injunctive relief to require clear and audible warnings to disperse at future protests with an opportunity for individuals to exit areas of protest;
c. Order injunctive relief to compel the District of Columbia authorities to expunge the record of the Plaintiffs and reimburse any fines paid to secure release;
d. Order injunctive relief to compel the District of Columbia authorities to expunge the record of any individuals unlawfully arrested and charged as part of the trap-and-arrest practices, including, but not limited to, those individuals arrested in Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza on September 27, 2002;
17

Rayming CHANG, Amy Chastain, Young Choi, Meaghan..., 2002 WL 32934520... e. Order injunctive relief to require the reimbursement of criminal fines by those subject to these unlawful arrests, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs; f Award Plaintiffs actual damages for harms caused by the Defendants’ unlawful conduct; g. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages where allowed by law; h. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in maintaining this action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(199) & Supp. 1996); and i. Award such other relief as it may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of twelve on all issues.
18

 
 Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)

217 F.R.D. 262 United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Jeffrey Barham, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Charles H. Ramsey, et al., Defendants. Franklin Jones, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
District of Columbia, et al., Defendants. Julie Abbate, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Charles H. Ramsey, et al., Defendants.
Nos. CIV.A. 02–2010 (EGS), CIV.A. 02–2283 (EGS), CIV.A. 02–2310 (EGS), CIV.A. 03–767 (EGS). | Sept.
19, 2003.
Arrestees brought actions alleging that their seizure during demonstration violated that rights under federal constitution and District of Columbia law. On arrestees’ motions for consolidation and class certification, the District Court, Sullivan, J., held that: (1) class actions would not be consolidated; (2) class certification was warranted; and (3) consolidation of individual claims was warranted.
Motions granted in part, and denied in part.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*263 Daniel C. Schwartz, Scott M. Badami, Scott M. Badami, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, National Law Center, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
*264 Laurie Weinstein, United States Attorney’s Office, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Corporation Counsel, D.C., Leonard H. Becker, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SULLIVAN, District Judge.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves pending motions for consolidation and class certification.
These four cases concern the events of September 27, 2002, when approximately 3000 to 5000 people joined in demonstrations in the District of Columbia protesting the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United States government. See, e.g., Chang Compl. ¶¶ 33–34. On that date, all named and individual plaintiffs in these actions were at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park (“Pershing Park”), located on Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. between 14th and 15th Streets N.W., when police officers surrounded them, along with approximately 400 other individuals who were in the Park, and arrested them. Id. ¶¶ 12, 47–53. Plaintiffs allege that they were subsequently handcuffed and held on buses for up to 13 hours, and later detained at the Police Academy Gymnasium for periods ranging from 18 to 36 hours with one wrist cuffed to the opposite ankle. Id. ¶¶ 12, 47–61.
Plaintiffs in all cases assert First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the District of Columbia, alleging interference with protest, assembly, and journalism activities protected by the First Amendment, as well as violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, plaintiffs in Chang and Barham assert common law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment against the District of Columbia. Barham plaintiffs also present an Equal Protection challenge to the District’s alleged policy of offering only a “post and forfeit” option to those arrested in political demonstrations when a “post and trial” option, by which a detainee secures release without forfeiting any trial rights, is customarily offered to those arrested for other minor offenses. Certain individual plaintiffs in Barham assert conversion and trespass to chattel claims against the District based on seizure of their property, including video equipment, bags, and bicycles, at the time of their arrest. Finally, the Chang and Barham actions also name federal law enforcement agencies as defendants, seeking injunctive relief precluding those agencies from utilizing or participating in the challenged tactics.
All four actions seek common relief from the District of Columbia: entry of a judgment declaring the Metropolitan
1

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
Police Department’s so-called “trap and arrest” policies and practices unlawful under the First and Fourth Amendments, entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from utilizing such tactics, an order sealing or expunging the arrest records of all individuals arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and individual compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. Class actions Two of the above-captioned cases were commenced as class actions in which the proposed class would include all persons arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. The first such action, Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2253, asserts class claims against Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in her official capacity, based on plaintiffs’ allegation that federal law enforcement agencies actively participated in the challenged conduct. In addition, Barham raises claims against the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) and the District of Columbia, as well as against MPD Chief Charles H. Ramsey and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams in both their individual and official capacities. The second putative class action, Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03–767, interposes class claims analogous to Barham plaintiffs’ claims against the District of Columbia and Chief Ramsey in his individual capacity only, and seeks similar relief.
A. Consolidation District defendants move to consolidate these two putative class actions on the *265 grounds that both seek to assert class claims based on the same events and transactions, and the “core issues” raised by the Abbate action “plainly overlap” with some of class claims presented by the Barham plaintiffs. They further submit, citing to the Manual for Complex Litigation, that as a general rule, a court should not certify more than one class action where different proposed class representatives and their counsel press competing claims. See Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation at 219 (3d ed. 1995) (“Rarely should more than one [class action] be certified, although under appropriate circumstances subclasses may be considered.”). District defendants contend that consolidation of these cases would serve the interests of judicial economy and reduce the litigation burden on defendants, and ask the Court to direct counsel for plaintiffs in Barham and Abbate to cooperate in the filing of a single, consolidated amended complaint

embracing the class allegations common to both cases.
[1] Consolidation is provided for by Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), which states:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
“The decision whether to consolidate cases under Rule 42(a) is within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Stewart v. O’Neill, 225 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C.2002). Generally speaking, when exercising their discretion with respect to consolidation of actions, courts weigh considerations of convenience and economy against considerations of confusion and prejudice. Id. Consolidation may increase judicial efficiency by reducing presentation of duplicative proof at trial, eliminating the need for more than one judge to familiarize themselves with the issues presented, and reducing excess costs to all parties and the government. Id. Consolidation is particularly appropriate where, as here, “two cases each involve review of the same underlying decision.” See Biochem Pharma, Inc. v. Emory University, 148 F.Supp.2d 11, 12 (D.D.C.2001).
Plaintiffs in both class actions oppose the motion for consolidation, although Barham plaintiffs do not oppose coordination of pre-trial and discovery matters in the two cases. Predictably, both groups of putative class representatives submit that it would be more expeditious to simply certify their class and deny the motion for class certification in the other case than to consolidate the two proposed class actions. Barham plaintiffs argue that their action should be certified as a class action because it was the first filed, tolling any applicable statutes of limitation with respect to District defendants two months earlier than the Abbate action. Conversely, the Abbate case was filed nearly two months after Barham, wholly fails to toll the statute with respect to federal defendants, and asserts more limited claims against only the District of Columbia and its Chief of Police. Barham plaintiffs therefore contend that, at best, commencement of the Abbate action reflects a desire on the part of the five named plaintiffs in
2

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
that case to opt-out of the broader claims presented by the Barham class.
Abbate plaintiffs respond by conceding that no more than one class action should be certified based on the events in question, but take issue with defendants’ recommendation that they be required to “negotiate” with plaintiffs in Barham in order to file a single, consolidated class complaint. According to Abbate plaintiffs, “[t]his approach would severely prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to represent the class in the manner that they think is best, as reflected in their complaint.” They further state that it is “unnecessary and prejudicial to plaintiffs to require them at this stage to abandon their complaint and to negotiate a new one with the Barham plaintiffs,” suggesting instead that the Court should simply decide which class should be recognized based on which class action best represents the interests of the class to be certified.
Moreover, Abbate plaintiffs maintain that their action best serves the common interests of the class because it advances class members’ interest in obtaining prompt and full *266 compensation from and injunctive relief against the District and Chief Ramsey, the parties most directly responsible for their injuries. They further allege that, by adding federal defendants to their class action, Barham plaintiffs have assumed an additional burden of proof, which will lead to significant delays in the proceedings, without increasing or enhancing the compensation or injunctive relief available. In support of this contention, Abbate plaintiffs claim that any injunctive relief obtained against the District would necessarily reach any federal agencies or officers acting in concert with the MPD, thus effectively barring any law enforcement agencies operating within the District from engaging in the challenged practices. They further argue that any benefit to be gained by the Barham plaintiffs’ assertion of Bivens claims against federal officers and FBI agents is minimal, and would not inure to the entire class. Abbate plaintiffs therefore contend that Barham plaintiffs’ pursuit of additional federal defendants actually harms the interests of absent class members in obtaining full and prompt relief. Finally, they submit that certifying the Abbate class action will not prejudice those plaintiffs who wish to proceed against the federal government or officers, as they would remain free to do so either in a separate class action or individually, and the statute of limitations for such an action would remain tolled by virtue of the filing of the Barham action.
Federal defendants also oppose the motion to consolidate,

arguing that, at least as to them, the cases raise no common issues of fact or law, and consolidation would thus lead only to confusion with respect to which claims are asserted against federal defendants as opposed to District defendants. In the alternative, they ask that the Court first resolve their pending potentially dispositive motion before ruling on District defendants’ motion to consolidate.1

1

The Court has also considered, and rejects, federal

defendants’ proposal that two class actions be certified,

the first raising claims against federal defendants and

the second focusing solely on District defendants. The

Court believes no efficiencies would result from such

an approach, as on the minimal record currently before

it, including evidence submitted by federal defendants,

it appears that the interactions and interrelationship

between federal law enforcement agencies and the

MPD will be of central importance to the litigation.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the parties, the Court orally granted District defendants’ motion to consolidate the Barham and Abbate actions at the conclusion of the hearing on pending motions held on September 11, 2003, with one significant amendment—the Court directed plaintiffs in Abbate and Barham to file a single consolidated complaint joining all of the claims raised in both cases. The Court believed that this approach, rather than selecting from among the two competing class actions, would ultimately best serve the interests of absent proposed class members in vindicating their constitutional and common law rights by enabling them to assert the broadest range of claims against all alleged perpetrators of the harm claimed, while benefitting from the wealth of talent brought by plaintiffs’ counsel in both cases. Furthermore, during oral argument on the pending motions, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Abbate case dispelled any concerns regarding potential conflicts among the interests of members of a consolidated class by assuring the Court and parties that Abbate plaintiffs had no intention of contesting federal defendants’ liability for their injuries, but rather had simply made a strategic decision not to pursue claims against those defendants. The Court remains persuaded that consolidation would not result in any undue delay in resolving claims against the District. Abbate plaintiffs were unable to offer any persuasive reason why the District claims would proceed any more quickly than those against the federal government, given that the issues raised by the claims against the District of Columbia are no less complex than those presented by the federal claims. Furthermore, the
3

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
Court concluded that no one would be prejudiced through consolidation, as any plaintiff who absolutely wished to pursue the strategic approach vigorously advocated by Abbate counsel remained free to opt out of the class action and pursue claims against the District on an individual basis.
Far from rendering this litigation more unwieldy, consolidation would increase efficiency by reducing the possibility of duplicative *267 discovery and by achieving judicial economy in the adjudication of potentially dispositive motions involving similar material facts, a single group of actors present during the events at issue, and common questions of law. Furthermore, in an effort to address plaintiffs’ concerns that undue delay will result from consolidation of the two actions, an accelerated briefing schedule was put in place to ensure that the litigation proceeds apace.
[2] Notwithstanding the Court’s direction that counsel for plaintiffs in both cases make every effort to reach an agreement as to how to proceed with a consolidated class action that would best serve the interests of named plaintiffs as well as absent class members, it appears that the Abbate plaintiffs and their counsel remain unyielding in their approach. By letters dated September 15, 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel in both Barham and Abbate advised the Court that they were unable to reach an agreement with respect to a consolidated class action. Based on these letters, it appears that, rather than make a good faith effort to negotiate a way forward, Abbate plaintiffs merely persevered in their opposition to consolidation. While such inflexibility is unfortunate, in light of the parties’ apparently entrenched positions, the Court will reconsider its decision to consolidate the two proposed class actions. Instead, it will pursue the alternative approach suggested by both Barham and Abbate plaintiffs, and provisionally certify the Barham case as a class action and treat Abbate plaintiffs as though they have opted out of the class and have elected to proceed individually against the District with more narrow claims. Forced to choose among the two competing class actions, the Court has selected the Barham action on the grounds that it best serves the interests of absent class members to certify the class asserting the broadest claims against the greatest number of allegedly responsible parties.
B. Class Certification It appears clear based on the record currently before the

Court, and particularly the revelations contained in recently disclosed reports summarizing internal MPD investigations into the events of September 27, 2002,2 that certification of a class of persons arrested in Pershing Park on that date is appropriate under these circumstances.3

2

These internal reports reveal that no order to disperse

was ever given to those assembled in Pershing Park

prior to their arrest for failure to obey a lawful police

order, and that the individuals were arrested as a group

without any individualized probable cause

determinations. See Sep. 12, 2003 Order, Attachments.

3

The Court is mindful that District defendants have

sought an extension of time to respond to Barham

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pending

resolution of their motion for consolidation of the two

proposed class actions. Accordingly, the Court will

grant the motion for class certification in the Barham

action on a provisional basis only, and afford the

District defendants an opportunity to file a motion for

reconsideration should they wish to do so.

In support of their effort to proceed as a class, Barham plaintiffs allege that approximately 400 persons were subject to mass arrest in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and therefore the class is too numerous for joinder. They further submit that their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as well as their common law false arrest and false imprisonment claims, present common questions of law and fact. Barham plaintiffs argue that, by arresting all persons found in the park on the morning in question without giving a lawful order to disperse or allowing class members to obey any such order, defendants engaged in a singular police action on grounds generally applicable to the class. As a result, common questions of law and fact bearing on the alleged absence of probable cause justifying the ensuing arrests and detentions are the predominant questions presented. Moreover, all plaintiffs make similar allegations with respect to detention conditions, claiming that they suffered significant pain from excessively tight handcuffs, were held on buses for hours with their hands in cuffs, were taken to the gymnasium of the Institute for Police Science and handcuffed with one wrist attached to the opposing ankle for up to 36 hours, photographed, questioned by FBI agents, and deliberately misinformed of their *268 rights. Plaintiffs therefore contend that the
4

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)

circumstances of arrest experienced by all class members were virtually identical, even though some individuals may have suffered additional injuries, such as deprivation of access to medication. Plaintiffs further maintain that these differences do not predominate, and can be addressed at the damages stage.
[3] [4] “It is, of course, well established that a principal purpose of the class-action mechanism is to advance the efficiency and economy of multi-party litigation.” McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1410 (D.C.Cir.1984). While certification of a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 is “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only,” class actions are
“peculiarly appropriate” when the “issues involved are common to the class as a whole” and when they “turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class.” For in such cases, “the class-action device saves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every class member to be litigated in an economical fashion under Rule 23.”
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (internal citations omitted). The party seeking certification has the burden of demonstrating that all of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 have been met,4 and the Court has broad discretion when determining whether a particular action is worthy of certification. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d at 1410; Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. 21, 30 (D.D.C.1995). Prior to certifying a class, the Court must engage in a “rigorous analysis” of whether the proposed class action meets the requirements of Rule 23, and retains an ongoing obligation to do so throughout the litigation. General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364.

4

The proposed class action must satisfy all four

prerequisites of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a):

One or more members of a class may sue or be

sued as representative parties on behalf of all only

if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable, (2) there are questions

of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims

or defenses of the representative parties are typical

of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the

representative parties will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).

Additionally, the class must satisfy one of the three circumstances set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b):
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: (1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b).
[5] As an initial matter, this Court held in Keepseagle v. Veneman that
While Rule 23 does not formally require plaintiffs to prove the existence of a class, some courts have found that “this is a common-sense requirement and ... routinely require it.” Neither the D.C. Circuit nor the Supreme Court has engaged in this additional step of the class certification analysis. Nevertheless, the Court is *269 persuaded that some initial review of the proposed class is appropriate to ascertain whether “the general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of litigation.” This inquiry is
5

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
one concerned with the court’s ability to clearly identify and manage the class, and thus does not involve a “particularly stringent test.”
Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99–3119, mem. op. at 10–11 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted). It appears that plaintiffs easily satisfy this threshold requirement, as the contours of the class they seek to certify are easily ascertained by reference to the MPD’s arrest records for September 27, 2002. See Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. at 30 (finding “identification of a class that is sufficiently definite such that it would be administratively feasible to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class.”). Once the existence of a class has been established, the Court does not consider the merits of plaintiffs’ claims prior to proceeding to a determination of whether the requirements for class certification set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) have been met.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that all four of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and one of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) have been satisfied. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; see, e.g., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613–14, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997); In re: Veneman, 309 F.3d 789, 792 (D.C.Cir.2002); Bynum v. District of Columbia, 217 F.R.D. 43, 44–45 (D.D.C.2003); Lewis v. Nat’l Football League, 146 F.R.D. 5, 8 (D.D.C.1992).
a) Rule 23(a)(1)—Numerosity [6] It appears to be undisputed that the numerosity requirement set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1) is met in this case: plaintiffs have alleged, and defendants do not dispute, that approximately 400 people were arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 under virtually identical circumstances. See Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 347–48 (D.D.C.1998) (“Plaintiffs have provided the names of four hundred and one named plaintiffs who they claim fall within the class definition. That alone is sufficient to establish numerosity, especially when the class members are located in different states.”); see also Coleman v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 196 F.R.D. 193, 198 (D.D.C.2000) (noting that the numerosity requirement is satisfied where it is clear that joinder would be impracticable); Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. at 30 (finding that a class of approximately 200 persons was “sufficiently large that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all the members of the class.”); Lewis v. Nat’l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 8–9

(finding numerosity requirement satisfied where approximately 250 players were members of the class and geographical dispersion of potential class members rendered joinder “clearly impracticable.”).
b) Rule 23(a)(2)—Commonality This Court has previously observed that
[t]he primary concern in assessing the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) is to ensure that “maintenance of a class action is economical and [that] the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” “The commonality test is met where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.”
Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civ. A. No. 99–3119, mem. op. at 19 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted). “Traditionally, commonality refers to the group characteristics of the class as a whole, while typicality refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiff in relation to the class.” Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C.2002) (citation omitted).
Federal defendants oppose class certification on the grounds that the alleged injuries of members of the putative class are too diverse. For instance, they contend that innocent bystanders cannot assert First Amendment claims because they were not present at Pershing Park for the purpose of expressing political views. Moreover, federal defendants suggest that members of the proposed *270 class would include “violent and unlawful” demonstrators and persons who intended and desired to be arrested, as well as bystanders and journalists, thereby leading to vastly different factual and legal assertions and arguments with respect to the existence of probable cause, as well as disparate damages should any constitutional violations be found to have occurred. According to federal defendants, because the circumstances surrounding each class member’s arrest are inherently dependent on that particular individual’s actions, a class action will degenerate into an individualized case-by-case analysis, thereby precluding findings of “commonality,” “typicality” or “predominance.”
[7] The existence of factual distinctions between the claims
6

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
of putative class members will not preclude a finding of commonality. See Prado–Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 n. 14 (11th Cir.2000); Bynum v. District of Columbia, 217 F.R.D. 43, 46–47 (“it is not necessary that every issue of law or fact be the same for each class member. Rather, factual variations among the class members will not defeat the commonality requirement, so long as a single aspect or feature of the claim is common to all proposed class members.”); Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. at 30–31 (holding that there need not be “commonality on each fact or every issue,” and finding the commonality requirement met in a case brought by Hispanic prisoners in the D.C. correctional system who experienced varying conditions of confinement, had varying degrees of fluency with the English language, and different medical histories); Lewis v. Nat’l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 9 (“the presence of individual issues does not destroy commonality.... particularly ... when ... common—even identical—issues of liability are present.”).
[8] Plaintiffs correctly point out that the case now before the Court is virtually identical to that before the D.C. Circuit in Dellums v. Powell, in which a class of persons subjected to mass arrests on the steps of the Capitol in connection with a May 5, 1971 protest against the Vietnam war was certified. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977). In Dellums, as here, plaintiffs asserted First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment challenges to their arrests, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., and D.C. law. Id. at 173. The challenged police practices in that case bore a striking resemblance to those alleged in the case at bar:
The group subsequently assembled on the East Steps of the Capitol on the House side and “began to make and listen to speeches concerning the People’s Peace Treaty and related matters.” While Congresswoman Abzug was addressing the crowd, at about 3:30 P.M., the police cordoned off the bottom of the steps, preventing anyone from leaving, and began arresting members of the assemblage.... The complaint further alleged that those arrested were held for periods of from several hours to several days without being afforded due process of law. In addition, conditions of detention were said to have been inhumane ... [a]ccess to attorneys and telephones was said to have been denied or severely restricted.
Id. at 173–74. Based on these facts, the trial court certified as a class “all persons who were arrested while assembled on the Capitol steps on May 5, 1971.” Id. at

174. In that case, as in this one, the “focal point of the action is the question whether the arresting officer was justified in ordering the arrest of the plaintiff” without a warrant, recognizing that an order and opportunity to disperse before arrest is a prerequisite to a finding that the arrests were justified. Id. at 175, 182.
Defendant in Dellums unsuccessfully challenged certification of the class on grounds similar to those advanced by defendants here, claiming that questions of fact or law common to the members of the class did not predominate. Id. at 189 n. 56. That argument was rejected by the trial court and dismissed by the D.C. Circuit, which noted that “the only question generally to be tried in a false arrest suit is whether the defendant police officer is entitled to qualified official immunity ... The qualified official immunity issue would be tried by substantially the same evidence no matter who brought suit or whether suit was brought individually, by joined plaintiffs, or by a class.” Id.
*271 Plaintiffs also rely on Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, an action challenging similar mass arrest tactics employed by the MPD at several large demonstrations which took place at various locations in the District from 1969–1971, in which the D.C. District Court certified a class consisting of “all persons who have participated in or observed and who intend to participate in or observe lawful, peaceful, orderly and non-obstructive public demonstrations for the exercise of their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.” Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, 400 F.Supp. 186, 219 n. 2 (D.D.C.1975), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 566 F.2d 107 (D.C.Cir.1977) (class certification not disturbed on appeal); see also Sullivan v. Murphy, 380 F.Supp. 867, 868 (D.D.C.1974) (reaffirming on remand certification of class of “all persons arrested from and including May 3, 1971, through May 6, 1971, as to whom the defendants failed to follow normal booking procedures and lack [ ] contemporary ... evidence of probable cause for arrest and those as to whom ... defendants have been unable ... to certify to this Court their ability to establish probable cause for arrest or a prima facie case of guilt of the alleged offense committed.”). Although defendants in Cullinane challenged certification of the class, the District Court found that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 were met by plaintiffs’ complaint, notwithstanding the fact that its allegations spanned a period of years, and involved at least seven different demonstrations, at which the conduct of individual demonstrators varied widely, and at which
7

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
the District Court acknowledged there was some unlawful activity on the part of individual demonstrators. See Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, 400 F.Supp. at 219 n. 2.
Plaintiffs further argue that this case is distinguishable from McCarthy v. Kleindienst, relied upon by federal defendants. In that case, the D.C. Circuit declined to find abuse of discretion or reversible error in the District Court’s failure to certify a class of over 7000 persons who were arrested during the 1972 May Day demonstrations. The plaintiffs in McCarthy had delayed over three years before seeking class certification, and the trial court found lack of commonality based on the fact that plaintiffs were arrested in numerous locations in the District, and the duration and conditions of confinement varied greatly, depending on highly individualized facts. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1411, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1984). As an initial matter, it goes without saying that failure to find abuse of discretion for denial of a motion for class certification differs significantly from a finding that it would be an abuse of discretion to have certified the class in question. See id. at 1415 n. 11 (“The need to defer to a district court’s class certification decision has been greatly emphasized throughout this opinion. It is this factor that makes our decision in the present case entirely consistent with both Dellums v. Powell ... and Sullivan v. Murphy, previous ‘May Day’ cases in which this court upheld district court decisions to certify a class....We are by no means holding today that it would have been error to certify a class in this case ....”) (emphasis added).
Secondly, the Circuit in McCarthy noted that the putative class in that case brought an action exclusively for damages, bringing the case within the reach of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), and precluding a finding that common questions of law or fact “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Id. at 1411, 1413 n. 8 (noting that “the stakes in the present case are much different [than those in a case in which injunctive relief was granted to a class of plaintiffs with respect to the same arrests] given the claims for money damages”). Conversely, in the cases now before this Court, claims for injunctive relief predominate.
Furthermore, in McCarthy, the Circuit found that the District Court’s determination that the motion for class certification in McCarthy was untimely, and thus would result in unwarranted further delay and “massive discovery” involving over 7000 plaintiffs was reasonable in light of the fact that plaintiffs moved for class

certification over three years after the action was initiated. Id. at 1411. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Barham plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was filed in a timely fashion. Moreover, when upholding the District Court’s *272 denial of class certification in McCarthy, the Circuit relied heavily on the potential problems of litigating plaintiffs’ abuse of process claims as a class action, finding that since the existence of probable cause is not a defense to an abuse of process claim, even more individualized determinations would be required to adjudicate those claims. Id. at 1414. No such claim is advanced in the Barham action. Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that the McCarthy court agreed that “the mere fact that damage awards will ultimately require individualized fact determinations is insufficient by itself to preclude class certification.... A district court, should, of course, ordinarily consider such well-established methods as bifurcating the trial into liability and damages phases before denying certification.” Id. at 1415 (citing cases).
Plaintiffs correctly point out that in the cases now before this Court all of the arrests occurred at the same place and time, resulting from a single police action in which the putative class members were treated as a group by the defendants. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that neither the status of class members, be they journalists, protesters, or observers, nor the differences in the conditions or duration of confinement, are relevant to the predominant issue of liability for unlawful arrest, but rather would have an impact only on the amount of damages awarded. Furthermore, they submit that any such impact would not rise to a degree sufficient to destroy commonality and typicality. This conclusion is supported by the proceedings before the Dellums court: after the arrests challenged in Dellums were found to have violated the First and Fourth Amendments, a jury awarded damages against the D.C. Chief of Police for common law false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, as well as for a Bivens claim based on First and Fourth Amendment violations. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d at 175. Individual class members’ damages for Fourth Amendment violations were based on the number of hours they were detained, whereas uniform compensatory damages were awarded for violations of First Amendment rights. Id.
Finally, plaintiffs submit that there is no evidence on the record to date supporting federal defendants’ contention that some class members may have been engaged in violent or otherwise unlawful conduct. To the contrary,
8

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
the D.C. government declined to prosecute all of the cases arising from the events of September 27, 2002 in Pershing Park. Similarly, in Dellums, no evidence ever surfaced, despite the government’s allegations to the contrary, that individual arrestees engaged in misconduct justifying their arrest. See Dellums, 566 F.2d at 190. Furthermore, plaintiffs correctly contend that the existence of a defense based on individual misconduct for one or a few of the class members would not preclude class certification so long as common issues of fact and law predominate, particularly in light of the rules allowing for creation of sub-classes. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4).
c) Rule 23(a)(3)—Typicality In its memorandum opinion in Keepseagle, the Court commented that
Typicality focuses on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind the claims of named representatives and those of the putative class. Plaintiffs satisfy typicality if “each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events that led to the claims of the representative parties and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.”
Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99–3119, mem. op. at 22 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted).
In this case, plaintiffs correctly contend that the claims of the named plaintiffs, all of whom were arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 as part of a “mass arrest,” and those of potential class members, who are “all persons arrested at Pershing Park in Washington, D.C. on the morning of September 27, 2002,” are premised on the legality, vel non, of a “policy or practice that is applied to all putative class members,” thus satisfying the typicality requirement. See Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 189 F.R.D. 174, 177 (D.D.C.1999).
*273 d) Rule 23(a)(4)—Fair and Adequate Representation
Adequacy of representation refers to both legal counsel and class representatives. Thus, “the named representative must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed members of the class,” and “the representative must appear able to vigorously

prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99–3119, mem. op. at 19 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001), citing Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C.Cir.1997). Additionally, “a finding that class counsel are adequate [is] an implicit requirement of Rule 23(a)(4).” Lewis v. Nat’l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 10, 11–12; see also Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. at 3. No serious challenge to adequacy of representation on the part of named plaintiffs or class counsel has been raised to date.

e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) Plaintiffs need only establish that their action meets one of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b); Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231; Franklin v. Barry, 909 F.Supp. at 31. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that defendants “acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole,” and satisfying the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2); Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 92 (D.C.Cir.1997) (describing declaratory and injunctive relief applicable to a class as a whole as the “defining characteristic” of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) class).

As our Court of Appeals recently observed, certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) “is particularly well-suited for civil rights actions where ‘a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class.’ ” In re Veneman, 309 F.3d at 792. The fact that plaintiffs assert claims for monetary damages does not change this result, as those claims are incidental to their requests for injunctive relief, rendering certification pursuant to subsection (b)(2) appropriate. See Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d at 92 (“Courts have generally permitted (b)(2) classes to recover monetary relief in addition to declaratory or injunctive relief, at least where the monetary relief does not predominate.”); Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000, 1003 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1986).5

5

It appears that plaintiffs’ class claims also satisfy the

requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A) because

maintaining separate actions would “create a risk of

inconsistent adjudications, thus establishing

incompatible standards of conduct” for MPD officers.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A); Franklin v. Barry, 909

9

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
F.Supp. at 31. Alternatively, the proposed class seems to meet the requirements for certification pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B), given that separate actions by individual class members would “as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests” of non-party class members “or substantially impede their ability to protect their interests” because resolution of issues of probable cause and First Amendment rights in one case may have a preclusive effect on other class members’ future claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(B).
[9] Accordingly, it seems that here, as in Lewis, “the conclusion that the class action is superior cannot seriously be questioned” given the number of potential class members, their dispersal throughout the nation, the likelihood that each of the potential class members would have to “conduct expensive, extensive discovery” in order to establish municipal liability for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the fact that 400 separate trials for damages would “certainly be a waste of judicial resources.” See Lewis v. Nat’l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 12. Additionally, absent class certification, “a significant number of individuals [would be] deprived of their day in court because they are otherwise unable to afford independent representation” given the relatively low monetary return on pressing their claims. See Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. at 4. Moreover, as the court in Dellums demonstrated, there exist efficient ways in which, assuming the arrests and detentions are found to be unlawful, disparities in conditions and length of detention among class members can be addressed at the damages stage without destroying the cohesiveness required for maintaining a class action. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d at 174 n. 6 (damages *274 awarded by jury were $120 for 12 hours or less of detention; $360 for 12 to 24 hours of detention, $960 for 24 to 48 hours of detention, and $1,800 for 48 to 72 hours of detention).
As the D.C. Circuit stated in Dellums when addressing virtually identical facts, “[i]t is precisely this situation in which each class member would have to present the same case were he to proceed individually to which Rule 23(b)(3) is addressed since a class action would in such circumstances consolidate otherwise identical actions into a single efficient unit.” Id. at 189 n. 56. Nevertheless, given that District defendants have not yet filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Barham, the Court will certify the class in that case on a provisional basis only, pending a motion for reconsideration, if any, by the District of Columbia. Although not required, this Circuit has held that District

Courts have the discretion to grant opt-out rights in class actions certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1) or (2). Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d at 94. However, before providing for notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the Barham class action, the Court will afford the District defendants an opportunity to seek reconsideration of its decision to certify the class.
II. Individual actions Counsel for plaintiffs in both cases filed on behalf of individuals only, Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02–2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02–2310, have clearly indicated that their clients do not wish to join either of the proposed class actions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs in these two cases will be treated as if they have opted out of the provisionally certified class action in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2283.
[10] Several considerations counsel in favor of consolidating the two actions brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs who do not wish to participate in the proposed class actions. Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02–2010, was brought by seven individual plaintiffs, all of whom are law and undergraduate students at George Washington University. All plaintiffs were present at the events in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, either in their capacities as legal observers for the National Lawyers’ Guild or in their capacities as reporters for the GW student newspaper, “The Hatchet,” and were caught up in the mass arrest. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief finding the MPD’s alleged “trap and arrest” policy and procedures unconstitutional, and prohibiting the MPD from surrounding individuals, failing to give an order to disperse or depriving them of the ability to comply with any such order, and arresting any person caught within the surrounded area without regard to whether the individual has engaged in any illegal conduct. They also ask this Court to declare unconstitutional the use of excessive force to prevent individuals from leaving surrounded areas during the execution of the “trap and arrest” policy, as well as the MPD’s alleged practices of handcuffing an individual’s wrist to the opposite ankle and detaining them for 24 hours or more in that position, engaging in threatening and abusive conduct toward detainees, and denying detainees access to counsel following arrest pursuant to execution of the “trap and arrest” policy. Plaintiffs assert that the challenged practices violate the First, Fourth,
10

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as laws and policies governing the proper conditions of arrest, use of restraints, and processing of individuals in the custody of the MPD. Like plaintiffs in Barham, Chang plaintiffs also name the federal government as a defendant on the theory that the U.S. Park Police participated in planning and executing the trap and arrest procedure which led to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02–2310, was commenced by three individual plaintiffs, all of whom were present at the Pershing Park demonstration on September 27, 2002 in their capacities as photojournalism students at the Corcoran College of Art and Design seeking field experience covering a major news event. All plaintiffs allege that they came to Freedom Plaza, took photographs, were subsequently informed, without further justification, that they were not permitted to leave the area, *275 and were arrested and detained. They assert claims based on violations of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and of the press, as well their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Although they bring claims primarily against the District of Columbia, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, and MPD Chief Charles Ramsey in their official capacities, the Jones plaintiffs also name as defendants John/Jane Does who provided material assistance and participated in the constitutional violations alleged by plaintiffs, in their individual and/or official capacities. These individuals could conceivably include the federal defendants named by plaintiffs in Chang as participants in the challenged practices. Discovery directed at ascertaining who these individuals might be would likely overlap with the discovery sought by the Chang plaintiffs with respect to their Bivens claims, as well as that regarding interagency cooperation and planning among federal and local law enforcement agencies prior to and on September 27, 2002. Furthermore, plaintiffs in both the Chang and Jones cases allege that their status as reporters and legal observers gives rise to particularized First Amendment violations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the cases share sufficient common issues of law and fact such that consolidation is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).
III. Conclusion Upon careful consideration of the pending motions for

consolidation and class certification, the responses and replies thereto, the governing statutory and case law, and the entire record in the above-captioned cases, for the reasons stated herein, it is by the Court hereby
ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, District defendants’ motion to consolidate Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2283, and Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03–767, is hereby DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion for class certification in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2283 is hereby GRANTED. The Court provisionally certifies the following class for plaintiffs’ class claims for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2): all individuals who were arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27, 2002; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall have until October 9, 2003 to file a motion for reconsideration of class certification in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2283. Any responses shall be filed by October 23, 2003, and any replies by November 6, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for class certification in Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03–767 is hereby DENIED. Named plaintiffs in that case shall be treated as individual plaintiffs who have elected to opt out of the Barham v. Ramsey class action and pursue their claims on an individual basis; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02–2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02–2310, are hereby CONSOLIDATED under Case No. 02–2010. All future pleadings in these cases shall be filed under the earlier case number; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs in Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02–2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02–2310, are hereby directed to file a global consolidated complaint in their consolidated case by no later than September 25, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02–2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02–2310, are hereby DENIED without prejudice; and it is
11

Chang v. U.S., 217 F.R.D. 262 (2003)
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file any potentially dispositive motions in the three remaining cases by no later than October 9, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file any responses to potentially dispositive motions by no later than October 23, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file replies in support of potentially *276 dispositive motions by no later than November 6, 2003; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on pending motions is scheduled for December 11, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the letters to the Court from plaintiff’s counsel in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02–2283, and Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03–767, dated September 15, 2003 to preserve the record of these cases.
	  

12

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 67 Filed 11/24/03 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

:

UNITED STATES, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________ :

CONSOLIDATED CASE No. 02 CV 2010 (EGS)
Next court event: Status Conference: November 25, 2003

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS FRANKLIN JONES, ERIKA RUSK, AND KERI RASMUSSEN PURSUANT FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(ii)

Plaintiffs, Franklin Jones, Erika Lusk, and Keri Rasmussen (collectively, the “Jones

Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), hereby voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, as settled, their claims and

actions in the above-captioned case. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice

upon performance of the terms of their settlement agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian C. Malone______ Brian C. Malone, Esquire (D.C. Bar # 464544) Arlington, VA 22201 2410 N. Washington Boulevard (703) 283-9918 Counsel for Jones Plaintiffs
DESO, THOMAS, BUCKLEY & STIEN, P.C.
/s/ Robert E. Deso Robert E. Deso, Esquire, Bar No. 174185 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: 202/822-6663 Counsel for Defendant Peter J. Newsham

ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Corporation Counsel, D.C.
/s/ Robert C. Utiger______ ROBERT C. UTIGER (437130) Deputy Corporation Counsel Equity Division
/s/ Thomas L. Koger THOMAS L. KOGER (427921) Senior Litigation Counsel
441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 67 Filed 11/24/03 Page 2 of 2 Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia, Anthony A. Williams and Charles H. Ramsey
2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 105 Filed 04/27/04 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

:

UNITED STATES, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________ :

No. 02 CV 2010 (EGS)(AK)

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS FRANKLIN JONES, ERIKA LUSK, AND KERI RASMUSSEN PURSUANT FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(ii)

Plaintiffs, Franklin Jones, Erika Lusk, and Keri Rasmussen (collectively, the “Jones

Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), hereby voluntarily dismiss with prejudice, as settled, their claims and

actions in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian C. Malone______ Brian C. Malone, Esquire (D.C. Bar # 464544) Arlington, VA 22201 2410 N. Washington Boulevard (703) 283-9918 Counsel for Jones Plaintiffs
DESO, THOMAS, BUCKLEY & STIEN, P.C.
/s/ Robert E. Deso Robert E. Deso, Esquire, Bar No. 174185 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: 202/822-6663 Counsel for Defendant Peter J. Newsham

ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Corporation Counsel, D.C.
/s/ George C. Valentine GEORGE C. VALENTINE (400445) Deputy Corporation Counsel Civil Litigation Division
/s/ Richard S. Love RICHARD S. LOVE (400445) Section Chief Equity Section I
/s/ Thomas L. Koger THOMAS L. KOGER (427921) 441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 105 Filed 04/27/04 Page 2 of 2 Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia, Anthony A. Williams and Charles H. Ramsey
2

 
 Chang v. U.S., 338 F.Supp.2d 20 (2004)

338 F.Supp.2d 20 United States District Court,
District of Columbia. Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 02–2010(EGS). | Sept. 17, 2004.
Synopsis Background: Arrestees brought civil rights actions alleging that their seizure during demonstration violated their rights under federal constitution and District of Columbia law. Defendants brought motion for judgment on the pleadings.
[Holding:] The District Court, Sullivan, J., held that complaint sufficiently alleged state action at pleading stage and possible basis for recovery.
Motion denied.
Attorneys and Law Firms *20 Daniel C. Schwartz, Scott M. Badami, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, National Law Center George Washington University, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Laurie J. Weinstein, United States Attorney’s Office, Leonard H. Becker, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Robert E. Deso, Deso, Thomas & Buckley & Stien, Washington, DC, for Defendants. Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SULLIVAN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION This cases arises from events on September 27, 2002, when approximately 3000 to 5000 people joined in demonstrations in the District of Columbia protesting the *21 policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United States government. Chang Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36–39. On that date, plaintiffs, seven students from George Washington University, were among the approximately 400 people arrested at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park (“Pershing Park”), located on Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. between 14th and 15th Streets N.W.. See Chang Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–26; 50–57.
Pending before the Court is defendant the District of Columbia’s, defendant Mayor Anthony A. Williams’s, and defendant Chief of Police of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Charles H. Ramsey’s (collectively “defendants”) partial motion for judgment on the pleadings upon plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims, which are the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Fifteenth claims for relief, on the grounds that the claims fail to state claims as a matter of law. Upon careful consideration of the motion, and the response and reply thereto, as well as the governing statutory and case law, and for the following reasons, defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] [2] This case is before the Court on the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court will grant judgment on the pleadings “only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” See Longwood Village Restaurant, Ltd. v. Ashcroft, 157 F.Supp.2d 61, 66–67 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)). “If there are allegations in the complaint which, if proved, would provide a basis for recovery,” the Court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings. Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1254 (D.C.Cir.1987). Accordingly, all factual doubts are resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. Id.

1

Chang v. U.S., 338 F.Supp.2d 20 (2004)
III. ANALYSIS [3] Defendants’ three-page motion asserts one argument: that because “it is settled that the District of Columbia is not a state and that the proscriptions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which govern ‘state action,’ do not apply to the District or its officers,” the defendants should be granted judgment as a matter of law upon plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims. Defs.’ Mot. at 3. Plaintiffs agree it is “axiomatic that the District of Columbia is not a state.” Pls.’ Response at 3.
However, plaintiffs argue that the “District Defendants’ supervision of, conspiracy with or aiding and abetting of” officials from other states, such as officials from the Virginia Sheriff’s Office who were allegedly on the scene of the Perishing Park arrests, could result in District officials acquiring the label of “state actors” through this possible “conspiracy” or “cooperation.” See Pls.’ Mot. at 4–5; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 29 (alleging that Fairfax County Police Department officers participated in the arrests); id. ¶ 34 (naming the District of Columbia government and “other state or local governments” as defendants). Plaintiffs argue that without further discovery they can “only speculate” about the extent of possible conspiracy or cooperation between District officials and state officials. Accordingly, plaintiffs conclude that dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claims would be premature prior to the close of discovery.
Given that discovery has not yet concluded in this case, and indeed has recently been extended until February 28,

2005, *22 the Court agrees that granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims would indeed be premature. Quite simply, neither the parties nor the Court know whether discovery will reveal any evidence of cooperation between District officials and state officials, and whether any such evidence will support a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Given that plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges possible illegal and unconstitutional activity by both District officials and “other state or local governments,” and accepting plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, it is possible that the “allegations in the complaint ... [could] provide a basis for recovery.” Haynesworth, 820 F.2d at 1254.1 As such, the Court is precluded from granting judgment on the pleadings.

1

The Court renders no opinion on whether, if

“cooperation” between District officials and state

officials is found, this will render the District officials

“state actors” for purposes of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Accordingly, it is by the Court hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED without prejudice to refiling upon the close of discovery.
	  

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 17

CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 02-02010 (EGS)

OFFER OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 68 BY DEFENDANT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PLAINTIFF MEAGHAN ENRIGHT
On this 21st day of April, 2005, defendant District of Columbia offers judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 to PlaintiffMeahgan Enright, ("Plaintiff'), upon the following terms: Scope of Offer of Judgment and Resultant Judgment/Settlement
1. This Offer may only be accepted by Ms. Enright in resolution and satisfaction of all claims that have been or could have been brought by her against the District of Columbia and any and all persons who are now or ever have been agents, employees, officers, or officials of the District of Columbia at any time.
2. The District of Columbia and any and all defendants in this case who are now or ever have been agents, employees, officers, or officials ofthe District of Columbia at any time deny culpability and/or liability for or upon any claim asserted by Plaintiffin this matter. Entry ofjudgment based upon this Offer shall have no collateral estoppel or res judicata effect, whatsoever, or otherwise preclude these defendants from asserting any defense. Plaintiff is not a prevailing party.

CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES Financial Consideration
3. The District of Columbia will pay the "Settlement Amount" of a total of$46,500 to Plaintiff in full satisfaction ofall of Ms. Enright's claims for damages and other monetary relief encompassed by the Amended Complaint or any subsequently-filed complaint, including claims for attorneys fees and/or other costs incurred in prosecuting this action through the date of this Offer, April 21st, 2005. Plaintiffs' "claims for attorneys fees and/or other costs incurred in prosecuting this action through the date ofthis Offer" means I/7th of the gross total of all fees and/or other costs incurred by or on behalf of any and all plaintiffs in prosecuting this matter through the date ofthis Offer. Accordingly, upon entry of Judgment pursuant to Plaintiffs acceptance of this Offer, the gross/total claim for attorneys fees and/or other costs incurred by any and all plaintiffs in prosecuting this action through the date ofthis Offer shall be decreased by I/7th by operation of the entry of Judgment pursuant to Plaintiffs acceptance of this Offer. Plaintiff agrees, personally and on behalf of his attorneys, that under no circumstances may he or his attorneys obtain any monetary relief and/or recovery for any claims encompassed by this Offer in addition to this $46,500 from the District, or from any current or former official, officer, agent, or employee or any person who was an official, officer, agent, or employee ofthe District based upon Ms. Enright's claims.
4. The Settlement Amount is payable only from the funds ofthe District of Columbia and may not be collected from any other defendant in this action or from any other person or entity.
5. Any judgment that may result from Plaintiff's acceptance of this Offer of Judgment may not be docketed, recorded, or reported for any purpose against any defendant other than the District ofColumbia.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 3 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
Additional Relief A. Expungement and Sealing of Arrest Records 6. The District of Columbia will expunge all records in the possession of its
Executive Branch (including all records in the possession ofthe Metropolitan Police Department, and the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia) pertaining to the arrest of Plaintiff Enright at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 and will employ best efforts to procure the expungement of all records in the possession ofthe United States Government (including but not limited to the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation) and any other state or local government pertaining to the arrest ofPlaintiffEnright at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002.
7. The District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey, Michael J. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Jordan, and Peter J. Newsham will not oppose a motion, pursuant to District of Columbia Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 118 seeking the sealing of the records of Plaintiff Enright pertaining to his arrest at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002.
8. The District of Columbia will either (I) procure the expungement or delivery to Plaintiff's counsel ofall records in the possession ofthe United States government (including, but not limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and any other state and local government pertaining to the arrest on September 27, 2002, or resulting detention or charge of Plaintiff Enright; or (2) if the District is unable (in whole or in part) to procure this relief, inform Plaintiff Enright in writing ofthe specific steps, and the results thereof, taken by the District in an effort to procure it.
9. The District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey, Michael J. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Jordan, and Peter J. Newsham will not oppose any motion by Plaintiff to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in this case seeking an order declaring his or her arrest
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 4 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 to be a nullity and/or seeking an order allowing Plaintiff
Enright to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002,
without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon
misrepresentation or deception, in response to any query, whether posed orally or in writing.
B. Conciliatory Statement
I0. Chief Ramsey will personally sign the following conciliatory statement, addressed
to Plaintiff Enright, and presented to him through his attorneys, within thirty days after Plaintiff
accepts this Offer:
Dear Ms. Enright:
The District of Columbia government has carefully examined the events of September 27 and 28, 2002, concerning arrests and detentions that occurred on those days. Our investigation shows that our handling of various aspects of those events was flawed. Our investigation also shows that you should not have been arrested or detained. On my own behalf, and that of the Government of the District of Columbia, we sincerely regret any hardship that our mistakes of September 27 and 28, 2002 may have caused you or persons close to you.
Through our review of those events, informed in part by your testimony, the District government has identified and implemented measures to prevent a recurrence of the events in question. To implement these measures, Mayor Williams and I have worked hard with the Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia to assure that the District of Columbia Government carries out its duty to ensure that persons may enjoy free and open expression in this city with the utmost confidence that their constitutional rights will be respected.
I hope that you will be comfortable in the future in peaceably and lawfully exercising your First Amendment rights in the Nation's Capital.
Sincerely,
CHARLES H. RAMSEY Chief
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 5 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
C. Revisions to MPD Mass Demonstration Policing II. The District of Columbia will conduct its policing of and related to mass demonstrations in a manner to achieve the following objectives, which are identified as Objectives (a) through G), below. 12. Further, the District will perform and demonstrate performance of its mass demonstration policing conduct in accordance with the Objectives through objectively verifiable means and methods. One such method will be the inclusion of certain provisions governing MPD mass demonstration policing published in the MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook or other specified appropriate MPD publications. Those provisions are the "Provisions Addressing Objectives" ("PAO's") which are set forth immediately following the respective Objective to which each applies most directly. 13. In addition to or in lieu ofPAO's in the instances of some Objectives, the District will employ other measures ("Measures") to achieve the Objectives. Those Measures are reflected below immediately following the respective Objective to which each applies most directly, either solely, or in combination with one or more PAO's. Inclusion of these PAO's in the MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook or other specified MPD publication, as identified to each respective Objective, coupled with performance in accordance with the respective provision, and/or performance of the Measure(s) immediately following each Objective (a) through (j) below satisfies the respective Objective.
Objective (a)
(a) Before ordering or approving a mass arrest, the commanding officer responsible for ordering or approving a mass arrest must verify that all requirements of the law and MPD procedures for effecting a valid mass arrest have been satisfied and verify that some means exist to match each person to be arrested with a specific offense which there is probable cause to believe that person committed.
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 6 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
PAO for Objective (a)
Objective (a) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook ofthe following PAO's, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
!!J. Issuance ofwarnings should be made by the unit commander or that
commander's designee and made from stationery vantage points that are observable to the crowd or to a large number of participants.
a.2. Whenever possible, an official deeming it necessary to issue warnings shall confer with the unit commander to explain the official's basis for believing that a warning should be issued. The commanding officer shall make any inquiries necessary to satisfY himself or herself whether the issuance is justified and direct that the issuing official act accordingly. This process is to be repeated as necessary during the course of the demonstrations.
a.3. The issuing official shall recommend to the unit commander whether arrests should be made. Ifthe issuing official recommends that a mass arrest be commenced, the unit commander shall satisfY himself or herself that probable cause exists for the arrest of all persons to be arrested. The unit [incident] commander should make the inquiries reflected on the "Pre-Mass Arrest Checklist"1 in order to verity that a mass arrest is proper and lawful. The arrest of
The Pre-Mass Arrest Checklist provides as follows:
Has the Official recommending a mass arrest articulated justification for a mass arrest on these bases? What actions by the persons to be arrested require the proposed mass arrest?
Has anyone been injured? Who? What was the cause ofthe injury? Has property been damaged? What? What was the cause of the damage? Will an effort to arrest likely cause more injuries than alternative police action? Will an effort to arrest likely cause more property damage than alternative police action? Will an effort to arrest likely cause greater disruption of traffic flow (or potentially block evacuation routes) than alternative police action? What are the offenses committed/to be charged? What evidence provides probable cause for the arrest upon those charges as to each person? You must have articulable probable cause to make any arrest.
If the offense is incommoding. unlawful assembly, parading without a permit and/or failure to obey a police order:
How many orders to disperse were given? How were the orders communicated? When was each given? Who gave each order to disperse? Were audio and/or video recordings made of the warnings? Is there another way to gain control ofthe situation? Is there a viable alternative to a mass arrest? Is dispersal of the crowd and arrest of a smaller number of persons as the group disperses reasonable?
6

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 7 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
every person to be arrested must be supported by probable cause. An issuing official shall not recommend the arrest of any person unless he or she has probable cause to support the arrest of that person. A unit commander shall not order the arrest of any person for whom he or she has not verified the existence of probable cause to arrest.
Objective (b) (b) An assembly of persons will not be arrested simply because the group does not possess a permit. Such an arrest may only occur after an order to disperse has been clearly communicated three times in a manner that is reasonably calculated to be heard by each of the persons in the group and after reasonable opportunity to disperse has been afforded, to the extent that circumstances reasonably permit, without increasing the risk of injury to persons ofproperty through the actions of a substantial number of the assembly of persons.
PAO for Objective (b)
Objective (b) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook of the following PAO, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
An assembly of persons will not be arrested simply because the group does not possess a permit. Such an arrest may only occur after an order to disperse has been clearly communicated three times in a manner that is reasonably calculated to be heard by each ofthe persons in the group and after reasonable opportunity to disperse has been afforded, to the extent that circumstances reasonably permit, without increasing the risk of injury to persons of property through the actions of a substantial number of the assembly of persons.
Objective (c)
(c) All officers policing mass demonstrations and all officers guarding persons arrested at a mass demonstration shall be readily identifiable to demonstrators and arrestees.
Is extraction of a limited number of offenders for observed offenders reasonable? Has the JOCC [Joint Operations Command Center] confirmed (or have you independently determined) that there are sufficient resources available to safely make number of arrests anticipated?
• Prisoner Control Activated • Housing Space • Feeding capabilities • Arresting Officers (15-1 rule) • Transportation How do other circumstances weigh in favor of or against ordering a mass arrest?
7

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 8 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FORSETTLEMENTPURPOSES
Measure and PAO for Objective (c)
Objective (c) is satisfied by the MPD's Measure of reflecting the badge number of each officer by affixing each officer's badge number to the front ofthat officer's helmet, immediately above the visor, and by MPD's inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook ofthe following provision, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision and the helmet-numbering requirement in responding to mass demonstrations.
Each CDU Commander shall instruct such subordinate officials and officers as is appropriate under the circumstances that all uniformed, sworn personnel are to be inspected to ensure that they are properly wearing their badges and nameplates and that the badge numbers and names are not to be concealed, damaged, or tampered with, so as to interfere with the ability ofthe officer to be identified. When officers are directed to don CDU protective gear, including helmets, the officers are to affix their badge numbers to their helmets. Further, officers are prohibited from removing or tampering with their badges or nameplates and are required to verbally identify themselves when asked their identities. Hmvever, members are not to engage demonstrators in further conversation.
Objective (d)
(d) The official responsible for ordering or approving a mass arrest must have successfully completed training within the previous year regarding the circumstances under which a mass arrest is legally permitted. Such training shall include discussion ofthe proper response(s) to the arrest scenarios presented in Dellums v. Powell, Abbate v. Ramsey, and Chang v. United States ofAmerica.
Measure for Objective (d)
Objective (d) is satisfied by the MPD's measure of providing to event officials who may reasonably be anticipated to command a situation presenting circumstances that may give rise to a mass arrest, training within the year preceding the event regarding the circumstances under which a mass arrest is legally permitted. Such training shall include discussion of the proper response(s) to the arrest scenarios presented in Dellums v. Powell, Abbate v. Ramsey, and Chang v. United States ofAmerica.
Objective (e)
(e) Persons arrested in a mass arrest shall, as soon as reasonably possible following their arrests, be informed oftheir rights to contact an attorney and/or family member or friend and their rights regarding citation release, post and forfeit or court appearance, and the meaning and consequences of each.
8

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 9 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
POA's and Measures for Objective (e)
Objective (e) is satisfied by MPD's measure of providing arrestees access to phones at processing centers from which the arrestees may place a call to contact an attorney and/or family member or friend, combined with the inclusion ofthe following provisions in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook, coupled with MPD's compliance with these provisions in responding to mass demonstrations.
When all arrestees have boarded the transport vehicle, are safely seated and the transport vehicle has commenced its travel from the arrest location to the prisoner processing center, a member of the department is to read or play a recording of the text of the "Notification of Rights'' torm in a manner audible to all persons in the vehicle. Once at the prisoner-processing center, as arrestees are initially removed for processing the arrestee shall be provided a copy of the torm to read. In addition, the text of the torm is to be reflected on large signs that arc to be placed conspicuously throughout the processing area.
The text ofthe Notification of Rights" to be presented verbally, on large signs, and in the "Notification ofRights" form, will contain the following text:
Option 1 -YOU MAY ELECT TO '"POST AND FORFEIT" If you choose to ''Post and Forfeit,'' you will pay a certain amount of money and you will be released immediately and the charges against you will be dmpped. You will never have to appear in court to answer the charges against you. You will also never have an opportunity to appear in court to contest the charges against you. You are required to prove your identity. A "post and forfeit" is not an admission of guilt, and you will have no criminal record on these charges. But you will have an arrest record on these charges.
lfyou are interested in the post and forfeit option, you will be provided with a list showing the amount you must pay depending on the charge tor which you were arrested.
Your decision to post and forfeit is final unless you (or your attorney) file a "Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture'' within 90 days of your arrest. Such a motion is not automatically granted. If it is granted, the charges against you will be reinstated and you will have to appear in court to answer them.
Option 2 - YOU MAY ELECT TO BE RELEASED ON CITATION (''CITE OUT")
You are eligible tor citation release if you are arrested for a misdemeanor offense that does not involve domestic violence and there are no outstanding warrants tor your arrest. You are not required to post any amount of money for citation release but you are required to prove your identity.
9

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 10 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
If you elect citation release, you \vill be given a citation (similar to a traffic ticket), requiring you to appear in D.C. Superior Court to answer the charges against you. Failure to appear in court in response to the citation is a criminal offense. Tfyou fail to appear in court on the date specified in the citation, a warrant wi II be issued for your arrest.
When you appear in court, the government may dismiss the charges against you or may proceed to trial. lfthe government chooses to proceed to trial, you will have a right to be represented by an attorney and if you cannot atTord an attorney one will be provided for you. The government will bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the otTense with which you have been charged. Ifyou are convicted, you will have a criminal record in addition to your arrest record. lfyou are acquitted, you will not have a criminal record but you will still have an arrest record unless you are later able to get it sealed or expunged by proving to the court that you did not commit any crime.
e.4. Option3- YOU MAY ELECT TO POST BOND ("POST AND TRIAL")
If you are not eligible for citation release, you may still be eligible to post bond. If so, you may post a cash bond amount assigned to the charge, or a licensed bondsman may agree to post the bond for you in retum for a 10% fee. You are required to prove your identity. You will be provided with a list showing the amount you must post depending on the charge for which you were arrested.
You will be required to appear in D.C. Superior Court to answer the charges against you. Failure to appear in court is a criminal oflensc. If you fail to appear in court on the date specified, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.
When you appear in court, the government may dismiss the charges against you or may proceed to trial. If the government chooses to proceed to trial, you will have a right to be represented by an attorney and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. The government will bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense with which you have been charged. If you arc convicted, you will have a criminal record in addition to your arrest record. If you are acquitted, you \vill not have a criminal record but you will still have an arrest record unless you are later able to get it sealed or expunged by proving to the court that you did not commit any crime.
Ob,jective (f)
(f) The MPD shall, as expeditiously as possible, process any person arrested in a Mass Arrest to determine whether the person is eligible for release pursuant to a lawful release option and shall promptly release any person so eligible who opts for the release. The MPD shall also promptly release any person arrested in a Mass Arrest, who, it is subsequently determined, should not be charged with any offense.
10

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 11 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
PAO for Objective (t)
Objective (f) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook of the following PAO's, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
.L.L. The MPD shall, as expeditiously as possible, process any person arrested in a
Mass Arrest to determine whether the person is eligible for release pursuant to a lawful release option and shall promptly release any person so eligible who opts for the release. The MPD shall also promptly release any person arrested in a Mass Arrest, who, it is subsequently determined, should not be charged with any offense.
Objective (g)
(g) No upgrades or other maintenance of computer systems necessary for processing arrestees shall be scheduled to occur on days for which a plan for processing persons arrested in a mass arrest is in effect unless automated prisoner processing cannot be accomplished without performance of repairs or a remedial upgrade.
POA for Objective (g)
Objective (g) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook of the following provision, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
&.1. No routine computer upgrades are to be scheduled for or performed on days on
which mass arrest prisoner processing is anticipated. Where automated prisoner processing cannot be accomplished without performance of repairs or a remedial upgrade, the Prisoner Processing Center(s) shall switch to manual backup processing procedures to accomplish prisoner processing. Objective (h)
(h) Manual backup procedures for processing arrestees shall be available on days for which a plan for processing persons arrested in a mass arrest is in effect.
POA for Objective (h)
Objective (h) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook of the following provision, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
h.l. Manual backup procedures for processing arrestees shall be available on days for which a plan for processing persons arrested in a mass arrest is in effect.
11

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 12 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
Objective (i)
(i) MPD shall only use such restraints in the transporting, processing, and detention of persons as the Chief of Police or his designee determines to be reasonably necessary to maintain the safety ofthe arrestees and ofMPD arresting, transporting, and/or processing personnel, and to prevent escape.
POA for Objective (i)
Objective (i) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook ofthe following provision, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
U MPD shall only use such restraints in the transporting, processing, and detention
of persons as the Chief of Police or his designee determines to be reasonably necessary to maintain the safety of the arrestees and ofMPD arresting, transporting, and/or processing personnel, and to prevent escape.
Objective (j)
G) Handcuffs and flexi-cuffs shall not be applied in a manner that is excessively tight.
POA for Objective (j)
Objective G) is satisfied by the inclusion in MPD's Mass Demonstration Handbook of the following provision, coupled with MPD's compliance with this provision in responding to mass demonstrations.
l l All arrestees are to be secured in accordance with MPD G.O. 502.01.
Where flex-cuff restraints are used to secure an arrestee's hands or arms, the officer applying the flex-cuffs must always check restraint tightness. To avoid injuries that may be caused by overtightening the restraints, when applying the flex-cuff, the officer is to draw the strap up only until the strap comes in contact with the arrestee's skin at all points. The officer is then to attempt to insert his or her index finger between the strap and the arrestee's wrist. If the officer cannot readily place his or her index finger between the strap and the arrestee's wrist, the officer is to immediately remove the flex-cuff and properly apply a new flex-cuff to prevent escape but no tighter.
j.2. Officers are to give prompt attention to complaints that the cuffs are too tight. Even after using the precautionary measures indicated above to prevent overtightening of flex-cuffs, ifthe restrained person complains that the cuffs are too tight the officer should stop (if reasonably possible) and check the tightness of the cuffs. Even if the cuffs are properly applied the person could still have placed pressure on the cuffs or the person could have turned their hand within the cuff
12

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 13 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
and caused constriction on part ofthe hand. If upon checking the cuffs the officer finds that the cuffs are too tight, the officer is to remove the flex-cuffs as soon as reasonably possible and replace them with flex-cuffs applied to fit properly. Further, if upon checking the officer finds that the flex-cuffs are at the appropriate tightness and there does not appear to be a problem, the officer need not loosen the cuffs. However, the officer should document in his/her report that upon complaint the cuffs were checked and found not to be too tight. Enforcement Provisions and Mechanisms 14. Upon acceptance ofthis Offer of Judgment by PlaintiffEnright, she and the District of Columbia will notify the Court and all other parties to this action of the acceptance of this Offer (the accepted Offer is referred to hereinafter as the "Agreement"). Plaintiff and Defendant District of Columbia will move the Court to dismiss her claims with prejudice as against the District of Columbia and any and all persons who are now or ever have been agents, employees, officers, or officials of the District of Columbia at any time pursuant to the attached proposed Consent Order Dismissing Claims With Prejudice And Retaining Jurisdiction For Purpose Of Enforcing Agreement Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) that provides for the Court to retain jurisdiction over this matter to make such orders as are necessary to remedy systemic material breaches of the terms ofthe Agreement upon acceptance of this Offer pursuant to the procedures defined below or to entertain any of the motions to this Court described in paragraph 9 or to enforce paragraphs 1 through 5. 15. Pursuant to this Offer and Agreement, the PAO's and Measures, when complied with and performed, satisfy the various Objectives. Accordingly, pursuant to this Offer and the Agreement, any provision to be reflected in the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook or other MPD publication as demonstrating MPD's obligations in satisfaction of an agreed-upon Objective, and every Measure constituting partial or complete satisfaction of an Objective, will
13

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 14 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
remain in the Mass Demonstration Handbook and in effect until at least July 17, 2005. After July 17, 2005, the District of Columbia will notify Plaintiff Enright, through her counsel, at least forty-five (45) days before adopting any changes to the language and/or measures provided for by the Offer and Agreement, and will confer with Plaintiff Enright, and/or her counsel, regarding any such changes. The District of Columbia, nevertheless, may adopt such changes without the consent or approval of Plaintiff. Plaintiff Enright may not unreasonably withhold his consent or approval, but the District of Columbia may assert any such unreasonable withholding of consent only as a defense to an enforcement action under paragraph 16 below, and not as the basis for any affirmative claim for relief. In the event that four of more plaintiffs currently prosecuting this matter accept Offers of Judgment containing "Enforcement Provisions and Mechanisms" terms providing for post-judgment enforcement ofthe "Revisions to MPD Mass Demonstration Policing" and four or more ofthese plaintiffs having accepted such Offers of Judgment object to such changes, they may seek relief pursuant to the enforcement mechanism set forth in the Enforcement and Sunset Provision in paragraph 16, below.
16. The following Enforcement and Sunset Provision shall govern the enforcement of the Agreement:
The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to make such orders as are necessary to remedy systemic material breaches of the Agreement pursuant to the procedures defined below or to entertain any of the motions to this Court described in paragraph 9 or to enforce paragraphs I through 5.
PlaintiffEnright shall, in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 14 and 15 above, have standing to enforce the terms ofthe Agreement, according to the procedures set out below.
14

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 15 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
Before Plaintiff Enright moves the Court to enforce the Agreement, she shall give the District of Columbia written notice of and ninety (90) days to cure defendant's alleged systemic deficiencies that he contends constitutes a systemic material breach of the Agreement, unless the alleged material breach is the proposed adoption of a change or changes to the language and/or measures provided for by the Agreement, in which case the notice and cure period shall be forty-five (45) days. During the cure period, District Defendants shall have the opportunity to cure the deficiencies that Plaintiff Enright contends constitutes a material breach ofthe Agreement. The opportunity to cure shall also include good faith negotiations in face to face meetings between the District of Columbia and the Chang Plaintiffs having accepted Offers of Judgment as described in paragraph 15, above, seeking enforcement ofthe Agreement to resolve their differences without the need for Court intervention. Plaintiff Enright may not seek enforcement of the Agreement without satisfying the foregoing notice and cure provision.
A "systemic material breach" is either (a) the occurrence of conduct prohibited by the Objectives caused by implementation and/or enforcement of an MPD policy, or the decision of a District policymaker, which violates one or more Objectives in a manner causing injury in fact to one or more persons, or (b) adoption of any changes to the agreed-upon PAO's or Measures that are not reasonably likely to comply with the respective Objective(s). The terms "policy" and "policymaker" shall be defined as those terms are used for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as contemplated by Monell v. Department ofSocial Servs.,
15

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 16 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
436 U.S. 658 (1978); Jett v. Dallas lndep. School Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989); and St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988).
The parties agree that the MPD may include a provision in any PAO, Measure, General Order, Special Order, teletype, guideline or other written MPD directive that officers refrain from engaging demonstrators in conversation that is not necessary to the satisfaction of any Objective. Such provisions serve the desired function of reducing the likelihood of miscommunications, contradictory communications, and avoidable confrontations.
The terms of the Agreement shall remain in effect through and including January 17, 2008, immediately after which time this agreement shall become null and void and the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the Agreement will lapse except to the extent that a matter timely and properly presented to the Court pursuant to the Enforcement and Sunset Provision is still pending before the Court. 17. The District of Columbia and Plaintiff Enright agree that multiple originals of this Offer of Judgment may be executed.
Respectfully submitted~ ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Corporation Counsel, D.C. GEORGEC.VALENTONE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division sf Richard S. Love RICHARD S. LOVE (340455] Chief, Equity Section I sf Thomas L. Koger THOMAS L. KOGER (427921)
16

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/05 Page 17 of 17
CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEl\lENT PURI'OSI
LORIS. PARRIS (467455) Senior Litigation Counsel 441-41h St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610 Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia and Charles H. Ramsey, Michael J. Fitzgerald, and Brian K. Jordan
on _fJ_1_tv/__,____cJ___,2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that o:: this 21st day of April, 2005, I caused the foregoing
OFFER OF,; :JDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 68 BY DEFENDANT DISTR' '~T OF COLUMBIA TO PLAINTIFF MEAGHAN ENRIGHT to be served By HAND and 1: Y ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION upon:
Daniel C. Schwartz, l ;q. David Zetoony, Elizabeth Martin, Bryan Cave, LLP 700 Thirteenth Street.. N.W., Suite. 700 Washington, DC 200l 5 and by ELECTRONIC' TRANSMISSION upon Jonathan Turley, Esquire.
I!:wmas L Koger
THOMAS L KOGER
17

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 147 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et aI., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et aI.,
Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 02-02010 (EGS)

CONSENT ORDER DISMISSING MEAGHAN ENRIGHT'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND RETAINING JURISDICTION
FOR PURPOSE OF ENFORCING AGREEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), plaintiff Meaghan Enright and defendant District of

Columbia have entered into an Agreement resolving this matter as between Ms. Enright, the

District of Columbia, and any and all persons who are now or ever have been agents, employees,

officers, or officials of me District of Columbia at any time (a copy of which is attached as

Attachment A). That Agreement provides for the performance of a number of tasks and

contemplates the potential for continued interaction and continuing obligations between me

parties. The Agreement also contemplates that mis Court will retain jurisdiction over mis matter

solely for purposes of enforcing me Agreement as expressly provided for by its terms, and the

parties have moved mis Court to dismiss the claims brought by plaintiff Enright with prejudice,

except to the extent of retaining jurisdiction pursuant to the Agreement for purposes of enforcing

me Agreement.

This Court having duly considered the joint motion of Plaintiff Enright and me District of

~d ~ ~ ~ '7 Columbia me interests ofjustice, it is this' lhIay of

2005,

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 147 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 4
ORDERED that the joint motion ofMeaghan Enright and District of Columbia is hereby
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that all claims by Ms. Emight against the District of Columbia, and any and
all persons who are or have been agents, employees, officers, or officials ofthe District of
Columbia at any time are dismissed with prejudice, except that this Court retains jurisdiction
over this matter to entertain any motion to enforce the provisions of Paragraphs 1 through 5 of
the Agreement and as to any motion described in paragraph 9 ofthe Agreement; and further, this
Court retains jurisdiction to make such orders as are necessary to remedy systemic material
breaches ofthis Agreement issue pursuant the following procedures:
Plaintiff Emight shall, in accordance with the requirements ofparagraphs 14 and 15 above, have standing to enforce the terms of the Agreement, according to the procedures set out below.
Before Plaintiff moves the Court to enforce the Agreement, he shall give the District of Columbia written notice of and ninety (90) days to cure defendant's alleged systemic deficiencies that he contends constitutes a systemic material breach of the Agreement, unless the alleged material breach is the proposed adoption of a change or changes to the language andlor measures provided for by the Agreement, in which case the notice and cure period shall be forty-five (45) days. During the cure period, District Defendants shall have the opportunity to cure the deficiencies that Plaintiff contends constitutes a material breach ofthe Agreement. The opportunity to cure shall also include good faith negotiations in face to face meetings between the District of Columbia and the Chang Plaintiffs having accepted Offers of Judgment as described in paragraph 15, above, seeking enforcement of the Agreement to resolve their differences without the need for Court intervention. Plaintiff may not seek enforcement of the Agreement without satisfying the foregoing notice and cure provision.
A "systemic material breach" is either (a) the occurrence of conduct prohibited by the Objectives caused by implementationandlor enforcement of an MPD policy, or the decision of a District policymaker, which violates one or more Objectives in a manner causing injury in fact to one or more persons, or (b) adoption of any changes to the agreed-upon PAO' s or Measures that are not reasonably likely to comply with the respective Objective(s). The terms "policy" and "policymaker" shall be defined as those terms are used for purposes of 42 U.S.c. Section 1983 as contemplated by Monellv. DepartmentojSocial Servs.,
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 147 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 4

436 U.S. 658 (1978); Jett v. Dallas Indep. School Dist" 491 U.S. 701 (1989); and St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988).

The parties agree that the MPD may include a provision in any PAO, Measure, General Order, Special Order, teletype, guideline or other written MPD directive that officers refrain from engaging demonstrators in conversation that is not necessary to the satisfaction of any Objective, Such provisions serve the desired fimction of reducing the likelihood of miscommunications, contradictory communications, and avoidable confrontations,

The terms ofthe Agreement shall remain in effect through and including

January 17, 2008, immediately after which time this agreement shan become nun

and void and the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the Agreement will lapse

except to the extent that a matter timely and properly presented to the Court

pursuant to the Enforcement and Sunset P 'ion is still pen'

re the

Court.

United States District Judge
Thomas L. Koger Lori S. Parris Office of the Attorney General
for the District of Columbia 441-4th St., N.W" Sixth Floor South Washington, D,C. 20001
Marina UtgoffBraswell Office of the United States Attorney
For the District of Columbia 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
Robert E. Deso, Esquire DESO, BUCKLEY & STIEN, P.e. 1828 L Street, N,W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036

3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 147 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 4
Daniel C, Schwartz, Esq. David Zetoony, Esq. Elizabeth Martin, Esq. Bryan Cave, LLP 700 Thirteenth Street" N.W., Suite. 700 Washington, DC 20005 Jonathan Turley J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., N.W. Washington, D.c' 20052
4

 
 CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e8n9t 20F7ileFdil1e0d/0170/20070/055 PPaaggee11ooff33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al.

:

Plaintiffs

:

v

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. :

Case Number 02-2010 (EGS)

Defendant/

:

Cross Claimant

v

:

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

:

Cross Defendant.

:

CROSS CLAIM COMES NOW the Defendant/Cross Claimant, Fairfax County Sheriff=s Department (hereinafter referred to as AFCSD@), by and through its counsel, Alexander Francuzenko, Esquire and the law firm of O=Connell, O=Connell & Sarsfield, and asserts this Cross Claim against the United States Park Police (AUSPP@), and for its cause of action states as follows:

1. The Chang plaintiffs allege in their Third Amended Complaint that they

sustained various injuries and damages as a result of actions that occurred at the IMF

demonstrations. The FCSD deny all allegations asserted against it in the Third Amended

Complaint.

2. USPP agreed, pursuant to contract, to indemnify and save harmless FCSD

against all claims by third parties for property damage and personal injury which may arise

out of activities of the other parties to this agreement, outside their respective jurisdictions.

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e8n9t 20F7ileFdil1e0d/0170/20070/055 PPaaggee22ooff33

(See Exhibit 1, Interagency Agreement). 3. Chang plaintiffs= alleged injuries and damages, if any, arose out of the IMF
demonstrations that occurred September 26 - 28, 2002 in Washington, D.C. 4. The Fairfax County Sheriff=s Department is entitled to indemnification from
USPP with regard to the claims asserted by the Chang plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Cross Claimant, Fairfax County Sheriff=s Department,
demands judgment from and against Defendant/Cross Defendant, United States Park Police, in the form of contractual indemnity as to the claims asserted by the Chang plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted, O=CONNELL, O=CONNELL & SARSFIELD

______________________________________

Alexander Francuzenko

#452326

401 E. Jefferson Street

Suite 204

Rockville, Maryland 20850

(301) 424-2300

Attorney for Fairfax County Sheriff=s Department

CCaassee11::0022--ccvv--0022001100--EEGGSS-JMDFocuDmoecnutm1e8n9t 20F7ileFdil1e0d/0170/20070/055 PPaaggee33ooff33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Cross Claim was mailed, first-class, postage prepaid, this 7th day of October, 2005 to:
Jonathan Turley, Esq. 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052
Daniel C. Schwartz, Esq. Bryan Cave, LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3960
Kenneth L. Wainstein, Esq. R. Craig Lawrence, Esq. Marina Utgoff Braswell, Esq. U.S. Attorney=s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. - Civil Division Washington, DC 20530
Thomas L. Koger, Esq. Senior Litigation Counsel Office of the Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004
Robert E. Deso, Esq. Deso, Buckley & Stien, P.C. 1828 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20o036-5112
_____________________________ Alexander Francuzenko

 
 Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 2007335 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Jeffrey Barham, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Charles H. Ramsey, et al., Defendants.
Civ. Action Nos. 02-2010 (EGS), 02-2283(EGS). | July 10, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Daniel C. Schwartz, Scott M. Badami, Jacob A. Kramer, Nikki A. Ott, David Alan Zetoony, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC, for Rayming Chang, et al.
Gary Philip-Matthew Corn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Marina Utgoff Braswell, U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, Peter S. Smith, United States Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Robert C. Utiger, DC Attorney General, Martha J. Mullen, Office of Corporation Counsel, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Robert E. Deso, Deso, Buckley & Stien, John Martin Faust, Mark H. Tuohey, III, Justin M. Shellaway, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Alexander Francuzenko, Kevin J. O’Connell, O’Connell, O’conell & Sarsfield, Rockville, MD, for United States, et al.
Carl L. Messineo, Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Partnership for Civil Justice, Washington, DC, for Jeffrey Barham, et al.
John Martin Faust, Mark H. Tuohey, III, Justin M. Shellaway, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Martha J. Mullen, Office of Corporation Counsel, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Marina Utgoff Braswell, U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, Edith Margeurita Shine, United States Attorney’s Office, Peter S. Smith, United States Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, Robert E. Deso, Deso, Buckley & Stien, Washington, DC, for Charles H. Ramsey, et al.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMMET G. SULLIVAN, United States District Judge.
*1 On September 27, 2002, demonstrations occurred around the District of Columbia in connection with World Bank and International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) meetings. These related cases arise from a mass arrest in General John Pershing Park (“Pershing Park” or “Park”) on that day. Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 02-2010 (“Chang plaintiffs”) and Civil Action No. 02-2283 (“Barham plaintiffs”) were among approximately 400 people arrested in the Park. Plaintiffs allege various constitutional, statutory, and common law violations stemming from the arrests. Pending before the Court in the Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) cases are motions by the federal defendants’1 to dismiss or, in the alternative for summary judgment. Also pending before the Court in the Chang case is defendant Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department’s (“FCSD”) motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for more definitive statement. Upon review of the motions, responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court DENIES the federal defendants’ motion in the Barham case, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the federal defendants’ motion in the Chang case, and DENIES Fairfax County’s motion in the Chang case.

1

The federal defendants named in Chang case (02-2010)

are the United States, the National Park Service,

Richard Murphy (who acted as Commander of the

Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police during

the relevant period), and John and Jane Does 1-10 in

their individual and official capacities. The federal

defendants named in the Barham case (02-2283) are the

United States, Gale Norton, Director of the National

Park Service, in her official capacity, Attorney General

Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity, Richard

Murphy, in his official and individual capacity, and

unidentified officers, supervisors, and law enforcement

agencies, in their official and individual capacities.

1

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
I. BACKGROUND This Court’s September 24, 2004 Memorandum Opinion in Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C.2004), and the D.C. Circuit’s review of that decision, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C.Cir.2006), detail the events at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002, the aftermath of such events, and the involvement of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). This Memorandum Opinion focuses on the role of the federal defendants and Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department officers.
A. United States Park Police The National Park Service annually hosts more than 3,000 demonstrations and other special events. As part of their routine procedures, they coordinate with other federal and local law enforcement agencies. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 4; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 4. Prior to the September 27 demonstrations, the Park Police and other law enforcement agencies participated in meetings to address how to respond to possible scenarios that could arise during predicted demonstrations. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 8; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 5.
On September 27, 2002, Major Richard Murphy was the senior Park Police officer at Pershing Park. Before his arrival at the Park, Murphy was informed that demonstrators left Freedom Plaza and were heading west toward Pershing Park. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 15; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 10. When Murphy arrived at the Park around 9:20 a.m., the entire Park was not closed off. Murphy Dep. 228:10-14. Murphy was asked by an MPD official to help “hold” persons in the Park. Murphy Dep. 177:14-16; 178:17-179:1; 206:13-19.2 In response, Murphy radioed the following communication: “[C]ar 27, have 901 deploy his personnel on the south side of Pershing Park. We’re going to enclose the demonstrators up here in Pershing Park with Metropolitan Police.” Murphy Dep. 181:6-10. The Park Police (with the assistance of FCSD officers contracted to work with them) proceeded to assist MPD officers in creating a police line on the north and south sides of Pershing Park. At 9:35 a.m., Murphy radioed the following communication to his fellow Park Police officers: “[C]ar 27 for the officers who have just been deployed in Pershing Park, we’ve established a police line. We’re going to keep the crowd inside Pershing Park. We’re not

going to allow them to come through the police line. We’re working with Metropolitan on this.” Id. 193:6-12. At some point during this period, Murphy saw people coming and going from the south side of the Park and he called additional units to deploy there. Id. 229:13-17. At least as to the west end of the Park, Murphy was also aware that people arrived separately and in different groups. Barham Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 16; Barham Fed. Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 16.

2

Both parties rely extensively on the deposition

testimony of Major Murphy to support their accounts of

the facts though the parties dispute how such testimony

should be characterized.

*2 Between 9:42 a.m. and 10:20 a.m., Murphy met with senior MPD officials on the scene including Assistant Chief Peter Newsham (“AC Newsham”) and Assistant Chief Brian Jordan and he overheard conversations by then Commander Cathy Lanier. Id. 213:7-18. Major Murphy had two separate encounters with AC Newsham between 9:42 and 10:20 a.m. During the first encounter, Newsham asked Murphy if the group in the Park had a permit to demonstrate there and Murphy told him that they did not. Id. 215:5-10. Newsham then asked whether the individuals in the Park could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit. Murphy responded that they technically could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit but the Park Police would not arrest individuals for that offense because it was Park Police policy to inform demonstrators of the violation and order them to disperse prior to any arrests. Id. 218:22-219:13. Murphy also commented to Newsham at that time that it appeared that individuals were being prevented from departing from the area at the time of their conversation. Id. 219:13-15. Newsham then paused and recounted that if the group attempted to go through police lines, they would be arrested for crossing police lines and if they made it to the street, they would be arrested for parading without a permit. Id. 219:17-21. Murphy responded that this was Newsham’s call. Id. 220:2-3. That was the end of the first encounter between Newsham and Murphy.
A little while later, Murphy was again approached by Newsham who informed Murphy that the individuals in the Park were going to be arrested for failure to obey a police order, specifically a traffic regulation, before they entered the Park. Id. 227:5-17. It is undisputed that all persons in the Park were “ultimately surrounded,
2

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
enclosed, were not free to leave and were under arrest.” Barham Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 8; see also Barham Fed. Defs.’ Resp. To Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 8 (noting no dispute). The parties do dispute, however, the role of the Park Police in the arrest and their intent for being at Pershing Park.

B. Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department On September 23, 2002, the FCSD entered into an interagency agreement with the United States Park Police, which was effective from September 25-30, 2002. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 1. The agreement calls for the FCSD to provide “law enforcement assistance on Federal parkland” during the IMF/World Bank demonstrations. Id. ¶ 2. The agreement provides that “[r]esponsibility for the overall law enforcement operations during this event on Federal parkland will remain with the Chief of the Force3 or her designee.” Interagency Agreement ¶ 2. The agreement further provides that the “Officer-in-charge of the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office personnel will have an integral part of any decision making process that could have an effect of its officers, including decisions made with other agencies that may be brought in and made part of the law enforcement detail.” Id. ¶ 2. The agreement also states that the Park Police were requesting the assistance of 26 FCSD officers. Id. ¶ 4.

3

“The Force” is defined in the interagency agreement as

the United States Park Police. See Interagency

Agreement between Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office,

Fairfax, Virginia and the United States Park Police

(“Interagency Agreement”) at 1, Ex. 1 to FCSD’s

Statement of Material Facts.

*3 FCSD Commander Basilio Cachuela was the highest ranking officer on the scene at Pershing Park on September 27. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 8. Cachuela claims that he “reported to” U.S. Park Police Lieutenant Tom Neider. Id. ¶ 9. Lieutenant Neider told Commander Cachuela to deploy FCSD officers to Pershing Park and have those officers “form a perimeter” along the edge of the Park. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts at ¶ 10; Chang Pls.’ Resp. to FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 10; Cachuela Dep. 50:11-19. After FCSD officers formed a perimeter on the north side of the Park, a D.C. police lieutenant said “[n]o one in, no one out.” Cachuela Dep. 53:14-15. Cachuela then “looked at the Lieutenant of the Park Police ... and [the Park Police

Lieutenant] just kind of nodded his head like, okay, we heard that, and then [Cachuela] told [his] guys, you know, we got the word, no one in, no one out.” Id. 53:14-19. FCSD officers remained along the perimeter as MPD officers “funnel[ed] the people in the crowd into Metro buses.” Id. 53:14-54:22. Once the crowd got to a size where FCSD officers were not needed anymore, they left. Id. 54:10-11.
C. Federal Bureau of Investigation The FBI is the lead federal agency responsible for addressing threats or acts of terrorism and crisis management in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 5-6. Prior to the September 27, 2002 demonstrations, the FBI participated in planning meetings where responses to possible scenarios that could arise during demonstrations were discussed. Id. ¶ 8. Based on prior instances of rioting and violence at such events and expected large crowds, the FBI also opened a Counter-Terrorism/Special Events case regarding the IMF/World Bank meetings. Rice Decl. ¶ 4.
During the September 27, 2002 demonstrations, FBI personnel were responsible for various tasks. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 12. FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”) personnel engaged in intelligence gathering through crowd surveillance. Rice Decl. ¶ 7; Gardner Dep. 38:4-39:19. The FBI also provided “liaison and assistance, as requested, to local law enforcement and fire-rescue personnel.” Rice Decl. ¶ 4; Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 7. Specifically, the FBI provided portable fingerprint processing equipment and thirteen FBI employees from the Criminal Justice Information System (“CJIS”) Division to operate that equipment, in order to assist with post-arrest identification of those individuals arrested in Pershing Park. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7; Rice Decl. ¶ 9.
On September 27, 2002, the CJIS “fly-away team” operated portable fingerprint processing stations at the MPD Academy gymnasium where arrestees were detained after their arrest in Pershing Park. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10. CJIS personnel digitally scanned all fingerprint cards for fingerprints taken by the MPD and entered identification data from the cards into the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (“IAFIS”)-an FBI database that matches scanned fingerprints against existing fingerprints in the system. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8. One purpose of the IAFIS system is to
3

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
provide a rapid means of confirming the identity of each arrested individual. Id. ¶ 9.
*4 The FBI criminal history databases contain information regarding the arrest of at least some of the named plaintiffs who were arrested on September 27, 2002. Id. ¶¶ 16-18. Such information is maintained in the FBI’s Fingerprint Identification Records System (“FIRS”) and the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) Interstate Identification Index (“III”). Id. ¶ 14.
Finally, some CJIS personnel took pictures in the MPD gymnasium with their own cameras. Id. ¶ 12. Some of the arrestees appear in some of these photographs. Id. The FBI claims, however, that these photographs are not of individual arrestees, were not taken at the direction of FBI personnel or with FBI equipment. Id.
D. Pending Motions The federal defendants have filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Barham case, Civil Action No. 02-2283, the federal defendants argue in their motion that plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for injunctive relief against the federal defendants, that the Park Police’s actions did not constitute an arrest or seizure, or, alternatively, that the Park Police legitimately responded to a request for assistance from another law enforcement agency. As to the FBI, the federal defendants in the Barham case argue that none of the actions taken by the FBI in processing fingerprints violated any rights of any plaintiffs. Finally, the federal defendants in the Barham case also argue that claims brought against Richard Murphy in his individual capacity should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
In the Chang case, Civil Action No. 02-2010, the federal defendants also argue lack of standing, that the Park Police did not arrest or seize anyone or, alternatively, responded to a legitimate request from law enforcement, and that Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, the federal defendants in the Chang case argue that any claims for money damages against federal organizations and individual defendants in their official capacities are barred on sovereign immunity grounds. The federal defendants in the Chang case further argue that plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 lack merit and plaintiffs’ Due Process, Miranda, and right to

counsel claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The FCSD filed its own motion to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for a more definitive statement in the Chang case. In addition to incorporating the arguments of the federal defendants by reference, the FCSD argues that it should be dismissed from this case based on the application of the borrowed servant doctrine.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Rule 12(b)(1) Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Bernard v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 362 F.Supp.2d 272, 277 (D.D.C.2005). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Rann v. Chao, 154 F.Supp.2d 61, 64 (D.D.C.2001), aff’d, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir.2003). In evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must accept the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Thompson v. Capitol Police Bd., 120 F.Supp.2d 78, 81 (D.D.C.2000). “The court is not required, however, to accept inferences unsupported by the facts alleged or legal conclusions that are cast as factual allegations.” Rann, 154 F.Supp.2d at 64 (citations omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court may “ ‘consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.’ “ Sweeney v. Am. Registry of Pathology, 287 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2003) (citations omitted).
B. Rule 12(b)(6) *5 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). A complaint must present “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” and “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 1974 (2007). The Court will accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and give the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be drawn from the facts alleged. See id. at 1965; Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 422 (D.C.Cir.1996).
4

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
C. Rule 56 Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Waterhouse v. Dist. of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C.Cir.2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Sovereign Immunity in the Chang Case (02-2010) The federal defendants in the Chang case seek dismissal and/or summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds as to plaintiffs’ claims for money damages based on any alleged constitutional violations by federal agencies or individual federal defendants acting in their official capacities. To the extent that plaintiffs seek any damages against the federal law enforcement agencies or individual federal defendants acting in their official capacities for constitutional violations, the Court grants the federal defendants’ motion.
Sovereign immunity bars all suits against the United States unless there is an explicit statutory waiver to such immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). The scope of any such explicit waiver is strictly construed in favor of the government. Id. Moreover, the sovereign immunity bar extends beyond the government itself to federal employees named as defendants in their official capacities. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding that sovereign immunity “bar[s] suits for money damages against officials in their official capacity absent a specific waiver by the government”).
Neither the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., nor the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(b)(1)-(2), provide for waiver of the federal government’s immunity from suit for damages for any constitutional torts committed by federal employees acting in their official capacities. See Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas, 521 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C.Cir.1975) ( “The Administrative Procedure Act, by itself, is not a waiver of sovereign immunity in suits

seeking money damages against the United States.”); Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F.Supp. 1313, 1317 (D.D.C.1985) (“[T]he Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity with respect to constitutional torts.” (citing Laswell v. Brown, 683 F.2d 261, 267-68 (8th Cir.1982); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319, 327-28 (2d Cir.1978)). Plaintiffs provide no other statutory basis for a waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow claims for money damages based on alleged constitutional torts. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs attempt to seek any money damages for alleged constitutional violations committed by federal government agencies or officials acting in their official capacities, such relief is barred.4

4

In their opposition brief, plaintiffs argue that sovereign

immunity does not bar plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive

relief or nonconstititutional torts against the federal

defendants. Plaintiffs do not address, however,

defendants’ argument that money damages are not

available for alleged constitutional torts committed by

federal law enforcement agencies and individuals

acting in their official capacities. Thus, the Court treats

plaintiffs’ silence as a concession as to this argument.

B. Standing for Injunctive Relief Claims in the Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases *6 The federal defendants in both the Chang and Barham cases argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims for injunctive relief against the federal defendants. The Court disagrees.
There are three requirements to establish the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) an alleged injury in fact-a concrete, actual or imminent harm; (2) causation-“a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant”; and (3) redressibility-“a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. Id. at 104. When the plaintiff himself is the object of the alleged injurious government action, however, “there is ordinarily little question that the action ... has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing ... the action will redress it.” Lujan v.. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
In this case, the federal defendants argue that plaintiffs
5

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
fail to prove the causation element required for standing. The federal defendants claim that the decision to prevent plaintiffs from further engaging in First Amendment activities was made by the District of Columbia MPD alone and any arrests were also carried out by the MPD alone. As discussed in more detail below, however, the Park Police officers in Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002 were not merely innocent bystanders. They formed portions of two sides of a box of officers around Pershing Park that prevented hundreds of people from leaving. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the federal defendants “caused” plaintiffs to be arrested when Park Police officers (and Fairfax County police officers contracted to work with them) encircled the Park thereby restraining plaintiffs’ freedom to leave. Accordingly, to the extent the federal defendants challenge plaintiffs’ standing, their motions are denied.
C. Arrests in Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases MPD, Park Police, and FCSD officers jointly participated in the arrest of plaintiffs. A person is arrested or “seized” when a police officer “restrains his freedom to walk away.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968); see also Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 629 (2003) (“A seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v.. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980) (finding that a person is “seized” when, “by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained”). Ultimately, “[w]hether there has been an arrest turns on whether there has been an imposition of custody, and this is a determination made after examining both the objective circumstances and the subjective feeling those circumstances are likely to evoke.” United States v. White, 648 F.2d 29, 33-34 (D.C.Cir.1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled” may be enough to constitute an arrest, as a reasonable person may believe he is not free to leave under such circumstances. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.

*7 Under the circumstances in this case, a reasonable person encircled by law enforcement officers on all sides would not have felt free to leave. This is evident from the statements of individuals who were enclosed in Pershing Park by the Park Police, MPD, and FCSD. For example, plaintiff Sally Norton recounts that police, some of whom were in full riot gear, began tightening the circle around individuals within the Park and were yelling at people within the perimeter to “move in.” Interrogatory Responses of Sally Norton at 7-8, Ex. 24 to Pls.’ Opp’n to Fed. Defs.’ Mot. (Barham case). Police also yelled at individuals: “You cannot leave, move, move” while people were moving backward into the center of the Park. Id. Moreover, the federal defendants do not dispute that an arrest occurred. Instead, they just argue that Park Police did not conduct the arrest.
The Park Police’s arguments that they did not effect an arrest because they had no intent to arrest anyone and they did not prevent individuals from leaving the Park entirely are unavailing. An arrest is an “intentional acquisition of physical control” and the “detention or taking itself must be willful.” Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989). Whether or not the Park Police had an intent to arrest anyone is a fact-intensive question that is, at a minimum, disputed. The federal defendants point to the D.C. Circuit’s earlier characterization of the evidence in the Barham case to argue lack of intent. Specifically, they argue that Major Murphy told MPD AC Newsham that the Park Police “would not initiate arrests” and that the Park Police were only enlisted to “provide backup.” Barham, 434 F.3d 569. As the Circuit Court was not faced with the question of whether or not the Park Police participated in the arrest, reliance on these characterizations are unpersuasive.
Just looking at the testimony of Major Murphy alone raises disputed questions of fact as to the intent of the Park Police in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. Murphy testified that the Park Police were “[n]ot maintaining the arrest of ... individuals” and were “basically securing a perimeter while arrests were being made by other individuals.” Murphy Dep. 243:1-8. Yet, he also testified that he gave orders through various radio transmissions to other Park Police officers to help encircle the individuals within the Park. See Murphy Dep. 181:6-10 (“We’re going to enclose the demonstrators up here in Pershing Park with Metropolitan Police.”); Id. 193:9-12 (“We’re going to keep the crowd inside Pershing Park. We’re not going to allow them to come through the police line. We’re working with Metropolitan
6

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
on this.”); Id. 321:12-18 (admitting that Park Police, MPD and other law enforcement “contained” individuals within Pershing Park). These radio transmissions raise some dispute as to the nature of the Park Police’s actions and their intent in being at Pershing Park.
*8 The fact that the Park Police may have initially had an independent ground for stationing officers at or near Pershing Park other than the mass arrest-namely, to ensure the security of the White House complex-does not free the Park Police from liability for their participation in the arrest. Although the federal defendants argue that the Park Police acted only to prevent demonstrators from moving westward into the White House complex, the facts in evidence create some dispute as to this contention. Park Police and FCSD officers lined portions of both the north and south side of the Park even though the White House was to the west. Moreover, Major Murphy’s radio transmissions directed his officers to encircle individuals within the Park alongside the MPD and the radio transmissions do not direct officers only to prevent individuals from moving in the direction of the White House. Given the evidence presented thus far in the case, the Court cannot say that there is no dispute as to the intent of Murphy and his fellow Park Police officers in participating in the encirclement of individuals within Pershing Park.
The mere fact that the Park Police responded to a request from a high-level MPD official to help enclose the people in Pershing Park rather than independently deciding to take such action does not shield the Park Police from liability for claims of illegal arrest without probable cause. In some circumstances, all of which are distinguishable from this case, officers can rely on another officer’s (or magistrate judge’s) probable cause determination as a basis for an arrest even if the arresting officer was not present when probable cause was established. See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 568 (1971) (finding that officers who assist another officer in executing a warrant “are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause”); United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2001) (finding that an arresting officer in a large police department “might not be aware of all the underlying facts that provided probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but may nonetheless act reasonably in relying on information received by other law enforcement officials”). Probable cause for arrest does not necessarily have to develop in front of the officer who makes the arrest. For example, in Wahab v. City of New

York, 386 F.Supp.2d 277, 287 (S.D.N.Y.2005), the court found that police had probable cause to arrest an individual involved in an altercation in a mall based on a report from a mall security guard that a crime had been committed and a brief description of the altercation. The court held that probable cause is established “when the arresting officer has knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.” Id. at 286 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
*9 In this case, the federal defendants argue that the Park Police could rely on the MPD’s claim of probable cause because AC Newsham told Murphy that individuals were being arrested for disobeying a police order prior to their arrival at Pershing Park. A person of reasonable caution faced with what Major Murphy witnessed himself at Pershing Park would not believe there was probable cause to arrest every single person in the Park. The reasonableness of an officer’s actions is determined based on, among other things, the “information that the officer possesses or to which he has reasonable access.” Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 273 (3d Cir.2000). Although an officer may rely on information obtained from fellow officers, “this in no way negates a police officer’s duty to reasonably inquire or investigate these reported facts.” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1293 n. 16 (9th Cir.1999).
When Murphy arrived at Pershing Park around 9:20 a.m. on the morning of September 27, 2002, he was immediately asked for assistance in holding people in the Park. He deployed Park Police personnel, along with FCSD officers contracted to work with the Park Police, to the north and south sides of the Park without inquiring about the basis for such enclosure. Only after the Park Police, FCSD and MPD began forming a police line to keep the crowd in the Park did Assistant Chief Newsham ask Murphy if the persons inside the Park could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit. Upon being told that the Park Police do not arrest people for demonstrating without a permit without first giving an order to disperse, Newsham then informed Murphy that anyone who got through the police line could be arrested for parading without a permit. Only after exploring these two possible bases for arrest did Newsham tell Murphy that individuals within the Park would be arrested for failing to obey police orders purportedly given to them before they entered the Park.
Although failure to obey a police order is a valid basis for
7

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
arrest, see D.C.Code § 50-2302.02(19), Murphy admits that he had no knowledge of what order each individual failed to obey, when and where such order was given, or whether each and every person subject to arrest had, in fact, violated a specific order. Murphy Dep. 232:3-22. Murphy also admits that he undertook no independent assessment to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest each individual that happened to be in the Park at the time the law enforcement officers encircled them. Id. 233:1-6. Moreover, when Murphy arrived at the Park, individuals were freely coming and going from the Park. Under these circumstances, Murphy cannot point to undisputed facts that suggest that the Park Police had a basis for believing that Pershing Park contained only individuals for whom there was probable cause to make an arrest. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372-73 (2003) (recounting holding in Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979), that a “person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause” as to that person and that “seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person”); cf. Barham, 434 F.3d at 577 (finding a genuine issue of fact preventing summary judgment based on whether Chief Ramsey “knew there was no basis for believing Pershing Park contained only individuals for whom there was probable cause to make an arrest”). Accordingly, the federal defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on an argument that the Park Police were relying on a probable cause determination already made by Newsham.
D. Major Murphy’s Immunity Claim for Pershing Park Arrests in Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases *10 Murphy, who has been sued in his individual capacity, claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ “ Int’l Action Ctr. v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 24 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In Barham, when rejecting qualified immunity for Newsham, the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s two-part inquiry in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), for determining whether a government official is protected by qualified immunity. See Barham, 434 F.3d at 572. First, the Court must address a “threshold question: Taken in the light most

favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Second, and only if the first question is answered in the affirmative, the Court asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. In evaluating the second prong of the inquiry, the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). The relevant inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted .” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.
As to Newsham, the D.C. Circuit held that the threshold question of whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right must be answered in the affirmative. Barham, 434 F.3d at 572-73. The Circuit also held that the “mass arrest at Pershing Park violated the clearly established rights of plaintiffs by detaining them without probable cause.” Barham, 434 F.3d at 573. The Circuit rejected Newsham’s argument that there was probable cause for the arrests based on the failure of plaintiffs to obey a police order. Id. at 574. The Circuit held that Newsham had presented “no facts capable of supporting the proposition that Newsham had reasonable, particularized grounds to believe every one of the 386 people arrested was observed committing a crime.” Id. The Circuit also points to the fluidity of movement in and around the park preceding the arrests as a further basis for discrediting any attempt to argue probable cause. Id.
With the Circuit having already decided that qualified immunity was not warranted for Newsham’s conduct, this Court must determine whether Murphy’s role in the arrests on September 27, 2002 differs in any significant way that suggests that he should receive qualified immunity when Newsham did not. The Court finds no relevant distinction in Murphy’s conduct that calls for such immunity. When Murphy arrived at the Park, he saw people coming and going from the Park. Murphy undertook no independent assessment to determine whether probable cause was warranted prior to ordering his officers to help encircle the approximately 400 individuals in the Park. Murphy knew that no order to disperse had been given. Murphy also saw no violent activity by individuals within the Park. Murphy was told by Newsham that individuals in the Park were being arrested for failure to obey a police order but he did not know which order, who disobeyed or when or where this disobedience occurred. Based on Murphy’s own
8

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
observations preceding and during the mass arrest of the individuals in the Park, it was objectively unreasonable for him to participate in the mass arrest solely relying on Newsham’s representations that all of the individuals in the Park were being arrested for failure to obey a police order. It was not reasonable for Murphy to believe that there was particularized probable cause to arrest every individual in the Park or that he did not have a duty to reasonably inquire or investigate what was told to him by Newsham. See Mendocino Envt’l Ctr., 192 F.3d at 1293 n. 16 (noting that the 9th Circuit has denied qualified immunity “to police officers who indisputably relied on information obtained from other law enforcement officials, when [the court] concluded that they violated their duty to conduct further investigation”). Murphy cannot participate in a mass arrest not supported by probable cause and then shift all responsibility to Newsham, whom he did not question despite his own observations. Accordingly, the Court denies qualified immunity to Murphy.
E. Section 1983 Claim Against Murphy in Barham Case (02-2283) *11 Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from Murphy pursuant to Bivens or, in the alternative, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ alternative claim against Murphy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because there is no evidence that Murphy was acting under color of state law at the time of the events alleged in plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The Court disagrees.
To sustain a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was acting “under color of” state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 412, 414-415 (D.C.Cir.2005). Circuit courts that have looked at whether defendants have acted under color of state law have “focused on whether these defendants are state officials or have conspired with state officials in committing the alleged illegal acts.” Williams, 396 F.3d at 414. A joint conspiracy between federal and state officials can form the basis of a Section 1983 action when the state or its officials play a significant role in the violation at issue. See Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436, 448-49 (2d Cir .1969).
In this case, there is evidence that state and federal officials acted in concert to seize the individuals within Pershing Park without probable cause. State officials certainly played a significant role in the alleged violation

of constitutional rights as has already been determined by the D.C. Circuit in Barham, 434 F.3d 565. Murphy himself asserts that his actions in ordering officers to form part of the line encircling individuals within the Park were at the encouragement and request of D.C. officials. As such, the Court denies summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against Murphy.
F. Equitable Relief Against the FBI in the Barham Case (02-2283) In their Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the FBI used the mass arrests in Pershing Park as a mass intelligence gathering operation. Third Am. Compl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs further allege that federal agents worked in concert with the MPD to collect photographs, fingerprints, and other information about political activists. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 152. As a result, plaintiffs seek equitable relief that would expunge all arrest records and derivative records, including intelligence records, that were derived from the September 27, 2002 arrests. Plaintiffs seek to prevent reputational and other harms as a result of these records. Plaintiffs also note that there has been little deposition discovery on this issue because of the general stay on discovery that was in place.
The FBI counters that plaintiffs’ claim against the FBI fails because the FBI only performed the task of processing fingerprints in the ordinary course of business and did not engage in any violations of plaintiffs’ rights. At this stage, without full discovery on this issue, the Court finds that defendants’ motion is premature. As the FBI has control of the records plaintiffs wish to have expunged, the FBI is a proper party in this case, at least for the time being. Accordingly, the Court denies the federal defendants’ motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the FBI from the case. This denial is without prejudice to reconsideration at the close of discovery.
G. Remaining Claims Against Federal Defendants in the Chang Case (02-2010) *12 The federal defendants in the Chang case also move for dismissal of or judgment on plaintiffs’ claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and claims involving violations of Due Process, the right to counsel, and Miranda rights. The Court finds that it is premature to address the conspiracy and Due Process claims until after the close of discovery. The right to counsel and Miranda claims, however, fail to state a claim upon which relief
9

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

can be granted and are therefore dismissed.5

5

The Chang plaintiffs admit in their opposition brief that

the federal defendants “have a strong objection to these

counts and, indeed, [p]laintiffs are considering a

voluntary waiver of these claims as to them.” Chang

Pls.’ Opp’n to Fed. Defs.’ Renewed Mot. to Dismiss,

or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J. at 41.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated their rights by failing to inform plaintiffs of their Miranda rights prior to their arrest. No cause of action exists, however, for the failure to provide Miranda warnings prior to an arrest. Instead, Miranda merely provides for the exclusion from trial of statements made by a criminal defendant during a custodial interrogation if those statements were obtained in the absence of procedural safeguards designed to protect the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The right to receive Miranda warnings is not a constitutional right in and of itself. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 772 (2003) (finding that “Chavez’s failure to read Miranda warnings to Martinez did not violate Martinez’s constitutional rights and cannot be grounds for a § 1983 action”).
Plaintiffs’ claimed violation of the right to counsel also fails. The right to counsel “attaches only at or after the time adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a person.” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688 (1972). In this case, there is no dispute that no adverse judicial proceedings were ever brought against any of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court grants the federal defendants’ motion in the Chang case to the extent it seeks dismissal of the right to counsel and Miranda claims.

H. FCSD’s Motion in the Chang Case (02-2010) In its motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for a more definitive statement, the FCSD incorporates by reference the motions filed by the federal defendants in the Chang case. The Court has already ruled on these motions as indicated above and accordingly addresses only FCSD’s argument under the borrowed servant doctrine in this section. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies FCSD’s motion as to the borrowed servant doctrine.6

6

Because the Court has considered the extrinsic

evidence submitted by the parties in support of their

briefs, the Court treats this motion as one for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs were on notice that FCSD’s motion

was at least potentially one for summary judgment and

they submitted their own evidence in support of their

opposition. See Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 168

(D.C.Cir.2006).

1. Borrowed servant doctrine Under the law of agency, “a person who is generally the servant of one master [ ] can become the ‘borrowed’ servant of another.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.Cir.1977). If the “borrowed servant commits a tort while carrying out the bidding of the borrower, vicarious liability for that tort attaches to the borrower and not the general master.” Id. However, “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve the abandonment of service to the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 226.7 Whether one party is the “sole master to whom liability can attach ... is usually a question of fact, generally to be decided by the jury.” Dellums, 566 F.2d at 220; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03 cmt. d(2) (“It is a question of fact whether a general or a special employer, or both, have the right to control an employee’s conduct.”).

7

Although the Restatement (Second) of Agency has

been superceded by the Restatement (Third) of Agency,

the latter still recognizes the borrowed servant doctrine

and the possibility that both the general employer and

the borrowed (or special) employer can be liable for the

same act. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03

cmt. d.

*13 In this case, the facts are in dispute as to whether the Park Police, FCSD, or both, were in control of FCSD officers at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. Although the Interagency Agreement entered into between the Park Police and FCSD provides that “[r]esponsibility for overall law enforcement events will remain with the Chief” of the Park Police, Interagency Agreement at 1, it also provides that “[t]he Officer-in-charge of the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office personnel will have an integral part of any decision making process that could have an effect on its officers....” Interagency Agreement ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
10

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Under the terms of the Interagency Agreement, FCSD did not give up all direction and control over its officers to the Park Police.
The testimony of the officers on the scene at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002 also raises a factual dispute as to whether the Park Police were in sole or shared control of the FCSD officers. Major Murphy testified in his deposition that the “Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office was under the control and direction of the Park Police during the demonstrations,” Murphy Dep. 514:2-5, and that Murphy could “essentially order the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office to deploy in particular ways,” id. 514:8-11. Murphy also testified, however, that Park Police Lieutenant Nieder, not Murphy, was the one coordinating with the FCSD officers on September 27, id. 521:12-19, that the FCSD officers had their own command structure, id. 523:21-524:4, and that FCSD officers remained together in a cohesive unit, id. 524:8-12. Moreover, Basillo Cachuela-ranking commander of the FCSD on September 27-testified that he told his guys “no one in, no one out” after hearing such a command from a D.C. police lieutenant and getting just a nod from the Park Police lieutenant, Cachuela Dep. 53:14-20, suggesting that Cachuela was still in command of and gave orders to his own officers, even if that command and control was shared with the Park Police.
The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to who was in control of the FCSD officers and whether such control was shared or joint. Accordingly, the Court denies summary judgment to FCSD based on the borrowed servant doctrine.8

8

Based on FCSD’s claim that it was just a borrowed

servant of the Park Police and that its officers were

deputized by the U.S. Marshal’s Service, FCSD claims

that it is entitled to dismissal of plaintiffs’ case based

on sovereign immunity and the protections of the

Federal Tort Claims Act. Because the facts underlying

the applicability of the borrowed servant doctrine are in

dispute, the Court declines to extend sovereign

immunity or FTCA protection to the FCSD at this time.

2. Proximate cause and standing FCSD argues that plaintiffs cannot establish a proximate cause between the actions of inactions of FCSD officers

and plaintiffs’ injuries and that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring any claims for injunctive relief against FCSD. To the same extent that the Park Police were involved in plaintiffs’ arrest and/or seizure, FCSD was also involved. Accordingly, the Court rejects FCSD’s arguments that plaintiffs do not have standing and/or cannot show a proximate cause between their alleged injuries and FCSD’s conduct.
3. More definitive statement Pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FCSD argues that plaintiffs should be required to provide a more definitive statement as to which allegations in the Third Amended Complaint apply to which defendants. Rule 12(e) provides that motions for a more definitive statement are appropriate only where a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). In general, motions for a more definitive statement are “looked upon with disfavor and are rarely granted in light of the notice-pleading framework of the federal rules.” Towers Tenant Ass’n v. Towers Ltd. P’ship, 563 F.Supp. 566, 569 (D.D.C.1983). “[M]ere lack of detail” is not a sufficient basis for granting a motion for a more definitive statement. Id. at 569.
*14 The complaint in this case is more than sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All defendants are on notice as to the factual allegations underlying plaintiffs’ claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court denies FCSD’s motion to the extent it seeks a more definitive statement from plaintiffs.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the federal defendants’ motion in the Barham case (Civ. Action No. 02-2283), GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the federal defendants’ motion in the Chang case (Civ. Action No. 02-2010), and DENIES Fairfax County’s motion in the Chang case (Civ. Action No. 02-2010). An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
	  

11

 
 Chang v. U.S., 512 F.Supp.2d 62 (2007)

512 F.Supp.2d 62 United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS). | Oct. 2, 2007.
Synopsis Background: Arrestees brought action against the United States, National Park Service (NPS), Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), and various federal and local officials, alleging various constitutional, statutory, and common law violations stemming from arrests during demonstration. Non-party moved to quash subpoena.
[Holding:] The District Court, Sullivan, J., held that documents sought were shielded from production under District of Columbia’s speech and debate statute.
Motion granted.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*63 Daniel C. Schwartz, Scott M. Badami, Jacob A. Kramer, Nikki A. Ott, David Alan Zetoony, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Michelle Nicole Johnson, Gary Philip-Matthew Corn, Peter S. Smith, United States Attorney’s Office, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Marina Utgoff Braswell, Leah Brownlee Taylor, Thomas Louis Koger, Robert C. Utiger, U.S. Attorneys Office for the District Of Columbia, Jayme Kantor, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Attorney General, Martha J. Mullen, Office of Corporation Counsel, Robert E. Deso, Deso, Buckley & Stien, John Martin Faust, Mark H. Tuohey, III, Justin M. Shellaway, Vinson & Elkins, LLP Washington, DC, Alexander Francuzenko, Kevin J. O’Connell, O’Connell, O’Conell & Sarsfield, Rockville, MD, for Defendants.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SULLIVAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is non-party Mary Cheh’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, and a cross-motion to enforce the subpoena filed by Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Executive Assistant Chief Michael J. Fitzgerald and Assistant Chief Brian K. Jordan. Defendants seek documents in the possession of Mary Cheh relating to her service as Special Counsel for an investigation conducted by the Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on the Judiciary (“Committee”).
On April 28, 2003, the Committee authorized an investigation into the policies and practices of the MPD in handling mass demonstrations. Mary Cheh, a Professor of Law at George Washington University (“GWU”) Law School, was appointed by Committee Chairwoman Kathy Patterson, to serve as Special Counsel to the Committee in the investigation. Between July 2003 and March 2004, the Committee engaged in fact-finding, which included the issuance of subpoenas for documents in the *64 possession of the MPD and other DC executive branch agencies, the taking of written and oral depositions of numerous witnesses, and two days of public hearings. The Committee also reviewed over 5,000 pages of documents. Professor Cheh was involved in all aspects of the investigation. She served as lead counsel at the depositions and was involved in the questioning of witnesses at the public hearings.
On March 24, 2004, the Committee issued its “Report on Investigation of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in the District of Columbia.” Less than two weeks later, on April 6, 2004, the Council of the District of Columbia adopted a resolution authorizing the Committee to conduct a Special Project to develop legislation to implement the recommendations in the Report. The Special Project resulted in legislation entitled the “First Amendment Rights and Policy Standards Act of 2004,” which was adopted by the Council on December 21, 2004. The Act became D.C. Law 15-352 on April 13, 2005.
On September 24, 2004, Professor Cheh delivered an
1

Chang v. U.S., 512 F.Supp.2d 62 (2007)
address entitled “A Legislative Investigation Into Police Handling of Mass Demonstrations and Protests-Lessons From the District of Columbia,” as a part of the GWU American Constitution Society (“ACS”) 2004/2005 Faculty Series. The speech was free and open to the entire university community.
On September 6, 2005, defendants Fitzgerald and Jordan caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served upon Professor Cheh. The subpoena calls for production of 35 categories of documents, most of which relate to the Committee’s investigation. In addition to seeking documents in Cheh’s possession related to the Committee investigation, defendants also seek documents that Cheh “considered, utilized, and/or relied upon in preparing and/or delivering” her September 2004 speech and documents reflecting or related to communications between Cheh and the Council of the Committee regarding her speech. See Attachment A to Subpoena to Mary Cheh, at 1 ¶¶ 1-3, Ex. A to Mot. to Quash.
[1] [2] [3] The Court finds that the documents that defendants seek are shielded from production pursuant to the legislative immunity accorded to Professor Cheh under the District of Columbia Speech or Debate Clause. See D.C. Official Code § 1-301.42. This statute provides that “[f]or any speech or debate made in the course of their legislative duties, the members of the Council shall not be questioned in any other place.” Id. The legislative history and the case law interpreting this statute make it clear that it is modeled on the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, see U.S. Const. Art. I § 6, cl. 1, and that the statute was intended to be interpreted liberally, so as to protect “ ‘genuine legislative functions ... which are exercised beyond the mere confines of the Council Chambers or a committee meeting place.’ ” Alliance for Global Justice v. District of Columbia, 437 F.Supp.2d 32, 35 (D.D.C.2006) (quoting Report on Bill No. 1-34, “Legislative Privilege Act of 1975,” Comm. on the Judiciary & Criminal Law, Council of the District of Columbia at 1 (Dec. 4, 1975)). However, the scope of this immunity only extends to conduct which is within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 312-13, 93 S.Ct. 2018, 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973).
Section 1-301.4(b) of the D.C. Official Code defines the term “legislative duties” as follows:
“Legislative duties” shall include responsibilities of each member of

the Council in the exercise of such

member’s functions as a legislative

representative, including *65 but

not limited to: Everything said,

written or done during legislative

sessions,

meetings,

or

investigations of the Council or any

committee of the Council, and

everything said, written, or done in

the process of drafting and

publishing legislation and

legislative reports.

D.C. Official Code § 1-301.4(b) (emphasis added).
[4] [5] The District’s Speech or Debate Clause, like its model in the U.S. Constitution, provides broad legislative immunity. The immunity extends beyond Council members to legislative aids, both present or former. See Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 507, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975); MINPECO v. Conticommodity Servs., 844 F.2d 856, 861 (D.C.Cir.1988). Furthermore, because legislative immunity not only prohibits compelled testimony, but also the compelled production of documents, documents requested pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum may be protected. MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 859; Maddox v. Williams, 855 F.Supp. 406, 412-13 (D.D.C.1994).

In MINPECO, defendants in a civil case subpoenaed records of a Congressional subcommittee to establish that a published report of sworn testimony taken before the subcommittee had been substantively-and presumably, fraudulently-altered prior to its publication by the subcommittee. 844 F.2d at 857. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court’s granting of the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum stating:

(W)e today decline to command the disclosure of information to test the accuracy of the printed statement. As the preparation of the statement for publication in the subcommittee report was part of the legislative process, that is the end of the matter. It is the responsibility of Congress, not of the Courts, to assure the integrity of its report.

MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 861.

2

Chang v. U.S., 512 F.Supp.2d 62 (2007)
Here, the stated purpose for the subpoena is to obtain information from Cheh that defendants would use to discredit the investigation report issued by the Committee on the Judiciary. Cross-Motion to Enforce P. & A. at 19. This is exactly the issue presented in MINPECO. In MINPECO, it was argued that the dissemination of the subcommittee report to the Attorney General took it out of the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause’s protection. The Court rejected that argument, stating:
While a member of Congress or of a congressional staff may well be required, in appropriate situations, to testify as to the circumstances of an unprotected act, they may not be compelled to provide evidence that would compromise the protection extended by the Constitution to the legislative process itself. As the preparation and publication of the Bledsoe statement fall within the sphere of the subcommittee’s legislative activities, the fact of its transmittal to the Attorney General does not entitle the Hunts to the information they seek. “Once the legislative act test is met, the principle is absolute,” and it matters not that the subcommittee chairman’s act may itself be unprotected.
MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 862 (citations omitted).
In this case, the Court finds that Cheh is accorded the same legislative immunity enjoyed by Council members or former legislative aides because she was appointed and authorized by the Committee to conduct an investigation of MPD policy and practices. Moreover, the documents that she used in her investigation are protected under this immunity because they were collected and used during the course of the Committee’s *66 investigation and therefore fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
Defendants’ two arguments for why legislative immunity should not apply are unavailing. Defendants first argue that any documents Cheh has retained in her personal files after the conclusion of the investigation are no longer protected by legislative immunity. Defendants further argue that because Professor Cheh gave a public speech

on the same subject matter, she has waived her immunity.
[6] The D.C. Speech or Debate Clause, playing the same role as the Speech or Debate Clause in the U.S. Constitution, excludes “inquiry ... into the motivation for” acts “that occur in the regular course of the legislative process.” United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 487, 99 S.Ct. 2432, 61 L.Ed.2d 12 (1979). By trying to get access to documents in the former Special Counsel’s possession related to a legislative investigation, defendants are attempting to inquire into the motivations underlying the Committee’s report and the D.C. law that was adopted as a result of the investigation. The Court declines to accept defendants invitation to whittle away at the contours of legislative immunity by allowing defendants to intrude into the legislative process through a back door. Professor Cheh’s investigation was squarely within the confines of legislative activity protected under the Speech or Debate Clause. The mere fact that Professor Cheh gave a speech on the same subject matter as the Council’s investigation of which she was a central part once she was no longer Special Counsel or that she may retain documents or work product from that investigation does not mean that she has somehow waived the legislative immunity to which she and the Committee for which she served as Special Counsel are entitled. To find otherwise would severely undermine the purposes of legislative immunity.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion of Mary Cheh to Quash Subpoena is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Cross-Motion of Fitzgerald and Jordan to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mary Cheh is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
	  

3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 331 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

RAYMING CHANG, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

Civ. Action No. 02-02010 (EGS)(AK)

:

UNITED STATES, et al.

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, RayMing Chang, Young Choi, Leanne Lee, and Christopher Zarconi, by and

through their undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismiss with prejudice their claims set

forth in their Fourth Claim For Relief (Failure To Provide Miranda Warning) and Fifth Claim

For Relief (Right To Counsel) of the Third Amended Complaint, as against defendants District

of Columbia, Michael J. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and

Michael Smith, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii).

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar 417674) 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052
s/Daniel C. Schwartz Daniel C. Schwartz (D.C. Bar 017749) Jacob A. Kramer (D.C. Bar 494050) BRYAN CAVE LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 508-6000
Counsel for Plaintiffs RayMing Chang, Young Choi, Leanne Lee, and Christopher Zarconi

LINDA SINGER Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
s/ Ellen A. Efros ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Chief, Equity Section I
s/ Thomas L. Koger ___________ THOMAS L. KOGER [427921] Senior Assistant Attorney General 441 4th Street, N.W., Sixth Floor

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 331 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 2
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610
Counsel for Defendants District of Columbia, Michael J. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith

 
 Chang v. U.S., 246 F.R.D. 372 (2007)

246 F.R.D. 372 United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Jeffrey Barham, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Charles H. Ramsey, et al., Defendants.
Civ. Action Nos. 02-2010 (EGS), 02-2283(EGS). | Nov. 21, 2007.
Synopsis Background: Arrested demonstrators sued District of Columbia, claiming civil rights violations. Demonstrators filed notice of deposition of designated District witnesses, and District moved to preclude questions regarding decision not to prosecute arrestees and creation of infraction notices issued to demonstrators.

Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
This case arises from arrests in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 during demonstrations in connection with World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who were arrested during the morning of the demonstrations. Plaintiffs claim violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as *373 false arrest, imprisonment, and conversion. Pending before the Court is defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order pertaining to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition noticed by the plaintiffs. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Holding: The District Court, Emmet G. Sullivan, J., held that questioning was barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Motion granted.
See, also, 246 F.R.D. 60.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*372 Daniel C. Schwartz, Scott M. Badami, Jacob A. Kramer, Katherine Joanne Seikaly, Nikki A. Ott, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Michelle Nicole Johnson, Gary Philip-Matthew Corn, Marina Utgoff Braswell, Peter S. Smith, United States Attorney’s Office, Leah Brownlee Taylor, Robert C. Utiger, Jayme Kantor, Thomas Louis Koger, D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Martha J. Mullen, Office of Corporation Counsel, Robert E. Deso, Deso, Buckley & Stien, John Martin Faust, Mark H. Tuohey, III, Justin M. Shellaway, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connell, Oconell & Sarsfield, Rockville, MD, for Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND The D.C. Circuit’s January 13, 2006 opinion details the events at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002, the aftermath of such events, and the involvement of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C.Cir.2006). Discovery has been ongoing in this case for several years and the case is now nearing a posture for trial.
On October 30, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) stating their intent to depose individuals designated to testify on behalf of the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”). The District of Columbia now moves the Court for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to limit the scope of the noticed deposition. Plaintiffs’ notice seeks to inquire about three topics relating to the arrests. Defendant’s motion concerns only topics one and three. Specifically, topic number one inquires about the “decision ... to prosecute or not prosecute those persons arrested at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 and the reasons therefore.” Topic number three seeks information regarding the “creation of Notices of Infraction for persons arrested on September 27, 2002.” Pl.s’ Joint Notice of Deposition, at 2-3.
1

Chang v. U.S., 246 F.R.D. 372 (2007)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The Rule goes on to state that a party may seek a protective order from the Court, upon a showing of good cause, to protect the party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by ordering, inter alia, “that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). It is pursuant to this provision that defendant seeks a protective order, limiting the scope of plaintiffs’ noticed deposition to prohibit any inquiry under topic number one (the decision not to prosecute class members) and allowing only limited inquiry under topic number three (the creation of Notices of Infraction)1.

1

The Court relies on defendant’s representation in its

reply to the Barham plaintiffs’ opposition that some

inquiry will be allowed regarding the creation of the

Notices of Infraction so long as the questions do not

implicate the OAG’s decision not to prosecute

plaintiffs. See Def.’s reply at 4. (“Conversely, to the

extent that inquiry in this area may not be related to

decisions whether or not to initiate prosecutions, the

District will produce witnesses on Topic Number 3.”)

III. ANALYSIS In support of its motion for a protective order, defendant contends that topics number one and three of the Notice of Deposition improperly inquire into areas protected by prosecutorial immunity. Defendant argues that because a prosecutor’s decision to initiate prosecution is subject to absolute immunity, they are equally shielded from discovery into the basis for that decision. The Court agrees.
In initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). To hold otherwise would “prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.” Id. at 427-28, 96 S.Ct. 984. “The purpose of conferring absolute

immunity is to protect officials not only from ultimate liability but also from all the time-consuming, distracting, and unpleasant *374 aspects of a lawsuit, including discovery.” District of Columbia v. Jones, 919 A.2d 604, 611 (D.C.2007).
Plaintiffs contend they are neither alleging prosecutorial misconduct nor seeking recovery from the District based on the prosecutors’ decisions, and therefore immunity is not implicated. The Court rejects this overly narrow view of the absolute immunity conferred on prosecutors performing advocacy functions. The reason absolute immunity defeats a case at the outset, as opposed to after trial, is in part to spare the official the tribulation and expense of defending the suit at all. Requiring prosecutors to defend their prosecutorial discretion in a litigation setting, regardless of whether they are the named defendants, implicates the same concerns the Supreme Court articulated in Imbler. Namely, the Court feared that “harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Id. at 423, 96 S.Ct. 984. See also Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 576 (D.C.Cir.2001). As the parties in this case are well aware, discovery in civil actions can be a lengthy and burdensome experience. This Circuit has observed that “[e]ven the need to find the time and money for a defense would have a chilling, if not paralyzing, effect on an official’s willingness to speak out, in the exercise of his discretion, to further the public interest.” Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enter., Inc. v. Smithsonian Inst., 566 F.2d 289, 292 (D.C.Cir.1977).
The Court finds that the principles of prosecutorial immunity are meant to ensure that neither the specter of damages liability nor the litigation process itself weakens the prosecutor’s ability to engage in the “vigorous decision-making” required by the office. See Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 193 (D.C.Cir.1995). “Whether to present a case to a grand jury, whether to file an information, whether and when to prosecute, whether to dismiss an indictment against particular defendants, which witnesses to call, and what other evidence to present are advocatory decisions” and thus absolutely immunized. Id. at 193 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984). Because topic number one of plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition inquires directly into these immunized decisions, the Court finds that a protective order is warranted. In so far as questions under topic number three make similar inquiries, they will be likewise prohibited.
2

Chang v. U.S., 246 F.R.D. 372 (2007)

IV. CONCLUSION The information sought in topics number one and three of plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition dated October 30, 2007 is protected by prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly,
End	  of	  Document	   	  

defendant’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
	  
©	  2014	  Thomson	  Reuters.	  No	  claim	  to	  original	  U.S.	  Government	  Works.	   	  

3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 381 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 4 Case 1:02-cv-0201 O-EGS-AK Document 377-2 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs,

JAN \ 0 2008
NANCY MAYER WHlTIINGTON. Cl£R\\ U.S. DISTRICT COURT

v.

Civ. Action No. 02-02010 (EGS)(AK)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eta!.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Upon due consideration of the Motion of Defendant District of Columbia For An

Order Providing For Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding

Defendants From Opposing Plaintiffs Motion For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny

q__n_i~__ Having Been Arrested And/Or For The Sealing Of Their D.C. Superior Court Arrest

Records and the record herein, it is this _ _ _ _ _

day of January,

2008,

ORDERED that:

1. The District of Columbia shall provide for the expungement of the Chang Plaintiffs arrest records relating to the September 27, 2002 arrests that are maintained by the District of Columbia within ten days of the last of these events: entry of final judgment by this Court regarding all Plaintiffs' claims herein; disposition of all appeals; denial of any appeal or petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States;
2. The District of Columbia shall restrict access to the September 27,2002 arrest records of the Chang Plaintiffs to the arrestees, their counsel, and counsel for

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 381 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 4 Case 1:02-cv-0201 O-EGS-AK Document 377-2 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 2 of 4

any party in this case or in Barham v. Ramsey, 02cv2283 (EGS). This access should be

limited to that reasonably needed for the prosecution or defense of the matters relating

to the litigation of this case or Barham.

3.

The arrests of the Chang Plaintiffs on September 27, 2002 are hereby

declared null and void. Each of the Chang Plaintiffs (RayMing Chang, Leanne Lee,

Chris Zarconi, and Young Choi) are authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her

arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud, or other offense

premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any query, whether posed

orally or in writing. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for the limited

purpose of enforcing the rights of the Chang Plaintiffs under this paragraph;

4.

Counsel for the Chang Plaintiffs will file with the Clerk of the Court,

under seal, paper copies of draft orders, one for each Chang Plaintiff, bearing the case

caption and stating as follows:

ORDER

The arrest of [insert name, date of birth, and social security number] on September 27, 2002, in the District of Columbia is hereby declared null and void. [Mr. or Ms. insert last name] is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud, or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any query, whether posed orally or in writing.

So Ordered on this __ day of_ _ _ _ _ _, 2008.

EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge
When signed, the Clerk will file the orders under seal, and mail certified copies to
counsel for Plaintiffs;

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 381 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 4 Case 1:02-cv-0201 O-EGS-AK Document 377-2 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 3 of 4

5. The District of Columbia is to use its best efforts to procure the

expungement ofthe September 27,2002 arrest records of any Pershing Park case Plaintiff

in the possession of the United States Government (including, but not limited to, the

Federal Bureau oflnvestigation), any state or local government within ten days of the last

of these events: entry of final judgment by this Court regarding all Plaintiffs' claims

herein, disposition of all appeals; denial of any appeal or petitions for writ of certiorari to

the Supreme Court ofthe United States;

6.

The District of Columbia is to inform the Chang Plaintiffs, through

counsel, if they are unable to procure the expungement of the Chang Plaintiffs' arrest

records maintained by the United States government andlor other state or local law

enforcement agencies for any reason. Ifthey are unable to procure such expungement, the

District of Columbia is directed to describe, in writing, the agencies that maintain

records, the types of records maintained, the reasons for the failure to expunge, and the

steps taken by the District to have the records expunged.

7.

The Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") shall, upon the

commencement of its efforts to expunge the records of the Chang Plaintiffs, provide the

FBI with a list of individuals arrested in Pershing Park by the MPD on September 27,

2002 whose arrest records are to be expunged. Upon receipt of the list, the FBI shall

expunge from its records and databases all records pertaining to the arrest on September

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 381 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-AK Document 377-2 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
27,2002 ofthe individuals identi leaer~le
United States District Judge
Serve on: All Counsel of Record

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 465 Filed 05/27/09 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ (1) motion to

compel the production of materials withheld by the District of

Columbia (“District Motion”), and (2) motion to compel the

production of FBI materials withheld by the United States (“FBI

Motion”). Upon consideration of the motions, the responses and

replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record

herein, it is by the Court hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ District Motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Substantially for the reasons articulated by Plaintiffs, the

Court concludes that the District has failed to properly invoke

either the law enforcement privilege or the deliberative process

privilege with respect to the documents identified in Exhibit G

to Plaintiffs’ District Motion. See, e.g., Landry v. Fed.

Deposit Ins. Corp., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 465 Filed 05/27/09 Page 2 of 4
(explaining that assertion of either privilege requires, inter alia, “a detailed specification of the information for which the privilege is claimed, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege” (emphasis added)). The District shall therefore produce to Plaintiffs all of the documents identified in Exhibit G to Plaintiffs’ District Motion, in unredacted form, by no later than May 29, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The documents shall be subject to an appropriate protective order agreed upon by the parties and submitted to the Court for approval by no later than May 29, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. In the event the parties are unable to agree on the terms of an appropriate protective order, they shall submit their separate proposals to the Court by that time. The Court emphasizes that this Order is premised on the documents being produced subject to an appropriate protective order and that the documents shall not be disseminated to anyone not subject to such order. It is further
ORDERED that the District shall produce to the Court for in camera inspection all documents identified in Exhibit H to Plaintiffs’ District Motion. The documents identified in Exhibit H shall be produced to the Court in unredacted form by no later than May 29, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. The Court will review those documents and notify the parties as to its ruling in due course.

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 465 Filed 05/27/09 Page 3 of 4
It is further ORDERED that the District pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable
expenses incurred in making both Plaintiffs’ original motion to compel and the instant motion, including attorneys’ fees, the amount for which shall be determined at a future date. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ FBI Motion is DENIED IN PART. Substantially for the reasons articulated by the FBI in its opposition to Plaintiffs’ FBI Motion, the Court concludes that the FBI has adequately invoked the law enforcement privilege with respect to the documents identified in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ FBI Motion. See Graham v. Mukasey, 247 F.R.D. 205, 207-08 (D.D.C. 2008) (concluding that the FBI’s use of deletion codes provided the magistrate judge with sufficient information to determine that the agency’s privilege claims were reasonable). It is further
ORDERED that the FBI shall produce to the Court for in camera inspection all documents identified in Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ FBI Motion. The documents identified in Exhibit B shall be produced to the Court in unredacted form by no later than May 29, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. The Court will review those documents and notify the parties as to its ruling in due course.
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 465 Filed 05/27/09 Page 4 of 4

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge May 27, 2009

4

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) Civil Action No. 02-2010 (EGS/AK)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia (“Motion to Compel District documents”) [434], Defendants’ Opposition [444], Plaintiffs’ Reply [448], Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Materials Withheld by the United States (“Motion to Compel FBI documents”) [449], Non-Party FBI’s Opposition [457], and Plaintiffs’ Reply [461].

I. Procedural Background Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel District documents on March 9, 2009, and their
Motion to Compel FBI documents on April 2, 2009. The District of Columbia (the “District”) filed its opposition on March 24, 2009, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation filed its opposition on April 22, 2009, each asserting law enforcement privilege and deliberative process privilege with respect to the documents requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs replied to the District of Columbia on March 31, 2009, and to the FBI on May 1, 2009. By Memorandum Order [465],

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 2 of 8
dated May 27, 2009, the trial court ordered the District and the FBI to produce to the Court in unredacted form, documents identified in Exhibit H to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel District documents and documents identified in Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel FBI documents for an in camera review to determine the applicability of privileges asserted by the District and the FBI. This case was referred to the undersigned for an in camera review of the documents produced pursuant to the trial court’s May 27, 2009 Order and in connection with Plaintiffs’ motions to compel against the District of Columbia and the FBI to determine whether any documents should be produced to the Chang Plaintiffs. The contested documents were subsequently produced, and the Court has completed its in camera review.
II. Case Background This case arises from events occurring on September 27, 2002, when approximately 3,000
to 5,000 people demonstrated in the District of Columbia against the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United States Government. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 46.) Plaintiffs, seven students from George Washington University, were arrested at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park, located on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., between 14th and 15th Streets, N.W. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 76-82.) Plaintiffs filed suit against the United States, the District of Columbia, the National Park Service, and officers of the Park Police and Metropolitan Police Department, alleging violations of their Constitutional rights, Conspiracy, Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy, False Arrest, and False Imprisonment. (Pl. Am. Compl. at 28-37.) III. Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize discovery “regarding any non-privileged

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 3 of 8
matter, that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The law enforcement privilege exists to “prevent disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement.” Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176 (D.D.C. 1998). Specifically, the privilege serves to preserve the integrity of law enforcement techniques and confidential sources, protect witnesses and law enforcement personnel, protect the privacy of individuals under investigation, and prevent interference with ongoing investigations. Id. at 17677.
The party claiming privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege protects specific documents from disclosure. Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 154, 166 (D.D.C. 1999). To invoke the privilege, a party must provide: “(1) a formal claim of privilege by the ‘head of department’ having control over the requested information; (2) [an] assertion of the privilege based on actual personal consideration by that official; and (3) a detailed specification of the information for which the privilege is claimed, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege.” Landry v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The explanation of the privilege must be sufficiently specific to allow a plaintiff to reasonably assess the legitimacy of the asserted privilege. Lundy v. Interfirst Corp., 105 F.R.D. 499, 504 (D.D.C. 1985).
The law enforcement privilege is qualified, not absolute. Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In determining whether a party has properly invoked the law enforcement privilege, the court weighs the public interest in nondisclosure against the need of a particular litigant to access the privileged information. In re

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 4 of 8
Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 272 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Courts look to the following non-exhaustive set of factors when conducting this balancing test:
(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart government processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any interdepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiff’s suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff’s case. Id. IV. In Camera Review The District of Columbia and the FBI each produced to the Court a set of documents for in camera review pursuant to the trial court’s May 27, 2009 Order. Both the District and the FBI assert law enforcement privilege with respect to these documents. In reviewing the documents submitted by the District of Columbia and the FBI this Court carefully weighed the factors identified by Friedman, supra. in balancing the public interest in nondisclosure against the needs of the Plaintiffs to access the information, and concluded that seven of the submitted documents should be produced to the Plaintiffs. This Court also found that the claim of law enforcement privilege with respect to those documents is at best marginal. This Court has determined which documents the District and FBI may withhold and which documents must be produced to the Chang Plaintiffs.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 5 of 8 The Court’s ruling regarding each document is listed in Appendices I and II.
Accordingly, it is on this 5th day of November, 2009, ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia [434] is granted in part, and denied in part, and it is further, ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Federal Bureau of Investigation Materials Withheld by the United States [449] is granted in part, and denied in part, and it is further, ORDERED, that within [10] business days of this Memorandum Order, the District and FBI produce to the Plaintiffs the documents outlined in Appendices 1 and II.
____________/s/______________________ ALAN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 6 of 8

APPENDIX 1
Raymond Chang, et. al. v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010 Defendant District of Columbia Documents

Document Number DC-00226 DC-00335-37 DC-01782-83 DC-02703 DC-02705-07 DC-03162-63 DC-03168 DC-03171 DC-03174 DC-03179-80 DC-03184 DC-03189 DC-03194 DC-03199 DC-03204 DC-03220-22 DC-03227-3234 DC-03235-36 DC-03247-48 DC-03250 DC-03261-62 DC-03321

Ruling Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Must produce Must produce Must produce Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Must produce Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Must produce

6

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 7 of 8

DC-05570-71 DC-08389

Law Enforcement Privilege Irrelevant

7

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 538 Filed 11/05/09 Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX II
Raymond Chang, et. al. v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010 FBI Documents

Document Number FBI-00389-390 FBI-00497 FBI-00793 FBI-00849 FBI-00859 FBI-00920 FBI-00932 FBI-00960-63 FBI-01012 FBI-01534-39 FBI-01540 FBI-01541-51

Ruling Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Must produce Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Law Enforcement Privilege Must produce Law Enforcement Privilege

8

 
 Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)

2010 WL 582358 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG et al., Plaintiffs, v.
The UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 02–2010 (EGS/JMF). | Feb. 16, 2010.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Daniel C. Schwartz, Daniel T. O‘Connor, George Francis Murphy, IV, Ivan Jay Snyder, Jacob A. Kramer, Nikki A. Ott, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Brian P. Hudak, Gary Philip–Matthew Corn, Marina Utgoff Braswell, Robert C. Utiger, Shana Lyn Frost, Chad Wayne Copeland, Martha J. Mullen, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Ellen A. Efros, Leah Brownlee Taylor, Monique Daniel Pressley, Office of the Attorney General, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Robert Edward Deso, Deso & Buckley, P.C., John Martin Faust, Mark Henry Tuohey, III, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander Francuzenko, Cook, Kitts & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 There remain for resolution three matters: (1) Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order [# 530]; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Subpoena Served on Assistant Attorney General Stacy

Anderson, and for a Protective Order [# 534]; and (3) the District’s Motion for General Protective Order [# 539]. The issues raised by these Motions were discussed at a recent status hearing, and I issue this Order to memorialize my intentions as to each of them and to provide the parties with my rulings.
I. Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order [# 530] The two interrogatories at issue, numbers 7 and 8, demand that the District provide a detailed explanation of the whereabouts of certain documents that should have been produced earlier than they were. The District claims that discovery about the whereabouts of these documents exceeds the scope of the supplemental discovery that Judge Sullivan has ordered and objects to their overly burdensome nature, insisting that they will require the District to speak to every one who might have ever had the documents.
I have reviewed the portions of the transcript of the hearing to which the District points. Judge Sullivan did not speak specifically to whether discovery about the whereabouts of these documents was prohibited in the period of supplemental discovery that he ordered because of the belated production of documents by the District. The portions of the transcript of the hearing on September 29, 2009 did not deal with that issue at all. Instead, the judge, while initially questioning the need for any additional discovery, then indicated that the District would have to pay for all additional discovery that was required, to the last penny. This statement was a reference to the need articulated by plaintiffs’ counsel to re-take depositions that had already been taken before plaintiffs had the newly-produced documents. The other statements upon which the District relies articulate the judge’s concern that the discovery he was permitting be reasonable. There is certainly nothing in those statements from which one could possibly infer his precluding discovery into the issue of how it happened that the documents produced in 2009 were not produced earlier.
Judge Sullivan did not preclude such discovery and, as plaintiffs correctly point out, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permit discovery about the location of documents. Chang Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order [# 548] at 4 (quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) (discovery permitted into the location of
1

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)

documents)). Moreover, the District’s claim in a footnote, without citation of any authority, that discovery pertaining to sanctions is inappropriate1 because sanctions and discovery are separate issues is non sequitur. While they may be separate, discovery may unquestionably be used to flesh out whether sanctions are appropriate and which one should be imposed. There is certainly no impediment in the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules to their use to inform the court’s exercise of discretion in choosing the sanction to be imposed. Thus, in two particularly famous electronic discovery cases, Judge Scheindlin permitted discovery and then calibrated the sanction she imposed on what the discovery established as to the mental element that attended the loss of information—whether it was negligence, gross negligence, or a purposeful destruction of information. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC ., 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y.2003). Plaintiffs should be permitted to do the same thing here. In fact, the District has an equal interest in making sure that Judge Sullivan’s decision on what sanction to impose is as well informed as possible. The District’s motion will have to be denied.

1

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a

Protective Order at 5 n. 2

*2 To meet the District’s claim of burdensomeness, I will only permit plaintiffs to propound Interrogatories 7 and 8, as plaintiffs have agreed to narrow them. Once we have the District’s answers, I intend to consider any objection by plaintiffs that they may not have answered them sufficiently. I expect the District to make a conscientious effort to supplement what we know about the locations of these documents from the earlier declarations of Mr. Nickles and Mr. Koger by answering these interrogatories

as narrowed.
II. Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Subpoena Served on Assistant Attorney General Stacy Anderson, and for a Protective Order [# 534] It is my intention to supervise the deposition of Ms. Anderson on (if necessary) a question-by-question basis to insure that the plaintiffs secure from her the information to which they are entitled without invading any legitimate privilege or other inhibition the District will claim. It is impossible and useless to predict how I will rule until I hear the questions, and I may call for supplemental briefing before I rule on particular questions.
III. Motion for General Protective Order [# 539] The status hearing revealed to me that the parties and their counsel share my view that all information produced in discovery does not thereby become public. See Anderson v. Ramsey, No. 04–CV–56, 2005 WL 475141, at * 2 (D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2005). Lest there be any doubt, I express my expectation that the parties to this case and their counsel will not disseminate, transmit to another person, or disclose to any one who is not a party to this lawsuit documents, electronically stored information and all other information that has been produced in discovery by any party to this lawsuit. To express my concern, I will set forth that understanding and expectation in an Order that I now issue. Violations of that Order will be considered a contempt and will be referred to Judge Sullivan.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
	  

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) )Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS)(JMF) ) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R Defendant District of Columbia (the “District”) has filed objections to the July 29, 2010 Order of Special Master John M. Facciola (the “July 29 Order”). See Doc. No. 662, July 29, 2010 Order of Special Master Facciola; Doc. No. 665, District of Columbia’s Objections to the July 29 Order. In its objections, the District requests two forms of relief: first, that the Special Master’s July 29 Order be “amended or stricken”, and second, that this Court amend its May 5, 2010 Order Appointing Special Master to require that: (1) sworn testimony proceedings and evidentiary proceedings before the Special Master be closed; (2) all witnesses offering sworn testimony be subject to crossexamination; and (3) the information disclosed to the public be limited to “administrative matters” until the Special Master’s final report and recommendations are submitted. Def.’s Objections at 11. Upon careful consideration of the District’s

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 6
requests, the response and reply thereto, and for the following reasons, the District’s requests are DENIED.
As a threshold matter, it is unclear whether the District’s request for relief regarding the July 29 Order is addressed to this Court or to the Special Master. In view of the multiple proceedings in this case before this Court and before Magistrate Judge Facciola, both in his capacity as magistrate judge and in his capacity as special master, it is incumbent upon each and every party to clearly identify the judicial officer to whom a request is presented. In the future, the parties shall state the name of the appropriate judicial officer in the caption of all pleadings.
To the extent that the District’s request to strike or amend the July 29 Order is before this Court, the request is DENIED. In his July 29 Order, the Special Master scheduled a hearing for August 16, 2010, the first hearing in his capacity as special master. He also directed the attendance of several individuals at the hearing so that he may (1) clarify whether the District will be representing the individuals from whom he intends to take testimony and (2) ensure that witnesses are advised of the possibility of criminal referral. Doc. No. 662.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f)(5) governs the scope of review of a special master’s procedural orders. It provides, in relevant part, “[t]he Court may set aside a master’s ruling on
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 6
a procedural matter only for an abuse of discretion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5). The District has articulated no basis whatsoever for this Court to conclude that Special Master Facciola has abused his discretion. This Court’s Order appointing the Special Master, issued pursuant to Rule 53(a), provides Special Master Facciola with “the full panoply of powers and authority provided for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, including, but not limited to: 1) holding evidentiary proceedings; . . . [and] 3) compelling, taking and recording evidence and sworn testimony. . . .” Doc. No. 608, Order Appointing Special Master at 2. The Order places no restrictions on the Special Master’s discretion as to how to perform these tasks, and the District has provided the Court with absolutely no reason or legal authority to conclude that he has abused the wide range of discretion he has been granted.
In its pleadings, the District argues that the July 29 Order “is not just a procedural order” because it “has substantive ramifications upon the fact-finding mission of the investigation[.]” Def.’s Reply at 1. This argument is utterly frivolous. The fact that an order has ramifications upon substantive matters, of course, has no bearing on whether the order itself is a procedural one. Indeed, the District concedes
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 6
as much throughout its objections and reply. The District emphasizes that it does not object to the “underlying, sensible goals of th[e July 29] order[.]” Def.’s Objections at 2. Rather, the District objects to the “tone and focus” of the Order, and raises concerns about “the precise way th[e] hearing would be conducted[.]” Def.’s Objections at 8. In other words, the District does not quarrel with the substance of what the Special Master is trying to do; it quarrels with the procedure by which he has chosen to do it. Finding no flaw in the procedure the Special Master has chosen, the Court DENIES the District’s request.
The District’s second request for relief attempts to achieve the same result as its first, but on a broader scale: it seeks to limit the Special Master’s discretion to determine how he will conduct his entire investigation. As noted above, the District requests that this Court amend its Order Appointing Special Master to prohibit him from: (1) holding open evidentiary hearings; (2) receiving sworn testimony absent the use of specific procedures; and (3) releasing almost any information until he issues his final report and recommendations. Def.’s Objections at 11. Once again, the District’s request is DENIED.
This Court appointed the Special Master to perform duties consented to by the parties. Doc. No. 608, at 1, 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a). Those duties are to:
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 6
[I]nvestigate, examine, and report on the potential destruction of evidence regarding:
A. the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) September 27, 2002 JOCC Running Resume;
B. the IMF September 27, 2002 Recordings of Radio Runs; and
C. the IMF September 27, 2002 Video Recordings. Doc. No. 608 at 2-3.
In order for him to perform those duties, the Court authorized the Special Master to avail himself of the full panoply of tools available to masters pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among those tools is the ability to hold evidentiary proceedings and to compel, take, and record evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c)(1)(c); Doc. No. 608 at 2. Once again, the District has provided absolutely no support for its argument that this Court should restrict the authority of the Special Master to use those tools. Indeed, the District has failed to cite to a single legal authority to support its position. The District’s arguments appear to boil down to a deep resistance to the Special Master’s proceedings being made public prior to the issuance of his final report, which he is required to file under Rule 53(e). While the Court is sensitive to the District’s concerns, decisions on how the Special Master’s investigation will be conducted are not the District’s, or any other party’s, to make. The Court declines the District’s invitation to curtail the Special Master’s
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 675 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 6

discretion to conduct his investigation. Accordingly, the

District’s request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE August 13, 2010

6

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 02-2010 (EGS/JMF)

MEMORANDUM ORDER There has been submitted for my in camera review of documents that the defendant, the District of Columbia (“the District”), claims are privileged. The documents made available to me either provide guidance to certain persons about their obligations to preserve evidence or ask the recipient to collect certain records. The only applicable privileges are the attorney-client and work-product privileges. First, I have examined the documents and have found nothing in them that could possibly be described as disclosing or tending to disclose a confidential communication made by a client to an attorney for the purposes of securing legal advice or legal services. See In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94, 98-99 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The attorney-client privilege is therefore inapplicable to these documents. Second, to qualify for the work-product privilege as articulated in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the document must be “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative, including the other party’s attorney.” The privilege may yield to a showing of a substantial need for the material and an inability to secure it

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 2 of 9
without undue hardship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). See also Vento v. IRS, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2010 WL 2181312, at *11 (D.D.C. June 2, 2010) (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 400 (1981)). Even then, any court ordering disclosure must still “protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of a party’s attorney or other representative concerning the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(b). This work product, “which is often described as opinion work product, ‘is virtually undiscoverable.’” United States v. Deloitte LLP, — F.3d —, 2010 WL 2572965, at *3 (D.C. Cir. June 29, 2010) (quoting Office of Thrift Supervision v. Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 124 F.3d 1304, 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). I. Document Nos. 1 & 21
Mysteriously, the District first claims a privilege designed to safeguard a lawyer’s thinking to shield two General Orders written by two different chiefs of police of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), Turner and Ramsey. Turner is not a party to this lawsuit, and while Ramsey is a party, he wrote the General Order two years after the filing of this lawsuit. Furthermore, Ramsey did not prepare the General Order for the trial of this case but for distribution to all police officers to define their general obligation to preserve evidence “[t]o ensure the integrity of any criminal investigation . . . so that the prosecuting authority may disclose such material in a criminal judicial proceeding.” Document No. 2 at 1 (emphasis added). To be shielded from disclosure under the work-product privilege, the document must be prepared because of the prospect of litigation. Deloitte, 2010 WL 2572965, at *10. While it could be said that the General Order was prepared in anticipation of the criminal cases that could potentially
1 The documents attached to the District’s Submission for In Camera Review in Response to June 29, 2010 Order of the Court as Exhibit 1 have been numbered sequentially by the Court, in the order submitted.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 3 of 9
result from any arrests the Police Department made, such a broad definition would capture as privileged every direction given to police officers. In other words, their arrest powers always raise the theoretical possibility of a prosecution, even though there is nothing in these orders that could possibly risk the disclosure of a lawyer’s mental processes. Furthermore, the District asserts a “privilege” over a document that is publicly available and apparently given to or accessible by every police officer in the District. Claiming privilege as to such a document trivializes the very privilege the District purports to rely on. The District shall therefore produce these documents to plaintiffs within ten days of the date of this opinion. II. Document No. 3
The next document is to Terry Ryan, the General Counsel of the MPD, from Len Becker, a member of what was then called the Corporation Counsel’s office, transmitting the names of the “plaintiff arrestees in the Pershing Square case” and asking that the MPD find the records pertaining to them. While this document was created because of this litigation and technically falls within the work-product privilege as defined by Deloitte, it does not threaten any disclosure of Becker’s thought processes whatsoever and does not disclose anything unknown. That the MPD was asked to produce the records pertaining to the plaintiffs’ arrests is general knowledge. Where else would arrests records come from? I therefore find this a mistaken invocation of the privilege and conclude that it is unjustified. The District shall therefore produce this document to plaintiffs within ten days of the date of this opinion. III. Document Nos. 4 & 5
Document No. 4 is from Ryan to a police official indicating that Ryan believes that certain divisions within the MPD will have documents that are responsive to a subpoena
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 4 of 9
(attached to the document) issued by the Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Council of the
District of Columbia. Document No. 5 is from Ronald Harris to someone named Cheryl, asking
that she submit a memo indicating that the individual who searched for records responsive to the
subpoena certify to the completeness and thoroughness of their search. Both of these documents
pertain to a hearing before the D.C. City Council. Defendants claim the work-product privilege
as to both documents under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in
pertinent part that “[o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are
prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
In this case, both documents were clearly created in response to the subpoena issued by
the City Council, a legislative body that was investigating the same arrests that are the subject of
the current lawsuit. Because the documents refers to the collection of information in compliance
with a legislative subpoena, they were not prepared “in anticipation of litigation,” a phrase that
denotes an adversarial proceeding. See In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., —
F.R.D. —, 2010 WL 2265041 (D.D.C. June 7, 2010). As I stated in that case:
The proper focus should be whether the proceeding required the lawyer to function as lawyers usually do at a trial so that the proceeding can be classified as “litigation.” This properly segregates the transactional work of lawyers who draft contracts or provide legal advice from lawyers who have to represent clients before tribunals that have the power to adjudicate their clients' rights, whatever the nature of the proceeding. If the tribunal has the power to adjudicate those rights and demands that the party before it either make a certain showing or disprove a particular allegation, the process is adversarial by its very nature and surely qualifies as litigation. It is irrational to suggest that such a process can never be denominated as “litigation”, no matter how severe its consequences, and even though the lawyer prepared for it and
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 5 of 9
functions during it in the exact same manner as she would if the case were being tried to a jury. Id. at *3. In my view, the attorney work-product generated by responding to a legislative subpoena does not meet this criterion. In addition, while the District opposes plaintiffs’ motion to compel on the grounds that litigation hold letters are generally not discoverable, these are not litigation hold letters and therefore defendants failed to articulate any legitimate opposition to the discovery of these documents. Finding, therefore, that the work-product privilege does not apply, the District shall produce these document to plaintiffs within ten days of the date of this opinion. IV. Document Nos. 6, 7, 8, & 9 In Document No. 6, dated March 12, 2004, the District’s counsel transmits the plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents to other District officials with directions as to what should be produced and an explanation of how a member of the Corporation Counsel’s office would review the produced documents for privilege. The author of the document also reminds the recipients of their preservation obligations. Document No. 7, dated December 29, 2006, is also from the District’s counsel. It is addressed to the General Counsels of the MPD, D.C. City Council, the Chief Technology Officer, and the D.C. Superior Court. In it, the District’s counsel, Thomas L. Koger, advises the recipients of their obligation to preserve evidence relevant to plaintiffs’ cases. On January 7, 2009, Judge Sullivan issued a minute order wherein he directed plaintiffs to file their motions for sanctions for alleged discovery abuses by January 16, 2009, which in fact plaintiffs did. See Motion for Sanctions [#418]. Therefore, Document Nos. 6 and 7 came into
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 6 of 9
existence prior to the developments that caused Judge Sullivan to become concerned about the unexplained loss of evidence, ultimately leading to the District’s enlisting the assistance of Judge Sporkin (retired) and to my appointment as Special Master2 by Judge Sullivan.
The last two documents, Document Nos. 8 and 9, came into existence after Judge Sullivan expressed his concern and took the actions described above. In the first, dated August 5, 2009, Ryan asks the recipients to re-review all of the records their agencies have in their possession and in the second, dated July 1, 2010, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia advises the MPD Chief of Police of the precise nature of her employees’ “ongoing obligation to preserve and produce agency information” in these cases. It also gives specific direction as to what documents must be produced, if not already produced, and as to what information must be preserved, if not already preserved, with a particular emphasis on electronically-stored information.
These four documents can thus be categorized as directions from the District’s counsel regarding the obligation District agencies had to produce and preserve the information demanded by plaintiffs’ discovery and the information otherwise pertinent to the arrests made in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, the day plaintiffs were arrested.
First, it is clear that the four documents fall within the definition of the privilege created by Rule 26(b)(3). They were prepared by a lawyer for trial. In other words, they were created for this litigation; they would not have come into existence if this litigation did not exist.
Second, it is also clear that plaintiffs have a substantial need for the documents. Plaintiffs
2 As Special Master, I have been tasked with ascertaining whether a referral for criminal prosecution is appropriate.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 7 of 9
claim that the District destroyed certain evidence in this case, including 1) the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) September 27, 2002 JOCC Running Resume; 2) the IMF September 27, 2002 Recording of Radio Runs; and 3) the IMF September 27, 2002 Video Recordings. Litigation hold letters such as the ones at issue are thus clearly relevant to plaintiffs’ claims of spoliation. Conversely, these same documents may be used by the District as a defense to the claim, as proof, for example, that they took the appropriate steps necessary to preserve the relevant evidence once plaintiffs filed suit.
Third, there is no reasonable alternative or substitute for the documents themselves. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) (privilege yields to a showing of inability to secure substantial equivalent without undue hardship). While the recipients of the documents at issue could be asked what they were told to do and what they were told to preserve, their recollection is no substitute for the contemporaneous direction they received, as memorialized in these documents. The recipients may in fact have no recollection of the documents, and then we would be back where we started. See Reavis v. Metropo. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 117 F.R.D. 160, 164 (S.D. Cal. 1987) (“Although [plaintiff] may be able to depose the insurance adjusters, and other claims representative who handled the claim, this may not be the substantial equivalent of the documentation contained in the claims files.”); APL Corp. v. Aetna Cas & Sur. Co., 91 F.R.D. 10, 14 (D. Md. 1980) (“While plaintiffs could conduct their own interviews of the people in question, and might learn what they have previously stated to Aetna, it is not unlikely that the documents from Aetna’s files reflecting its investigation of plaintiff’s claim will themselves be capable of establishing in the most effective way what information Aetna had in its possession when Aetna decided to deny plaintiffs’ claim.”); Brown v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa
7

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 8 of 9
Cnty., 670 P.2d 725, 734 (1983) (holding that where plaintiff claims his insurer acted in bad faith, “[t]he claims file is a unique, contemporaneously prepared history of the company’s handling of the claim” and “the need for the information in the file is not only substantial, but overwhelming.”) (citing APL Corp. v. Aetna Cas & Sur. Co., 91 F.R.D. at 13-14).
Finally, I am certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the disclosure of the documents will not risk the disclosure of any “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories” of the District’s counsel. The documents are the type of directions that I would imagine every lawyer gives her client as to how to respond to discovery requests. There is not a word in them that hazards any opinion, theory, or impression about plaintiffs and their case or could possibly be construed as a concession or admission by the District. These documents do nothing more or less than set the standard by which the recipients were to comply with their discovery and preservation obligations.
Indeed, I find the District’s privilege claim as to these documents hard to understand. I could imagine how the four documents would be exhibits one through four to a filing showing that counsel had correctly defined the District’s discovery obligations. That the District is claiming a privilege for innocuous documents showing that its counsel correctly defined a preservation obligation is mystifying. Accordingly, the claim of privilege is rejected as to these documents, and the District shall produce them to plaintiffs within ten days of the date of this opinion.
SO ORDERED.
8

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 687 Filed 08/19/10 Page 9 of 9
Digitally signed by John M. Facciola Date: 2010.08.19 14:09:34 -04'00'
__________________________________ JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
9

 
 Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)

738 F.Supp.2d 83 United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
Civ. Action No. 02–2010 (EGS). | Sept. 19, 2010.
Synopsis Background: Arrestees, who were arrested at or near demonstration taking place in District of Columbia park, brought civil rights action alleging violations of their rights under United States Constitution and District of Columbia law and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. District of Columbia moved for partial summary judgment on claims for equitable relief other than expungement of arrestees’ individual arrest records.
[Holding:] The District Court, Emmet G. Sullivan, J., held that arrestees lacked Article III standing to bring claims for prospective injunctive relief with respect to District of Columbia’s alleged policy of permitting illegal mass arrests.
Motion granted.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*84 Daniel C. Schwartz, Daniel T. O’Connor, George Francis Murphy, IV, Ivan Jay Snyder, Jacob A. Kramer, Nikki A. Ott, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, David Schertler, Schertler & Onorato, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Brian P. Hudak, Gary Philip–Matthew Corn, Marina Utgoff Braswell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Ellen A. Efros, Leah Brownlee Taylor, Office of the Attorney General, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Robert C. Utiger, DC Attorney General, Monique Daniel Pressley, Shana Lyn Frost, Martha J. Mullen, D.C. Office of Attorney General for DC, Mark Henry Tuohey, III, Brown Rudnick, LLP, Robert Edward Deso, Washington,

DC, Alexander Francuzenko, Cook, Kitts & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is [574] Defendant District of Columbia’s (the “District”) motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for all equitable relief other than the expungement of their individual arrest records. The District moves for summary judgment on two alternative grounds. First, the District argues plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. Second, defendant claims plaintiffs are unable to seek this relief because they are bound by the proposed class settlement in the related case of Barham v. Ramsey, Civ. Action No. 02–2283 (“Barham”). On September 8, 2010, the Court ruled on the record in open court that plaintiffs were not bound by any of the provisions of the Barham class settlement. This Memorandum Opinion, therefore, addresses the remaining issue in the District’s motion for partial summary judgment: whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to seek equitable relief. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and reply thereto, the parties’ supplemental briefing, the arguments of counsel at the September 8, 2010 motions hearing, the applicable law, the entire record, and for the reasons set forth below, the District’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND This case is one of several which arose from events on September 27, 2002, during *85 demonstrations in the District of Columbia protesting the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United States government. Chang Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42–43, 46.1 On that date, plaintiffs, seven students from George Washington University, were among the approximately 400 people arrested at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park (“Pershing Park”), located on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., between 14th and 15th Streets, N.W. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20–27, 75–82. Plaintiffs were present at Pershing Park either as
1

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)

observers for the National Lawyers Guild or as journalists or photographers for The Hatchet, a George Washington University student newspaper. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18, 75–82. Plaintiffs allege that they were not engaged in any unlawful activity. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 75–82. Nevertheless, police officers surrounded them and hundreds of others in Pershing Park, gave them no warning or order to disperse, and arrested them. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 76–82; see also Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 569–70 (D.C.Cir.2006) (finding that police gave no order to disperse, did not warn persons in Pershing Park that arrest was imminent, cordoned off the park, and arrested 386 people inside). Plaintiffs allege they were subsequently handcuffed, held on buses for up to 13 hours, and later detained at the Metropolitan Police Academy for up to 18 hours with one wrist cuffed to the opposite ankle. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 93–99.

1

Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on July

19, 2005. Doc. No. 153. Plaintiffs moved for leave to

file a fourth amended complaint late in 2009; however,

in June 2010 they moved to stay their motion pending

finalization of ongoing special master proceedings and

resolution of sanctions issues. See Doc. No. 572;

Minute Order June 7, 2010. Accordingly, the Third

Amended Complaint is still operative.

Hundreds of other individuals were arrested and detained at various locations in the city during the September 27, 2002 protests, and several lawsuits followed. In addition to the Chang case, this Court presided over Abbate v. Ramsey, Civ. Action No. 03–767; Barham v. Ramsey, Civ. Action No. 02–2283; and Jones v. Dist. of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 02–2310, all stemming from arrests on that day. On September 24, 2003, this Court issued an Opinion and Order certifying a class action in the Barham case and acceding to the Chang, Jones, and Abbate plaintiffs’ requests that they be permitted to opt out of the Barham class.
In the ensuing years, the plaintiffs in these other cases have settled their claims with the District. The Jones plaintiffs settled in 2004. See Jones, Civ. Action No. 02–2310, Doc. Nos. 36, 40. The Abbate plaintiffs settled in January 2005. The Abbate settlement provides for monetary relief as well as equitable relief including, inter alia, revisions to the District’s mass demonstration policing policies and practices. See Abbate, Civ. Action No. 03–767, Doc. No. 99. The Barham class reached a settlement agreement with the District in February 2010, which was preliminarily approved by this Court on March

30, 2010. See Barham, Civ. Action No. 02–2283, Doc. Nos. 595, 599. Among the equitable relief negotiated in the Barham settlement is the District’s creation and implementation of a document management and retention system, which is intended to “ensure the preservation of records and documents arising from mass demonstrations and protests[.]” Barham, Civ. Action No. 02–2283, Settlement Agreement, Doc. No. 595–3 at 9.
There have been other changes impacting police policies and procedures during mass demonstrations over the last eight years as well. In 2005, the District of *86 Columbia City Council passed the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act (“FARPSA”). See D.C.Code §§ 5–331.01, et seq. FARPSA includes provisions which (1) require the police to give clear and audible warnings to disperse at future protests and provide opportunities to exit protest areas; (2) prohibit arrest for parading or demonstrating without a permit; (3) prohibit wrist-to-ankle restraint of persons arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly; and (4) require that persons arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly be released within four hours. See id. Finally, in June 2010 another federal judge approved a class action settlement in an additional protest case, Becker v. Dist. of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 01–811. The Becker settlement also contains equitable relief provisions, including mandatory training for all District police regarding First Amendment assemblies and mass demonstrations. See Becker v. Dist. of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 01–811, Doc. No. 358–5 at 8–10.
In sum, while the other mass demonstration actions against the District have settled, the Chang case continues. The plaintiffs do not and never have sought preliminary injunctive relief; instead, they seek permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. Only the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, not including the expungement of plaintiffs’ individual arrest records, are at issue in this motion.2 Plaintiffs’ requests for relief include: (1) an order declaring that the arrest and confinement procedures utilized are unconstitutional; and, (2) a requirement that clear and audible warnings to disperse be given at future protests, with opportunities for individuals to exit areas of protest. See Third Am. Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ a, b. Elsewhere in their complaint, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief “to protect the plaintiffs and the public from the policy, custom and/or practice of using excessive force to prevent individuals from leaving trap-and-arrest zones,” and “to protect the plaintiffs and the public from a policy, custom and/or practice of keeping arrested individuals in restraints or
2

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)

handcuffed for excessive periods[.]” Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4. In their opposition to the District’s motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiffs describe the relief they seek as “a consent decree that would provide an enforcement mechanism for illegal arrest practices.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 22–23.

2

The District does not move for summary judgment on

plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages. In addition,

the Court granted expungement of the Chang plaintiffs’

arrest records in 2008. Specifically, the Court ordered

that “[t]he arrests of the Chang Plaintiffs on September

27, 2002 are hereby declared null and void. Each of the

Chang Plaintiffs are authorized to deny the occurrence

of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to

any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised

upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any

query, whether posed orally or in writing[.]” See Doc.

No. 381.

Since the commencement of the lawsuit, plaintiffs’ numbers have dwindled to four. See Doc. No. 147 (dismissing plaintiff Enright’s claims against the District); Doc. No. 190 (reflecting the acceptance of the District’s offer of judgment by plaintiffs Chastain and Young); Minute Order April 4, 2006 (entering judgment on the claims of Chastain, Young, and Enright against the District); Minute Order May 10, 2006 (granting the motion of plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw as counsel for Chastain, Young, and Enright). In December 2009, the District filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the remaining plaintiffs’ claims for prospective injunctive and equitable relief. The parties conducted limited additional briefing and presented oral argument in early September 2010. The District’s motion is now ripe for determination by the Court.

*87 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standards for summary judgment motions regarding standing are the same as the standards for summary judgment motions generally. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)(“Since [the elements of standing] are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.”)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment must be entered “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The Celotex court explained:
In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.
Id. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

III. ANALYSIS [1] [2] [3] Defendant argues that the four remaining plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive and declaratory relief because they cannot show a real and immediate danger that they will be subjected to the challenged conduct in the future. See Def.’s Mem. at 1–4; Def.’s Reply at 6–19. Plaintiffs make two substantive arguments in support of standing.3 *88 First, plaintiffs claim there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the District continues to have a policy of permitting illegal mass arrests which remains in place. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 12–24. Second, they claim there is a genuine issue of material fact that they, personally, face a real and immediate threat of being subjected to this policy in the future. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 25–27.

3

Plaintiffs also make an argument which can be

characterized as procedural: they claim it is

unnecessary for the Court to decide whether they have

standing at this point in the litigation. Plaintiffs make

two contradictory arguments on this point. First, they

3

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)
claim that the Court has already decided they have standing, and that this decision should be considered law of the case. Inexplicably, they then argue the opposite position and claim it would be premature for the Court to decide whether plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief now; instead, the Court should wait until after trial. Compare Pls.’ Opp’n at 5–10 (claiming the Court has already found plaintiffs have standing) with Pls.’ Opp’n at 28–31 (claiming “the Court is not required to address standing at this stage of the litigation”).
Neither argument has merit. First, the Court has never addressed, much less decided, the standing issue. Standing arose in two motions at the outset of this litigation, both of which were denied without opinion and without prejudice in order to move forward with other matters in this case as well as the other protest cases described above. See Minute Order Sept. 29, 2003 and Doc. No. 68. Assuming arguendo that the Court had decided the standing issue, such decisions are not law of the case—the doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders such as the ones on which plaintiffs rely. See Langevine v. Dist. of Columbia, 106 F.3d 1018, 1023 (D.C.Cir.1997) (interlocutory decisions not law of the case). The Court also rejects plaintiffs’ second procedural argument: that the Court should wait to decide if plaintiffs have standing to seek equitable relief until after trial. Standing is “an essential and unchanging predicate to any exercise” of the Court’s jurisdiction. Florida Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 663 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130). Accordingly, the Court is obligated to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief. See, e.g., Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 2769, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (“Standing is not dispensed in gross. Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought [.]” (quotations and citations omitted)); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (ruling plaintiff had standing to pursue claims for damages but not for prospective equitable relief).
After careful consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the four remaining plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to suffer the same injury again. Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding ongoing District policy are simply not determinative: without evidence that these plaintiffs, personally, are likely to be subjected to that policy again,

they cannot meet the standing requirements for prospective relief. Accordingly, the District’s motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.
A. Constitutional Standing Requirements [4] In order to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” a plaintiff must establish three elements. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he or she has suffered an injury in fact; (2) the injury is traceable to the defendant’s conduct; and (3) a federal court decision is likely to redress the injury. See Northeastern Florida Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 663–64, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993).
[5] [6] Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief must establish a fourth element to have standing. They must show a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury” demonstrated by more than “past exposure to illegal conduct.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495–96, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)). Unless a plaintiff can show he is “realistically threatened by a repetition of his experience [giving rise to the injury] ... he has not met the requirements for seeking an injunction in federal court[.]” Id. at 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660.
The parties agree that Lyons controls plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief. See Def.’s Mem. at 2; Pls.’ Supplemental Submission at 6. In Lyons, plaintiff alleged that he was stopped by the police, seized without provocation and put in a chokehold which caused him to lose consciousness and suffer permanent damage to his larynx. 461 U.S. at 97–98, 103 S.Ct. 1660. He sought both damages and an injunction barring the city from using chokeholds except in limited circumstances. Id. The Supreme Court found that Mr. Lyons’ standing to seek prospective injunctive relief depended on “whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of chokeholds by police officers.” Id. at 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660. In support of his claim of standing, Mr. Lyons asserted that (1) he had been choked in the past; (2) city police regularly and routinely apply chokeholds with no provocation; (3) there had been at least 15 chokehold-related deaths; and (4) *89 he “justifiably fear[ed] that any contact he ha[d] with Los Angeles police officers may result in his being choked[.]” Id. at 98, 103 S.Ct. 1660. After consideration of these assertions, the Court concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish
4

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)
standing for prospective equitable relief. Id. at 108–109, 103 S.Ct. 1660.
The Lyons court set forth several reasons in support of its determination that Mr. Lyons’ allegations regarding the likelihood of a future encounter with the police were too remote to show standing. First, the Court noted, Mr. Lyons could not have standing for injunctive relief unless he could show a likelihood of future injury to himself as an individual. See id. at 107–08, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)). Accordingly, whether other people might be victims of an unconstitutional chokehold in the future was irrelevant to the standing inquiry if the evidence provided by Mr. Lyons gave rise to “no more than speculation ... that Lyons himself will again be subjected to one of these unfortunate instances.” Id. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (emphasis added).
Similarly, the Court found that Mr. Lyons could not establish standing based solely on evidence of a police practice of applying chokeholds absent evidence that he himself was likely to again be subject to that policy. See id. at 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (“Lack of standing does not rest on the termination of the police practice but on the speculative nature of his claim that he will again experience injury as the result of that practice even if continued.”).
Finally, the Court found that the evidence plaintiff provided regarding the likelihood that he would again be placed in a chokehold did not support standing. Specifically, the Court found that this likelihood rested on contingent events occurring at some time in the future: namely, that plaintiff himself would again be stopped by the police and would again be choked without any provocation or legal excuse. See id. at 106, 106 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1660. The Court found this combination of events too speculative to support standing for injunctive relief. Id.; see also, e.g., United Transp. Union v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 891 F.2d 908, 912 (D.C.Cir.1989) (“[W]hen considering any chain of allegations for standing purposes, we may reject as overly speculative those links which are predictions of future events (especially future actions to be taken by third parties) and those which predict a future injury that will result from present or ongoing actions[.]”).
B. Plaintiffs Have Not Established a Genuine Issue of

Material Fact that They Would Suffer Repeated Injury [7] Defendants argue that, as in Lyons, plaintiffs here have not established that they, personally, are likely to again be subject to the same conduct.4 As a threshold matter, plaintiffs largely ignore this personal injury requirement and focus almost exclusively on whether the District *90 had a policy of permitting illegal mass arrests, and whether that policy remains in place. The Court finds plaintiffs’ discussions of the District’s purported mass arrest policy to be largely misplaced. Even assuming that plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact with respect to a prior and/or ongoing policy, that is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate standing. As discussed above, Lyons and its progeny clearly hold that, regardless of the existence of an unlawful policy, a plaintiff must show that he is sufficiently likely to be personally subjected to the challenged conduct again in order to have standing. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 108–111, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (even assuming illegal policy exists, plaintiff cannot establish likelihood that he will again experience injury as a result; accordingly, “he is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles”); Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d at 911 (“plaintiffs must not only demonstrate [a policy’s] existence but that they are likely to be subjected to the policy again”); cf. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 187–192, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (if plaintiff can establish that he is likely to experience future injury at the time the lawsuit is filed, he has standing regardless of whether the defendant has ceased its practice or policy since the suit was filed). The existence of a policy, by itself, therefore, cannot substitute for a showing that a plaintiff faces a real threat that the policy will again be applied to him.

4

The exact standard for judging likelihood of future

injury is unresolved in this Circuit. See Fair

Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc. v.

BMC Marketing Corp., 28 F.3d 1268, 1274

(D.C.Cir.1994) (noting that standard for future injury

has been formulated as “likely,” “fairly probable,” and

“certainly impending,” among others) (citations

omitted), see also Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 911

(D.C.Cir.1987) (“real and immediate” or “realistic”)

(citations omitted). For the purposes of consistency, the

Court will use the term “likely” or “likelihood” here;

however, this is not meant as an endorsement of one

standard over another. As discussed throughout,

plaintiffs cannot establish standing under any of the

above formulations.

5

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)

[8] For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the four remaining plaintiffs in this case fail to make this crucial showing. Specifically, plaintiffs fail to create a genuine issue of material fact that they, personally, face a likelihood of additional injury similar to that alleged in their complaint.5 In their opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiffs provide a declaration from only one of the remaining plaintiffs, Chris Zarconi. Mr. Zarconi provides no information regarding his actions in 2002; his affidavit focuses solely on his life in 2010. He alleges that he “has worked, in addition to other jobs, as a professional photographer in the District of Columbia.” Ex. 14 to Pls.’ Opp’n, Declaration of Christopher Zarconi ¶ 3 (“Zarconi Decl.”). He states that he is “often required to photograph events that take place throughout the District ... very often these events occur at or near the various national monuments or the various parks located throughout the City.” Zarconi Decl. ¶ 5. He states “if I observe or am made aware that a newsworthy event is taking place, I will often seek to take photographs of the event.” Zarconi Decl. ¶ 6. He then describes one of his current assignments.

5

In their pleadings and at oral argument, both parties

focused almost exclusively on events that have

occurred since the lawsuit was filed. See, e.g., Def.’s

Mem. at 3–4; Pls.’ Opp’n at 15–25; Def.’s Reply at

6–19. The Court is not persuaded that standing analysis

should take into account, much less rest on events

subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis,

128 S.Ct. at 2769 (“while the proof required to

establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the

standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party

invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the

outcome when the suit was filed” (citing Laidlaw, 528

U.S. at 180, 120 S.Ct. 693; Arizonans for Official

English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68, n. 22, 117 S.Ct.

1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997))). However, as set forth

herein, the Court concludes plaintiffs have failed to

create a genuine issue of material fact that they had

standing to seek prospective injunctive relief at any

point in time, including when the suit was filed. It is

therefore unnecessary to examine this issue further.

I was recently hired to photograph the university view book for The George Washington University. For this job, I will be required to take photographs of 4–6 students over an extended period of time. Each of the students is involved *91 politically, socially, academically, and otherwise with the university and the

community extensively. I expect to be out on assignment with them in the early spring [2010] at demonstrations or rallies for causes they support or with which they are involved. Zarconi Decl. ¶ 7. He concludes: “based on what happened to me in Pershing Park in September 2002, and what I know about the lack of true reform instituted by [the District] I think it is entirely likely that I could be arrested again at a large demonstration, despite my having committed no unlawful act.” Zarconi Decl. ¶ 9. The kinds of assertions offered by Mr. Zarconi have been rejected by Lyons and its progeny as insufficient to establish standing. His assertions regarding his presence at additional demonstrations as a professional photographer require the occurrence of several contingent, future events: that Mr. Zarconi will be working as a photographer, that his clients will attend demonstrations or rallies and ask him to accompany them, and that he will be trapped and arrested without committing any illegal activity or being afforded an opportunity to disperse.6 This sequence of hypothetical future events is indistinguishable from that found insufficient to establish standing in Lyons.

6

Mr. Zarconi’s one semi-specific reference to future

activity—that he “expects” to be “on assignment” in

spring 2010 with students “at demonstrations or rallies

for causes they support or with which they are

involved,” does not establish standing. Zarconi Decl. ¶

7. Assuming that Mr. Zarconi’s expectation that he will

attend unidentified demonstrations or rallies for

unidentified causes that unidentified students support or

are involved with is sufficiently concrete, the Court

declines to find standing because, so far as the Court is

aware, this is the first and only such reference to

possible repeated injury made by any of the plaintiffs in

nearly eight years. Moreover, assuming Mr. Zarconi

did attend such events in the spring, they appear to have

come and gone without incident.

[9] His remaining assertions are similarly deficient. Mr. Zarconi cannot establish standing to seek an injunction based on “what happened to me in Pershing Park in 2002,” Zarconi Decl. ¶ 9; it is beyond dispute that “past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 495–96, 94 S.Ct. 669). Nor is his assertion that the District has failed to institute “true reform” since 2002 sufficient to establish
6

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010)
standing—again, it is no more than Mr. Zarconi’s conjecture of future injury resulting from what he allegedly knows of present or ongoing actions within the police department. His remaining assertions are vague, unspecified, and unsupported statements that, when he is aware “newsworthy events” are occurring, he often takes photographs of those events, and that he “plan[s] to continue to photograph various events” within the District. Zarconi Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8. These claims are simply insufficient to survive summary judgment. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (“Such some day intentions, without any description of concrete plans, or indeed any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that our cases require.” (internal quotations and emphasis omitted)).
The Court is also troubled that plaintiffs’ entire repeated injury argument rests on Mr. Zarconi’s affidavit: none of the other plaintiffs provided an affidavit, declaration, or any other evidence to show they have standing. Plaintiffs point out that if standing “can be shown for at least one plaintiff, [the court] need not consider the standing of other plaintiffs to raise that claim.” Pls.’ Supplemental Submission at 7 (quoting *92 Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228, 1232 (D.C.Cir.1996)). While this is undeniably true, in view of the demonstrated insufficiency of Mr. Zarconi’s claims, the lack of evidence from any other plaintiff is fatal.
C. The Authority Cited by Plaintiffs Cannot Overcome their Fundamental Failure to Demonstrate a Likelihood of Repeated Injury. Plaintiffs cite a number of cases from outside this Circuit where courts have found standing to seek equitable relief, and they urge the Court to apply those cases here. However, the authority cited by plaintiffs is easily distinguishable from the facts of this case. First, the vast majority of cases cited by plaintiffs are class actions. See, e.g., Riggs v. City of Albuquerque, 916 F.2d 582 (10th Cir.1990) (lawyers, political activists and politically active organizations subject to surveillance by Albuquerque police department); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (7th Cir.1976) (Mexican migrant agricultural workers in Illinois); Franklin v. Chicago, 102 F.R.D. 944 (N.D.Ill.1984) (all persons arrested by Chicago police and transported in squadrols). Establishing repeated injury for a class is obviously different than establishing it for four individuals.

Second, the threat of repeated injury in most of the cases cited by plaintiffs rested on their status, not on their behavior. See, e.g., Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504 (9th Cir.1992)(repeated injury based on race and national origin); Pilliod, 540 F.2d at 1067 (persons subject to repeated injury “simply because they appear to be of Mexican ancestry”); Nat’l Cong. of Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 75 F.Supp.2d 154, 159 (S.D.N.Y.1999)(repeated injury based on race and national origin); Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Dept. of State Police, 72 F.Supp.2d 560 (D.Md.1999) (repeated injury based on race and need to drive on Interstate 95). In these cases, the likelihood of repeated injury did not depend on a series of contingent future events, including some taken by third parties; it existed by virtue of an immutable characteristic.
Finally, the type of relief sought by the Chang plaintiffs is easily distinguishable from the relief at issue in the cases they cite. In this case, plaintiffs seek, inter alia, “a consent decree that would provide an enforcement mechanism for illegal arrest practices.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 22–23. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this type of relief against a local police department is strongly disfavored. See, e.g., O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. 669 (“A major continuing intrusion of the equitable power of the federal courts into the daily conduct of state criminal proceedings is in sharp conflict with the principles of equitable restraint[.]”). By contrast, in many of the cases cited by plaintiffs, the courts emphasized the narrowness of the relief requested. See, e.g., LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (negative injunction which merely prohibited an unlawful behavior did not “entangle federal courts in the operations of state law enforcement and criminal justice institutions.”); Pilliod, 540 F.2d at 1069 (requested injunctive relief was a cease-and-desist order, and did not attempt to impose “mandatory, comprehensive relief” that would inject the Court “into the day to day affairs or discretionary authority” of the local government). In sum, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ authority is persuasive or that it allows the Court to disregard the plaintiffs’ failure to prove an element of standing necessary for the type of relief they seek.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that the District of Columbia’s *93 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
7

Chang v. U.S., 738 F.Supp.2d 83 (2010) 8

 
 Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)

2010 WL 5465617 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 02–2010 (EGS/JMF). | Dec. 30, 2010.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Daniel C. Schwartz, Daniel T. O’Connor, George Francis Murphy, IV, Ivan Jay Snyder, Jacob A. Kramer, Nikki A. Ott, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, David Schertler, Schertler & Onorato, L.L.P., Gary Philip–Matthew Corn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Marina Utgoff Braswell, US Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Brian P. Hudak, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
Ellen A. Efros, Leah Brownlee Taylor, Office of the Attorney General, Leonard H. Becker, Executive Office of the Mayor, Monique Daniel Pressley, D.C. Office of Attorney General for DC, Robert C. Utiger, DC Attorney General, Shana Lyn Frost, Office of the Attorney General for D.C., Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Gary Philip–Matthew Corn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Marina Utgoff Braswell, US Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, David W. Buckley, Deso & Buckley, P.C., Robert Edward Deso, Mark Henry Tuohey, III, Lauren Elizabeth Curry, Brown Rudnick, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander Francuzenko, Cook, Kitts & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOHN M. FACCIOLA, District Judge.
*1 This Memorandum Order ties up some loose ends about three documents that plaintiffs seek from the District and as to which the District claims either that they are privileged or that they are irrelevant.
1. Thomas Koger Materials Earlier in this case, when attorney Koger represented the District of Columbia, Peter Nickles, his then superior and Attorney General of the District of Columbia, publicly criticized his actions and derelictions. The documents at issue pertain to the determination by the Attorney General to fire him and his subsequent suspension of Koger for 45 days in lieu of firing him. I can think of no privilege that attends these documents that the District could claim. Indeed, they were shared with the President of the union of which Koger was a member. Moreover, Koger is a central player in this case, and while I have no desire to infringe his privacy unnecessarily, the circumstances of his potential termination and his statements in response to the District’s notice of the intention to fire him are so crucial to the resolution of this case that his privacy must yield to their obvious relevance. I will therefore make this documents available to the plaintiffs.
2. Costas/Harris E–Mails In these e-mails, James Costas, who testified at the hearing held before me on 10/13/2010, transmits an attached inventory of what appear to be videotapes to Ronald Harris, an attorney with the Office of the General Counsel of the Metropolitan Police Department. Costas’s e-mail does not contain any information that is being transmitted to Harris in confidence and certainly does not seek legal advice or legal services. Indeed, because Harris represents the Police Department, Costas is a private contractor, and nothing in either man’s testimony suggests that there ever was an attorney-client relationship between them, I see no basis for a claim of attorney-client privilege. Costas’ e-mail and the attached inventory certainly do not disclose any of Harris’s mental processes. There is however one sentence in Harris’s email that
1

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)
seems to disclose his and another attorney’s mental processes and I have excised it. Plaintiffs should be aware that the excision is innocuous and unfortunately does not cast any light on the videotapes used during the September 2002 demonstrations. As plaintiffs will further note, Costas’ inventory does not list any videotapes for September 2002.
3. Jones E–Mails A question arose at the conclusion of the hearing when counsel for the plaintiffs asserted that counsel for Doug Jones, who used to work in some capacity for the District of Columbia, indicated that counsel for the District of Columbia had never asked Jones to search for a certain e-mail. By minute order dated 11/17/2010, I directed counsel for the District, Monique Pressley, to contact

counsel for Jones in order to have Jones search for and produce the e-mail to plaintiffs’ counsel. Counsel for the District did so and the withheld e-mails now at issue consist of District’s counsel’s e-mail to Jones and Jones’ reply.
*2 First, Jones’ e-mail does not disclose Pressley’s work product and there is no attorney-client privilege between them since Jones seems to now be employed by Comcast. Second, while some portions of Pressley’s e-mail do reflect her mental processes I have excised those sections and will release the rest.
SO ORDERED.
	  

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 02-2010 (EGS/JMF)

MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently pending and ready for resolution is the District of Columbia’s Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Recovery [#817]. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
INTRODUCTION On May 4, 2011, the District of Columbia advised the Special Master that a contractor for a company named NC4 had located data that had been entered into what is called the “E-Team” server during the weekend of September 26-28, the weekend of the fall 2002 IMF meeting during which plaintiffs were arrested. Notice Regarding Fall 2002 IMF JOCC Running Resume Data [#779]. The District reported the following:
The NC4 contractor has booted the system, searched for target data and located the data that was entered into the E-Team[ ] server during the Fall 2002 IMF Weekend. The contractor is reasonably confident that all data entered during the weekend has been located and is now accessible on the server. Id. at 1.

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 8
That confidence was well placed. The District has now produced that data, a 4,700 page document. Its discovery is significant because until May, 2011, the parties believed that data produced by a second database system, the Group Ware system, was irretrievably lost, meaning that the document known as the Joint Operations Command Center Running Resume could not be found. Its loss was, of course, one of the topics assigned for investigation by the Special Master by Judge Sullivan’s Order of May 5, 2010. Order Appointing Special Master [#645] at 3. The E-Team data therefore is the only repository of the contemporaneous entries made by its users during the weekend when plaintiffs were arrested.
Several months later, however, at a hearing held on July 12, 2011, the District reported that it was aware of an attempt on February 26, 2003, to delete data from the E-Team server. Marc A. Bynum, a systems administrator at NC4, testified that he discovered such an attempt. Deposition of Marc A. Bynum, Aug. 23, 2011 at 15-16.
DISCUSSION I. The Plaintiffs’ Proposed Discovery
Plaintiffs have now announced an intention to take discovery and have indicated its scope. See Chang Plaintiffs’ Opposition to District Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Destruction [#821] at 1 n.1. Specifically, plaintiffs wish to do the following: 1) Take the deposition of the person (identified now only by his user name) who accessed the system on February 26 and February 27, 2003 to delete data; 2) Take the deposition of a representative of the District of Columbia who will be deposed pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the data deletion or destruction; 3) Take the deposition of the individuals who used certain user names on September 27, 2002; and 4) Take the
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 8
deposition of senior District officials and their counsel, who will speak to a) notification to the other defendants of the attempt to delete data; b) not advising plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court of that fact until appreciably later; c) the delay in providing the identities of persons known to plaintiffs only by user names; and d) their failure to advise the Court earlier that NC4 had determined that the E-Team data could be extracted from the server. Id. See also Chang Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Filing Regarding Chang Plaintiff’s [sic] Previous Motion for a Show Cause Order [#820] at 2-3. II. The District’s Motion
The District of Columbia, for its part, has now moved that all discovery on this issue be stayed pending the investigation of this matter by the FBI and United States Attorney’s Office to whom it has now referred the matter. District of Columbia’s Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Recovery Doc. No. 817.
The parties have submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the question therefore presented is whether I should postpone the issuance of my findings of fact and conclusions of law until the FBI investigation is completed. According to the District, it suffices for me as Special Master to complete my findings solely as to the loss of the original running resume, the one that should have been captured by the Group Ware system. Defendants’ Reply to Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Recovery [#825] at 5. According to the District, the matter of the destruction of the E-Team data should be withdrawn as a topic for the Special Master because it has now been referred for investigation by federal authorities. Under its proposal, I would apparently return to the E-Team data only after the investigation by the federal authorities has finished.
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 4 of 8
III. Analysis It is the law of this Circuit that not even the simultaneous investigations by a grand jury
and an agency of the United States compel the staying of one in favor of the other: “The Constitution [ ] does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” SEC v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980). See also United States v. 8 Gilcrease Lane, Quincy, Florida 32351, 638 F.3d 297 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (court not obliged to stay forfeiture pending outcome of criminal case; Constitution does not require stay of civil proceedings pending outcome of criminal proceedings).
A court has discretion to take action, however, “where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter.” Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1376. In such a situation, the simultaneous prosecution of the civil and criminal actions may 1) undermine a person’s privilege against self-incrimination; 2) expand a party’s right to discovery from the government beyond the limits of Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; 3) expose the defense to the prosecution before trial; or 4) otherwise prejudice the case. Id.
The District cannot, or course, avail itself of whatever limited authority Dresser grants to stay proceedings whenever an individual is a subject of both a grand jury and an agency investigation.1 The District is not and cannot ever be a defendant in a criminal action and it
1 See, e.g., Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CIV-1458, 2005 WL 3272130 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2005) (discovery stayed in civil action based on stabbing death of inmate to permit trial of alleged killer when 1) resolution of criminal case might help plaintiffs; 2) civil discovery could have detrimental effect on government prosecution; and 3) proceeding with civil case could raise complicated privilege questions that criminal trial might obviate); United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance, No. 04-CIV-280, 2007 WL 1020808 (D.D.C. March 31, 2007) (stay of qui tam action denied even though Assistant United States Attorney
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 5 of 8
therefore cannot claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment or protest that it will be prejudiced in a criminal prosecution. See Forrest v. Corzine, 757 F. Supp. 2d 473, 478 (D.N.J. 2010) (§ 1983 action against municipality not stayed because of investigation by federal authorities into police officers employed by municipality; municipality could not claim Fifth Amendment rights and any protection it could claim could be handled by protective orders that are preferable to stay). Thus, the traditional factors that have been weighed when a defendant in a civil action is or potentially may be a defendant in a criminal action are not pertinent here. The best the District can do is to rely on the court’s power to stay the matters before it. Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1375 (discretionary power to stay proceedings acknowledged). That power, however, should not be exercised here.
First, all that we know is that the District has referred the question of the deletion of the data to the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office. There is no indication that any investigation has begun. Since one cannot even hazard a guess as to when that investigation will end, the District is in effect asking for an indefinite stay that is not in any way conditioned upon the occurrence of some known or reasonably anticipated event. Such indefinite stays are anathema in the federal courts in the absence of the most pressing need. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Forrest, 757 F. Supp. 2d at 478; KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Murphy, 717 F. Supp. 2d 895, 903 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Additionally, the investigation may or may not yield a criminal prosecution. If it does yield one, this case will, one supposes, have to await its resolution by trial or plea of guilty. On
indicated that the defendants in qui tam action would be indicted; indefinite stay disfavored; possibility that government could gain evidence from defendant not entitled to in criminal case could be eliminated by protective orders).
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 6 of 8
the other hand, if it does not yield a prosecution there will have been no reason to wait because that investigation will not yield any information that will be useful in this case. In my experience, the District’s suggestion that the FBI or the United States Attorney will make “findings and recommendations”2 at the conclusion of its investigation is fanciful. Grand jury proceedings are secret and the Executive Branch is not required to announce why it has declined to prosecute any one. Frankly, if the investigation ends without a prosecution, we will be lucky to get a one sentence letter from the United States Attorney’s Office indicating that the matter is closed. Thus, we may await indefinitely for a “report” that never comes. It made more sense for the two tramps to wait for Godot in Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot.”
Judge Sullivan has now indicated that it is appropriate for the Special Master to take testimony and prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law as to (1) any effort to delete data from the E-Team server; (2) any knowledge by agents, representatives, and employees of the District of that effort; and (3) any knowledge by counsel for the District of that effort and all the circumstances that pertain or relate to counsel’s advising fellow defendants, plaintiffs’ counsel, and this Court of what [counsel] had learned about the effort to delete data. Minute Order (Sept. 27, 2011). Mr. Bynum has testified that such effort was made and his testimony will not be challenged. We also know the username of the person who made the effort and plaintiffs represent that they know who he is. It is not certain whether he will invoke the Fifth Amendment if he is asked about that effort, although it is surely more likely than not that he will if advised by counsel. Others who knew of that effort contemporaneously are in a similar position since their knowledge and failure to stop it may raise issues of accessorial or conspiratorial liability. But,
2 [#817] at 7. 6

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 7 of 8
we already know that the effort was made and that we may not be able to learn any more because individuals’ right not to incriminate themselves flows from the Fifth Amendment. There is nothing any one can do about that.
Additionally, if someone is prosecuted, his or her Fifth Amendment right persists until at least the conclusion of the prosecution and that may be a year or more away. If no one is prosecuted, the question becomes more complicated. In this Circuit, a witness may claim the privilege when the answer to a question may furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him and when the risk of prosecution is substantial and real and not merely fanciful. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 662 F.2d 875, 881-83 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Whether the declination of prosecution in itself renders the risk of prosecution fanciful is, at best, an open and complicated question. Interestingly, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in an en banc opinion that surveyed thoroughly all of the case law, has concluded that “the overwhelming majority of cases . . . have determined that the trial judge should not speculate about or predict the likelihood of prosecution in relation to an assertion of the constitutional privilege against selfincrimination” and that “a court may only assess the possibility of future prosecution not the probability.” Carter v. United States, 684 A.2d 331, 336-337 (D.C. 1996) (en banc). Under that precedent, only a showing of an absolute bar to prosecution such as the ones created by double jeopardy, immunity, or the statute of limitations suffices. Id. at 338. If the court of appeals for this Circuit were to follow Carter, and were to substitute “impossible” for “fanciful”, the only possible bar in this case, the statute of limitations, would have to be considered. The statute of limitations might well bar a prosecution based on what occurred in 2003, eight years ago, but it would not bar a prosecution based on, let us stay, a conspiracy to cover up the deletion that was
7

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 839 Filed 10/04/11 Page 8 of 8

hatched in 2010 when it became clear that a Special Master would be taking testimony under

oath about the loss of the running resume.

All one can say at this point is that it is, at best, unclear whether witnesses will have Fifth

Amendment privileges if the United States declines prosecution. That cannot possibly be

resolved until the federal authorities complete their investigation and then decline to prosecute.

As already explained, no one can predict when that will be. Again, we are still waiting for Godot

and there is no news about when he will appear. Surely, it makes much more sense in a case

about to enter its second decade to soldier on, even if it is possible that a witness will invoke the

Fifth Amendment. Right now, there is nothing we can do about it and we must therefore

proceed. It is therefore, hereby,

ORDERED that District of Columbia’s Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC

Running Resume Data Recovery [#817] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by John M. Facciola DN: c=US, st=DC, ou=District of Columbia, email=John_M._Facciola@dcd.uscour ts.gov, o=U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, cn=John M. Facciola Date: 2011.10.04 14:52:52 -04'00'
__________________________________
JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 02-2010 (EGS/JMF)

MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently pending and ready for resolution is Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Certain Information Sought by Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to Produce Documents or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action Filed by Thomas Koger [#780]. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. The District claims that certain documents responsive to a subpoena issued by plaintiffs are protected by the attorney-client, the deliberative process, and the work product privileges. [#780] at 1. These documents were submitted to the Court for an in camera review and it is clear that none of the claimed privileges applies. “The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and attorney that are made for the purpose of securing legal services or legal advice.” Fudali v. Pivotal Corp., No. 03-CIV-1460, 2010 WL 4910263, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2010). See Vento v. IRS, 714 F. Supp. 2d 137, 151 (D.D.C. 2010). According to the District, “the draft Response contains confidential communications between Mr. Koger and his clients (who were officials of the District) seeking and providing legal advice which would have only been communicated to

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 10
other attorneys representing the District.” [#780] at 3. The Court disagrees. The draft response details the discovery failures that occurred in cases in which Koger was lead counsel. Specifically, Koger focuses on the District’s lack of a document management system and lack of adequate support staff. Although the draft references the various cases Koger was responsible for, at no time does Koger reveal any confidential communications made by other District officials to him or his office for the purpose of seeking legal services or advice.
The District contends that “portions of the attachments to the draft Response contain the predecisional recommendations and suggestions of an OAG attorney to agency officials, specifically recommending possible courses of action for the agency to take with respect to the mass arrest litigation.” [#780] at 6. This would trigger the deliberative process privilege. Again, the Court disagrees. A request for resources and the discussions surrounding that request cannot be construed as a part of a process that leads to or may lead to the development of a policy or government position on an issue.
The deliberative process privilege provides protection for those documents which reflect “advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are part of a process by which Government decisions and policies are formulated.” Dep’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). The purpose of the privilege is three-fold: first, it “protects candid discussions within an agency”; second, “it prevents public confusion from premature disclosure of agency opinions before the agency established its final policy”; and, third, “it protects the integrity of an agency's decision,” preventing the public from judging officials based on information they may have considered prior to issuing their final decision. Alexander v. F.B.I., 192 F.R.D. 50, 55
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 3 of 10
(D.D.C. 2000) (citing Judicial Watch v. Clinton, 880 F.Supp. 1, 12 (D.D.C.1995), aff'd, 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). The privilege promotes the quality of agency decision-making by protecting decision-makers’ ability to communicate freely and privately without concern that deliberations will become the subject of discovery. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 8-9.
For the privilege to apply, communications must be pre-decisional. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151. Not every document related to a given decision, however, will be protected by the privilege simply because it is pre-decisional. N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 308 (D.D.C. 2009). Pre-decisional documents must also be deliberative to qualify for the privilege. Id, “A document is ‘predecisional’ if it plays a role in the agency’s decisionmaking process, and information within that document is deliberative if it involves the weighing of arguments for and against various outcomes.” Wilson v. Dep’t of Justice, 87-CIV-2415, 1991 WL 111457, at *4 (D.D.C. June 13, 1991) (citing Access Reports v. Dep’t of Justice, 926 F.2d 1192, 1194-95 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). A document is deliberative if it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In other words, “the document must be a direct part of the deliberative process in that it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.” Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Thus, purely factual material is not protected, “‘unless the material is so inextricably intertwined with the deliberative sections of documents that its disclosure would inevitably reveal the government's deliberations.’” Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. at 308-09 (quoting In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Therefore, documents will not be protected in their entirety unless redacting those portions of the documents that reveal deliberations is impossible. Huthance v. District of Columbia, 268 F.R.D. 120, 122-23
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 4 of 10
(D.D.C. 2010). The documents at issue fall within two categories. The first is Koger's letter in which he
marshals evidence and arguments in support of his contention that he should not be fired but should instead receive a lesser sanction. The second category is created by the attachments to the letter, earlier memoranda, in which Koger asked for additional help. The rejection of those requests supports Koger's claim that it is unfair and unjust to fire him when he warned of the consequences of not receiving assistance with the management of the discovery (and the paper it produced). While the District claims the deliberative process privilege for both, they clearly require separate treatment.
Koger's letter does not make recommendations as to the adoption of a policy. The word “policy” cannot be stretched to mean an individual employment decision that is made by a governmental agency. Instead, the word “policy” means “[a] principle or course of action adopted or proposed as desirable, advantageous, or expedient; esp. one formally advocated by a government, political party, etc. Also as a mass noun: method of acting on matters of principle, settled practice.” Policy Definition, Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com//view/Entry/146842?rskey=YcpGKJ&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid (last visisted 10/17/11). Given the common meaning of the word “policy”, it is understandable that courts in cases involving the closely analogous decision to grant or withhold tenure have held that the deliberative process privilege does not shield information collected for and bearing upon such an individual personnel decision. See, e.g., Qamhiyah v. Iowa State Univ. of Science and Tech., 245 F.R.D. 393, 399 n.6 (S.D. Iowa 2007) (“The decision whether to grant plaintiff’s tenure had little to do with the formulation of policy or an important governmental decision of
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 5 of 10
the kind for which the privilege [for deliberative process] is typically reserved.”); Torres v. City Univ. of New York, No. 90-CIV-2278, 1992 WL 380561, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 1992) (“The deliberative process is designed to preserve the vigor and creativity of the process by which government agencies formulate important public policy by not prematurely forcing them to ‘operate in a fishbowl.’”) (emphasis original) (internal citations omitted); see also Jones v. City of College Park, 237 F.R.D. 517, 520 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (§ 1983 claim based on race discrimination in employment; privilege only applies to communications relating to policy formulation at the higher levels of government).
Similarly, deciding whether and how to discipline an individual employee does not rise to the level of a “policy” as that word must be understood, bespeaking a principle or course of action that is undertaken by a government to describe how it will deal with an occurrence whenever it occurs. The attachments to Koger’s letter may come a little closer, but there are several significant problems with applying the deliberative process privilege to them as well.
First of all, since I am releasing the letter, and in the letter Koger describes the nature of the attachments, the “cat is out of the bag”. Plaintiffs know from the letter what Koger said when he asked for help and seeing the actual memoranda does not really disclose anything that they do not already know. Second, factual material is not privileged unless “the selection or organization of facts is part of an agency’s deliberative process.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dept. of State, 641 F.3d 504, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In Ancient Coin Collectors, the court of appeals held that the factual summaries contained in certain reports were privileged because they “were culled by the Committee from the much larger universe of facts presented to it and reflect an exercise of judgment as to what issues are most relevant to the pre-decisional findings and
5

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 6 of 10
recommendations.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The court specifically relied upon its earlier decision in Mapother v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993), wherein it held that the deliberative process privilege shielded from disclosure a document prepared for the Attorney General by the Office of Special Investigations, which detailed the wartime activities of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, who was an officer in the army of Nazi Germany. Id. at 1539.
The court of appeals began with the premise that “[t]he deliberative character of agency documents can often be determined through ‘the simple test that factual material must be disclosed but advice and recommendations may be withheld.’” Id. at 1537. But, it cautioned that this fact/opinion test, “while offering ‘a quick, clear, and predictable rule of decision,’” was not infallible and could not be applied mechanically. Id. To protect the deliberative process itself and not merely the material, the court had to be sensitive to the fact that permitting access to all the documents considered would permit a comparison with the facts selected and culled from those documents by the agency staff, and allow the reader to ascertain the process by which that staff deemed some facts important and others not, displaying the forbidden deliberative process in the process. Id. at 1538. The court of appeals stated:
In this case, the task assigned the OSI staff was similar to that performed by the subordinate agency personnel in these earlier cases. The staff was to cull the relevant documents, extract pertinent facts, organize them to suit a specific purpose, and to identify the significant issues they encountered along the way. It is in essence this task that the EPA Administrator's aides performed in Montrose Chemical, that the Air Force historians performed in Russell and Dudman Communications, and that our own judicial clerks perform in connection with many of the cases we decide. Cf. Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 775 n.8 (noting that “courts have long looked by analogy to the needs of their own decision-making processes to
6

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 7 of 10
assess claims of privilege based on the needs of executive decision-making”). It is true that the products of such labors can loosely be characterized as factual, in the sense that the issues ultimately being addressed have a prominent factual component: What is the evidence indicating that DDT is dangerous? What actions did the Air Force undertake, and what results did it achieve in a certain set of operations? Was substantial evidence adduced on a particular point at trial? In cases such as this, however, the selection of the facts thought to be relevant clearly involves “the formulation or exercise of ... policy-oriented judgment” or “the process by which policy is formulated,” Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435 (emphasis in original), in the sense that it requires “exercises of discretion and judgment calls.” Id. at 1438. Such tasks are not “essentially technical” in nature, Id. at 1437-38; rather they are part of processes with which “[t]he deliberative process privilege ... is centrally concerned.” Id. at 1435. Given the need for deliberation to inform discretion and for confidentiality to protect deliberation, we have felt bound to shelter factual summaries that were written to assist the making of a discretionary decision. Given this principle, which is most clearly reflected in Montrose Chemical, the Waldheim Report would appear to have been properly withheld.
Id. at 1538-39. There was no such culling in this case. Koger certainly did not select from a large group
of facts of which he was aware those which he thought he could document that would advance
his cause or justify his request for more help. To the contrary, Koger’s letter recounted the facts
that he believed supported his request that he not be fired and, in the earlier memoranda, that he
believed justified his request for more help and supported his warning of what would happen if
that help was not forthcoming. Since Koger’s letter did not constitute the culling of information
from a larger universe of facts, the situation defaults to the ordinary and clear rule that facts are
not protected by the deliberative process.
Finally, I appreciate that, as to the memoranda, a case can be made that allocating
7

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 8 of 10
resources within a government agency may denote a policy adopted by an agency. Those who have been in a supervisory position in government understand that the allocation of limited resources among competing demands articulates how that agency sets priorities. It would be naive and unrealistic to describe the decision of how resources are to be allocated to agency goal “x” and how many to agency goal “y” as not reflecting that agency’s priorities; the goal that is allotted the greater amount of resources is clearly more important. The attachments to Koger’s letter, however, do not speak to the general allocation of resources within the Attorney General’s Office. The letter speaks to why he should not be fired and the memoranda speak to whether he can do his job without more help, such as a document management system. Because they speak only to an individual situation and are a personal cri de coeur, the discussion within them cannot be characterized as a discussion designed to advance or retard the adoption of a “policy”. As explained above, the word “policy” cannot be stretched to pertain to such a situation. If it could, information on whether to buy office equipment or a software program or hire a para-professional for a particular attorney would be protected by the deliberative process privilege. Surely, shielding such information from public inspection does not advance the purpose of the deliberative process privilege: to encourage robust, candid debate within an agency when the agency deliberates about adopting a course of action that will affect the businesses and individuals it may regulate or aid.
The work product privilege “protects ‘documents . . . that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.’” Fudali, 2010 WL 4910263, at *2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)). Although the District also claims that various portions of the attachments contain the mental impressions and litigation strategy of trial counsel related to ongoing litigation involving the
8

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 9 of 10
District, none of the documents were prepared for trial or in anticipation of trial. The only mental process that is disclosed is Koger’s perception that he needs help to do what has to be done. That he needed help, that he did not receive it, and that he did not wish to be terminated are not the type of “plans, strategies, tactics, and impressions”1 of trial counsel in an ongoing litigation, which are protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, even if the documents were protected by the work product privilege, that privilege would “yield to a showing of substantial need and inability to secure the equivalent without undue hardship.” Miller v. Holzmann, No. 95-CIV-1231, 2006 WL 3500877, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2006). In this case, there is a substantial need for Koger’s explanation as to the discovery failures that have occurred, to permit the Special Master to determine whether those failures warrant further investigation or action by another body.
For the reasons stated herein, it is, therefore, hereby, ORDERED that Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Certain Information Sought by Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to Produce Documents or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action Filed by Thomas Koger [#780] is DENIED. It is further, hereby, ORDERED that execution of this Memorandum Order is stayed for 10 days pending any appeal that may be taken. SO ORDERED.
1 Vento, 714 F. Supp. 2d at 152. 9

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 859 Filed 10/19/11 Page 10 of 10 Digitally signed by John M. Facciola DN: c=US, st=DC, ou=District of Columbia, email=John_M._Facciola @dcd.uscourts.gov, o=U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, cn=John M. Facciola Date: 2011.10.19 15:47:12 -04'00'
_________________________________ JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 860 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 02-2010 (EGS/JMF)

ORDER Currently pending and ready for resolution is Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Strike from the Public Docket Correspondence from the Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Dated August 31, 2011 [#827]. On August 31, 2011, Kristopher K. Baumann, Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, wrote a letter to the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge in this case. Mr. Baumann told Judge Sullivan about a conversation he had with a police officer concerning two cases, which Mr. Baumann used in the caption of his letter: 1) Rayming Chang v. United States (Docket No. 02-201[sic]) and 2) Jeffrey Barham v. District of Columbia (Docket No. 02-2283). On September 16, 2011, Judge Sullivan wrote on the letter “Let This Be Filed.” and dated it “9/16/11.” Later that day, however, the letter was sealed by the Court, thereby making it unavailable to the public. On September 26, 2011, Judge Sullivan stated that the Court would provide the correspondence “to the Special Master directly, without posting it on the docket at this time.” Minute Order of 9/26/11. Before the document was

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 860 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 5
removed from the public docket, however, the contents of the letter were viewed by several
members of the press and later described in at least two newspaper articles.1 Additionally, in one
of the documents at issue, Baumann wrote to the Inspector General of the District of Columbia
and attached to his letter a memorandum from a police officer named John Strader, which is
another document at issue. Baumann apparently sent a copy of his letter to the Inspector General,
along with a copy of the memorandum from Strader to Mary Cheh, a member of the Council of
the District of Columbia. Now, even though the horse already left the barn, the District seeks to
have the letter suppressed so that it is not returned to the public file.
To understand the basis of the District’s claim that the document should not be returned
to the public docket, I have to begin by describing the letter and its enclosures specifically, as
follows:
1. Letter of August 31, 2011, as described above. 2. Attachment 1: A letter dated August 30, 2011, from Mr.
Baumann to Charles J. Willoughby, Inspector General of the District of Columbia. 3. Washington Post Article, The Crime Scene, “Did D.C. police destroy evidence in Pershing Park case”, Attachment to Number 2. 4. Washington Post Article, The Crime Scene, “Pershing Park evidence search referred to federal authorities”, Attachment to Number 2. 5. The Blog of Legal Times, August 10, 2010, “D.C. Officials May Face Criminal Referral, Judge Warns.” Attachment to Number 2. 6. Signed Statement of Officer Strader, Attachment to Number 2.
1 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/the-pershing-park-running-resume--fo und-and-lost/2011/09/23/gIQAd3W5qK_blog.html (last visited Oct. 19, 2011); http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/09/feds-must-find-missing-evidence-pershing-par k-case (last visited Oct. 19, 2011).
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 860 Filed 10/20/11 Page 3 of 5
First, newspaper articles and blog posts (i.e. numbers 2-5) that have already been published and disseminated cannot possibly be subject to any form of suppression simply because they are attached to a letter to a judge. Any claim of “privilege” as to these matters is unsupportable. Second, the letters from Baumann to the Inspector General and to Judge Sullivan are not privileged either. There is no privilege between the author of these letters and his correspondents. Thus, any claims that these documents are privileged are meritless. They must be restored to the public docket forthwith.
That leaves only the statement of Officer Strader. The only portion of the statement that could possibly be privileged is the officer’s recounting of a meeting he had with Terry Ryan, General Counsel of the Metropolitan Police Department. For the attorney-client privilege to apply, however, there must be the relationship between a person who is seeking legal services or legal advice and the attorney from whom he seeks such guidance or services. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (“[The attorney-client privilege’s] purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.”) (emphasis added). As Officer Strader indicates in his statement at page 3, he was summoned to Ryan’s office because Ryan was investigating the loss of a document, the now famous (or infamous) Running Resume. By interviewing Officer Strader, Ryan may well have been providing legal services to his employer, the Metropolitan Police Department. But, he certainly was not talking to Officer Strader because Strader was seeking either legal services or advice from Ryan. I am certain that if I asked Ryan he would tell me that by no stretch of the imagination does he consider himself the personal attorney of every member of the Metropolitan Police Department
3

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 860 Filed 10/20/11 Page 4 of 5
and that his professional relationship as a lawyer is with the Department and not with each of its members. Indeed, and ironically, Officer Strader ends his statement by indicating that, after he spoke to Ryan, he “contacted the FOP so [that he] could get representation.” Surely, neither Officer Strader nor Ryan ever thought for a moment that Ryan was providing legal representation to Strader during the interview.
Furthermore, if there was an attorney-client privilege, it was Strader’s,2 and he of course chose to disclose his conversation with Ryan to Baumann. The District cannot possibly be arguing that it has a right to claim a “privilege” that Officer Strader so freely surrendered.
Since the District’s claim as to the Strader statement is meritless, the entire letter must be forthwith returned to the public docket. I say “forthwith” because the courts of the United States do not conduct their own business; they conduct the business of the people of the United States, who have every right to know what transpires in those courts. The judiciary therefore acknowledges the profound public interest in judicial proceedings by permitting the sealing of judicial records only upon a demanding showing. Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Here, none has been made.
For the reasons stated herein, it is, therefore, hereby, ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Strike from the Public Docket Correspondence from the Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Dated August 31, 2011 [#827] is DENIED. It is further, hereby, ORDERED that docket entry [#826] be unsealed.
2 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 73 F.R.D. 647, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1977); Edna Selan Epstein, THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE 24 (2007).
4

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 860 Filed 10/20/11 Page 5 of 5

SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by John M. Facciola DN: c=US, st=DC, ou=District of Columbia, email=John_M._Facciola@dcd.u scourts.gov, o=U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, cn=John M. Facciola Date: 2011.10.20 16:33:57 -04'00 _________________________________
JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

 
 Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)

2012 WL 28257 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG et al., Plaintiffs, v.
The UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 02–2010 (EGS/JMF). | Jan. 5, 2012.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 In my Second Request for Guidance [# 837], I summarized the events that have led to the most recent controversy as follows:
On May 4, 2011 the District of Columbia advised the Special Master that a contractor for [a] company named NC4 had located data that had been entered into what is called the “E–Teams” server during the weekend of September 26–28, 2002, the weekend of the fall IMF meetings during which plaintiffs were arrested. Notice Regarding Fall 2002 IMF JOCC Running Resume Data [# 779].
The District reported that:
The NC4 contractor has booted the system, searched for target data and located the data that was entered into the E–Teams server during the Fall 2002 IMF Weekend. The contractor is reasonably confident that all data entered during the weekend has been located and is now accessible on the server.
Id.
That confidence was well placed. The District has now produced that data, a 4700 page document. Its discovery is significant because until May 2011, the parties believed that data produced by a second database system, the Group Ware system, was

irretrievably lost, meaning that the document known as the Joint Operations Command Center (“JOCC”) Running Resume could not be found. Its loss was, of course, one of the topics assigned for investigation by the Special Master by Judge Sullivan’s Order of May 5, 2010. Order Appointing Special Master [# 645] at 3. The E–Teams data therefore is the only repository of the contemporaneous entries made by its users during the weekend when plaintiffs were arrested.
Several months later, however, at a July 12, 2011 hearing, the District reported that it was aware of an attempt on February 26, 2003, to delete data from the E–Team server. Since then, Marc A. Bynum, a systems administrator at NC4, has now been deposed and testified that he discovered such an attempt. Deposition of Marc A. Bynum (Aug. 23, 2011) at 15–16.
Plaintiffs have now announced an intention to take discovery and have indicated its scope. See Chang Plaintiffs’ Opposition to District Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Destruction at 1 n. 1. The District of Columbia, for its part, has now moved that all discovery on this issue be stayed pending the investigation of this matter by the FBI and United States Attorney’s Office to whom it has now referred the matter.
[# 837] at 1–2.
On October 4, 2011, I denied the District’s motion to stay. See Memorandum Order [# 839]. Since then, the District appealed my order to Judge Sullivan. See District of Columbia’s Objections to Order Denying Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Recovery. [# 858].
Speaking to my responsibilities as Special Master, the District has requested Judge Sullivan to relieve me of any responsibility to explore the JOCC Running Resume and to have me instead complete my findings of fact only as to the audio and videotapes that are also the subject of Judge Sullivan’s May 5, 2010 order. Motion for Partial Reconsideration Regarding September 27, 2011 Minute Order and Motion to Stay or Close Further Proceedings Before the Special Master [# 846] passim; Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Partial Reconsideration Regarding September 27, 2011 Minute Order and Motion to Stay or Close Further Proceedings Before the Special Master [# 863] at 9.
1

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
*2 For their part, plaintiffs noticed the deposition of the District of Columbia pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) but the District declined to permit any inquiry about the following topics:
1. Any access, observation, editing, deletion, destruction, tampering, or alteration of the E–Team System, software, and/or data between February 25, 2003, and February 27, 2003, or at any other time between November 1, 2002, and July 30, 2011.
2. All evidence of any editing, deletion, destruction, tampering, or alternation of the E–Team System, software, and/or data, including the “clear evidence that the ETeam’s data files had been deleted by a user on February 26,” 2003, as stated by District counsel in the July 12, 2011 Status Conference before the Court.
3. All communications concerning the “clear evidence that the E–Team’s data files had been deleted by a user on February 26,” 2003, including the rationale, justification, reasoning, and/or explanation for the nearly three month delay in transmitting such information to the Court and the Chang Plaintiffs.
Notice of Continuation of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [# 830–1] at 3.
Plaintiffs move that the District be compelled to produce a witness who will testify as to these topics and the District cross moves for a protective order against having to do so. See Motion to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce One or More Witnesses for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding the Attempted Deletion of E–Team Data [# 830]; District of Columbia’s Motion for Protective Order Precluding 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding the Attempted Deletion of E–Teams Data [# 841]. The District protests that the inquiry is irrelevant to the merits of this case and that it is impossible for the District’s counsel to prepare for this deposition without (a) compromising the FBI investigation into the attempt to delete the E-team data files; and (b) jeopardizing the Fifth Amendment rights of a potential witness.
As to topic 3, the delay in counsel’s advising the court and the plaintiffs of the deletion, the District protests that any such testimony will invade the attorney-client privilege it may have with the witnesses and the attorney work-product privilege as well. Thus, the District also

separately moves to preclude a Notice of Deposition that seeks the testimony of Monique Pressley, who was the District’s lead counsel in this case. District of Columbia Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Lead Trial Counsel [# 836].
Chang plaintiffs answer that this theoretical claim that the inquiry they seek may invade a privilege is groundless in that they seek only factual information pertaining to the deletion of the E–Teams data. Combined Reply in Support of Motion to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce One or More Witnesses for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding the Attempted Deletion of E–Team Data, and Opposition to Motion for Protective Order Concerning that same Deposition [# 845] at 9. They urge the Court to permit the deposition and to let each privilege objection be made when the question is asked, rather than barring the deposition altogether simply because there might be questions to which a legitimate privilege objection may be made. Id. at 10 n .12.
ANALYSIS
*3 It must be recalled that this case has been proceeding on two parallel tracks and that I have been fulfilling two roles, that of special master and that of magistrate judge supervising discovery. Lest I invade Judge Sullivan’s consideration of the District’s motion to stay all aspects of the special master’s work except my findings pertaining to the audio and videotapes, I will restrict myself to viewing the problems solely as the magistrate judge presiding over discovery.
First, as to relevance, I have already concluded in this very case that any discovery pertaining to the location of information and its loss that might yield a legitimate claim for sanctions is well within the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Memorandum Opinion [# 604] at 2–3. I see no reason to revisit that conclusion and it applies here as well.
Moreover, any attempt to delete data from what is now the only source of information regarding the running resume may yield evidence of a consciousness of guilt by the person who did it that may be of important evidentiary significance at trial if his or her actions were done at the behest of an employee of the District or the individual
2

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
defendants. See Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir.1998) (intentional destruction of evidence supports inference that evidence would have been unfavorable to party responsible for its destruction); United States v. Marchesani, 457 F.2d 1291, 1298 (6th Cir.1972) (proper to instruct jury on spoliation inference). The deletion might also be the source of a claim of spoliation of evidence that may warrant the award of sanctions or serve as the premise of an independent spoliation claim if plaintiffs can secure Judge Sullivan’s permission to amend their complaint. Thus, plaintiffs easily make the showing that the topics they have proposed will lead to relevant evidence or evidence that is likely to lead to relevant evidence.
It is, of course, true that the discovery of even relevant evidence can be prohibited by a protective order issued pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(c), when a careful balancing of the factors identified in subsections (i) through (iii) of that subsection of the rule indicate that the cost and burden of the discovery sought outweighs its utility. An analysis of those factors indicates that the District has failed to make its case that a protective order should issue. See Jennings v. Family Mgmt., 201 F.R.D. 272, 275 (D.D.C.2001) (movant for protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) must establish good cause for order).
The first two factors speak to whether the discovery sought is cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained more cheaply or conveniently, and whether the party seeking the discovery has had an “ample” opportunity to obtain the information by other discovery. Here, since the deletion was not discovered until after discovery had ended, it was impossible for plaintiffs to direct any discovery to it during the discovery period. Nor is there any other way to get it than to ask the District, through a 30(b)(6) deposition, what its personnel know about how it happened. In that context, plaintiffs are correct to point out that witnesses whom the District identified when it asserted that they previously spoke to this issue did no such thing.
*4 The District pointed to the testimony of three prior 30(b)(6) witnesses that the District had provided: 1) Giuseppe Crissafulli, 2) George Crawford, and 3) Leanne Turner. [# 841] at 11. But, Turner indicated that she was not prepared to speak to the deletion of the E–Team data, and Crissafulli and Crawford were deposed before the deletion was even discovered. [# 845] at 6–7.
The District also noted that plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose Marc Bynum. [# 841] at 11. However, while

Bynum did detect the deletion, he, as a contractor, could not possibly know who may have done it and, as plaintiffs point out, Bynum limited his testimony to events that occurred after January 1, 2007, although the deletion occurred in 2003. [# 845] at 6 n. 8. Thus, this issue is a blank slate and plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue it.
The final factor is whether the utility of the discovery outweighs its burden and cost, considering the “needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(C)(iii).
First, the amount in controversy is significant; a companion case settled for a very substantial amount of money. Second, a comparison of the parties’ resources, those of a municipal treasury versus those of individuals, would seem to favor the individuals since the only cost will be the time that has to be spent by counsel and the witness at the deposition. Finally, I have already stated now on two occasions why I am convinced that discovery into the loss of information and its possible purposeful destruction are legitimate inquiries. Surely, with a sanctions motion looming that may result in a large award of attorney fees, or the District’s being precluded from asserting a defense, introducing evidence, or being subjected to an adverse inference instruction, the issue of who deleted the data and when is crucial. Whether sanctions are appropriate is a decision that should be made on the basis of the best possible factual record. Thus the importance of the possible spoliation issue, and the obvious reality that there is no other way to explore the issue than by the discovery contemplated, makes for a most compelling conclusion that the weighing of the pertinent factors favors permitting the discovery sought.
I appreciate that this case presents what one has to hope is a unique circumstance. There are not many cases where the FBI is investigating the same facts that are to be explored in discovery in a civil action. But, as plaintiffs point out, the potential complications that arise from this circumstance are at this point theoretical. I fully expect counsel for the District to advise any employee, whom it is going to interview about the possible criminal destruction of evidence, that he or she has the right not to incriminate himself or herself and, if necessary, secure for that person independent counsel if that person insists upon it. As I have pointed out, if at that point, the witness refuses to testify on the grounds that he or she might tend to incriminate himself or herself, there the matter will end and there is nothing any of us can do about it. See [# 839]
3

Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
at 6–7. That there is a chance that this may come to pass is not in itself grounds to bring what is, in my view, the crucial need to find out what happened to a screeching halt. As I have also said, we are simply going to have to soldier on. Id. at 8.
*5 I part company with the Chang plaintiffs, however, in their effort to take the deposition of Monique Pressley, Esq., who was the District’s counsel in February, 2010 when Bynum discovered the deletion of the E–Team data, but who is no longer the District’s counsel. Plaintiffs want her to speak to topic 3: “the rationale, justification, reasoning, and/or explanation for the nearly three month delay in transmitting such information to the Court and the Chang Plaintiffs.” It has always troubled Chang plaintiffs that Ms. Pressley told counsel for the other defendants what Bynum had discovered soon after she learned of it but told neither them nor me until several months later.
The effort to take Ms. Pressley’s deposition faces some particularly difficult obstacles.
First, as the District correctly points out, there is a heavy presumption against subjecting opposing trial counsel to a deposition. [# 836] at 11 (quoting Guantanamera Cigar Co., v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C.2009)).
Second, it is equally clear that, while the work product privilege as set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speaks of a document, it unquestionably also

prohibits the exploration of the lawyer’s thoughts, opinions and mental impressions even if they have not taken tactile form. See Alexander v. FBI, 192 F.R.D. 12, 17 (D.D.C.2000); Neese v. Pittman, 202 F.R.D. 344, 356 (D.D.C.2001). It is frankly impossible to ask Ms. Pressley questions about her “rationale, justification, reasoning and/or explanation” for her delay in telling Chang plaintiffs about what Bynum had found without seeking her thoughts and mental impressions, in obvious violation of the work product privilege. I see no purpose in convening a deposition only to have it inevitably end moments later with a justified claim of privilege to the questions being asked.
Lest there be any confusion, however, I want to make it clear that topic number in the notice of deposition is a legitimate area of inquiry of the District’s representative at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Privilege claims must be asserted during that deposition to preserve them.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s resumption of the 30(b)(6) deposition will be permitted but its attempt to take Ms. Pressley’s deposition will be denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
	  

4

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 42 Filed 09/12/03 Page 1 of 2

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA
OFRCEOFTHECORPORATIONCOUNSEL
It * *
Ii

September 12, 2003

By Hand Honorable ~mmet G. Sullivan United States District Court
for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC

Re: Abbate, et al v. District of Collnnbia, Civil Action No. 03-00767 (EGS)
!
I
Pursuant to the Court's Order issued in yesterday's hearing in the above,
referenced matter, the Government of the District of Columbia is submitting the three ,
enclosed documents:

Undated "Final Report Relati'lle to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct Made at

the October 24,2002, Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia, Cbncerning the 1MFI World Bank Protests." This
document includes the attac~ents, discussed in yesterday's heating, upon which

the report is based;

I
"Report Relative to Complairits of Alleged Misconduct Made at the October 24,

2002, Hearing ofthe Committee on the Judiciary ofthe Council ofthe District of I
Columbia, Concerning the IMiFI World Bank Protests," dated January 25, 2003;

and

I

I

MemorandUlll, dated March 13,2003, to Mayor Anthony A. Williams from Chief

Charles H. Ramsey regarding i"Final Decisions on Recommendations Following

Review ofActions Taken by ¥,embers ofthe Metropolitan Police Department

During the Fa1l2002IMF/World Bank Protests."

I
These documents have not been redacted. The District Defendants do not seek a protective order regarding these docu\nents.
,

Respectfully submitted,
tJ)~~-
Thomas L. Koger (J
Senior Litigation Counsel

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 42 Filed 09/12/03 Page 2 of 2
cc: Mara VerheYden-Hilliar~, Esquire (wi encL)
Jarrett A. Williams, Esqpire (wi encl.) Brian C. Malone, Esquire (wi encl.) Daniel C. Schwartz, Es4uire (wi encl.) AUSA Laurie J. Weinst~in (wi ene!.) AUSA Marina Utgoff.!3raswell (wi enel.)

 
 ____ [
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 02-20 I0 (EGS)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreetpent and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") is entered into by and between RayMing Chang, Christopher Zarconi, Young Choi, and Leanne Leroy (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") and the District of Columbia, former Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") Chief Charles H. Ramsey, MPD Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham, former MPD Executive Assistant Chief Michael Fitzgerald, MPD Officer Brian DiGirolamo, MPD Officer Andre Harrison, MPD Officer Michael Smith, the United States of America, the National Park Service, former U.S. Park Police Major Richard Murphy, and the Fairfax County Sheriffs Department ("Fairfax") (collectively, the "Defendants'') (Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referenced herein as the "Parties"), as follows: WHEREAS, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group held its 2002 annual meeting in Washington, D.C. between September 27 and 29, 2002; and WHEREAS, on the morning of Friday, September 27, 2002, Plaintiffs were in Pershing Park in Washington, D.C. not as protesters but in their capacity as either student journalists or legal observers; and

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 18
WHEREAS, on the morning of Friday, September 27, 2002, Plaintiffs were arrested in Pershing Park and detained until various times on Saturday, September 28, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that they suffered both physical and mental injuries as a result of their arrest and detainment; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2002, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting claims of constitutional violations pled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and common law tort claims, and seeking damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees, thereby initiating Case No. 02-cv-20 10 (the "Litigation"); and
WHEREAS, the Third Amended Complaint is the Complaint currently at issue in the Litigation; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have asserted claims arising from their arrest and detention on September 27, 2002, including, among others, violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution through false arrest and false imprisonment and Federal Tort Claims Act claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677 (the "Plaintiffs' Claims"); and
WHEREAS, Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' Claims and that they are liable to Plaintiffs for any amount of damages arising from the Plaintiffs' Claims; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein, which the Plaintiffs and the Defendants acknowledge are valuable, good and sufficient consideration for the releases and other exchanges contemplated hereby, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants do hereby agree as follows:
2

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 18
1. Effective Date: This Agreement will be effective on the date when it is executed by all Parties (the "Effective Date").
2. Payment to Plaintiffs: Defendants the United States of America and the District of Columbia, only, agree to pay, and Plaintiffs agree to accept, a sum total of two million eight hundred ten thousand dollars ($2,81 0,000.00) (the "Settlement Sum"), of which twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) will be paid by the United States of America, as full satisfaction of all claims and potential claims for damages and other monetary relief, under any theory of liability, against all Defendants, and their current and former agents, officers, and employees, whether or not encompassed by the Third Amended Complaint or any prior complaint filed in this matter, including claims for attorneys' fees and/or other costs incurred in prosecuting this action through the date of the execution of this Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that the Settlement Sum will be distributed as follows:
i) The District of Columbia will pay $440,000 to the Plaintiffs as damages, with each Plaintiff receiving $11 0,000, ii) The United States of America will pay $20,000 to the Plaintiffs, with each Plaintiff receiving $5,000, iii) The District of Columbia will pay $2.35 million in attorneys' fees and costs to be allocated as agreed by them between Bryan Cave LLP and Jonathan Turley. iv) Payment by the District of Columbia shall be by wire transfers or checks to the "Bryan Cave DC IOLTA Attorney Trust Account," within thirty (30) business days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement and the receipt of all necessary documents to facilitate payment, including W9 forms, whichever occurs later.
3

I I

---I

-----------1

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 18

v) The United States agrees to request payment from the Judgment Fund of its portion of the Settlement Payment within thirty (30) days of the signature of this Agreement and Release and to make the Settlement Payment to Plaintiffs' attorneys in a reasonably prompt manner thereafter. Plaintiffs' attorneys agree to distribute Plaintiffs' share of the Settlement Payment to Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs' attorneys seek to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2678, Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for services rendered in connection with this action shall not exceed 25% (twenty-five percent) of the $5,000 paid by the United States of America to each Plaintiff and must be recovered, if at all, from the $5,000 paid to each Plaintiff. 3. No Admission of Liability. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, there is no admission of liability by the Defendants or admission of any factual contentions that have been asserted by Plaintiffs in this litigation. Defendants specifically disclaim any and all liability to Plaintiffs or that the Defendants committed any wrongful or negligent act or acts against Plaintiffs or any other person. Plaintiffs do not suggest or concede a lack of merit to their claims or to any factual contention that has been asserted by Plaintiffs in this litigation. This Settlement is entered into by the Parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation. 4. Dismissal of Claims: Upon full and timely payment of the Settlement Sum, the Parties shall jointly file with the Court a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, in the form of Exhibit A, which shall effect a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the Defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(l )(A)(ii) and shall serve to otherwise terminate with prejudice any and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the Defendants in this action. The filing of this Stipulation with the Court
4

---I
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 18
shall also effect a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the crossclaims asserted by Fairfax against the United States Park Police.
5. Fairfax I United States Tolling Agreement: The United States and the United States Park Police agree that any statute of limitations applicable to the Cross Claims asserted by Fairfax against the United States Park Police in this action (R.207), including any claim or entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Fairfax in defending the Litigation, shall be tolled from the Effective Date of this Agreement through thirty (30) days following the receipt by counsel for Fairfax of notice by the United States Park Police of its intention to terminate the tolling provisions of this Paragraph (the "Fairfax Tolling Period''). The United States and the United States Park Police expressly waive and will not plead, argue, or otherwise raise any statute of limitations, laches, res judicata, or any other similar defenses as to the Cross Claims asserted by Fairfax in this action (R.207) to the extent any statute of limitations applicable to those cross claims expires during the Fairfax Tolling Period.
6. Settlement Agreement for Benefit of the Settling Parties Only: This Settlement Agreement is intended to be for the benefit of the Settling Parties only. The Settling Parties do not release any claims against any other person or entity, except to the extent expressly provided for herein.
7. Release of Defendants: In consideration of the promises set forth in this Agreement, Plaintiffs and their representatives, agents, successors, assigns and attorneys ("Plaintiff Releasors") shall fully release the Defendants and their respective current and former officers, representatives, employees, agents, subcontractors, successors, assigns and attorneys ("Defendant Released Parties") of and from all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages and liabilities of whatever kind or character, whether legal, equitable or statutory,
5

- - - __ ]

I I

---: !

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 6 of 18

arising from the beginning of the world to the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, known or unknown, present or contingent, that the Plaintiff Releasors, or any of them, have or may have against one or more of the Defendant Released Parties, including those asserted in the Litigation (the "Plaintiffs' Released Claims").
8. Release of Plaintiffs: In consideration ofthe promises set forth in this Agreement, Defendants and their current and former respective officers, directors, shareholders, representatives, employees, agents, subcontractors, successors, assigns, and attorneys ("Defendant Releasors") shall fully and finally release Plaintiffs and their representatives, agents, successors, assigns and attorneys ("Plaintiff Released Parties") of and from all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages and liabilities of whatever kind or character, whether legal, equitable or statutory, arising from Plaintiffs' arrest and detention on September 27-28, 2002, except that the District does not release any claims arising out of or related to child support or tax liability, if any, and the United States does not release any claims for tax liability, if any.
9. No Prior Assignment: Each Party represents, warrants, and covenants that it has not made any assignment, nor will it make any assignment, of any claim, right of action, or any right of any kind whatsoever, embodied in any of the Plaintiffs' Released Claims or the Defendants' Released Claims, without the prior written consent of the United States and the District of Columbia, and that no other person or entity of any kind had or has any interest in any of the Plaintiffs' Released Claims or the Defendants' Released Claims.
10. Governing Law: With respect to Plaintiffs' claims against the District of Columbia, former Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") Chief Charles H. Ramsey, MPD Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham, former MPD Executive Assistant Chief Michael Fitzgerald, MPD Officer Brian DiGirolamo, MPD Officer Andre Harrison, MPD Officer Michael Smith,
6

-- l

i !

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 7 of 18

this Settlement Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the District of

Columbia. With respect to Plaintiffs' claims against the United States of America, the National

Park Service, former U.S. Park Police Major Richard Murphy, and the Fairfax County Sheriffs

Department, this Settlement Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States. Any action

or proceeding arising out of, or relating in any way to the subject matter of this Settlement

Agreement, shall be brought in a District of Columbia court, or a United States court sitting in

the District of Columbia.

11. Counterparts: This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more

counterparts that together shall constitute one Settlement Agreement. Signatures delivered by

facsimile or electronically shall be deemed as effective as original signatures and shall be

admissible in any court, proceeding, or hearing. The persons signing this Settlement Agreement

warrant that they have the authority to do so.

12. Amendment: This Settlement Agreement may be amended only by an instrument

in writing signed by the Parties executing this Agreement.

13. Entire Understanding: This Settlement Agreement contains the entire

understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement.

This Settlement Agreement supersedes all prior understandings and agreements, whether written

or oral, and all prior dealings of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Parties

acknowledge that they have consulted with attorney(s) of their own choosing regarding the

. rights,

obligations,

and

other .

terms

of this

Settlement

Agreement,

that

they

have

entered

into

this

Settlement Agreement knowingly, freely and voluntarily without coercion or undue influence,

and that they have negotiated such terms at arm's length. Each party assumes the risk that the

facts or law may be other than it believes.

7

! !
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 8 of 18
14. Non-Severability: The Parties do not intend this Agreement to be severable absent express written agreement by the Parties.
15. Default: Each and every term hereof is a material part of the consideration to the Parties for entering into this Settlement Agreement. A failure by the Plaintiffs or the Defendants to observe or perform any covenant, term or provision of this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a default under this Settlement Agreement.
16. Binding Agreement: This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties' heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be deemed or construed to confer any right, title, benefit, cause of action, or remedy upon any person or entity not a party hereto, which such party would not or did not otherwise possess.
17. Headings: The section headings are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way alter, amend, define or be used in the construction or interpretation of the text of such action.
18. No Construction Against Draftsman: The provisions ofthis Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to have been jointly drafted by Plaintiffs and Defendants and shall not be construed against a Party because of their role in drafting this Settlement Agreement.
8

----1

I I

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 9 of 18

VOH l'HE PLAINTIFFS:

Christopher Zan:oni
!)ated: Young Choi
Dated: Leanne Leroy
Dated:

BRYAN CAVE LLP

Date

.......... ············~·-
JONATHAN TURLEY

Date

DANIEL C. SCH\VAR·rz

2000 H Street N. W.

JACOB A. KRAI'vlER

Washington, D.C. 20052

JENNIFER KlES MAivHv1EN

(202) 994-700 l

HEATHERS. GOLDl'v1AN

1155 F Street, N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20004

(202) 508-6000

At!orncysjhr Plainltjf\·

9

I !
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 10 of 18

----I !

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

RayMing Chang Dakd: ---------··------

Young Choi
Dated: Leanne Leroy
--·------..- - · - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __

BRYAN CAVE LLP

Date

DANIEL C. SCHWARTZ

JACOB A. KRAMER

JENNIFER KlES MAMMEN

HEATHERS. GOLDMAN

1155 F Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 508-6000

JONATHAN TURLEY

Date

2000 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20052

(202) 994-7001

Attorneys for Plaintiff~·

9

---I

!

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 11 of 18

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

RayMing Chang

Christopher Zarconi

YoungCboi
-~~~~. -··
Dated: J/p£:{._ ~T_f?_o/ £ _______
Leanne Leroy
--------···-~-~-

.. -····-~·-· ·-------~---

BRYAN CAVE LLP

Date

DANlEL C. SCHWARTZ

JACOB A. KRAMER

JENNIFER KIES MAMMEN

HEATHER S. GOLDMAN

1155 F Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 508~6000

JONATHAN TURLEY 2000 H Street, N.W. Washint,11:on, D.C. 20052 (202) 994~700 l
Attorneysjhr Plaintiff.\

Datt:

9

----I
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 12 of 18

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

RayMing Chang
Dated: ------------------------
Christopher Zarconi
Dated: YoungChoi
-------------------
Dated: -----------------------Leanne Leroy

BRYAN CAVE LLP DANIEL C. SCHWARTZ JACOB A. KRAMER JENNIFER KIES MAMMEN HEATHERS. GOLDMAN 1155 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 508-6000

Date

JONATHAN TURLEY 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 (202) 994-7001

Date

Attorneysfor Plaintiff.~

9

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 13 of 18

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

RayMing Chang

Dated: ----------------------Christopher Zarconi

Dated: ----------------------Young Choi

Dated: ----------------------Leanne Leroy

'1-i-1&-
Date
I 155 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 508-6000

Dated: -----------------------

·~\
2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 (202) 994-7001

y- S'- l(a
Date

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

----I
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 14 of 18

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THI': UNITED STATES PARK POLICE. AND FORMER CS. PARK POLICE MAJOR RJCliARD MVRPHY:
CJIANN!~.:c; D. PHn.LIJ?.~ United States Atto~
DANil::L F. VAN li'QR~ Chief, Civil Divis~

By~~~~.~-~~"'"""-'=_:::::_::;,_-~~ '\\ (p

MARINA l.'TGor· · B 1

Date -\

BRIAN P. HUDAK

Assistant United States Attorneys

555 F·'ourth Street. N\V

Washington. DC 20530

(202) 252-2549

Alforncysji;r the United Stales. the .Vatluna! Park ,)'ervice. the Unitt!d Stares Park Police, and fiwmcr U.S Park Po/la J/ajor Nichard Afurphv

10

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 15 of 18
FOR THE FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Cook Craig & Francuzenko 3050 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 865-7480 Attorneys for the Fairfax County Sheriff's Department
11

I '

----I

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 16 of 18

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FORMER METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ("MPD") CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, MPD ASSISTANT CHIEF PETER J, NEWSHAM, FORMER MPD EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL FITZGERALD, MPD OFFICER BRIAN DIGIROLAMO, MPD OFFICER ANDRE HARRISON, MPD OFI'ICER MICHAEL SMITH
KARLA. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division
?--~~-
JONATHAN H. PITTMAN Assistant Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6602
Attorneys for the District Defendants

12

-----1

----I

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 17 of 18

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eta!. )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 02-20 I0 (EGS)

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a), Plaintiffs RayMing Chang, Christopher Zarconi, Young Choi, and Leanne Leroy and Defendants the District of Columbia, former Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") Chief Charles H. Ramsey, former MPD Executive Assistant Chief Michael Fitzgerald, MPD Officer Brian DiGirolamo, MPD Officer Andre Harrison, MPD Officer Michael Smith (collectively "District Defendants''), MPD Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham, the United States of America, the National Park Service, former U.S. Park Police Major Richard Murphy, and the Fairfax County Sheriffs Department, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of the above-captioned action, and all pending claims, except any claims that Fairfax County Sheriffs Office may have against the United States of America, which are dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing full and exclusive responsibility for the costs and attorneys' fees associated with his or its own representation.

((SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE))

I !
Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS Document 1095-1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 18 of 18

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _, 2016

Is/ HeatherS. Goldman
Daniel C. Schwartz (D.C. Bar No. 017749) Jacob A. Kramer (D.C. Bar No. 494050) Jennifer Kies Mammen (D.C. Bar No. 975586) HeatherS. Goldman (D.C. Bar No. 100 1566) Bryan Cave LLP 1155 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 508-6000

Is/ Robert E. Deso
Robert E. Deso (D.C. Bar No. 174185) Deso & Buckley, P.C. 1776 K Street, N.W., Suite 830 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 822-6333
Counsel for Defendant Peter.! Newsham

Is/ Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar No. 417674) 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 (202) 994-7001
Counsel for the Chang Plaintiffs
Karl A. Racine Attorney General for the District of Columbia
George C. Valentine Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division

Channing D. Phillips (D.C. Bar. No. 415793) United States Attorney
Daniel F. Van Horn (D.C. Bar No. 924092) Chief, Civil Division
Is/ Marina UtgoffBraswell
Marina Utgoff Braswell (D.C. Bar No. 416587) Brian P. Hudak Assistant United States Attorneys 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2561
Counsel for Federal Defendants

Jonathan H. Pittman Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6602
Is/ William F. Causey
William F. Causey (D.C. BarNo. 260661) Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610

Is/ Alexander Francuzenko
Alexander Francuzenko (D.C. Bar No. 452326) Cook Craig & Francuzenko, PLLC 3050 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 865-7480
Counsel for Defendant Fairfax County Sheriff's Department

Counsel for the District Defendants

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 1 of 153
JURY,STAYED,TYPE−E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS

CHANG et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Case in other court: 07−05306 Cause: 28:2201 Injunction
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/15/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

RAYMING CHANG

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6025 Fax: (202) 220−7325 Email: dcschwartz@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Robert Turley GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 2000 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20052 (202) 994−7001 Fax: (202) 994−9811 Email: jturley@law.gwu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. O'Connor 3M Office of General Counsel 3M Center Bldg. 220−9E−01 St. Paul, MN 55144 (651) 733−0616 Fax: (651) 736 3833 Email: oconnor.dt@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/14/2014

David Schertler SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP 575 7th Street, N.W. Suite 300 South Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628−4199 Fax: (202) 628−4177 Email: dschertler@schertlerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Alan Zetoony BRYAN CAVE, LLP 1801 13th Street Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 444−5955 Fax: (303) 417−8550 Email: david.zetoony@bryancave.com

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 2 of 153
TERMINATED: 09/25/2007
Elizabeth L. Martin PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 875 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 551−1937 Fax: (202) 551−0437 Email: elizabethmartin@paulhastings.com TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE
George Francis Murphy , IV BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6000 Email: george.murphy@bryancave.com TERMINATED: 10/28/2014
Heather Shaw Goldman BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6311 Email: heather.goldman@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan Jay Snyder GILBERT, LLP 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 772−1921 Fax: (202) 772−1922 Email: snyderi@gotofirm.com TERMINATED: 10/17/2011
Jacob A. Kramer BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6153 Fax: (202) 220−7453 Email: jakramer@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Blunt KUTAK ROCK LLP 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036−4374 (202) 828−2421 Fax: 202−828−2488 Email: jennifer.blunt@kutakrock.com TERMINATED: 08/10/2010
Jennifer Kies Mammen BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 3 of 153

(202) 508−6044 Email: jennifer.mammen@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Joanne Seikaly REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, NW Suite 1000 − East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 414−2919 Fax: (202) 414−9299 Email: kseikaly@reedsmith.com TERMINATED: 03/06/2009

Nicholas S. Sloey BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 Email: nsloey@cftc.gov TERMINATED: 04/30/2015

Nikki A. Ott ALSTON & BIRD LLP Bank of America Plaza 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280 (704) 445−1005 Fax: (704) 444−1111 Email: nikki.ott@alston.com TERMINATED: 02/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Philip James Meitl 3903 McKinney Ave. Apt. 122 Dallas, TX 75204 202−49406453 Email: pjmeitl@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/12/2013

Scott M. Badami FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP PO BOX 3001 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 (610) 397−7974 Fax: (610) 397−0450 Email: sbadami@foxrothschild.com TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Plaintiff AMY CHASTAIN

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 4 of 153

David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007

Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE

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

Nikki A. Ott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Plaintiff YOUNG CHOI

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2014

David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007

Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE

George Francis Murphy , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2014

Heather Shaw Goldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2011

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

Katherine Joanne Seikaly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2009

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 5 of 153

Plaintiff MEAGHAN ENRIGHT
Plaintiff LEANNE LEE

Nicholas S. Sloey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2015
Nikki A. Ott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip James Meitl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2013
Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008
represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007
Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE
Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008
represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel T. O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2014
David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007
Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 6 of 153

PRO HAC VICE

George Francis Murphy , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2014

Heather Shaw Goldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2011

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

Katherine Joanne Seikaly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2009

Nicholas S. Sloey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2015

Nikki A. Ott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Philip James Meitl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2013

Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Plaintiff ELIZABETH L. YOUNG

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007

Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE

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

Nikki A. Ott

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 7 of 153

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Robert Turley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel T. O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2014

David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2007

Elizabeth L. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2006 PRO HAC VICE

George Francis Murphy , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2014

Heather Shaw Goldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/17/2011

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

Katherine Joanne Seikaly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2009

Nicholas S. Sloey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2015

Nikki A. Ott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Philip James Meitl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2013

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 8 of 153
Scott M. Badami (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

V. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Brian P. Hudak U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2549 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: brian.hudak@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary Philip−Matthew Corn U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−9895 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: gary.corn@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marina Utgoff Braswell U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2561 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: Marina.Braswell@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edith Margeurita Shine UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 307−1249 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: edith.shine@usss.dhs.gov TERMINATED: 07/13/2004
Laurie J. Weinstein U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2527 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: Laurie.Weinstein2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/28/2004
Michelle Nicole Bradford UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Room 9842

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 9 of 153

Washington, DC 20001 (202) 252−7803 Fax: (202) 514−7880 Email: michelle.bradford@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

Peter S. Smith UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Appellate Division 555 4th Street, NW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20530−0001 (202) 252−6769 Fax: (202) 514−8779 Email: peter.smith@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/15/2007

William Mark Nebeker U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2536 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: mark.nebeker@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

represented by Ellen A. Efros OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 4 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 724−7820 Fax: (202) 724−8129 Email: eefros@dccouncil.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard H. Becker EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 327 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 727−1597 Fax: (202) 727−6014 Email: len.becker@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha J. Mullen OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6612 Fax: (202) 730−0635 Email: martha.mullen@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 10 of 153
Robert C. Utiger DC OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 441 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 442−5168 Email: robert.utiger@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUblic Interest Division 441 4th Street, NW 6th Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6610 Email: william.causey@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Wayne Copeland OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6623 Fax: (202) 741−8880 Email: chad.copeland@dc.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2010
Jayme Kantor OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6627 Email: jayme.kantor@dc.gov TERMINATED: 04/22/2009
Leah Brownlee Taylor OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Public Interest Division 441 4th Street, NW Suite 600 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724 −7854 Fax: (202) 727−3625 Email: leah.taylor@dc.gov TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Lori S. Parris 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 442−8404 Fax: (202) 727−3625 Email: lori.parris@dc.gov

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 11 of 153

TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Monique Daniel Pressley PRESSLEY FIRM, PLLC 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973−0181 Email: mdpressley@thepressleyfirm.com TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6534 Fax: (202) 741−8934 Email: shana.frost@dc.gov TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Public Interest Division, Equity Section 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727−4170 Fax: (202) 715−7762 Email: thomas.koger@dc.gov TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Philip−Matthew Corn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edith Margeurita Shine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

Laurie J. Weinstein (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2004

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 12 of 153

Defendant METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TERMINATED: 07/19/2005 Defendant JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10 Defendant JOHN/ JANE DOES 11−20 TERMINATED: 07/19/2005 Defendant PETER J. NEWSHAM
Defendant

Peter S. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007
William Mark Nebeker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2004
represented by Leonard H. Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010
David W. Buckley DESO & BUCKLEY, P.C. 1828 L Street, NW Suite 270 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−6333 Fax: (202) 822−6665 Email: dwbuckley@dtswlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011
Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015
Robert Edward Deso DESO & BUCKLEY, P.C. 1776 K Street, NW Suite 830 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 822−6333 Fax: (202) 478−2181 Email: redeso@dtswlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 13 of 153

B. DIGIROLAMO An officer of the Metropolitan Police Department on September 27, 2002 with badge #0497, in his individual and personal capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant
FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

represented by Alexander Francuzenko COOK, CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC 3050 Chain Bridge Road Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 865−7480 Fax: (703) 434−3510 Email: alex@cookcraig.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin J. O'Connell O'CONNELL & O'CONNELL, LLC 401 East Jefferson Street Suite 204 Rockville, MD 20850−2617 (301) 424−2300 Fax: (301) 424−2394 Email: kevin@oconnelllaw.com TERMINATED: 10/01/2007

Defendant
MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department and in his individual and personal capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 14 of 153

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant
A. HARRISON An Officer of the Metropolitan Police Department on September 27, 2002, with badge #2046, in his individual and personal capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant
BRIAN K. JORDAN IN his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department and in his individual and personal capacity TERMINATED: 01/06/2015

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 15 of 153

TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant
RICHARD MURPHY In his official capacity as a Major, U.S. Park Police and his individual ans personal capacity

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

Defendant
PETER J. NEWSHAM In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity

represented by William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Edward Deso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Defendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY in his individual and personal capacity

represented by William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Martin Faust LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. FAUST, PLLC 1325 G. Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 449−7707 Fax: 202 449 7701 Email: john@johnfaustlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/09/2010

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 16 of 153

Defendant
M. SMITH An officer of the Metropolitan Police Department on september 27, 2002, with badge #3486, in his individual and personal capacity

Justin M. Shellaway FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502−6573 Fax: (202) 208−0057 Email: justin.shellaway@ferc.gov TERMINATED: 06/11/2008
Lauren Elizabeth Curry IBM 1 North Castle Dr. Armonk, NY 10504 (914) 765−7501 Email: laurenecurry@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/27/2016
Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006
Mark Henry Tuohey , III BROWN RUDNICK, LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 600S Washington, DC 20005 (202) 536−1700 Fax: (202) 289−0450 Email: mtuohey@brownrudnick.com TERMINATED: 02/10/2015
represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006
Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015
Thomas Louis Koger

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 17 of 153

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS In his official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia TERMINATED: 07/16/2007

represented by Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Defendant
ADRIAN M. FENTY Mayor, in his official capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Defendant
CATHY L. LANIER District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Chief, in her official capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Frederick Causey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2015

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

V. Interested Party

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 18 of 153

MARY CHEH

represented by John R. Hoellen COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the General Counsel 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite #4 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 724−8123 Fax: 202−724−8129 Email: jhoellen@dccouncil.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party STROZ FRIEDBERG, LLC

Interested Party
THOMAS L. KOGER Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Office of the Attorney General

represented by Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
TERRENCE D. RYAN Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Office of the Attorney General

represented by Howard M. Shapiro WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663−6606 Fax: (202) 663−6363 Email: howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeannie S. Rhee WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663−6027 Fax: (202) 663−6363 Email: jeannie.rhee@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John DeGenova WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663−6109 Fax: (202) 663−6363 Email: john.degenova@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 19 of 153

RONALD B. HARRIS

represented by Jennifer M. Blunt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party DOUGLAS A. JONES

represented by Harold D. Martin , II ROBERT A. ADES & ASSOC., P.C. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036−4007 (202)452−8080 Fax: (202) 833−6550 Email: hdmartin2@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party STEPHEN J. GAFFIGAN

Interested Party NEIL L. TRUGMAN

represented by Danny C. Onorato SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP 575 7th Street, N.W. Suite 300 South Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628−4199 Fax: (202) 628−4177 Email: donorato@schertlerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Interested Party GEORGE H. CRAWFORD

represented by Alexandra W. Miller ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 1800 M Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036−5807 (202) 778−1845 Fax: (202) 220−8106 Email: smiller@zuckerman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger Eric Zuckerman ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 1800 M Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036−5807 (202) 778−1800, ext 1802 Fax: (202) 822−8106 Email: rzuckerman@zuckerman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven N. Herman ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 1800 M Street, NW

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 20 of 153

Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036−5807 (202) 778−1883 Email: sherman@zuckerman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party JAMES O. CRANE

represented by Alexandra W. Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger Eric Zuckerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven N. Herman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party ALFRED J. BROADBENT

represented by Robert Stephen Bennett HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637−6464 Fax: (202) 661−8205 Email: Robert.Bennett@Hoganlovells.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelita M. Stewart HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004−1109 (202) 637−5600 Email: shelita.stewart@hoganlovells.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party GIUSEPPI CRISAFULLI, JR.

Interested Party CECILIA M. TILGHMAN

represented by Jeanett P. Henry 8403 Colesville Road Suite 1100 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 562−1340 Email: jhenry2085@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party RAI HOWELL

represented by Donald M. Temple DONALD M. TEMPLE, P.C. 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 203 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 628−1101 Fax: (202) 628−1149

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 21 of 153

Email: dtemplelaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party MONIQUE PRESSLEY

represented by Natalie Olivia Ludaway LEFTWICH & LUDAWAY, LLC 1400 K Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005−2403 (202) 434−9134 Fax: (202) 434−7297 Email: noludaway@leftwichlaw.com TERMINATED: 02/20/2015

Material Witness JIM COSTAS

represented by John A. Fraser , III DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Building 6000 Joint Base Anacostia Bolling The Pentagon Room 2D614 Washington, DC 20340 (703) 693−2362 Fax: (703) 693−4274 Email: jfraser@fraseronline.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Welch MCMAHON, WELCH AND LEARNED 2100 Reston Parkway Suite 325 Reston, VA 20191 (703) 483−2812 Fax: (703) 621−9355 Email: wwelch@MWLLegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

represented by Alexander Francuzenko (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 22 of 153

10/15/2002 10/15/2002
10/18/2002
10/18/2002 10/25/2002 10/25/2002 10/29/2002 10/29/2002 11/07/2002
11/14/2002 12/06/2002 12/13/2002 12/15/2002 12/16/2002
01/03/2003 01/16/2003 01/17/2003

1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $150 ). Filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (td, ) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
SUMMONS (5)Issued as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and U.S. Attorney General (td, ) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 10/15/2002, answer due 11/4/2002; METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 10/15/2002, answer due 11/4/2002 (cdw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney on 10/15/2002, answer due 12/16/2002 (cdw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to NATIONAL PARK SERVICE served on 10/22/2002, answer due 12/23/2002. (cdw, ) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General on 10/16/02 (cdw, ) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
5 NOTICE REGARDING TIME TO ANSWER by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
ORDER granting Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 8 , enlarging to and including December 13, 2002. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 14, 2002. (GK, ) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by RAYMING CHANG , AMY CHASTAIN , YOUNG CHOI , MEAGHAN ENRIGHT , LEANNE LEE , ELIZABETH L. YOUNG , CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI .(td, ) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 9 Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 memorandum in support)(Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
11 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 12/15/2002)
ORDER granting 10 Defendants District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Department Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, granting 11 Defendants United States of America and National Park Service Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Respond. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 16, 2002. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
12 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 1 Complaint related case (Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
13 MOTION to Dismiss by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Stacy Anderson)(Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
14 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard Murphy# 2 News Articles 1999# 3 News Articles 2000# 4 Park Police Operations Plan# 5 General Orders# 6 Permits# 7 Permits (50 Years)# 8 News Articles (2002)# 9 Park Police Report)(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 01/17/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 23 of 153

01/23/2003
01/27/2003 01/28/2003 01/29/2003 02/11/2003
02/11/2003
02/12/2003 02/14/2003 02/19/2003 02/24/2003 02/25/2003
02/26/2003 02/26/2003 02/26/2003 03/03/2003

15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss, 14 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
ORDER granting 15 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss, 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiffs shall file their responses by no later than February 24, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 27, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
16 ORDER directing defendants to file a Certificate of Service. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 28, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
17 NOTICE by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 16 Order Requiring Filing of Certificate of Service (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
18 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss, 14 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) Modified on 2/12/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/11/2003)
19 MOTION for Discovery Schedule (Expedited) and Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Motions to Dismiss by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
20 Consent MOTION to Stay re 13 MOTION to Dismiss, 14 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
ORDER granting 20 Consent Motion to Stay the time for Plaintiffs'Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 14, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
21 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 19 pltfs' motn to say response to motn to dismiss filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
22 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION for Discovery Schedule (Expedited) and Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Motions to Dismiss by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 19 MOTION for Discovery Schedule (Expedited) and Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Motions to Dismiss. Federal defendant's response due by 2/27/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 25, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
23 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION for Discovery Schedule (Expedited) and Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Motions to Dismiss by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
24 REPLY in support of motion re 19 filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−National Shopmen v. Folger)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Badami, Scott) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 19 MOTION for Discovery Schedule (Expedited) and Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to Motions to Dismiss. Reply due by 3/5/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 24 of 153

03/05/2003 03/05/2003 03/05/2003 03/12/2003 03/19/2003
03/19/2003 03/19/2003 03/24/2003 03/28/2003 03/31/2003 04/02/2003 04/21/2003
04/22/2003 04/29/2003 05/23/2003 05/28/2003

Sullivan on March 3, 2003.(lcegs2) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
26 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 19 filed by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
27 ORDER setting status conference and hearing on pending motion for expedited discovery on March 19, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom One. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 5, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/19/2003 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
28 REPLY in support of motion re 19 filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 3/19/2003; case is referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for settlement purposes case 1s temporarily stayed; plaintiff's discovery plan due 3/24/03; defendant's objections due 3/31/03; plaintiff's reply due by 4/2/03; chambers to electronically issue an order. (Court Reporter Jackie Wood, Miller.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
29 ORDER referring case to Magistrate Judge Kay for settlement discussions and setting forth instruction to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 19, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for settlement. (cp, ) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
30 RESPONSE to Discovery Request from Judge Sullivan's March 19, 2003 Order (Proposed Discovery Plan) by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI.(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
31 RESPONSE to any document plaintiffs' discovery plan filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
32 RESPONSE to any document Objections to Plaintiffs Proposed Discovery Plan filed by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
33 REPLY in Support of Plantiffs Proposed Discovery Plan by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Badami, Scott) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
34 MOTION for Leave to File supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss)(Becker, Leonard) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
35 RESPONSE to the District Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Badami, Scott) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
36 NOTICE by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI on Settlement Status (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
37 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 6/24/2003 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 23, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
ORDER granting 34 Motion for Leave to File supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for want of jurisidiction. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 05/28/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 25 of 153

06/20/2003 07/08/2003 07/29/2003 09/05/2003 09/11/2003
09/12/2003 09/12/2003
09/24/2003
09/24/2003 09/25/2003 09/29/2003
10/07/2003 10/09/2003 10/09/2003 10/10/2003 10/15/2003
10/15/2003

38 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/9/2003 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 20, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
39 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2003 at 11:00 a.m. is CONTINUED to 8/4/2003 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 8, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 8/4/2003 CONTINUED to 9/11/2003 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
40 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 9/11/2003. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2003 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. chambers to issue order(Court Reporter Frank Rangus.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
41 ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to file documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
42 NOTICE of filing of Undated Final Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct, Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct and March 13, 2003 Memorandum by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(td, ) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
43 ORDER resolving pending motions for consolidation and class certification, setting forth instructions to counsel, and setting a hearing on pending motions for December 11, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 19, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for December 11, 2003, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
44 AMENDED COMPLAINT (CONSOLIDATED) against all defendants, By All Plaintiffs(td, ) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the terms of the September 19, 2003, order in this case, 13 Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice; 14 Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice; and 19 Motion for Discovery is denied without prejudice.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
Summons (1) Issued as to PETER J. NEWSHAM. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(td, ) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
45 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to FIle Dispositive Motion by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
46 MOTION to Dismiss by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
ORDER granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 10, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
47 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 # 5 Exhibit)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
48 NOTICE by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 47 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 # 4 Exhibit)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 10/15/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 26 of 153

10/15/2003 10/23/2003
10/23/2003
10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/28/2003 10/28/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 11/06/2003 11/10/2003 11/14/2003

49 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates 9/11/03; Court Reporter: Frank J. Rangus. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(td, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by National Park Service, United States of America by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
51 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 46 filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1 Washington Post# 2 Exhibit #2 AFX European Focus# 3 Exhibit #3 Washington Times)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
52 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. PETER J. NEWSHAM served on 10/8/2003, answer due 10/28/2003 Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 50 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Response shall be filed no later than October 31, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 27, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
53 ERRATA To The Chang Plaintiffs' Opposition To The District Defendants' Motion To Dismiss by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
54 First MOTION to Dismiss by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
55 ORDER cancelling December 11, 2003, motions hearing and setting motions hearing for February 11, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motions Hearing set for February 11, 2004, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
56 MOTION for Discovery and To Stay the Time for Plaintiffs' Response to the Federal Defendants' Motion for Dismissal or Summary Judgment by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
57 REPLY in support of motion re 46 For Partial Dismissal of Complaint by Defendants District of Columbia, Mayor Anthony A. Williams and Chief Charles H. Ramsey filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
58 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 54 Dismissal of the Complaint as it pertains to him (Peter J. Newsham) filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Badami, Scott) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
59 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Chang Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 27 of 153

11/14/2003
11/17/2003 11/17/2003
11/19/2003 11/19/2003
11/19/2003 11/20/2003
11/21/2003 11/21/2003 11/24/2003
11/24/2003 11/25/2003

60 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 56 Chang Plaintiffs' Application For Discovery And To Stay The Time For Plaintiffs' Response To The Federal Defendants' Motion For Dismissal Or Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Chang Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
61 NOTICE by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Filing Original Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Murphy Declaration)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
62 MOTION for Leave to File SUR−REPLY MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING NEW ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, AND CHARLES H. RAMSEY'S REPLY MEMORANDUM by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
63 REPLY to opposition to motion re 54 to Dismiss Complaint filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the numerous requests for extension of time, the Court sua sponte schedules a status conference for November 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. If this date and time are not convenient for counsel for any of the parties, that attorney will be responsible for communicating with counsel in all five cases and ascertaining a mutually convenient alternative date and time to propose to the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/25/2003 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
64 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 Memorandum in Opposition, and to the Opposition to be filed by the Federal Defendant's on November 21,2003 by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
65 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 56 Chang Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery filed by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery and to Stay Time for Response. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
66 MOTION to Consolidate Cases submitted by Defendants Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Mayor Anthony A. Williams, as well as by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Consolidating Cases for Discovery and Trial)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
67 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Claims and Action of Jones Plaintiffs by Jones Plaintiffs and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 11/25/2003. Discovery due by 6/30/2004. defendants Responses due by 12/9/2003 Motion Hearing on immunity set for 2/11/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Frank Rangus.) Associated Cases:

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 28 of 153

11/25/2003
11/25/2003 12/05/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/10/2003 12/10/2003 12/10/2003 12/11/2003 12/11/2003 12/11/2003 12/11/2003

1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(dcn, ) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
68 ORDER denying without prejudice 46 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 47 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 54 Motion to Dismiss, denying as moot 56 Motion for Discovery, denying as moot 62 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply, denying as moot 64 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, denying as moot 66 Motion to Consolidate Cases, and setting forth further instructions to counsel. A Status hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. Jones v. District of Columbia is dismissed without prejudice and removed from the active calendar of the Court. The cases are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for the purpose of resolving discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 25, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/6/2004 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
69 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Of Filing Of Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Staying Discovery As Against Defendants Having Asserted Qualified Immuntiy Defenses)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
70 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Amended Answer by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
71 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Second) By Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Chief Charles H. Ramsey and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
72 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on November 25, 2003 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Frank J. Rangus. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(cp, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The Answer shall be filed by no later than December 12, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 10, 2003. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS,1:02−cv−02310−EGS(lcegs2) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
73 MOTION for Extension of Time to Accept Defendant's District of Columbia, Anthony A. Williams, Charles H. Ramsey and Peter J. Newsham's Offer of Judgement by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Modified on 12/15/2003 (zbjsp, ). (Entered: 12/10/2003)
74 Proposed Pretrial Order Regarding Discovery Against the Defendants Who Assert Qualified Immunity In Their Individual Capacities by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
75 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 73 MOTION for Extension of Time Modified on 12/11/2003 (zjeb, ). Modified on 12/15/2003 (zbjsp, ). Modified on 12/15/2003 (bjsp, ). (Entered: 12/11/2003)
76 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Regarding Sealed Document (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
77 NOTICE of filing amended attachment by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE re 73 MOTION for Extension of Time (Burgess, Joe) Modified on 12/15/2003 (zbjsp, ). Modified on 12/15/2003 (bjsp, ). (Entered: 12/11/2003)
NOTICE OF FILING CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Please note that document number 75 has been filed in error. The correct document for this entry is document number 77. (Burgess, Joe) (Entered: 12/11/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 29 of 153

12/11/2003 12/12/2003 12/12/2003 12/12/2003 12/14/2003 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/22/2003 12/29/2003
12/31/2003

80 MOTION to Withdraw 73 MOTION for Extension of Time to Accept Defendant's District of Columbia, Anthony A. Williams, Charles H. Ramsey and Peter J. Newsham's Offer of Judgement from the public record and submitted under seal by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (FILED UNDER SEAL). (cp, ) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
78 NOTICE by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 76 Notice (Other) regarding Filing of Sealed Document (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
79 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nebeker, William) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
83 Memorandum in opposition to defendant's emergency motion filed under seal, and MOTION to remove seal re 80 filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (FILED UNDER SEAL). (cp, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court sua sponte directs defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Accept the Offer of Judgment by no later than December 17, 2003, at noon. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 14, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/14/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 79 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The Answer shall be filed by no later than December 16, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 15, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
81 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
82 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 73 Extension Of Time To Accept Defendants District of Columbia, Anthony A. Williams, Charles H. Ramsey And Peter J. Newsham's Offer Of Judgment, filed by Mayor Williams and Chief Ramsey and filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
84 ORDER granting 76 defendants motion filed under seal and opposition. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/15/03.(filed under seal in room 1800) (zbjsp, ) Modified on 12/18/2003 (zbjsp, ). (Entered: 12/18/2003)
85 ORDER referring case to Magistrate Judge Kay.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 19, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
86 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of Filing Sealed Document (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
88 MOTION to Withdraw 73 Motion for Extension of time and 82 Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Extension of time from the public record by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (FILED UNDER SEAL). (cp, ) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for settlement. (lnw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
87 NOTICE by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI Regarding Filing of Sealed Document (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
91 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay : granting District defendants' unopposed motion to place under seal the entirety of the materials reflected upon the Court's docket as entry 73 and entry 82; directing that the entirety of the materials reflected on the Court's docket as entry 73 and entry 82 be removed from the publicly accessible files and docket, and filed under seal. (kk) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
89 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS WHO ASSERT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES filed by Defendants Cheif Charles H. Ramsey, Mayor Anthony A. Williams, and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/31/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 30 of 153

01/05/2004 01/05/2004
01/08/2004
01/09/2004 01/20/2004
01/26/2004 01/28/2004 01/29/2004 01/29/2004 02/02/2004
02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/17/2004 02/23/2004 02/26/2004 03/12/2004

Pursuant to court order dated 12/29/03 documents 73 and 82 are hereby removed from the public docket, and are filed under seal. (bcs, ) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
90 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant District of Columbia's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Tangible Things and First Set of Interrogatories by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 90 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant District of Columbia's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Tangible Things and First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs shall have until January 23, 2004 to respond. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 8, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
92 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Supplement Order Granting Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
93 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 92 Partial Judgment on the Pleadings filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Investigation, Sergeant J. McGuire# 2 Exhibit Washington Post Article 9.26.02# 3 Exhibit Washington Post Article 9.27.02)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
94 REPLY in support of motion re 92 for Judgment iOn The Pleadings filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
95 NOTICE by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Withdrawal and Appearance (Weinstein, Laurie) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
96 ORDER setting forth instructions to counsel with regard to Motions Hearing on immunity claims, and rescheduling Motions Hearing for March 22, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 29, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2004 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
MINUTE ORDER adopting plaintiffs' proposed order at docket entry 74 and rejecting defendants' proposed order at 72 . It is hereby ordered that there shall be a stay of depositions, but not a stay of discovery, against Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Chief Charles H. Ramsey, and Chief Peter J. Newsham pending adjudication of the issue of qualified immunity. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 2, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to conflicts in the Court's schedule, the Court sua sponte continues the March 22, 2004 Motions Hearing on immunity issues to March 23, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
97 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Joint Requests for Production of Documents By Defendant Distrioct of Columbia by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
98 ORDER setting mediation for purpose of resolution of motion docketed at 73 . Mediation will be held at 10 am on Monday, March 29, 2004, in chambers − room 1130. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 02/23/04. (DM) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 97 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Joint Requests for Production.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 26, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
99 MOTION for Extension of Time to Mator Williams to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for the Production of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 31 of 153

03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/18/2004
03/19/2004
04/06/2004
04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004 05/07/2004
05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/19/2004
05/19/2004
05/19/2004

Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
100 STIPULATION Regarding Federal Defendants' Discovery Responses by CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Shine, Edith) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
NOTICE that the settlement conference set for March 29, 2004, will begin at 10:30 am, in chambers −room 1130. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 03/16/04. (DM) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
101 RESPONSE to Mayor Williams' Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Chang Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
102 MINUTE ORDER. The Court sua sponte continues the March 23, 2004, Motions Hearing on immunity issues to April 6, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., a previously scheduled status hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 19, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 80 Motion to Withdraw, finding as moot 88 Motion to Withdraw, and granting 99 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests for the reasons stated in open court on April 6, 2004.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 6, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Hearing/Motion Hearing held on 4/8/2004 chambers to issue order (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
103 ORDER setting status hearing for May 7, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 8, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/7/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
104 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of Filing of the District of Columbia's Response to Recommendations by the D.C. Council (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Recommendations)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
105 STIPULATION od Dismissal of Jones Plaintiffs' Claims with Prejudice by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
109 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED of a motion held on 4/6/04 before Judge Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant (rje, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 5/7/2004. Motion Hearing/argument set for 6/14/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
106 ORDER approving Stipulation of Dismissal and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/14/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
107 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for Protective Order from Federal Defendants in Support of Motion for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Shine, Edith) Modified on 5/20/2004 (cp, ). (Entered: 05/19/2004)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. 107 was Entered in Error as said pleading is not a Memorandum. Counsel has not been instructed to re−file said document as it has been properly docketed as a Motion and it is now Document No. 108. (cp, ) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
108 MOTION for Protective Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(cp, ) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 32 of 153

06/09/2004 06/11/2004
06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/15/2004
06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/22/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/25/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004 07/19/2004 07/23/2004 07/26/2004 08/09/2004

MINUTE ORDER granting 108 Consent Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 9, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
110 Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear PRO HAC VICE for Elizabeth L. Martin by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/11/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 110 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 14, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Hearing/Argument held on 6/14/2004 Order to be Issued (Court Reporter Don Jacobsen.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Counsel should contact chambers jointly, at 202−354−3030, at a mutually convenient time, to provide an oral status report as to whether the motion docketed at 73 is pending or moot. If the motion is pending, counsel are directed to provide a copy of the motion, opposition, and any reply [filed under seal] directly to Magistrate Judge Kay's chambers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 06/15/04. (DM) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
111 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Responses to First Request for Documents by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Blumberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 111 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Responses to First Request for Documents.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 17, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
112 Consent MOTION for Order Cofirming Extension of the Discovery Period by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
113 Consent MOTION for Order Confirming Extension of Discovery Period (Corrected) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript pp.)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
114 ORDER denying as moot Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Defendant District of Columbia's Offer of Judgment 73 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 06/23/04. (DM) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
115 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates May 07, 2004; Court Reporter: Elain A. Merchant. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/27/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 112 113 Motion for Order Extending Discovery Period until September 28, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 25, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
116 NOTICE of Appearance by Marina Utgoff Braswell on behalf of NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
117 NOTICE by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Withdrawal of Appearance (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
118 MOTION for Protective Order by LEANNE LEE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Leanne Lee# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the opposed 118 Motion for Protective Order Directing Deposition by Telephone, the Motion is GRANTED.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 23, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
119 NOTICE of Appearance by Martha J. Mullen on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Mullen, Martha) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
120 NOTICE of Appearance by David Alan Zetoony on behalf of all plaintiffs (Zetoony, David) (Entered: 08/09/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 33 of 153

09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/08/2004 09/13/2004 09/14/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/17/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004
11/03/2004
12/03/2004 01/13/2005
01/14/2005
01/17/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005

121 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Smith, Peter) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
122 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Corn, Gary) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
123 NOTICE of Appearance by David Alan Zetoony on behalf of RAYMING CHANG (Zetoony, David) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
124 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Exhibit Billing Statement# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 124 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 14, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
125 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Extending The Discovery Deadline)(Zetoony, David) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 125 Motion for Extension of Time, until February 28, 2005, to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 15, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
126 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 92 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 17, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
127 MOTION to Stay of Deposition by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Notices of Appeal# 4 Certificate of Service)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendant Newsham's 127 Motion to Stay Deposition until final resolution of the pending appeal is hereby GRANTED with respect to the Abbate and Chang plaintiffs, and GRANTED subject to the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration for good cause shown with respect to the Barham plaintiffs. Any Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed no later than Friday, November 12, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2004. (Entered: 10/28/2004)
128 MOTION for Protective Order to Stay Deposition Discovery Of Chief Charles ramsey Pending Resolution of His Appeals of Denial Of Qualified Immunity by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Exhibit IAC Stay Order# 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
129 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori S. Parris on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
130 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 130 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery deadline is extended until 90 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled on the pending immunity claims of Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham, and all other appeals of that issue have been exhausted. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
131 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Detailed − Fees & Costs# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 131 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
132 MOTION to Withdraw Consent Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and Vacate Resulting Orders by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 34 of 153

01/18/2005
02/01/2005 02/09/2005 02/10/2005 02/14/2005
02/15/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/25/2005
02/25/2005
02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/01/2005 03/02/2005 03/03/2005

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion [docket entry 132 in case no. 02−2010], it is hereby ORDERED that the Consent Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline [docket entry 130 in case no. 02−2010] and the resulting Minute Orders entered in all four cases on January 14, 2005 are hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
133 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Third Amended Complaint)(nmw, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
134 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
135 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 133 Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
136 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Federal Defendants, Putuative Defendant Richard Murphym and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 136 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 15, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 134 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery will close by no later than August 31, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 17, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 8/31/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
137 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 133 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
138 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 133 Memorandum of Points and Authorities of DEfendants District of Columbia, Chief Charles H. Ramsey, Executive Assistant Chief Michael J. Fitzgerald, and Assistant Chief Brian Jordan In Partial Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend The Complaint filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 137 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 133 Plaintiff's Motion to amend their complaint. Federal defendants' Response due by 2/28/2005. Plaintiffs' Reply due by 3/9/2005.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 28, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
139 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 133 filed by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
140 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/28/2005 Replies due by 3/9/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
141 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply and for an Extension of Pages for the Filing of a Reply Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Chang Complaint by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 35 of 153

03/03/2005
03/03/2005 03/09/2005 03/21/2005 05/05/2005 05/12/2005
05/12/2005 05/12/2005 05/18/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005
06/29/2005 07/01/2005 07/08/2005 07/09/2005

CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Turley, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 141 Motion for Enlargement of Time and Extension of Pages for the filing of a Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion for Leave to Amend the Chang Complaint. The Court extends its sympathy to plaintiffs' counsel and his family. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 3, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 3/21/2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
142 NOTICE Of Filing of Excerpts of Deposition Transcripts Relied Upon by Plaintiffs in Their Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
143 REPLY to opposition to motion re 133 filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
144 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by MEAGHAN ENRIGHT (Attachments: # 1)(Zetoony, David) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
145 Joint MOTION for Order Dismissing Meaghan Enright's Claims With Prejudice And Retaining Jurisdiction For Purpose Of Enforcing Agreement by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Consent Order Dismissing Meaghan Enright's Claims with Prejudice and Reating Jurisdiction for Purpose of Enforcing Agreement)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
146 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .Joint MOTION for Order Dismmising Meaghan Enright;s Claims with Prejudice and Reating Jurisidiction to Enforce Agreement by Meaghan Enright and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Koger, Thomas) Modified on 5/13/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 05/12/2005)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document no. 146 was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading. (td, ) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
147 CONSENT ORDER . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/18/05 dismissing Meaghan Enright's claims with prejudice and retaining jurisdiction for purpose of enforcing agreement. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
148 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fees and Costs# 2 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 148 the Fourth Consent Motion of Defendant Newshamfor Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. It is this Court's finding, pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. 5−115.04, that payment of interim attorney fees and costs in the amount of $35,509.42, for representation of defendant Peter Newsham by Robert E. Deso, Esq. for the period from January 1, 2005 through April 15, 2005 in this litigation is reasonable. Accordingly, defendant's motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 24, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to file, by no later than July 8, 2005, a joint report on the status of all outstanding discovery issues and recommendations for further proceedings in this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 29, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/8/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
149 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zetoony, David) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 149 Joint Motion for Extension of Time, up to and including July 13, 2005, to file the joint status report and recommendations for further proceedings. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on July 9, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 36 of 153

07/09/2005 07/11/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005 07/19/2005
07/19/2005 07/19/2005
07/29/2005 08/01/2005
08/02/2005

07/09/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report and recommendations for further proceedings due by 7/13/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/10/2005)
150 Consent MOTION to Extend Discovery to November 18, 2005 by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schember, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
151 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file joint status report by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Motion for Extension of Time, until July 15, 2005, to file joint status report and recommendations for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/15/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2005)
152 STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 133 Motion to Amend Complaint. Upon careful consideration of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, and the responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. The parties are directed to file an updated joint proposal for the completion of discovery by no later than August 15, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 19, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 8/15/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
153 (THIRD) AMENDED COMPLAINT against B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10, PETER J. NEWSHAM, UNITED STATES OF AMERICAfiled by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI.(td, ) Modified on 8/23/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Summons (9)Issued for Amended Complaint as to B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH. (td, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
154 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Report on Further Proceedings and to Respond to the Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 154 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file an updated joint proposal for the completion of discovery by no later than August 31, 2005. Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by no later than September 30, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 2, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 37 of 153

08/02/2005 08/03/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005
08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005
08/22/2005 08/23/2005 08/26/2005

Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/30/2005. Joint Proposed Discovery due by 8/31/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
155 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by PETER J. NEWSHAM.(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
156 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHARLES H. RAMSEY served on 7/29/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
157 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. BRIAN K. JORDAN served on 7/29/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
158 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD served on 7/29/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
159 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to RICHARD MURPHY served on 7/29/2005, answer due 9/30/2005. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
160 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 7/29/2005. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/22/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 08/19/2005)
161 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/22/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 08/19/2005)
162 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) served on 7/29/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
163 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT served on 8/1/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
164 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. M. SMITH served on 8/2/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
165 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. B. DIGIROLAMO served on 8/3/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
166 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. A. HARRISON served on 8/15/2005, answer due 9/30/2005 (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
167 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 7/29/2005. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/22/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 08/19/2005)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 167 Summons Returned Executed as to Attorney General, 160 Summons Returned Executed as to Attorney General, 161 Summons Returned Executed as to US Attorney for DC was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading. (td, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
168 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin J. O'Connell on behalf of FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (O'Connell, Kevin) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
SUMMONS (2) Issued for Third Amended Complaint as to, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (td, ) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
169 NOTICE of Appearance by Justin M. Shellaway on behalf of CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 38 of 153

08/31/2005
08/31/2005
09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/14/2005
09/14/2005
09/14/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005

170 Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Nikki Ott and Jacob Kramer. :Address− 700 13th St. NW Ste.700, Washington D.C. 20005. Phone No. − 202−508−6100. Fax No. − 202−508−6200 by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Ott and Kramer# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
171 STATUS REPORT Concerning Joint Proposal for the Completion of Discovery by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10, PETER J. NEWSHAM, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 170 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
172 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 9/13/2005 (td, ). Modified on 9/15/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 09/12/2005)
173 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 9/13/2005 (td, ). (Entered: 09/12/2005)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: 172 , 173 were entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading. (td, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
NOTICE re 172 Summons Returned Executed as to US Attorney for DC has been reinstated and not "Entered In Error." (td, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
174 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General August 23, 2005. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
175 MOTION for Hearing by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying 175 Motion for Hearing. Upon consideration of the parties' status reports dated 7/15/05 and 8/31/05, and in the interests of judicial economy, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion requesting a status conference in case nos. 02−2010, 02−2283, and 03−2005 is DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file proposed orders for further discovery and for the conduct of further proceedings in each of the three cases by no later than September 19, 2005. Responses to these proposed orders will not be considered. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on September 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: purposed orders for further discovery and for further proceedings due by 9/19/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
176 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
177 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori S. Parris on behalf of MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
178 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re Order on Motion for Hearing,, (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/19/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 39 of 153

09/19/2005 09/20/2005
09/22/2005 09/27/2005 09/29/2005 09/29/2005
09/29/2005
09/30/2005 09/30/2005
09/30/2005 10/05/2005 10/06/2005
10/06/2005 10/06/2005 10/06/2005

179 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
180 NOTICE of Fililing of Proposed Order for Discovery and Further Proceedings by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Discovery and Further Proceedings Order)(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
181 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Francuzenko on behalf of FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
182 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 153 Amended Complaint,, by PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
183 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Attachments: # 1)(Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
184 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS.(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
ORDER granting 182 Defendants' (Ramsey, Newsham) Motion for Extension of Time to October 30, 2005, to Answer Amended Complaint, and granting 183 Defendant's Fairfax County Sheriff's Department's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer until October 7, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/30/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
185 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit Statement of Undisputed Facts# 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Undisputed Facts)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
186 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Amended Complaint by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
187 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity).(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
ORDER granting 186 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file their dispositive motion to the Amended Complaint. The dispositive motion is due October 17, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 6, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 10/17/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/26/2006. Status Report due by 12/2/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
MINUTE ORDER GOVERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Upon consideration of the parties' joint status reports and proposed orders for the conduct of further proceedings in case nos. 02−2010, 02−2283, and 03−2005, it is hereby ORDERED that discovery in all three related cases is extended through May 26, 2006; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any discovery disputes and, barring such resolution, shall contact Magistrate Judge Kay in an attempt to informally resolve any such dispute; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall advise the Court of any remaining discovery disputes and the need for the Court's intervention by no later than December 2, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 6, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 40 of 153

10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/12/2005
10/13/2005 10/14/2005 10/17/2005
10/17/2005 10/17/2005
10/17/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005

188 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
189 ENTERED IN ERROR.....CLAIM Cross by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) Modified on 11/8/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
190 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by AMY CHASTAIN, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Offer of Judgment)(Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
191 MOTION for More Definite Statement, MOTION for Summary Judgment by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (See document no. 188 for image) (td, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
207 CROSSCLAIM against UNITED STATES OF AMERICAfiled by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.(nmw, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
192 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Itemized Billing Statements# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 192 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. It is hereby Ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $29,672.51 to Robert E. Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. 5−115.04, for legal representation herein from April 16, 2005 through August 31, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 12, 2005. Associated Case: 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/26/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
193 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 185 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order And Certificate of Service)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
194 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 188 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, 191 MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION for Summary Judgment by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
195 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Amended Complaint and Cross−Claim by Fairfax County by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. Granting 193 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Response to 185 Defendant's (District of Columbia) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Also, granting 194 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Response to 188 Defendant's (Fairfax County Sheriff) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement. Finally, granting Defendant's (US Dept. of Defense) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 153 Amended Complaint and 189 Cross−Claim by Fairfax County. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/17/05. (lcegs2) Modified on 10/17/2005 (lcegs2, ). (Entered: 10/17/2005)
197 MOTION to Quash subpoena by MARY CHEH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(td, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
196 ERRATA to Certificate of Service re 193 by RAYMING CHANG. (Schwartz, Daniel) Modified on 10/20/2005 (lc, ). (Entered: 10/19/2005)
198 Amended ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS.(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 41 of 153

10/28/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/07/2005
11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/08/2005 11/08/2005
11/08/2005
11/08/2005

199 Cross MOTION to Compel /for Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum To Mary Cheh and Opposition to Motion of Mary Cheh to Quash Subpoena by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Motion to Quash and Granting Motion to Enforce# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Opposition to Motion to Quash and In Support of Cross−Motion to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum# 3 Exhibit Exhibits to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash and In Support of Motion to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
200 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Answer of Defendant Chief Charles H. Ramsey in His Individual Capacity Only by CHARLES H. RAMSEY.(Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
201 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
202 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Exhibit Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Are No Genuine Issues# 4 Exhibit Exhibits Supporting Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
203 ENTERED IN ERROR.....REPLY to Cross Claim by Fairfax County Sheriff's Department filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) Modified on 11/8/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 11/07/2005)
204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Murphy Deposition (relevant portions))(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
205 MOTION for Summary Judgment (in the alternative) by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Please see Document No. 202 for scanned images). (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
206 MOTION to Dismiss by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Please see Document No. 204 for scanned images). (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
208 ANSWER to Crossclaim by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(nmw, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document Nos. 189 and 203 were entered in error. Document No. 189 will be refiled as a Crossclaim, and Document No. 203 will be refiled as an Answer to Crossclaim. (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
209 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 188 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 191 MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION for Summary Judgment, 206 MOTION to Dismiss by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
210 MOTION to Stay re 202 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 185 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant District of Columbia and Defendants DiGirolamo, Harrison, and Smith by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court hereby orders that all claims against defendant District of Columbia by the plaintiffs, Amy Chastain and Elizabeth Young, are dismissed in view of Ms. Chastain's and Ms. Young's acceptance of the District of Columbia's offer of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 8, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/08/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 42 of 153

11/09/2005
11/10/2005 11/14/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005
11/17/2005
11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005
11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/23/2005

MINUTE ORDER granting 201 Federal Defendants' Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File their dispositive motion to and including November 7, 2005 (nunc pro tunc); and granting 209 Plaintiffs' Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Fairfax County Sheriff's Department's and the Federal Defendants' responses to the Chang Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Responses due by 12/7/2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 9, 2005. (GK, ) Modified on 11/10/2005 (lcegs2, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/7/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
218 MOTION for Extension of Time to file a reply to opposition to motion to quash subpoena by MARY CHEH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
211 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 202 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 205 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 185 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the District and the MPD Offiicers by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
212 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 211 Plaintiffs' Requested Enlargement Of Time To January 31, 2006 To Oppose Pending Motions of Defendants District Of Columbia And Bryan DiGirolamo, Anrde Harrison, and Michael Smith filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion# 2 Exhibit Email consenting to short enlargement)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
213 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 210 Plaintiffs' Request To Stay Time For Plaintiffs' Responses To Motions For Summary Judgment Filed By The District And Defendants DiGirolamo, Harrison, And Smith filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chang letter disavowing fee waiver provision of accepted offer of judgment# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Stay Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
214 REPLY to opposition to motion re 211 enlargement of time to respond to dispositive motions filed by the District and MPD Officers filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
215 REPLY to opposition to motion re 210 Motion to Stay time for filing responses to the District and the MPD Officers filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motion to stay the time for their response to the defendant District of Columbia and individual defendants B. DiGirolamo, A. Harrison and M. Smith's ("MPD officers") dispositive motions and the defendants' opposition thereof, and the plaintiffs' motion for extension of time and the defendants' opposition thereof, the court hereby temporarily stays continued briefing on summary judgment issues by the plaintiffs and defendants District of Columbia and MPD officers until the ethics issue raised by the plaintiffs has been addressed and resolved by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia's Ethics Panel or the court. Further, the parties are ordered to file a joint status report detailing the status and/or the resolution of the ethics issue by the Ethics Panel by no later than December 15, 2006, and by the 15th of each month until resolution. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/15/2006 and by the 15th of each month until resolution. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
216 MOTION to Stay Depositions of Bryan DiGirolamo, Ander Harrison, and Michael Smith by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
217 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 216 stay of MPD Officers' depositions filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 43 of 153

11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005
12/02/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005 12/05/2005
12/05/2005 12/08/2005 12/14/2005

219 REPLY to opposition to motion re 197 Quash Subpoena filed by MARY CHEH. (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
220 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 199 Enforce Subpoena filed by MARY CHEH. (Please see Document No. 219 for scanned image). (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
221 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to This Court's November 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 218 Consent Motion of Mary Cheh for Extension of Time to File a Reply nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 30, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
222 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Mary Cheh's Oppositon to Their Cross−Motion for Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
223 REPLY to opposition to motion re 216 Staying the Taking of Their Depositions Pending Disposition of Their Claims of Qualified Immunity filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
224 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court's November 21, 2005 Minute Order by RAYMING CHANG. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 222 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Mary Cheh's Opposition to their Cross−Motion for Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum. The court hereby orders defendants to file their reply no later than December 8, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 1, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 12/8/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
225 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 188 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 191 MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION for Summary Judgment, 206 MOTION to Dismiss by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
226 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Bring Discovery Disputes to the Court's Attention by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 225 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' responses to the Fairfax County Sheriff's Department's Motion and the Federal Defendants' Motion are to be filed no later than December 14, 2005. It is further ordered that the Fairfax County Sheriff's Department and the Federal Defendants will have until January 20, 2006, to file their replies in further support of their motions, and in response to Plaintiffs' oppositions. It is further ordered that the time for which the parties are to advise the court of any remaining discovery disputes and the need for the court's intervention is extended to January 31, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 5, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 12/14/2005 Replies due by 1/20/2006. Status Report due by 1/31/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/11/2005)
227 REPLY to opposition to motion re 199 Cross−Motion to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mary Cheh filed by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 13 and 14)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
228 Memorandum in opposition to re 188 FCSD Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 44 of 153

12/14/2005
12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/22/2005
12/29/2005 01/03/2006 01/05/2006 01/17/2006
01/17/2006
01/18/2006 01/20/2006 01/23/2006

229 Memorandum in opposition to re 206 Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
230 STATUS REPORT By OAG Represented Defendants Pursuant To Court's Novemeber 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
231 STATUS REPORT Chang Plaintiffs' Version of Status Report Pursuant to November 21, 2005 Minute Order by RAYMING CHANG. (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
232 MOTION to Stay Discovery in Three Related Cases Pending Resolution of Chang Plaintiffs' Anticpated Motion to Disqualify OAG by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
233 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 232 MOTION to Stay Discovery in Three Related Cases Pending Resolution of Chang Plaintiffs' Anticpated Motion to Disqualify OAG by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 233 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to District Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery. The response is due no later than January 20, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 3, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/20/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
234 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Barham Decision# 2 Exhibit Hearing Transcript# 3 Exhibit Prisoner Control Plan# 4 Exhibit MPD Report# 5 Exhibit Deposition Testimony# 6 Exhibit Deposition Testimony# 7 Exhibit E−mail)(Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
235 STATUS REPORT Jointly Filed Pursuant To This Court's September 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, LEANNE LEE, MARY CHEH, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
236 RESPONSE to 232 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Chang Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify the OAG filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Kramer, Jacob) Modified on 1/23/2006 (ks, ). (Entered: 01/18/2006)
237 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
238 MOTION for Order (Consent) to Establish Briefing Schedules and Contested Motion for Leave to Sumit In Camera Exhibits in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify OAG by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Consent Order Establishing Briefing Schedules# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Leave To Submit Exhibits In Camera# 3 Exhibit Dec. 21, 2005 Turley to Koger Ltr# 4 Exhibit Defs Requsts for Production regarding Motion to Disqualify# 5 Exhibit Dec. 22, 2005 Koger to Turley Ltr)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 45 of 153

01/23/2006 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006 01/27/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/06/2006 02/13/2006 02/13/2006
02/15/2006

239 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal Defendants' Dispositive motion and to Extend Time in Which Discovery Disputes may be Brought to the Magistrate Judge by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
240 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 236 Response to any document by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 237 Defendant Fairfax County Sheriff's Office's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The reply is now due January 27, 2006. Further, granting 239 Federal Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's October 6, 2005, Order. The response is now due February 28, 2006. Additionally, Federal defedant's reply to plaintiffs' opposition is due on February 28, 2006. Further, granting 240 Defendant District of Columbia's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The reply is now due on January 30, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2006. (lcegs2) Modified on 1/26/2006 (lcegs2, ). (Entered: 01/26/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant reply due 1/27/06;Responses due by 2/28/2006 Replies due by 1/30/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
241 REPLY to opposition to motion re 188 filed by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
242 REPLY to opposition to motion re 232 To Stay Discovery Pending Disposition Of Motion To Disqualify OAG filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1# 2 Exhibit Exh. 2)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
243 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File a Surreply to FCSD Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Surreply to FCSD# 3 Exhibit A − Amended Response to FCSD Statement of Material Facts)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 243 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Surreply. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 1, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
244 SURREPLY to defendant Fairfax County Sheriff's Department' reply to Chang plaintiff's opposition to re 188 MOTION to Dismiss , Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(td, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
245 Memorandum in opposition to re 238 filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
246 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Supplemental Memorandum# 3 Exhibit A)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
247 REPLY to opposition to motion re 238 MOTION for Order (Consent) to Establish Briefing Schedules and Contested Motion for Leave to Sumit In Camera Exhibits in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify OAG filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 246 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 15, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 46 of 153

02/15/2006
02/15/2006 02/16/2006 02/21/2006 02/24/2006
02/28/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/02/2006 03/03/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006

248 STATUS REPORT Pursuant To Court's November 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
249 Supplemental Memorandum in opposition to re 206 Federal Defendants' Renewed motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (td, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
250 ORDER denying 238 the Office of the Attorney General Represented Defendants' Motion to Submit In Camera Exhibits. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
251 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Opposition To Chang Plaintiff's Motion To Disqualify The Office Of The Attorney General From Representing Defendants In This Case by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
252 NOTICE O Chang Plaintiffs' Consent To OAG−Represented Defendants' Motion To Enlarge Time To File Opposition To Chang Plaintiffs' Motion To Disqualify The Office Of The Attorney General From Representing Defendants In This Case by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
253 MOTION for Extension of Time to Enlarge The Time To Present Discovery Disputes to Magistrate Judge Kay by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
254 ORDER granting 216 Motion to Stay the Taking of Depositions of B. DiGirolamo, A. Harrison and M. Smith, and 232 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 1, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 251 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. The Office of the Attorney General represented defendants' opposition is due no later than March 7, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 253 Partial Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to Present Discovery Disputes. It is hereby ordered that the parties are to submit their discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Kay 60 days after the resolution of the Chang plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 3/7/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
255 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To {Plaintiffs' Motion To Dissqualify The Office of the Attorney General From Representing Defendants Further In This Case For One Day by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
256 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Detail Fee# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
257 Memorandum in opposition to re 234 Plaintiffs' Motion To Disqualify The Office Of The Attorney General From Representing Defendants In This Case filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Motion to Disqualify OAG# 2 Exhibit DC Bar

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 47 of 153

03/09/2006 03/09/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006
03/29/2006 03/31/2006 04/04/2006
04/04/2006

Informal Opinion# 3 Exhibit OAG Ethics Panel Final Decn# 4 Exhibit Oct. 10 2005 Mr. Turley letter# 5 Exhibit Asst Chief Ponton letter# 6 Exhibit EAC Fitzgerald Informed Consent letter# 7 Exhibit Asst Chief Jordan Informed Consent letter# 8 Exhibit B DiGirolamo Informed Consent letter# 9 Exhibit A Harrison Informed Consent letter# 10 Exhibit M Smith Informed Consent letter# 11 Exhibit B DiGirolamo Decl# 12 Exhibit A Harrison Decl# 13 Exhibit M Smith Decl# 14 Exhibit B Jordan Decl# 15 Exhibit M Fitzgerald Decl# 16 Exhibit Deputy AG G Valentine Decl)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 256 Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 255 OAG−Represented Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
258 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 234 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
259 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 258 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Chang Plaintiffs' reply in support of the pending motion to disqualify is due no later than April 7, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 14, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 275 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal Defendants are ordered to file its reply in support of its dispositive motion by no later than April 21, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 15, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 4/21/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 4/7/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
260 STATUS REPORT Pursuant To Court's November 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
261 REPLY to opposition to motion re 234 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
262 NOTICE To The Clerk of the Court Regarding Entry of Judgments On Acceptances of Offers of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment pursuant to the Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment filed by plaintiff Meaghan Enright on May 5, 2005, and the Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment filed by plaintiffs Amy Chastain and Elizabeth Young on October 7, 2005. These judgments shall be entered nunc pro tunc to the dates of the filings of the respective Notices of Acceptance. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 4, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
263 MOTION for Entry of Declaratory Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Further Relief Upon This Court's Orders Entered Upon The Acceptances By Meaghan Enright, Amy Chastain, And Elibeth Young Of The District Of Columbia's Offers Of Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 48 of 153

04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/05/2006
04/05/2006 04/06/2006 04/06/2006
04/07/2006 04/07/2006
04/12/2006 04/19/2006

Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order and Judgment# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion# 3 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 4 in support of Motion)(Koger, Thomas) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/17/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 04/04/2006)
264 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Elizabeth L. Martin terminated. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
265 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs Amy Chastain, Elizabeth Young, and Meaghan Enright by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
266 RESPONSE to Chang Counsels' Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For Some Of Their Clients Based Upon Their Recognition Of A "Potential" Conflict Of Interest filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1: Kramer Oct. 7, 2005 letter)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
267 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 263 MOTION for Entry of Declaratory Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Further Relief Upon This Court's Orders Entered Upon The Acceptances By Meaghan Enright, Amy Chastain, And Elibeth Young Of The District Of Columbia's Offers Of Judgment by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
268 REPLY to opposition to motion re 265 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs Amy Chastain, Elizabeth Young, and Meaghan Enright filed by RAYMING CHANG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
269 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS. Attorney Lori S. Parris terminated. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
270 Cross MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the District of Columbia's Motion for Declaratory Judgment to be Extended to All Seven Plaintiffs and Response to Four Plaintiff's' Motion to Enlarge by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Enlargement to ALL SEVEN Plaintiffs# 2 Exhibit Chastain & Braswell email# 3 Exhibit Turley email# 4 Exhibit Kramer Oct 7 2005 letter# 5 Exhibit Schwartz March 23 2006 letter)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
271 REPLY to opposition to motion re 270 Cross MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the District of Columbia's Motion for Declaratory Judgment to be Extended to All Seven Plaintiffs and Response to Four Plaintiff's' Motion to Enlarge filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
272 VACATED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER FILED 6/27/07 JUDGMENT ON OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, nucn pro tunc to May 5, 2005, by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in favor of plaintiff Meagan Enright against defendant District of Columbia in the amount of $46,500.00 with rasonable costs, including attorney's fees now accrued. . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 7, 2006. (adc) Modified on 6/28/2007 (clv, ). (Entered: 04/07/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for motion resolution docket numbers #263 and #270 if issues are not resolved/settled Judge Sullivan would like a report and recommendation. (jsc) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
273 STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted Pursuant To November 21, 2005 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 49 of 153

04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006
04/21/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/03/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/10/2006
05/16/2006

274 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Entered By Clerk Upon Acceptance Of Offer Of Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order To Amend Judgment# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for motions #263 & #265. (jsc) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
275 Consent MOTION to Stay re 274 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Entered By Clerk Upon Acceptance Of Offer Of Judgment, 263 MOTION for Entry of Declaratory Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Further Relief Upon This Court's Orders Entered Upon The Acceptances By Meaghan Enright, Amy Chastain, And Elibeth Young Of The District Of Columbia's Offers Of Judgment by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
276 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 206 MOTION to Dismiss by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 276 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is due no later than May 10, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/10/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
277 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Exhibit Exh 1# 4 Exhibit Exh 2# 5 Exhibit Exh 3# 6 Exhibit Exh 4# 7 Exhibit Exh. 5# 8 Exhibit Exh 6)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/3/2006. (DM) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
278 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 277 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 278 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiffs' response to the District of Columbia's Motion to Disqualify Chang Counsel is due no later than May 29, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 5/29/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
279 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 206 MOTION to Dismiss, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' 234 Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Attorney General and defendant District of Columbia's 277 Motion to Disqualify Chang Counsel. Plaintiffs' response to defendant District of Columbia's motion is currently due on May 29, 2006. Defendant's reply is due no later than June 12, 2006. THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF THESE DEADLINES. A motions hearing on both of these pending motions is scheduled for August 17, 2006, at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A. Further, it is ordered that briefing for defendant District of Columbia's 263 275 Motion for Declaratory Judgment is stayed until the Court has ruled on the pending motions to disqualify. Briefing shall resume 30 days after this Court's resolution of the disqualification motions. Further, 265 plaintiffs' counsels' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Chastain, Young and Enright is granted. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 279 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is due no later than May 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 50 of 153

05/16/2006 05/29/2006
05/31/2006
06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/09/2006
06/12/2006 06/12/2006
06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006
06/16/2006 06/19/2006 07/05/2006
08/04/2006
08/16/2006 08/16/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/31/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
280 Memorandum in opposition to re 277 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel for Chang Plaintiffs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 05/29/2006)
281 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 288 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal Defendants' reply is due no later than June 9, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 2, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 6/9/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
282 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 206 MOTION to Dismiss, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
283 REPLY to opposition to motion re 277 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
284 CERTIFICATE of Counsel of Serivice of Reply Memorandum of {Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Disqualify Chang Cousel Upon Plaintiffs Chastain, Enright and Young by Thomas Louis Koger on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 282 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is now due no later than June 13, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 13, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 6/13/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
285 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 206 MOTION to Dismiss, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
286 ORDER regarding motions for extension of time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
287 REPLY to opposition to motion re 206 MOTION to Dismiss, 204 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
288 NOTICE of Filing by OAG−Represented Defendants Concerning Indemnification by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M. Fitzgerald Indemnification Ltr# 2 Exhibit B. Jordan Indemnification Ltr# 3 Exhibit A. Harrison Indemnification Ltr# 4 Exhibit M. Smith Indemnification Ltr# 5 Exhibit B. DiGirolamo Indemnification Ltr)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of pressing family matters, the Court is not available for the Motion Hearing on 8/17/06 at 11:30 a.m. The Court requests that counsel for the parties confer and submit a joint status report with two mutually convenient dates and times in September. . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/4/06. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing is now set for 9/15/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
289 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to August 4, 2006 Minute Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 51 of 153

08/17/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 10/05/2006
10/05/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006 10/30/2006
12/22/2006
01/04/2007 01/05/2007 01/12/2007
01/16/2007 01/16/2007

290 ORDER regarding proposed dates for the motions hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 17, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
291 STATUS REPORT Regarding Proposed Dates for Motions Hearing by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. The motions hearing currently scheduled for September 15, 2006 is hereby VACATED, and it is rescheduled for October 5, 2006, at 9:30 AM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 18, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 10/5/2006 re 234 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia filed by RAYMING CHANG,, YOUNG CHOI,, LEANNE LEE,, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI,, 277 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,. Case Stayed, case referred to Mediation, chambers to issue the order. Status Conference set for 1/17/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter WM. MCALLISTER.) (clv, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
292 ORDER denying 277 Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Counsel, denying 234 Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Disqualify Counsel, referring case to mediation, and staying case pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 5, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Mediation to conclude by 1/5/2007. Status Report due by 1/12/2007. Status Conference set for 1/17/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
NOTICE of Order in related case. The parties are hereby notified that an order has been issued in Diamond, et al. v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 03−2005. The parties in the Diamond case have been ordered to join in mediation with the parties in the Chang (Civ. Action No. 02−2010) and Barham (Civ. Action No. 02−2283) cases. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
293 CONSENT ORDER directing the District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $13,245.82 to Robert Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code 5−115.04, for legal representation herein from January 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/21/06. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
MINUTE ORDER extending time to complete mediation until January 9, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 4, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Mediation to conclude by 1/9/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
294 STATUS REPORT Jointly Filed Pursuant to the Court's October 5, 2006 Order (292) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
295 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
296 STATUS REPORT by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 52 of 153

01/17/2007 01/17/2007 02/22/2007
02/23/2007 03/02/2007 03/23/2007 03/24/2007 05/25/2007 06/27/2007

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/17/2007. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 295 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report. The Status Report submitted on January 16, 2007 is accepted as filed. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 17, 2007.(lcegs2) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
297 MOTION for Leave to File Attached Motions of Michael J. Fitzgerald and Brian K. Jordan for Judgment as a Matter of Law Asserting Their Qualified Immunity from Liability on Plaintiffs' Claims by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Att. 1:Defendants Michael J. Fitzgerald's and Brian K. Jordan's Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, for Summary JudgmentMotion# 2 Exhibit Att. 2: Porposed Order Granting Judgment as a Matter of Law to Fitzgerald and Jordan# 3 Exhibit Att. 3: Fitzgerald's & Jordan's Memorandum in Support of Their Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment# 4 Exhibit Att. 4: Defendants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue# 5 Exhibit Att. 5: Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (MJMOL) Exh. 1 Fitzgerald Declaration# 6 Exhibit Att. 6: MJMOL Exh. Jordan Declaration# 7 Exhibit Att. 7: MJMOL Exh. 3: Newsham Declaration# 8 Exhibit Att. 8: MJMOL Exh. 4: Fitzgerald Deposition Excerpt# 9 Exhibit Att. 9:Murphy Deposition Excerpt# 10 Exhibit Att. 10: MJMOL Exh. 6: Omitted.Deleted# 11 Exhibit Att. 11: MJMOL Exh. 7: Burton Declaration# 12 Exhibit Att. 12: MJMOL Exh. 8: MPD Prisoner Control Plan Excerpt# 13 Exhibit Att. 13: MJMOL Exh. 9: MPD G.O. 502.6# 14 Exhibit Att. 14: MJMOL Exh. 10: Burton After Action Report# 15 Exhibit Att. 15: MJMOL Exh. 11: MPD G.O. 502.01# 16 Exhibit Att. 16: MJMOL Exh.12: MPD Report re: Complaints of Alleged Misconduct Made at Oct. 24, 2002 Council Committee Hearing# 17 Exhibit Att. 17: MJMOL Exh. 13: Pavlik Declaration# 18 Exhibit Att. 18: MJMOL Exh. 14: Klein Declaration)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
298 Memorandum in opposition to re 297 MOTION for Leave to File Attached Motions of Michael J. Fitzgerald and Brian K. Jordan for Judgment as a Matter of Law Asserting Their Qualified Immunity from Liability on Plaintiffs' Claims filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
299 REPLY to opposition to motion re 297 MOTION for Leave to File Attached Motions of Michael J. Fitzgerald and Brian K. Jordan for Judgment as a Matter of Law Asserting Their Qualified Immunity from Liability on Plaintiffs' Claims filed by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
300 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity)Motions referred to Alan Kay. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Itemized Billing Statement# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
301 ORDER granting 300 Eighth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 24, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/24/2007)
302 NOTICE of Filing by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 287 Reply to opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Murphy Deposition Transcript Pages)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
303 ORDER lifting stay in case; denying as moot 263 District of Columbia's Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying as moot 267 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; denying as moot 270 OAG−Represented Defendants' Cross−Motion; granting 274 District of Columbia's Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment; granting 297 Fitzgerald and Jordan's Motion for Leave to File; denying without prejudice 185 District of Columbia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; vacating 272 Judgment on Offer of Acceptance; setting forth further instruction to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 27, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 53 of 153

06/27/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007
07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007
08/21/2007
08/21/2007
08/23/2007

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 11/16/2007.,Responses due by 9/21/2007,Replies due by 10/1/2007.,Status Report due by 11/30/2007.,Status Conference set for 12/12/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 27 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
304 CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT ON OFFER OF ACCEPTANCE nunc pro tunc to may 5, 2005. Signed by Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/27/07. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
305 SIGNED ORIGINAL OF CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT ON OFFER OF ACCEPTANCE nunc pro tunc to May 5, 2005.. Signed by Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/27/07. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
311 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, MOTION for Summary Judgment by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (See Docket Entry 297 to view documents) (jf, ) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
306 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Consent Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
307 Consent MOTION for Order by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
308 ORDER denying 188 191 Fairfax County Sheriff's Department's Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definitive Statement; granting in part and denying in part 204 206 Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
309 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
310 ORDER granting 306 307 Ninth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
312 MOTION to Substitute Party by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
313 ORDER granting 312 Motion to Substitute Party and directing Clerk of Court to substitute Mayor Fenty in his official capacity for former Mayor Williams in his official capacity and Chief Lanier in her official capacity for former Chief Ramsey in his official capacity. Ramsey shall remain a defendant in his individual capacity. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 16, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
314 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Former Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only), METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
315 ORDER granting 314 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to take depositions of Ramsey and Newsham; denying without prejudice to refiling at the close of discovery 311 Defendants Fitzgerald and Jordan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice to refiling at the close of discovery 202 205 Defendants DiGirolamo, Harrison, and Smith's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
316 NOTICE of Appearance by Jayme Kantor on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 54 of 153

08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/31/2007 09/04/2007
09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/20/2007 09/25/2007 09/25/2007 09/26/2007 10/01/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/03/2007

317 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
318 Consent MOTION for Order for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
319 ORDER granting 317 318 Tenth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 24, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
320 NOTICE of Appearance by Leah Brownlee Taylor on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
321 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Nicole Johnson on behalf of NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
322 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 309 Memorandum & Opinion, 308 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for More Definite Statement,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 322 Notice of Appeal, (jf, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
323 ORDER limiting depositions of Newsham and Ramsey to two six−hour days per deponent. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 5, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
USCA Case Number 07−5306 for 322 Notice of Appeal, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (jf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
324 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney David Alan Zetoony terminated. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
325 Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Katherine J. Seikaly by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 325 Consent Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Katherine J. Seikaly may appear pro hac vice for the purpose of serving as co−counsel plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 26, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
326 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Attorney Kevin J. O'Connell terminated. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
327 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Philip James Meitl on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) Modified on 10/3/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 10/02/2007)
328 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 197 Motion of Mary Cheh to Quash Subpoena and denying 199 Cross−Motion of Fitzgerald and Jordan to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mary Cheh. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 2, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 327 Notice of Appearance was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading with the electronic signature of the appearing attorney. (nmw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 55 of 153

10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/11/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/24/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007

329 NOTICE of Appearance by Philip James Meitl on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
330 MOTION for Extension of Time to Take the Deposition of Peter Newsham by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
331 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Counts Four (Miranda) and Five (Right to Counsel) of the Third Amended Complaint by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
332 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
333 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
334 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
335 ERRATA Proposed Order − Not Previously attached to Consent Motion by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) 333 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 332 First Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees; granting 333 Second Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees; and granting 334 Third Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 24, 2007.(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
336 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Answer to Third Amended Complaint by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Answer to Third Amended Complaint )(Francuzenko, Alexander). Modified on 10/30/2007 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/30/2007)
337 ENTERED IN ERROR.....ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Third) for Damages and Injunctive Relief by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Related document: 153 Amended Complaint,, filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, AMY CHASTAIN, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, YOUNG CHOI.(Francuzenko, Alexander) Modified on 10/30/2007 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/30/2007)
338 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 337 Answer to Amended Complaint, was entered in error and added to 336 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Answer to Third Amended Complaint. (jf, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 336 Defendant Fairfax County's Motion for Leave to File Answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 338 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Peter Newsham.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
339 ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Related document: 153 Third Amended Complaint,, filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, AMY CHASTAIN, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, YOUNG CHOI.(jf, ) (Entered: 11/01/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 56 of 153

11/02/2007 11/06/2007 11/12/2007
11/13/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007
11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007

340 NOTICE of Appearance by Chad Wayne Copeland on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
341 MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
342 MOTION to Compel The Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D)(Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 11/12/2007)
343 Memorandum in opposition to re 341 MOTION for Protective Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
344 MOTION to Compel Productiom From Plaintiffs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh.1. DC's RFP's# 2 Exhibit Exh.2.Chang Response & Log# 3 Exhibit Exh.3.Barham Priv Log# 4 Exhibit Exh.4.Abbate Offer of Judgment)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
345 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Attorney Peter S. Smith terminated. (Smith, Peter) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
346 Memorandum in opposition to re 341 MOTION for Protective Order (Opposition to Motion to Strike) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
MINUTE ORDER. It has come to the Court's attention that the minute order scheduling responses to 341 defendant's Motion for a Protective Order was only issued under the Barham case number and the Chang plaintiffs did not receive notice of the abbreviated briefing schedule. In the interest of fairness, the Court will accept the Chang plaintiffs' opposition because it was timely filed under the local rules. Defendant shall file any reply to the Chang plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion no later than November 20, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. It is further ordered that defendant's motion to strike the Chang plaintiffs' opposition is denied. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 16, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 11/20/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
347 NOTICE Joint Submission of Consent Proposed Protective Order Regarding Production of September 27, 2002 Special Services Running Resume by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
348 NOTICE CONSENT MOTION FOR COMPLETION OF THE RULE 30(B)(6)DEPOSITION FOR THE DEPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO OCCUR AFTER THE CLOSE OF DISCOVERY AND BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15, 2007 by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
MINUTE ORDER directing the plaintiffs to respond to defendant's 344 Motion to Compel Production. Plaintiffs' response shall be filed no later than November 27, 2007. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than November 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/27/2007,Replies due by 11/30/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER directing defendant to respond to plaintiff's 342 Motion to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privilege. Defendant's response shall be filed no later than November 27, 2007. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed no later than November 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 57 of 153

11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007
11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/30/2007
11/30/2007
11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/07/2007

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/27/2007,Replies due by 11/30/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 348 Consent Motion for Completion of the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the District of Columbia to occur after the close of discovery and by no later than December 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the District of Columbia due by 12/15/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
349 REPLY to opposition to motion re 341 MOTION for Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Joint Notice of Deposition)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
350 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Pending Motions To Compel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 350 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendant's Response to 342 MOTION to Compel The Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges shall be filed by no later than November 30, 2007. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by no later than December 7, 2007. Plaintiffs' Response to 344 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Production From Plaintiffs shall be filed by no later than November 30, 2007. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by no later than December 7, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/30/2007,Replies due by 12/7/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
351 ORDER granting 341 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
352 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
353 Memorandum in opposition to re 342 MOTION to Compel The Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1A# 2 Exhibit 1B# 3 Exhibit 1C# 4 Exhibit 1D# 5 Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit 4# 8 Exhibit 5# 9 Exhibit 6# 10 Exhibit 7)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
354 STATUS REPORT of Defendants by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only), JOHN OR JANE DOES 1−10, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity), M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
355 Memorandum in opposition to re 344 MOTION to Compel Productiom From Plaintiffs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
356 STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
357 NOTICE Of Filing Regarding Supplemental Declaration Of Michael L. Anzallo And Provision Of Unredacted Or Less Substantially Redacted Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1: Anzallo Decl dated 12.06.07# 2 Exhibit Exh.2: March 2003 Antiwar Mnl# 3 Exhibit Exh.3: MPD G.O. 805.1# 4 Exhibit Exh. 4: MPD Undercover SOP's# 5 Exhibit Exh.5: DC 01784# 6 Exhibit Exh.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 58 of 153

12/07/2007 12/07/2007
12/09/2007
12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/21/2007
12/21/2007
12/21/2007 12/27/2007

6: IMF Categorizer# 7 Exhibit Exh.7: Apr 2000 IMF/WB Ops Plan# 8 Exhibit Exh. 8: Running Resume# 9 Errata Exh.9: 9/27/02 Command Mnl# 10 Exhibit Exh. 10: Docs for Anzallo p 17)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
358 REPLY to opposition to motion re 344 MOTION to Compel Productiom From Plaintiffs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
359 REPLY to opposition to motion re 342 MOTION to Compel The Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
360 MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiffs' unopposed request to continue the status hearing set for December 12, 2007 so that outstanding discovery obligations may be completed. The court VACATES the status hearing scheduled for December 12, 2007 and schedules a new status hearing on January 9, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 7, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/09/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/9/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
361 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
362 MINUTE ORDER granting 361 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery shall be completed by no later than January 8, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 17, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 1/8/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
363 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 363 Defendant's Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
364 ORDER denying 344 Defendant's Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiffs.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 17, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiffs to supplement their Motion to Compel Documents Withheld by the District on the Basis of the Law Enforcement or Deliberative Process Privilege in light of recent document production by the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs represented to the Court in their Reply in support of this Motion that they had insufficient time to evaluate the most recent production of documents made by the District. Therefore, in light of this production, plaintiffs are directed to identify with specificity what assertions of privilege they continue to contest.Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum shall be filed no later than January 7,2008. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on December 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
365 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants From Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For The Sealing Of Their D.C. Superior Court Arrest Records by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Memorandum due by 1/7/2008. (dot, ) (Entered: 12/22/2007)
366 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 365 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants From Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For The Sealing Of Their D.C. S uperior Court Arrest Records by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 59 of 153

12/28/2007
12/31/2007 12/31/2007 01/04/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/08/2008

CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
367 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Exhibit A − Interrogatories to the District# 3 Exhibit B − Interrogatories to Ramsey# 4 Exhibit C − Interrogatories to Newsham# 5 Exhibit D − Interrogatories to the Federal Defendants# 6 Exhibit E − Interrogatories to FCSD# 7 Exhibit F − Document Request to the District# 8 Exhibit G − 11/8/07 E−mails# 9 Exhibit H − District Response# 10 Exhibit I − Newsham Response# 11 Exhibit J − FCSD Response# 12 Exhibit K − Ramsey Response# 13 Exhibit L − 11/6/07 and 11/13/07 E−mails# 14 Exhibit M − Griffith Deposition Tr. (excerpts)# 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 366 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' 365 Motion for Order Providing Expungement of Arrest Records. Plaintiffs' response shall be filed no later than January 8, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 31, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/8/2008 (clv, ) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
368 NOTICE Of Filing Regarding Second Supplemental Declaration Of Michael L. Anzallo And Provision Of Additional Unredacted And Less Substantially Redacted Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Michael L. Anzallo# 2 Exhibit Exh. A: Documents provided on Dec. 21 2007# 3 Exhibit Exh. B Section III−N ESU)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
369 Memorandum in opposition to re 367 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
370 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Supplement the Motion to Compel Documents Withheld by the District on the Basis of the Law Enforcement or Deliberative Process Privilege by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
371 RESPONSE re 365 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants From Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For The Sealing Of Their D.C. S filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Selected Portions of Crane Transcript)(Meitl, Philip) Modified on 1/8/2008 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/07/2008)
372 Memorandum in opposition to re 367 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
373 Memorandum in opposition to re 367 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Denying Pls Motion# 2 Exhibit Exh. 1. Email between Koger and Kramer advising of District's objection to untimely written discovery# 3 Exhibit Rxh. 2. Koger Jan. 2 2008 Letter reflecting Stipluations offered by DC# 4 Exhibit Exh.3.Jan. 7 2008 email from Chang Pls rejecting DC's offered stipulations# 5 Exhibit Exh.4.Exceprpt of Sept. 16 2004 Deposition of Michael Fitzgerald# 6 Exhibit Exh.5.Excerpt of Sept. 6 2007 Deposition of Peter Newsham# 7 Exhibit Exh.6.Pls Untimely 4th Set of Interrogatories to DC)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
374 Memorandum in opposition to re 367 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests filed by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
375 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 342 MOTION to Compel The Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 60 of 153

01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/09/2008
01/09/2008 01/09/2008
01/10/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008

Exhibit A)(Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
376 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Completion of Depositions of Defendants District of Columbia and the United states Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
377 REPLY to opposition to motion re 365 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants From Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For The Sealing Of Their D.C. S filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order DC's Amended Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) Modified on 1/9/2008 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
378 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Prohibiting Disclosure of the Chang Plaintiffs' Good Faith Estimate of Costs and Attorneys' Fees by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
379 NOTICE of Filing Confidential Good Faith Estimate of Costs and Attorneys' Fees Under Seal by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/9/2008.Motions due by 1/31/2008.,Responses due by 2/14/2008,Replies due by 2/28/2008.,Status Conference set for 1/17/2008 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter JACKIE SULLIVAN.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
380 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 330 Motion for Extension of Time to Take the Deposition of Peter Newsham; denying 367 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Requests; finding as moot 370 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Supplement Motion; granting 376 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Take Defendant's 30(b)(6) depositions; granting 378 Joint Motion for Protective Order; granting 380 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. A status hearing will be held on January 17, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 9, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
381 ORDER granting 365 Motion for Order. Setting forth further instruction to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
382 ORDER declaring null and void the arrest of Leanne Lee on September 27,2002.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
383 ORDER declaring null and void the arrrest of Chris Zarconi on September 27,l2002.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
384 ORDER declaring null and void the arrest of Young Choi on September 27,2002.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
385 ORDER declaring null and void the arrest of Rayming Chang on September 27, 2002.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
386 NOTICE of Defendant District of Columbia's Proposed Judgment Regarding Liability on Plaintiffs' Common Law False Arrest and False Imprisonment Claims by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
387 NOTICE of Proposed Order NOTICE OF FILING CHANG PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 61 of 153

01/17/2008
01/17/2008 01/22/2008 01/30/2008
01/30/2008 01/30/2008 03/25/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/10/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008
05/28/2008
05/28/2008

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/17/2008, ( Government Notice to The Court due by 1/22/2008., Non Moving Party Response due by 2/21/2008, Replies due by 3/6/2008., Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.). (Court Reporter Jackie Sullivan.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
MINUTE ORDER, The Motion Hearing scheduled in Court today for 4/23/08 has to be continued. Motion Hearing is now set for 4/24/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/17/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
388 NOTICE /Praecipe Regarding Mediation Order Implications by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the District of Columbia's Praecipe Regarding Mediation Order Implications filed on January 22, 2008, and there appearing to be no opposition from any party to the Court's proposal that the parties be Ordered to participate in mediation sessions before a private mediator, for a finite period of time, with the Court determining the manner in which the mediator's fees shall be paid in the event of a settlement or not, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall engage in mediation with a private mediator of the parties' choosing. The mediation period shall begin February 1, 2008 and continue through March 1, 2008. All proceedings are hereby stayed until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 30, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines:( Mediation to conclude by 3/1/2008.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
389 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
390 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 389 390 Consent Motions for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 1, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the ongoing participation of the parties in mediation, the Motions Hearing scheduled for April 24, 2008 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 10, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
391 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
392 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO THE MINUTE ORDER FILED 5/28/08 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15)(Meitl, Philip) Modified on 5/29/2008 (clv, ). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
393 MOTION to Withdraw 392 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees, MOTION to Strike 392 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
394 NOTICE Of Consent by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 393 MOTION to Withdraw 392 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees MOTION to Withdraw 392 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees MOTION to Strike 392

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 62 of 153

05/28/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 06/02/2008
06/05/2008 06/11/2008 06/11/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008

Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees MOTION to Strike 392 Joint MOTION for Order on Allocation of Mediation Fees (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 393 Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw and to Strike docket entry 392 . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
395 MOTION for Order Directing District of Columbia To Pay One−Half Of Judge Levie's Mediation Services Fees Pending Further Order Of The Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 391 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 30, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
396 Joint MOTION Allocation of Mediation Fees by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
397 ORDER granting 395 Defendant District of Columbias Motion to Pay One−Half of Mediation Services Fees Pending Further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 5, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
398 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity). Attorney Justin M. Shellaway terminated. (Faust, John) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
399 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Scott M. Badami terminated. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
400 Memorandum in opposition to re 396 Joint MOTION Allocation of Mediation Fees and Cross−Motion by District of Columbia For Assessment of Mediation Fees Against Chang and Barhham Plaintifffs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Pproposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exh.1 Oct. 5 2006 Order, # 3 Exhibit Exh. 2 DC Circuit Mediation Program Order, # 4 Exhibit Exh. 3 Mediation Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Exh. 4 5.27.08 Koger to Pls Letter, # 6 Exhibit Exh. 5 5.28 Koger 1009 email to Plaintiffs, # 7 Exhibit Exh. 65.28.08 Kramer 1242 email to Koger, # 8 Exhibit Exh. 7 5.28.08 Koger 125 email to Kramer, # 9 Exhibit Exh. 8 5.28 MVH 343 email to Koger, # 10 Exhibit Exh. 9 5.28.08 USDC Withdrawal Filing Notification, # 11 Exhibit Exh. 10 5.29 MVH 1139 email to Koger, # 12 Exhibit Exh. 11 5.29.08 Koger 344 email to Kramer, # 13 Exhibit Exh. 12 5.29.08 Kramer 519 email to Koger, # 14 Exhibit Exh. 13 5.29.08 Koger 548 email to Kramer, # 15 Exhibit Exh. 14 Excerpt of 12.13.07 Herold Dep, # 16 Exhibit Exh. 15 12.27.08 Messineo to Koger email re Proposed Stips, # 17 Exhibit Exh. 16 1.2.07 Koger to Schwartz letterl re Proposed Stips, # 18 Exhibit Exh. 17 1.7.08 Schwartz email to Koger rejecting proposed stips, # 19 Exhibit Exh. 18 1.28.08 Herold Dep Tr, # 20 Exhibit Exh. 19 Exceprt of Jan. 9 2008 heraing tr, # 21 Exhibit Exh. 20 Excerpt of Settment Proposal)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
401 MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (See Docket Entry 400 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
402 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
403 Consent MOTION for Order Holding In Abeyance Action On Charles H. Ramsey's Pending Motions For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 403 Consent Motion to Hold In Abeyance Action on Charles H. Ramsey's Pending Motions for an Award of Attorneys Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 17, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 63 of 153

06/26/2008
07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/14/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/24/2008 08/06/2008 08/06/2008 08/07/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008

404 REPLY to opposition to motion re 401 MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
405 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply In Further Support Of Defendat's Motion To Allocate Mediation Costs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 405 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Defendants' Reply in Support of its cross−motion for allocation of fees shall be filed no later than July 14, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 1, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 7/14/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
406 REPLY to opposition to motion re 401 MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
407 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to District's Reply in Further Support of its Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees Against Plaintiffs by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A. Sur−reply to District Reply)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting (407) Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (425) Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 16, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
408 SURREPLY to re 401 MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
409 MOTION to Lift Stay of Proceedings by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
410 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
411 Memorandum in opposition to re 409 MOTION to Lift Stay of Proceedings filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
412 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
413 Memorandum in opposition to re 410 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
414 REPLY to opposition to motion re 409 MOTION to Lift Stay of Proceedings filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
415 NOTICE Of Confirmation Of Consent To Attorney Fees Motion by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting (402) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (419) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 14, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/14/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 64 of 153

08/14/2008 08/29/2008 10/21/2008 11/26/2008
12/12/2008 01/07/2009
01/07/2009 01/16/2009 01/28/2009

416 REPLY to opposition to motion re 410 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 412 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 29, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
417 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees, defendant District of Columbia's Opposition and Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs, plaintiffs' Joint Reply and Opposition, defendant's Reply, and plaintiffs' Joint Surreply, and substantially for the reasons advanced by the defendant District of Columbia, plaintiffs' Joint Motion is DENIED and defendant District of Columbia's Cross−Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the Chang Plaintiffs shall promptly issue payment to JAMS in the amount of $3,807.50 in mediation costs; and it is further ORDERED that the Barham Plaintiffs shall promptly issue payment to JAMS in the amount of $3,807.50 in mediation costs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 26, 2008. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
ORDER granting 417 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2008. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' cross−motions to lift the stay [427, 429 in 02−2283; 409, 410 in 02−2010] and the oppositions and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted. The parties are directed to proceed as follows: plaintiffs' motions for sanctions shall be filed by no later than January 16, 2009; defendants shall file a response to said motions, if any, by no later than February 6, 2009; and plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by no later than February 20, 2009. The Barham defendants are further directed to file an opposition, if any, to the supplemental motion for attorney fees filed by the Rule 68 plaintiffs [401 in 02−2283] by no later than January 30, 2009. The Rule 68 plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by no later than February 13, 2009. The Court further directs nonparty Zachary Wolfe to file a response to the Barham defendants' motion to take Mr. Wolfe's deposition out of time and for costs and fees [393 in 02−2283] by no later than January 16, 2009. The Barham defendants shall file a reply to Mr. Wolfe's response by no later than January 23, 2009. Notwithstanding resolution of the issues arising out of the taking of Mr. Wolfe's deposition, all other discovery in this case shall be completed by no later than March 16, 2009. The parties are directed to file a joint proposal for further proceedings by no later than March 30, 2009. The Court will hold a status hearing on April 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 7, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 3/16/2009. Motions for sanctions due by 1/16/2009; Responses due by 2/6/2009; Replies due by 2/20/2009. Opposition to supplemental motion for attorney fees due by 1/30/09; reply due by 2/13/09; Response to defendant's motion to take Mr. Wolfe's deposition out of time and for costs due by 1/16/09; reply due by 1/23/09; Status Report due by 3/30/2009; Status Conference set for 4/9/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the Court's January 7, 2009 Order lifting the stay in this case and because the close of discovery has been extended to March 16, 2009, all pending discovery−related motions filed prior to counsel's mediation efforts, including

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 65 of 153

01/28/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009 02/06/2009 02/12/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/14/2009 02/14/2009
02/20/2009 02/20/2009 02/20/2009

342 plaintiffs' motion to compel, are denied without prejudice subject to the filing of renewed motions if appropriate. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
419 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Briefing of Motion for Sanctions by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 419 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant District of Columbia shall respond to 418 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions by no later than February 13, 2009. Plaintiffs shall file a reply by no later than March 6, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 29, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/13/2009 Replies due by 3/6/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
420 NOTICE of Appearance by George Francis Murphy, IV on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Murphy, George) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
421 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
422 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Faust, John) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
423 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
424 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
425 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Sanctions until 6:00 a,m, on February 14, 2009 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2009)
426 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses Amended Opposition filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A Chastain Tr Excerpt, # 2 Exhibit Exh B Wolfe Decl, # 3 Exhibit Exh C Committee Resolution, # 4 Exhibit Exh D Koger Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exh E Committee Report, # 6 Exhibit Exh G MPD 9.27.02 Arrestee List, # 7 Exhibit Exh H David Jackson Decl, # 8 Exhibit Exh I MPD SSC SID Running Resume, # 9 Exhibit 4.15.2000 Running Resume, # 10 Exhibit Exh J Bolger case Running Resume Excerpt, # 11 Exhibit Exh L Newsham Dep I Tr, # 12 Exhibit Exh M Newsham Dep Tr II, # 13 Exhibit Jordan Dep Exh After Action Report, # 14 Exhibit Exh N.1Jordan Dep Exh Statement, # 15 Exhibit Exh O Hanelin Dep Exh, # 16 Exhibit Exh P Hamelin Dep Excerpt, # 17 Exhibit Exh Q Jordan Dep Tr Excerpt, # 18 Exhibit Exh R Pls Redaction Demand Table)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2009)
427 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 425 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 427 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2009. (lcegs4)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 66 of 153

02/25/2009 03/05/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009
03/06/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009
03/16/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 03/22/2009 03/22/2009

(Entered: 02/20/2009)
428 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian P. Hudak on behalf of NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
429 NOTICE of Supplemental Filing by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 424 Memorandum in Opposition, 423 Memorandum in Opposition (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A− Photocopies of tapes (front and back), # 3 Exhibit Notice of Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 12/07 Deposition Transcript, # 5 Exhibit Emails)(Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
430 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Katherine Joanne Seikaly terminated. (Seikaly, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
431 REPLY to opposition to motion re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
432 REPLY to opposition to motion re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses As Applied To Defendant Ramsey, Defendant Newsham And Defendant OAG Individuals filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
433 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Attorney Michelle Nicole Johnson terminated. (Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
434 MOTION to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (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)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
435 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Certain Specific Discovery (filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant FBI) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 435 Joint Motion of Chang Plaintiffs and FBI for Extension of Time to Complete Certain Specific Discovery. Plaintiffs and the FBI shall have until April 3, 2009 to continue their discovery efforts regarding the FBIs anticipated release of previously redacted material and matters related thereto. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 18, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintifs and the FBI shall have until 4/3/2009 to continue discovery efforts.. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
436 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Materails Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement Privilege and/or the Deliberative Process Privileges (Doc. 434) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Enlargement)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/22/2009)
437 Memorandum in opposition to re 436 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Materails Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement Privilege and/or the Deliberative Process Privileg filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/22/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 67 of 153

03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009
03/23/2009
03/24/2009 03/24/2009
03/27/2009 03/27/2009

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 436 the District's motion for extension of time to file response over plaintiffs' objection. The District shall file a response to plaintiffs' 434 motion to compel by no later than March 24, 2009 or plaintiffs' motion shall be treated as conceded. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 23, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
438 MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 418 by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Surreply)(Faust, John) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
439 Memorandum in opposition to re 438 MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 418 filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Murphy, George) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
440 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to 431 Reply to opposition to Motion,, filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 440 Surreply has been modified as a Motion for Leave to File Surreply. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
441 RESPONSE re 440 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Murphy, George) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
442 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald, Brain Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre harrison, And Michael Smith To Plaintiffs' Purported Motion For Sanctions Against The District Of Columbia, Which Actually Seeks Sanctions Against Defendants Mischael Fitzgerald, Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, And Michael Smith, Individually by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Att. A: Surreply)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
443 Memorandum in opposition to re 442 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald, Brain Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre harrison, And Michael Smith To Plaintiffs' Purported Motion For Sanctions Against The District Of Columbia, Which Actually Seeks Sanction filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Murphy, George) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 3/24/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
444 Memorandum in opposition to re 434 MOTION to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Pls Motion, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Alternative Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Ex 1A Pls First Joint Req for Prodn, # 4 Exhibit Ex 1B DC Privilege Log, # 5 Exhibit Ex 1C Defs Responses to Chang Pls First Set of Requests for Prodn, # 6 Exhibit Ex 1D Ott Letter, # 7 Exhibit Ex 2 Pls JOINT Notice of 55 Depositions, # 8 Exhibit Ex 3 Pls Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Depositions, # 9 Exhibit Ex 4 Nov 11 email, # 10 Exhibit Ex 5 Anzallo Decl of Nov 30 2007, # 11 Exhibit Ex 6 April 2000 Running Resume, # 12 Exhibit Ex 7 Nedelkoff Decl, # 13 Exhibit Ex 8 Cathy L. Lanier Decl. of Oct. 6 2004)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
445 ERRATA Regarding Opposition To Chang Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion To Compel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 444 Memorandum in Opposition,,, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
446 REPLY to opposition to motion re 442 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald, Brain Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre harrison, And Michael Smith To Plaintiffs' Purported Motion For Sanctions Against The District Of Columbia, Which Actually Seeks Sanction filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 68 of 153

03/30/2009 03/31/2009 04/01/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/05/2009
04/05/2009
04/06/2009

(Entered: 03/27/2009)
447 STATUS REPORT (Jointly filed) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only), RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), M. SMITH, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
448 REPLY to opposition to motion re 434 MOTION to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the status hearing previously scheduled for April 9, 2009 will now take place on May 13, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 1, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Errata I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
450 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum, # 2 Statement of Facts Defs Statement of Facts In Support, # 3 Exhibit Exh. 1 Ramsey Decl, # 4 Exhibit Exh. 2 Newsham Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exh 3 DiGirolamo Decl, # 6 Exhibit Exh 4 Harrison Decl, # 7 Exhibit Exh 5 Smith Decl, # 8 Exhibit Exh 6 Leanne Lee Depo Excerpt, # 9 Exhibit Exh 7 Young Choi Depo Excerpt, # 10 Exhibit Exh 8 Rayming Chang Depo Excerpt, # 11 Exhibit Exh 9 Christopher Zarconi Depo Excerpt, # 12 Exhibit Exh 10 Burton Decl, # 13 Exhibit Exh 11 Burton After Action Report, # 14 Exhibit Exh 12 MPD Prisoner Control Plan, # 15 Exhibit Exh 13 MPD G.O. 502.01, # 16 Exhibit Exh 14 MPD Pershing Park Internal Investigation Report, # 17 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/05/2009)
451 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment by MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, BRIAN K. JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum, # 2 Statement of Facts Defs Statment of Facts, # 3 Exhibit Exh 1 Fitzgerald Decl, # 4 Exhibit Exh 2 Jordan Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exh 3 Newsham Decl, # 6 Exhibit Exh 4 Fitzgerald Depo Excerpt, # 7 Exhibit Exh 5 Richard Murphy Depo Excerpt, # 8 Exhibit Exh 6 Leanne Lee Depo Excerpt, # 9 Exhibit Exh 7 Burton Decl, # 10 Exhibit Exh 8 MPD Prisoner Control Plan, # 11 Exhibit Exh 9 MPD G.O. %02.6, # 12 Exhibit Exh 10 Burton After Action Report, # 13 Exhibit Exh 11 MPD G.O. 502.01, # 14 Exhibit Exh 12 MPD Pershing Park Internal Investigation Report, # 15 Exhibit Exh 13 Pavlik Decl, # 16 Exhibit Exh 14 Klein Decl, # 17 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/05/2009)
452 NOTICE of Proposed Order by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 69 of 153

04/16/2009
04/16/2009
04/16/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/17/2009 04/20/2009 04/21/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009
04/22/2009

453 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 451 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment, 450 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment and, Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in a Single Consolidated Opposition to Dkt. Nos. 450 & 451 by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 453 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and granting 453 Consent Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs shall file single, sixty−five page consolidated Opposition to 450 the Renewed Motion of Defendants Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith and 451 the Renewed Motion of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald and Brian Jordan by no later than April 22, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 16, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/22/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
454 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 454 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The FBI shall file an opposition to to plaintiffs motion to compel by no later than April 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 16, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/20/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
455 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 455 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. The FBI shall file a response to plaintiffs' motion to compel by no later than April 22, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 21, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 4/22/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
456 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Jayme Kantor terminated. (Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
457 Memorandum in opposition to re 449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (FBI Documents), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Master Redaction Legend), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Hudak Letter of 02/13/2009), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Braswell Letter of 02/20/2009), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Hudak Email of 03/02/2009), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Meitl Email of 03/04/2009), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Hudak Email of 03/16/2009), # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
458 Memorandum in opposition to re 450 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment, 451 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts as to Line Officers, # 2 Statement of Facts as to Assistant Chiefs, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit 29, # 32 Exhibit 30, # 33

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 70 of 153

04/27/2009
04/27/2009 04/28/2009 04/28/2009 04/28/2009 05/01/2009
05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009

Exhibit 31, # 34 Exhibit 32, # 35 Exhibit 33, # 36 Exhibit 34, # 37 Exhibit 35, # 38 Exhibit 36, # 39 Exhibit 37, # 40 Exhibit 38, # 41 Exhibit 39, # 42 Exhibit 40, # 43 Exhibit 41, # 44 Exhibit 42, # 45 Exhibit 43, # 46 Exhibit 44, # 47 Exhibit 45, # 48 Exhibit 46, # 49 Exhibit 47, # 50 Exhibit 48, # 51 Exhibit 49, # 52 Exhibit 50, # 53 Exhibit 51, # 54 Exhibit 52, # 55 Exhibit 53, # 56 Exhibit 54, # 57 Exhibit 55, # 58 Exhibit 56, # 59 Exhibit 57, # 60 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
459 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Opposition to Their Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Enlarge)(Koger, Thomas) Modified on 4/28/2009 (nmw, ). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
460 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Corrected) to Opposition to Their Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 459 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Opposition to Their Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment was entered in error and counsel has refiled said pleading as Docket Entry 460 . (nmw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 460 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants DiGirolamo, Fitzgerald, Harrison, Jordan, and Smith shall file a reply in support of their motions by no later than May 8, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/8/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
461 REPLY to opposition to motion re 449 MOTION to Compel the Production of FBI Materials, Withheld by the United States, one of the Federal Defendants, on the Basis of Law Enforcement and/or Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
462 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Status Hearing date of 5/13/09. Status Conference is now set for 6/23/2009 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/7/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the Court's calendar and the number of motions currently pending and in the process of being briefed, the hearing previously scheduled for May 13, 2009 has been continued to June 25, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. (PLEASE NOTE THE DATE AND TIME CHANGE. The previously noted date of June 23, 2009 was entered in error.) The Court recognizes that all parties, including the Court, have a compelling interest in resolving the pending motions, and is of the opinion that this continuance will give the parties an opportunity to focus on resolving any outstanding issues and completing any necessary briefing and will permit the Court to give proper attention to the pending motions. In order to facilitate efficient resolution of the outstanding issues and to ensure that no further delay results, the Court hereby imposes the following briefing schedule: any and all motions relating to discovery shall be filed by no later than May 15, 2009; responses shall be filed by no later than May 22, 2009; replies shall be filed by no later than May 29, 2009. The Court will not extend these deadlines. At the hearing on June 25, 2009, the Court will address any matters that have not been resolved by the Court or the parties by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 71 of 153

05/07/2009
05/08/2009 05/08/2009
05/14/2009 05/27/2009
05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/28/2009 05/28/2009 05/28/2009 05/28/2009

ORDER granting 462 the OIG individual defendants' Consent Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The OIG individual defendants may file a single, consolidated reply not to exceed 35 pages in length. As previously ordered, the reply shall be filed by no later than May 8, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 5/15/2009. Responses due by 5/22/2009 Replies due by 5/29/2009. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
463 REPLY to opposition to motion re 451 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment, 450 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment (Consolidated Reply) filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. R1 Pls Interrogatory Responses)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
464 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Reply Submitted by OAG Line Officers by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A−Sur−Reply)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting over plaintiffs' objections the individual defendants' motions for leave to file surreplies in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for sanctions. The surreplies are deemed filed as of this date. The Court also instructs the parties that they should be prepared to answer questions regarding plaintiffs' motions for sanctions at the status hearing to be held on June 25, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 27, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
465 ORDER granting in part 434 plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of materials withheld by the District of Columbia, denying in part 449 plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of FBI materials, and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 27, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
468 ENTERED IN ERROR.....SURREPLY to re 450 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Or In The Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (nmw, ) Modified on 5/28/2009 (nmw, ). (Entered: 05/28/2009)
469 SURREPLY to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
470 SURREPLY to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity). (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
471 SURREPLY to re 418 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia for Discovery Abuses filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: documents identified in Exhibits due by 5/29/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
466 NOTICE of Proposed Order /Jointly Proposed Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Jointly Proposed Protective Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
467 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Of Two Business Days To Complete Production Of Materials Identified In "Exhibit G" To Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Consent Enlargementr)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 468 Surreply was entered in error and the correct surreplies have been filed as Docket Entries 469 470 and 471 . (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 72 of 153

05/28/2009
05/28/2009
05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/02/2009
06/02/2009 06/09/2009
06/23/2009
07/13/2009 07/13/2009

472 Memorandum in opposition to re 464 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Reply Submitted by OAG Line Officers filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1 Pls Interrogatory Responses, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Leave to Surreply)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 467 consent motion for extension of time. Defendant District of Columbia shall produce the documents identified in Exhibit G to 434 plaintiffs' motion to compel by no later than June 2, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. and in accordance with 466 the parties' jointly proposed protective order. The terms of the proposed protective order are hereby incorporated by reference into this Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's documents to Exhibit G due by 6/2/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
473 NOTICE Regarding Motions Deadlines by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Faust, John) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. At the status hearing on June 25, 2009, the Court will issue a scheduling order governing further proceedings in this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 25, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
474 NOTICE of In Camera Submission on Behalf of Non−Party FBI by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
475 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
476 REPLY to opposition to motion re 464 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Reply Submitted by OAG Line Officers filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Murphy, George) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
477 ERRATA TO 476 Reply to Opposition to Motion by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI 464 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Reply Submitted by OAG Line Officers filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, YOUNG CHOI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Murphy, George) Modified on 6/3/2009 to correct linkage (tr). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
478 NOTICE of Change of Address for Bryan Cave LLP by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 475 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS, and 485 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Defendant District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $47,059.51 to Robert E. Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code § 5−115.04, for legal representation from February 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 9, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Motion Hearing date of June 25, 2009. Motion Hearing is now set for 7/29/2009 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/23/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
479 MOTION to Continue July 29 Hearing Date by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
480 RESPONSE re 479 MOTION to Continue July 29 Hearing Date filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 73 of 153

07/15/2009
07/21/2009 07/22/2009 07/24/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/30/2009
07/31/2009

MINUTE ORDER denying [(479) in Civ. No. 02−2010; (489) in Civ. No. 02−2283] Federal Defendants' and Fairfax County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Continue. In view of the difficulty of finding a mutually convenient time for all counsel and the Court, the hearing will take place as scheduled on July 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Counsel for the federal defendants and Fairfax County sheriff's office are directed to make appropriate arrangements for substitute counsel to attend the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 15, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
481 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting (481) Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (491) Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 22, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
482 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Answer)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 482 the federal defendants' unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file answer. The answer attached as Exhibit A to the motion is deemed timely filed as of this date. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 27, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
483 NOTICE By Plaintiffs Pertaining to Late Disclosed Documents From Defendant District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
484 ANSWER to 153 Third Amended Complaint,, by NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Related document: 153 Third Amended Complaint,, filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, AMY CHASTAIN, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, YOUNG CHOI.(jf, ) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
485 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of More Late Disclosed Documents From Defendant District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 7/29/2009. Status Conference set for 9/29/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
486 ORDER. In view of the hearing held on July 29, 2009, and upon consideration of all the matters discussed therein, the Court denies without prejudice the motions for sanctions, grants the Barham plaintiffs' motion to compel the FBI to conduct a name search, and grants the motion for leave to file a surreply in connection with that motion. Moreover, upon further reflection, the Court also denies without prejudice the individual officers' motions for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed in the Chang action and denies as moot the motion for leave to file a surreply in connection with those motions. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for resolution of what, if any, documents produced in camera in connection with the Chang plaintiffs' motions to compel should be produced to Chang plaintiffs; and for a report and recommendation on the amount of additional attorney fees and costs, if any, to which the Rule 68 plaintiffs in the Barham action are entitled. The parties are directed to read this Order in its entirety for further instructions. The Court will hold a status hearing on September 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 30, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
487 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alexander Francuzenko (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 74 of 153

07/31/2009 08/03/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009
08/20/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/24/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009

489 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for resolution of what, if any, documents produced in camera in connection with the Chang plaintiffs' motions to compel should be produced to Chang plaintiffs; and for a report and recommendation on the amount of additional attorney fees and costs, if any, to which the Rule 68 plaintiffs in the Barham action are entitled. (kb) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
488 NOTICE of Appearance by Ellen A. Efros on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Efros, Ellen) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
490 NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Peter J. Nickles by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Thomas L. Koger, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Ronald B. Harris, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Terrence D. Ryan, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Andrew T. Richardson III)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
491 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 486 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Chang Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Request for Proposal for Further Discovery in Light of Sanctionable Conduct by District of Columbia filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
492 ORDER notifying the parties of unsolicited correspondence from former Councilmember Kathleen Patterson to the Court and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: objections due by 8/26/2009. Responses due by 9/4/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
493 REPLY To Chang Plaintiffs' 491 Response To Court's Request For Proposal For Further Discovery In Light Of Sanctionable Conduct By District Of Columbia filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) Modified to add linkage on 8/24/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/21/2009)
494 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Defendants' Response To Court's Order Of August 20, 2009 filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
495 RESPONSE re 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Declarations Submitted by Attorney General Nickles and Others filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
496 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 486 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Defendant Charles H. Ramsey's Response to CHANG and BARHAM Plaintiffs' Proposal for Further Discovery filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Faust, John) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Having received no objection to posting the correspondence from former D.C. City Councilmember, Kathleen Patterson by the deadline set in the Court's August 20, 2009 Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to forthwith post the correspondence received by the Court for public viewing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 28, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
497 ENTERED IN ERROR AS INCORRECTLY DOCKETED Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order File 8/28/09) (lm) Modified on 8/31/2009

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 75 of 153

08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/31/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009
09/02/2009 09/15/2009
09/16/2009

(clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
498 ENTERED IN ERROR AS INCORRECTLY DOCKETED Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09).(lm) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
499 ENTERED IN ERROR AS INCORRECTLY DOCKETED Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order File 8/28/09). (lm) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
500 ENTERED IN ERROR AS INCORRECTLY DOCKETED Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09). (lm) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
501 Letter from former D.C. City Councilmember, Kathleen Patterson with 3 attachments. (See Minute Order filed 8/28/09) (clv, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
502 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
503 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Dated August 20, 2009 To Respond To Correspondence To Court By Former Councilmember Kathleen Patterson filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
504 STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit 29, # 32 Exhibit 30, # 33 Exhibit 31, # 34 Exhibit 32, # 35 Exhibit 33)(Meitl, Philip) Modified on 9/15/2010 (jeb, ). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
506 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 07/29/09; Page Numbers: 1−45. Date of Issuance:09/16/09. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

09/17/2009

Redaction Request due 10/7/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2009.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
507 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 76 of 153

09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/29/2009
09/29/2009
09/30/2009 09/30/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009 10/13/2009

508 RESPONSE re 507 Notice (Other) pertaining to additional late disclosed documents filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
509 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 9/29/2009, Oral Motion to extention time to respond to motions denied; Jury Trial set for 10/1/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 23A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan., Status Conference set for 11/17/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the representations of counsel at the status hearing on September 29, 2009, and in view of the significant number of documents recently produced by the District of Columbia to counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' motion to re−open and extend discovery for six months is GRANTED; discovery shall close on March 29, 2010. The oral motion of the District of Columbia to extend the time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is DENIED. Jury trial is scheduled for October 1, 2010. There will be a status hearing on November 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 3/29/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
510 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. Attorney Thomas Louis Koger terminated. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
511 MOTION for relief filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) Modified to change docket text per Minute Order(10/02/09) on 10/5/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
512 NOTICE of Intent to Respond by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 511 Response to Document (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' request for clarification regarding costs associated with additional discovery will be treated as a motion for relief. Defendants shall respond, if at all, by no later than October 7, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 2, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court modifies its Order dated October 2, 2009 and directs plaintiffs to file any reply by no later than October 9, 2009. There shall be no sur−replies. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 5, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 10/9/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
513 Memorandum in opposition to re 511 MOTION for clarification filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October 2, 2009 Email from P.J. Meitl, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
514 REPLY to opposition to motion re 511 MOTION for clarification filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Murphy, George) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
515 Memorandum in opposition to re 505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 77 of 153

10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/15/2009
10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 10/22/2009

516 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 516 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 13, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
517 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
518 NOTICE of Appearance by Shana Lyn Frost on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 517 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 15, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
519 Memorandum in opposition to re 505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, Declaration of Thomas L. Koger)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
520 Memorandum in opposition to re 505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
521 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the 511 motion for relief, response and reply thereto, the Court hereby notifies the parties that the amount of any award of attorney fees will be determined following the completion of renewed discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 21, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
522 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Deposition by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Notice of Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 − 10.05.09 Letter, # 3 Exhibit 3 − 10.14.09 Letter)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER directing defendants to respond to 522 emergency motion for an order compelling deposition by no later than 3:00 p.m. on October 22, 2009. Plaintiffs shall file any reply by no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 22, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
523 Memorandum in opposition to re 522 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Deposition filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
524 NOTICE of Filing of Exhibits by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 523 Memorandum in Opposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/22/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 78 of 153

10/22/2009 10/22/2009
10/22/2009 10/23/2009 10/27/2009 10/29/2009
10/29/2009
11/02/2009 11/02/2009
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009

525 REPLY to opposition to motion re 522 Emergency MOTION for Order Compelling Deposition filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the Chang Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Deposition, the opposition and reply thereto, and substantially for the reasons advanced by the Chang Plaintiffs, the motion is GRANTED. The District of Columbia is directed to comply with the Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition scheduled for October 23, 2009, requiring it to provide testimony regarding the District of Columbia's preservation or lack thereof of electronically stored materials, including e−mails. See Notice of Deposition, attached to Docket # 522 as exhibit 1. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to 522 emergency motion due by 3:00 p.m. 10/22/2009 Reply due by 5:00 p.m. 10/22/2009. (zmm, ) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
526 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Jay Snyder on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
527 NOTICE of Production of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
528 REPLY to opposition to motion re 505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
529 REPLY to opposition to motion re 505 MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) MOTION for Sanctions Against the District and the Individual District Defendants (Renewed) REPLY TO DISTRICT ENTITY, NOT INDIVIDUALS, OPPOSITION filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
530 MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
531 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Rule 26(b)(5)(B) Disclosure and Request for Expedited Relief by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from Pressley, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Filed Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Cover Letter to July 22 Production, # 4 Exhibit 4 − July 27, 2009 Emails, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Letter to Efros, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Letter from Efros, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Email from Copeland, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, directs defendants to file any objections to 531 plaintiffs' request for relief, along with supporting points and authorities, by no later than 5:00 p.m. today, November 3, 2009. Any reply to defendants' submission shall be filed by no later than 6:00 p.m. today, November 3, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
532 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
533 REPLY to opposition to motion re 530 MOTION for Protective Order and to District Opposition to Request for Relief filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 79 of 153

11/03/2009
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009
11/05/2009
11/05/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 531 plaintiffs' Rule 26(b)(5)(B) disclosure and request for expedited relief, the response and reply thereto, and substantially for the reasons articulated by plaintiffs, it is hereby ORDERED that the District of Columbia has waived any asserted attorney−client, work product, and deliberative process privileges as to the documents Bates labeled Prosec 00001−00168 and 2009.1 Supp 00358−00400 and any copies thereof. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 532 defendants' motion for protective order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
534 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order, # 2 Exhibit Subpoena)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
535 SEALED Exhibit 2 to #531 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Rule 26(b)(5)(B) Disclosure and Request for Expedited Relief filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(zjf, ) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
536 Memorandum in opposition to re 534 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order and Request for Expedited Consideration filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendants are directed to file a reply, if any, in support of 534 motion to quash subpoena and for protective order by no later than 5:30 p.m. today, November 4, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 4, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
537 REPLY to opposition to motion re 534 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the flurry of discovery related matters that have occurred in the past few days, and that undoubtedly will continue to occur in the future, this case is hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola for resolution of discovery disputes. Further, the deposition scheduled for November 5, 2009 is stayed until further Order of the Court. When, and if, that deposition is rescheduled it shall be conducted at the U.S. Courthouse and conducted under the supervision of Judge Facciola. By no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 10, 2009, plaintiffs are directed to file their proposed discovery plan for renewed discovery attributed to the District of Columbia's belated production of discovery; any response to the plaintiffs' plan shall be filed by no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 12, 2009. Requests for extensions of time to respond to this Order will be viewed with disfavor. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 4, 2009. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
538 MEMORANDUM ORDER ruling on documents produced for an in camera review in connection with Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Materials Withheld by the District of Columbia 444 and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production of Federal Bureau of Investigation Materials Withheld by the United States 449 . Both motions [444,449] are granted in part and denied in part, with regard to compelling the production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 11/05/09. (DM) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
539 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (proposed protective order))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
540 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for discovery resolution. (kb) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
541 Memorandum in opposition to re 539 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 80 of 153

11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009
11/11/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009
11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009
11/12/2009

542 NOTICE of Production of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
543 NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Peter J. Nickles by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Chad Copeland)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
544 REPLY to opposition to motion re 539 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
545 ORDER re referral to Judge Facciola for discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 11/10/09. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
546 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Discovery Plan by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Discovery Plan, # 2 Exhibit 2 − List of District Productions)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 546 consent motion for extension of time to file discovery plan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
547 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Plan filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − List of District Productions)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
548 Memorandum in opposition to re 530 MOTION for Protective Order to Strike Interrogatories 7 & 8 filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − List of District Productions, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Fifth Set of Interrogatories to District, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Emails to District Counsel)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
549 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Discovery Plan due by 12:00 p.m. on 11/10/2009. Responses due by 12:00 p.m. on 11/12/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
550 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, _Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Plans_ filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
551 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, to Respond to Discovery Plan filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Discovery Plan)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
552 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Response to Discovery Plan by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
553 RESPONSE re 547 Response to Order of the Court filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
554 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Response to Discovery Plan by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Discovery Plan)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
555 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Deso, Robert) (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 81 of 153

11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/13/2009
11/16/2009 11/16/2009
11/17/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009
11/18/2009 11/18/2009
11/20/2009 11/20/2009

11/12/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 554 unopposed motion for leave to file a response to discovery plan. 552 unopposed motion for leave to file a response to discovery plan is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 555 consent motion for leave to file a response to discovery plan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
556 RESPONSE re Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan for Renewed Discovery filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (znmw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
557 MOTION for Protective Order for the Deposition of MPD Detective Paul Hustler by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 2)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
558 Memorandum in opposition to re 557 MOTION for Protective Order for the Deposition of MPD Detective Paul Hustler filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
559 REPLY to opposition to motion re 557 MOTION for Protective Order for the Deposition of MPD Detective Paul Hustler filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 11/17/2009, Status Conference set for 12/17/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the discussion at the status hearing held today, a status hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 17, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
560 NOTICE of Detective Hustler Affidavit by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Hustler Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 2 − McLean Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit 3− Ramsey 9.19.07 Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Council Report, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Ramsey 09.18.07 Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
561 NOTICE of Filing of Bulky Exhibit by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
562 REPLY to opposition to motion re 530 MOTION for Protective Order for Chang Plaintiffs Interrogatories 7 and 8 filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
563 RESPONSE re 560 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
564 REPLY re 563 Response to Document TITLED NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT AND WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF DEPOSITION FOR DETECTIVE PAUL HUSTLER filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 82 of 153

11/25/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/08/2009 12/08/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009
12/15/2009
12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009

565 RESPONSE re 560 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
566 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
ORDER granting 566 Motion for Attorney Fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 4, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
567 NOTICE of Filing of Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
568 RESPONSE to Report of Stanley Sporkin filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts of Jones Deposition)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
569 NOTICE of Filing of Corrected Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected "Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002" with cover letter)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
570 ERRATA Regarding Notice of Filing of Corrected Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002 with complete cover letter)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
571 ERRATA Regarding Notice of Filing of Corrected Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 490 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 569 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002 with complete cover letter)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Redline Version, # 4 Exhibit 3 − DC 18515, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Ramsey Dep. Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Ramsey Responses, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Hunter Dep. Excerpts, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Crane Dep. Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Newsham Responses, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Fitzgerald Responses, # 11 Exhibit 10 − Thorpe Dep. Excerpts, # 12 Exhibit 11 − Herold Dep. Excerpts, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Ramsey Dep. Excerpts, # 14 Exhibit 13 − Broadbent Dep. Excerpts, # 15 Exhibit 14 − JOCC Procedures, # 16 Exhibit 15 − Jones Dep. Excerpts, # 17 Exhibit 16 − Joint Requests, # 18 Exhibit 17 − Alexander Decl., # 19 Exhibit 18 − List of District Late Productions, # 20 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
574 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims for Equitable Relief by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
575 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Mediation by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 83 of 153

12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009
12/21/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009
01/04/2010
01/04/2010 01/04/2010

HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 12/17/2009, Status Conference set for 2/11/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter KATHRYN JONES.) (clv, ) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
576 ERRATA by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI 573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, YOUNG CHOI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Revised Motion)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the status hearing held on December 17, 2009, the Court hereby DENIES 575 defendants' motion to stay discovery pending mediation. It is further ORDERED that by no later than noon on January 5, 2010, the parties shall submit the names of three forensic evaluation experts to be considered by the Court for appointment to address and respond to the issues raised in the report of retired United States District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin, along with projected estimates of time and expense for each potential expert. If the parties are unable to agree on three proposed forensic evaluation experts, plaintiffs and defendant District of Columbia shall separately submit respective lists of not more than three names to be considered by the Court. It is further ORDERED that pursuant to the Court's ruling on December 17, 2009, the deposition of Detective Paul Hustler shall be taken by defendant United States and other defendants as appropriate, and shall take place at a time and place agreed upon by the parties. Until final approval of any settlement in any case, the original trial dates shall remain as scheduled. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
577 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 577 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 21, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: The names of three forensic evaluation experts shall be submitted to the Court by 1/5/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
578 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 574 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims for Equitable Relief, 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint, 573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 578 joint motion for extension of time. Responses to 572 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and 574 defendants' motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed by no later than January 8, 2010; any replies shall be filed by no later than January 22, 2010. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any response to 573 plaintiffs' third motion to compel the District of Columbia to produce information withheld on the basis of the law enforcement and deliberative process privilege shall be filed by no later than January 11, 2010; any reply shall be filed by no later than January 25, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 4, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
579 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert Edward Deso (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
580 Memorandum in opposition to re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 84 of 153

01/04/2010 01/04/2010 01/05/2010 01/05/2010 01/05/2010 01/06/2010 01/08/2010
01/08/2010
01/08/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010

of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity). (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
581 NOTICE of Filing of Line in Support of Joint Motion for Extension of Time 578 by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Tuohey, Mark) . (Entered: 01/04/2010)
MINUTE ORDER construing 581 notice as a motion for extension of time and granting the motion. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 4, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses mootion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and motion for partial summary judgment due by 1/8/2010; Replies due by 1/22/2010. Response to third motion to compel the District of Columbia to produce information due by 1/11/10; reply due to 1/25/10. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
582 NOTICE of Proposed Forensic Evaluation Experts to be Considered by the Court for Appointment by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
583 NOTICE of Submission of Proposed Forensic Expert by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH re Order on Motion to Stay,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Submission of Proposed Forensic Expert in Barham v. Ramsey), # 2 Exhibit 2 (District's Rationale for Proposed Forensic Expert))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
584 NOTICE (Supplemental) of Proposed Forensic Evaluation Experts to be Considered by the Court for Appointment by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 583 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Murphy, George) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
585 Memorandum in opposition to re 574 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims for Equitable Relief filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Statement of Disputed Facts, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
586 Memorandum in opposition to re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − SSCSID Running Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Intelligence Running Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Bolger Running Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Crane Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Revised Sporkin Report)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
587 Memorandum in opposition to re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
588 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, M. SMITH (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 588 consent motion for extension of time. Defendant District of Columbia shall file any opposition to 573 motion to compel by no later than January 15, 2010; any reply shall be filed by no later than January 29, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 11, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 85 of 153

01/11/2010 01/12/2010 01/13/2010 01/15/2010
01/15/2010
01/18/2010
01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/20/2010
01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010

589 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel T. O'Connor on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/15/2010 Replies due by 1/29/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
590 MOTION for Hearing by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Murphy, George) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing on January 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A to discuss the appointment of a forensic evaluation expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The Court requests the presence of John Reed Stark, Managing Director of Stroz Friedberg, LLC, at the status hearing to respond to any questions the Court may have regarding its potential appointment of a forensic evaluation expert. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 15, 2010. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
591 Memorandum in opposition to re 573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the motion to continue the status hearing filed in Barham, et al. v. Ramsey et al, Civ. No. 02−2283 at docket entry 583, the status hearing currently scheduled for January 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the appointment of a forensic evaluation expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 is continued to January 25, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A.. The Court requests the presence of John Reed Stark, Managing Director of Stroz Friedberg, LLC, at the status hearing to respond to any questions the Court may have regarding its potential appointment of a forensic evaluation expert. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/25/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 590 Motion for Hearing. Status hearing set for 1/25/10 at 11:00. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/19/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to be ready, at the status hearing set before me on January 25, 2010, to address how the abolition of subject matter waiver under Fed. R. Evid. 502 affects their arguments pertaining to the proposed deposition of Stacy Anderson. Counsel should also be familiar with this Court's opinion in Amobi v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, −−− F.R.D. −−−, 2009 WL 4609539 (D.D.C. 2009), as it bears on that deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/20/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
592 REPLY to opposition to motion re 574 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims for Equitable Relief filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, M. SMITH. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
593 REPLY to opposition to motion re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
594 REPLY to opposition to motion re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint (AS TO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITIONS) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts of Thorpe Deposition)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 86 of 153

01/22/2010 01/23/2010 01/25/2010 01/25/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010
01/27/2010 01/29/2010

595 NOTICE by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH re Order,, (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the unavailability of Attorney General Peter Nickels on January 25, 2010, the hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. will be rescheduled for January 26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 23, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/23/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Hearing held on 1/25/2010. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. At the status hearing scheduled for tomorrow, January 26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., the parties shall be prepared to address the Court's authority to grant immunity to a forensics evaluation expert appointed by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 25, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/26/2010; Status Conference set for 2/11/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. During the status hearing held on January 26, 2010, the Court asked Stroz Friedberg to give a "Scope and Sequence" presentation to the Court on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. regarding its proposed duties and responsibilities as a forensic evaluation expert in this case. The purpose of the requested presentation is to provide an overview of the forensic evaluation work that can be done to address the issues raised by the report of retired United States District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin. In its presentation, the Court requests that Stroz Friedberg provide an overview of both "Phase I" and "Phase II" of its proposed services as set forth in Ex. 1 to 583 notice regarding joint submission of the Barham plaintiffs and the District of Columbia defendants on January 5, 2010, as well as cost projections for "Phase II." The Court is sensitive to Stroz Friedberg's concern that it has not "taken part in any engagements relating to this litigation and [that it has] limited knowledge [and] experience with the recordkeeping capabilities of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department." Ex. 1 to Docket 579 in Civ. No. 02−2283, Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al. Nevertheless, a presentation of the potential scope of duties − and the related costs − associated with "Phase II" is required to assist the Court in its consideration of whether it should proceed with a Court−appointed forensic evaluation expert. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall file a memorandum of law on the issue of whether the Court may grant immunity to an expert appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 by no later than February 4, 2010. In its memorandum, the District of Columbia shall address the propriety of granting absolute versus qualified immunity to a court−appointed expert. Responses shall be filed by no later than February 8, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 27, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District of Columbia memorandum due by 2/4/2010. Response to the memorandum due by 2/8/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
596 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 09/29/09; Page Numbers: 1−63. Date of Issuance:01/29/10. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 2/19/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/1/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2010.(Kerr,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 87 of 153

01/29/2010
02/03/2010 02/04/2010 02/08/2010
02/10/2010 02/12/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010
02/13/2010
02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010

Catalina) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
597 REPLY to opposition to motion re 573 Third MOTION to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Witheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
598 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Francuzenko on behalf of FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
599 MEMORANDUM re Order,,,,,,,, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
600 RESPONSE re 599 Memorandum Regarding Immunity for a Court Appointed Forensic Expert and Request to Expand the Scope of Stroz Friedberg Presentation filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Scope & Sequence Presentation date of 2/11/10. The Scope & Sequence Presentation is now set for 2/24/2010 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/10/10. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
601 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit 2 to Chang Plaintiffs' Response to District of Columbia Memorandum Regarding Immunity for a Court Appointed Forensic Expert and Request to Expand the Scope of Stroz Friedberg Presentation by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 600 Response to Document, (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
602 NOTICE REGARDING ATTORNEY GENERAL NICKLES' SCHEDULING CONFLICT FOR FEBRARY 24, 2010 SCOPE AND SEQUENCE PRESENTATION by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the unavailability of Attorney General Peter Nickels on February 24, 2010, the Scope and Sequence Presentation scheduled for February 24, 2010 will be rescheduled for February 23, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. By no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 19, 2010, in pleadings of not more than ten pages each, the parties shall address the propriety of, and the authority for, the Court to appoint Stroz Friedberg as a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Further, the Court requests Stroz Friedberg to likewise file a similar pleading by no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 19, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 13, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/13/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties submission due by 2/19/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Scope and Sequence Presentation is now set for 2/23/2010 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
603 ORDER denying 530 Motion for Protective Order; denying 534 Motion to Quash; denying 539 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/16/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
604 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/16/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
605 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Appointment of Stroz Friedberg as Special Master filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 88 of 153

02/17/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/20/2010
02/20/2010
02/23/2010
02/26/2010 03/02/2010 03/02/2010 03/03/2010

606 REPLY to Chang Plaintiffs Response Regarding Quasi−Judicial Immunity filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
607 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
608 Consent MOTION for Protective Order for Personnel Records by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
609 NOTICE of Proposed Order (Corrected Proposed Protective Order for Personnel Records) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 608 Consent MOTION for Protective Order for Personnel Records (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
610 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, (Regarding Propriety and Authority of Court to Appoint Stroz Friedberg LLC as a Special Master Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
611 MEMORANDUM by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
612 Unopposed MOTION for Order Excusing Attorney General Nickles' Attendance by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 607 consent motion for attorney fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 19, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court requests that during the "Scope and Sequence" presentation at the status hearing on February 23, 2010, Stroz Friedberg include an overview of its capabilities, resources, and estimated costs to forensically examine the video footage produced by the District of Columbia in this litigation in order to assist the Court in understanding the cause, extent, and effect of various discrepancies in the videotapes. See Docket No. 600, Chang plaintiffs' response to District of Columbia memorandum regarding immunity for a court appointed forensic expert and request to expand the scope of Stroz Friedberg Presentation, at 12−22 (discussing discrepancies in videotapes produced by the District of Columbia). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 612 unopposed motion for order excusing Attorney General Nickels' attendance at the February 23, 2010 Scope and Sequence presentation and to excuse his mandatory appearance at future hearings, unless absolutely required by the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/20/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference (Scope and Sequence Presentation) held on 2/23/2010, District of Columbia submission due by 4:00 p.m. on 2/26/2010: Status Conference is set for 3/2/2010 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
613 NOTICE Regarding Indemnification Issue by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re Status Conference, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (DC Standard Supplies and Services Contract))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the status hearing on March 2, 2010, by no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 4, 2010, the parties are directed to file any proposed orders for the transcription of audio tapes and copying of video tapes. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 3/3/2010. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) Modified on 3/3/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 03/03/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties proposed orders for the transcription of audio tapes and copying of video tapes due by 4:00 p.m. on 3/4/2010. (clv, ) Modified on 3/3/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 03/03/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 89 of 153

03/04/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/15/2010
03/20/2010 03/21/2010 03/22/2010 03/22/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010

614 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Regarding Transcription of Audio Tapes and Duplication of Video Footage filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
615 ORDER Regarding Transcription of Audio Tapes. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
616 ORDER Regarding Duplication of Video Footage. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
617 MOTION to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 − March 4, 2010 Email, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts of Hunter Dep., # 4 Exhibit 3 − Excerpts of Crane Dep., # 5 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts of Alexander Dep., # 6 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts of Crawford Dep., # 7 Exhibit 6 − Excerpts of Howell Dep., # 8 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts of Hunter Dep., # 9 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts of Thorpe Dep., # 10 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts of Jordan Dep., # 11 Exhibit 10 − Excerpts of McLean Dep., # 12 Exhibit 11 − Initial Document Requests, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Nov. 29, 2009 Email, # 14 Exhibit 13 − Excerpts of Sharkey Dep., # 15 Exhibit 14 − March 2, 2010 Email, # 16 Exhibit 15 − March 5, 2010 Email Chain)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
618 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/20/2010)
619 Memorandum in opposition to re 618 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
620 MOTION for Protective Order for Personnel Records by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Request for Production of Documents), # 2 Exhibit B (General Order 201.19))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
621 REPLY to opposition to motion re 618 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
622 ORDER denying 618 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/24/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
623 SEALED TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on March 11, 2010; Page Numbers: 1 thru 7. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sara A. Wick, Telephone number (202) 347−3700. (jf, ) (zjf, ). (Entered: 03/25/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing for March 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN COURTROOM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 25, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/29/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
624 MOTION for Hearing − Motion for Alternative Date or Time for Status Hearing Presently Scheduled for March 29, 2010 by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has been informed that the parties are unavailable for the previously scheduled status hearing on March 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Accordingly, the status hearing is rescheduled for March 30, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. Counsel are directed to immediately inform the Court of any party's unavailability at that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 26, 2010. (lcegs2 ) Modified on 3/26/2010 (lcegs2, ). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/30/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 90 of 153

03/27/2010 03/29/2010 03/30/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010
03/31/2010 03/31/2010
04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/08/2010 04/09/2010

625 NOTICE of Production of Documents by the District of Columbia by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 03/27/2010)
626 Memorandum in opposition to re 617 MOTION to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. NOTICE OF COURTROOM CHANGE: The parties are informed that the status conference scheduled for March 30, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. will be held in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Main Building. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 3/30/2010. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the Court's representation at the hearing on March 30, 2010 that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, it intends to appoint Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as a Special Master to investigate the potential destruction of evidence in this case, the parties are directed to notify the Court by no later than April 9, 2010 whether there are any objections to his appointment. The parties are further directed to include in this notification any recommendations for the scope of Magistrate Judge Facciola's authority as Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 31, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: objections due by 4/9/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
627 REPLY to opposition to motion re 617 MOTION to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Initial Document Requests, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Selected Documents from Latest Production, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Responses to Requests for Admissions, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts of Thorpe Deposition, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts of Crawford Deposition, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Excerpts of Howell Deposition, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts of Alexander Deposition, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts of Harrison Deposition, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts of Jordan Deposition, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Tape Transcription, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Excerpts of Crane Deposition)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
628 Memorandum in opposition to re 620 MOTION for Protective Order for Personnel Records filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
629 MOTION For An Order Permitting the District of Columbia Until May 13, 2010 to Respond to Interrogatories 7 and 8 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
630 Memorandum in opposition to re 629 MOTION For An Order Permitting the District of Columbia Until May 13, 2010 to Respond to Interrogatories 7 and 8 filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
631 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 631 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 6, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
632 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, _dated 3−31−2010 appointing Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola_ filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
633 REPLY to opposition to motion re 620 MOTION for Protective Order for Personnel Records filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Frost,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 91 of 153

04/09/2010 04/09/2010
04/09/2010 04/09/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/16/2010 04/20/2010
04/21/2010 04/23/2010
04/30/2010
05/03/2010

Shana) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
634 REPLY to opposition to motion re 629 MOTION For An Order Permitting the District of Columbia Until May 13, 2010 to Respond to Interrogatories 7 and 8 filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
635 MOTION to Compel Overruling Defendants' Privilege Objections and Permitting Completion of Depositions by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Fitzgerald Depo., # 4 Exhibit Jordan Depo., # 5 Exhibit Newsham Depo., # 6 Exhibit Ramsey Depo., # 7 Exhibit Thorpe Depo., # 8 Exhibit Alexander Depo.)(Snyder, Ivan). Added MOTION to Overrule on 4/12/2010 (znmw, ). Modified on 2/22/2011 (jeb, ). (Entered: 04/09/2010)
636 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, dated March 31, 2010, concerning appointment of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as a Special Master filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
637 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Regarding Appointment of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as Special Master filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
638 ENTERED IN ERROR.....ERRATA Declaration of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/15/10. (SP, ) Modified on 4/15/2010 (SP, ). Modified on 4/16/2010 (znmw, ). (Entered: 04/15/2010)
639 Declaration of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/15/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 638 Order; emailed to Katherine_Snuffer@dcd.uscourts.gov, cc'd 62 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Entered in error; document not signed; refiled with signature as docket entry 639 . (znmw, ) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
640 WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE FILED 5/3/2010..... MOTION to Compel the Identity of MPD Videotaping Locations on September 27, 2002, and Request for Expedited Consideration by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) Modified on 5/4/2010 (znmw, ). (Entered: 04/20/2010)
641 NOTICE of Clarification by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 640 MOTION to Compel the Identity of MPD Videotaping Locations on September 27, 2002, and Request for Expedited Consideration (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
642 Memorandum in opposition to re 635 MOTION to Compel Overruling Defendants' Privilege Objections and Permitting Completion of Depositions filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), M. SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
643 REPLY to opposition to motion re 635 MOTION to Compel Overruling Defendants' Privilege Objections and Permitting Completion of Depositions filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts of Alexander Depo., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts of Newsham Depo., # 3 Exhibit 3 − Excerpts of Fitzgerald Depo., # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts of Jordan Depo., # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts of Harrison Depo.)(Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
644 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re 640 MOTION to Compel the Identity of MPD

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 92 of 153

05/05/2010 05/07/2010
05/10/2010 05/11/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010
05/14/2010
05/20/2010 05/21/2010
05/25/2010
05/27/2010 05/27/2010
05/31/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010

Videotaping Locations on September 27, 2002, and Request for Expedited Consideration filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, YOUNG CHOI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
645 ORDER appointing United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 5, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
646 MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 646 consent motion for attorney fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
647 MOTION for Hearing (Status Conference) by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/29/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 647 Motion for Status Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/14/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
648 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), M. SMITH. Attorney Chad Wayne Copeland terminated. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
649 NOTICE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 629 MOTION For An Order Permitting the District of Columbia Until May 13, 2010 to Respond to Interrogatories 7 and 8 (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
650 Consent MOTION for Protective Order regarding Deposition of Ronald B. Harris by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
651 MOTION for Hearing re 572 MOTION to Amend/Correct Third Amended Complaint by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Jan. 27, 2010 Opinion in Actionlink v. Sorgenfrei, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Civil Complaint in Wone v. Price et al.)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing regarding 572 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint on May 27, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 25, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
NOTICE OF COURTROOM CHANGE: Status Conference set for 5/27/2010 03:00 PM in Courtroom 19, 6TH Floor, Main Building before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 5/27/2010; Telephone Conference set for 6/3/2010 04:00 AM in Chambers before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 650 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/31/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/31/2010)
652 NOTICE of Change of Address by Mark Henry Tuohey, III (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons discussed in open court at the status hearing on May 27, 2010, there will be a conference call on June 3, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.. Please note

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 93 of 153

06/01/2010 06/07/2010
06/21/2010 06/22/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010
07/01/2010 07/09/2010 07/14/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/21/2010

the time change. Counsel for plaintiffs, the District of Columbia, former Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham are instructed to contact Carol Votteler, Courtroom Deputy, at (202)354−3152 by 2:00 p.m. on June 2, 2010 to obtain dial in information. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 1, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 6/3/2010 03:00 PM before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. During the June 3, 2010 telephone conference between the Court and counsel for plaintiffs and defendants District of Columbia, Newsham and Ramsey, plaintiffs orally moved the Court to stay 572 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint pending finalization of the Special Master proceedings and the Court's resolution of sanctions issues. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' unopposed oral motion, it is hereby ORDERED that all proceedings regarding 572 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint are stayed pending further order of this Court. In light of the stay, as well as ongoing discovery and special master proceedings, the trial date of October 1, 2010 is hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 7, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
653 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Faust, John) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 616 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 22, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
654 ORDER re 573 , 617 , and 620 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/29/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Hearing held on 6/29/2010. Order to be issued by the Court. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services,.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Documents (hold letters) to be filed by the District due by 7/1/2010. Proposed Protective order due 07/09/10. (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
655 ORDER re Plaintiffs Third Motion to Compel the District of Columbia to Produce Information Withheld on the Basis of the Law Enforcement and Deliberative Process Privileges [#573], Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters [#617], Defendant District of Columbias Motion for Protective Order for Personnel Records or, in the Alternative, in Camera Inspection of Requested Documents [#620]. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 07/01/2010. (lcjmf1) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
656 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 654 Order, 655 Order, Regarding Submission for In Camera Review filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
657 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). Attorney John Martin Faust terminated. (Faust, John) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
658 NOTICE of Correction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 592 Reply to opposition to Motion, (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
659 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 655 Order, (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
660 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 655 Order, Regarding Revised Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: The District of Columbia is ordered to submit to chambers copies (on disk) of all of the documents withheld on the basis of the law enforcement and deliberative process privileges by close of business Friday, July 23, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/21/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 94 of 153

07/21/2010 07/22/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 08/02/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/08/2010
08/09/2010 08/09/2010
08/09/2010

Set/Reset Deadlines: The District of Columbia's disk/documents due by 7/23/2010. (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
661 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, to Submit Documents for In Camera Review filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
662 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/29/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Hearing set for 8/16/2010 03:00 − 5:00 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
663 RESPONSE re 659 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
664 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Buckley on behalf of PETER J. NEWSHAM (Buckley, David) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
665 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 662 Order of Special Master, Objections filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
666 Appellant's REPLY BRIEF by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has received 665 District of Columbia's objections to the July 29, 2010 special master order. In light of the fact that the District's objections concern a hearing before Judge Facciola which is scheduled for August 16, 2010, the Court hereby ORDERS expedited briefing on the District's objections. Plaintiffs shall file their response, if any, by no later than Wednesday August 11, 2010 at 12:00 p.m.; the District shall file its reply, if any, by no later than Thursday August 12, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. The parties are advised that the Court will not grant extensions of time in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 8, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/08/2010)
667 MOTION for Leave to Appear on behalf of Defendant Newsham at August 16, 2010 Status Hearing by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
668 MOTION for Order for Leave to Appear on behalf of Charles H. Ramsey at August 16, 2010 Status Hearing by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 659 the District of Columbia's partial objections to 655 Magistrate Judge Facciola's order of July 1, 2010 denying 620 the District's motion for a Protective Order for Personnel Records or, in the Alternative, in Camera Inspection of Requested Documents. Judge Facciola ordered the District to produce the personnel files of 23 current or former District employees, subject to a protective order to protect the confidentiality of the documents. The District represents that the parties agreed on an appropriate protective order, under which the District has since turned over the personnel files for 15 of the individuals at issue. In its objections, the District argues that Judge Facciola erred by not ordering in camera review of the personnel files of the remaining 8 individuals. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and LcvR 72.2 govern this Court's reconsideration of a magistrate's determination in a nondispositive matter. "[T]he magistrate judge's decision is entitled to great deference" and will be upheld "unless found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Beale v. Dist. of Columbia, 545 F. Supp. 2d 8, 13 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal citations omitted). This standard is met "when, although there is evidence to support [a finding], the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Fed. Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 130 F.R.D. 507, 508 (D.D.C. 1990). After careful consideration of the motion, the opposition and the reply thereto, the Court finds no basis upon which to modify or set aside Judge Facciola's order. The District provides absolutely no support for its conclusory argument that the records of the eight individuals at issue are irrelevant or otherwise protected from disclosure while the records of the other 15

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 95 of 153

08/09/2010

individuals initially at issue are not. The District's argument that the personnel files of the eight employees at issue must be kept confidential likewise fails, as it has provided no support for any argument distinguishing the confidentiality concerns regarding the eight individuals at issue from the 15 individuals for whom the District has already provided the identical information. Moreover, the District raises no argument that the protective order already agreed to by the parties is insufficient to maintain the confidentiality of the information to be provided. In short, the District has raised no facts or law persuading this court to conclude that Judge Facciola's order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the District's objections to Magistrate Judge Facciola's Order of July 1, 2010 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 9, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
669 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 6/29/2010; Page Numbers: 1−57. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service, Telephone number (860) 464−1083,

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010

Redaction Request due 8/30/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/9/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/8/2010.(znmw, ) (Main Document 669 replaced on 8/16/2010) (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/09/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by12:00 p.m. on 8/11/2010; Replies due by12:00 p.m. on 8/12/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 667 Motion for Leave to Appear; granting 668 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/10/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
670 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer M. Blunt on behalf of RAYMING CHANG (Blunt, Jennifer) Modified on 8/11/2010 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/10/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 670 Notice of Appearance was entered in error at the request of counsel and will not be refiled.(jf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
671 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, on District Motion to Strike/Amend of Special Master Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
672 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 662 Order of Special Master, Reply to Chang Plaintiffs' Response filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
673 MOTION for Leave to Appear on behalf of Terrence D. Ryan by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
674 MOTION for Leave to Appear on behalf of Thomas L. Koger by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
675 ORDER denying 665 District of Columbia's requests for relief in its Objections to 662 July 29, 2010 Order of Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 13, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: To the extent the District moves me to cancel the status hearing set for 8/16/10, that request is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 96 of 153

08/13/2010 08/16/2010
08/18/2010
08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010
08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/20/2010 08/21/2010

8/13/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 673 Motion for Leave to Appear; granting 674 Motion for Leave to Appear. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/13/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Hearing held on 8/16/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/12/2010 − 10/15/10 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services,.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: As stated at the status hearing held on 8/16/10, within seven days of the date of the hearing, plaintiffs shall file a list of the additional witnesses they wish the Court, in its role as Special Master, to consider. Defendants shall file their opposition seven days thereafter. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/17/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
676 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexandra W. Miller on behalf of JAMES O. CRANE, GEORGE H. CRAWFORD (Miller, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
677 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer M. Blunt on behalf of RONALD B. HARRIS (Blunt, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
678 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of THOMAS L. KOGER (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
679 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of TERRENCE D. RYAN (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
680 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by David Schertler on behalf of RAYMING CHANG (Schertler, David) Modified on 8/20/2010 (zdr). (Entered: 08/19/2010)
681 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Danny C. Onorato on behalf of RAYMING CHANG (Onorato, Danny) Modified on 8/19/2010 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/19/2010)
682 NOTICE of Appearance by Roger Eric Zuckerman on behalf of JAMES O. CRANE, GEORGE H. CRAWFORD (Zuckerman, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
683 NOTICE of Appearance by David Schertler on behalf of NEIL L. TRUGMAN (Schertler, David) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
684 NOTICE of Appearance by Danny C. Onorato on behalf of NEIL L. TRUGMAN (Onorato, Danny) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document Nos. re 680 Notice of Appearance, 681 Notice of Appearance was entered in error at the request of counsel and will be refiled as to the correct parties. Modified on 8/20/2010 to correct the entry made in error. (dr). (Entered: 08/19/2010)
685 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Stephen Bennett on behalf of ALFRED J. BROADBENT (Bennett, Robert) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
686 Letter/E−Mail from Paul Weiss, Esquire. "Let This Be Filed' signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 08/19/10. (ldc, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
687 MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/19/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
688 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeanett P. Henry on behalf of CECILIA M. TILGHMAN (Henry, Jeanett) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a motions hearing on 574 motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief for September 8, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Recognizing the dearth of authority from this Circuit cited by either party relating to the standing issue, the plaintiffs are directed to provide the Court with points and authorities of law to support the award of equitable relief to individuals, as distinguished from classes or putative classes, notwithstanding

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 97 of 153

08/23/2010 08/23/2010
08/23/2010 08/26/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010 09/01/2010 09/03/2010 09/03/2010 09/08/2010 09/09/2010

challenges under Article III. Plaintiffs shall file their response to this Order by no later than August 26, 2010. Defendants are directed to respond with points and authorities that arguably do not support such an award by no later than September 1, 2010. The parties are directed not to repeat any arguments previously made, and to limit their responses to ten pages. No extensions of time will be granted. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 21, 2010. (lcegs1) (Entered: 08/21/2010)
689 NOTICE of Appearance by Harold D. Martin, II on behalf of DOUGLAS A. JONES (Martin, Harold) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
690 RESPONSE re Order, of Special Master filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants are directed to respond with points and authorities that arguably do not support such an award by 9/1/2010. Plaintiffs' Response to this Order by 8/26/2010. Motions Hearing set for 9/8/2010 12:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (dot, ) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
691 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,, requesting Supplemental Submission Regarding Standing to Seek Equitable Relief and Request to Reschedule Time of Hearing filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER rescheduling the hearing on 574 motion for partial summary judgment. The hearing will take place on September 8, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Please note the time change. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
692 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Regarding Submission of Proposed Additional Witness List filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
693 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,, Requesting Supplemental Submission Regarding Plantiffs' Equitable Relief Claim filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
694 MOTION for Leave to File on the Public Record Chang Plaintiffs Objection To The Proposed Settlement in Barham v. Ramsey by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiffs to file forthwith 694 motion for leave to file on the public record Chang plaintiffs' objection to the proposed settlement in Barham v. Ramsey on the civil docket in Barham v. Ramsey, Case No. 02−cv−2283. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 3, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 9/8/2010 re 574 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment taken under advisement. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. At the motions hearing on September 8, 2010, the Court considered, inter alia, 694 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their objections to the proposed class action settlement in Barham v. Ramsey, 02−2283 on the public record. For the reasons stated on the record during the status hearing, the Chang plaintiffs are not bound by any portion of the proposed class action settlement in Barham v. Ramsey. Accordingly, as the Chang plaintiffs admitted both in their written objections and during the status hearing on September 8, 2010, their objections to the proposed settlement are not properly before the Court. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency and of preserving a complete record, the Court concluded that the Chang objections should appear on the public record and directed Barham plaintiffs to re−file their response to the Chang plaintiffs' objections, and to include those objections as an attachment to the response. The Barham plaintiffs have done so, see Barham v.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 98 of 153

09/13/2010 09/14/2010 09/15/2010 09/16/2010 09/19/2010 09/19/2010 09/20/2010 09/21/2010
09/21/2010 09/21/2010
09/22/2010 09/23/2010
09/24/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010

Ramsey Docket 631 Response to Objections refiled pursuant to September 8, 2010 hearing. Accordingly, the relief requested in 694 has been GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 9, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
695 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/13/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Submission due by 10/1/2010. (ldc, ) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiffs' 573 Motion to Compel subject to being renewed following the District's compliance with the Court's 9/13/2010 order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/15/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
696 PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 09/15/10. (ldc, ) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
697 ORDER granting 574 District of Columbia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 19, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/19/2010)
698 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 19, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/19/2010)
699 NOTICE of Appearance by Shelita M. Stewart on behalf of ALFRED J. BROADBENT (Stewart, Shelita) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
700 MEMORANDUM ORDER re 635 MOTION to Overrule Defendants' Privilege Objections and Permit Completion of Depositions filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, YOUNG CHOI. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/21/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Stipulations or a Joint Statement due by 10/1/2010. (ldc, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
701 Stricken from the record pursuant to the Minute Order entered 11/23/10 Letter from Kristopher K. Baumann (Chairman,FOP) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 8) "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf, ) Modified on 11/23/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 09/21/2010)
702 MOTION to Strike 701 Letter of Kristopher K. Baumann and Attached Materials by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order by Superior Court Judge Retchin)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 505 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against the District defendants pending finalization of the Special Master proceedings, and without prejudice to the filing of a supplemental sanctions motion upon the finalization of the Special Master proceedings, if appropriate. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 23, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 608 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/24/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
703 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Documents and Privilege Log for In Camera Review by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 703 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/1/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
704 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 700 Order, filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District's Documents and privilege log in camera due by 10/8/2010. (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby, ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing set to run from October 12, 2010 to October 15, 2010 shall be conducted in two phases. First, the

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 99 of 153

10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/12/2010
10/12/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010 10/15/2010
10/18/2010 10/20/2010 10/21/2010

Court will hear testimony from the following individuals, in the order listed: 1) Douglas A. Jones, 2) Stephen J. Gaffigan, 3) Neil L. Trugmen, 4) George H. Crawford, 5) James O. Crane, 6) Alfred J. Broadbent, 7) Giuseppi Crisafulli, 8) Cecilia M. Tilghman, 9) Rai Howell, 10) Jim Costas, 11) Charles Ramsey, 12) Peter Newsham, 13) Terrence D. Ryan, 14) Ronald B. Harris, and 15) Thomas L. Koger. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court will entertain argument by plaintiffs as to the importance of hearing from: 1) Denise Alexander, 2) Kimberley Thorpe, 3) Michael Fitzgerald, and 4) William Ponton. The Court will also hear argument from plaintiffs as to the need to conduct a forensic examination of any physical evidence and the need to receive testimony from Bruce Koenig. If the Court concludes that additional testimony is warranted, the Court shall set a date for a second evidentiary hearing. The Court denies without prejudice, subject to further argument by plaintiffs, their request to add the following witnesses: 1) "organizational designee witness(es) regarding video" and 2) Peter Nickles. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/4/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
705 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/8/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
706 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven N. Herman on behalf of JAMES O. CRANE, GEORGE H. CRAWFORD (Herman, Steven) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/12/2010. Witnesses: Douglas A. Jones, Neil L. Trugmen, George H.Crawford, Commander James O. Crane, Alfred J. Broadbent. (Court Reporter Lisa Schawm AM, Pat Kaneshiro−Miller PM.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/13/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
707 NOTICE of Appearance by John A. Fraser, III on behalf of JIM COSTAS (Fraser, John) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
708 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald M. Temple on behalf of RAI HOWELL (Temple, Donald) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/13/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/14/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Rai Howell, Giuseppi Crisafulli, Cecilia Tilghman, Jim Costas, Peter Newsham (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro−Miller AM; Lisa Schawm PM.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/14/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/15/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Peter Newsham, Charles H. Ramsey, Terrence D. Ryan, Ronald Harris. (Court Reporter Lisa Schawn AM, Pat Kaneshiro−Miller PM.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
709 NOTICE of In Camera Submission by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/15/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/18/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Ronald B. Harris, Stephen Gaffigan (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro−Miller.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/18/2010. Witnesses: Ronald Harris, Thomas L. Koger (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro−Miller.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
710 Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Lauren Curry by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Tuohey, Mark) Modified on 10/21/2010 to correct docket event(jf, ). (Entered: 10/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 710 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/21/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/21/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 100 of 153

10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/22/2010 10/25/2010
10/26/2010
10/28/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/03/2010

711 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/21/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
712 Report of Special Master. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/21/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
713 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION for Leave to Appear of Counsel for Lauren Curry by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Tuohey, Mark) Modified on 10/22/2010 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/21/2010)
714 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren Elizabeth Curry on behalf of CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 713 MOTION for Leave to Appear of Counsel for Lauren Curry was entered in error and refiled by the Clerk's Office as a Notice of Appearance. (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed 712 Preliminary Report of the Special Master and Request for Guidance. In light of the District of Columbia's ("District") suggestion that the District attempt to access the Groupware server to create a running resume for September 26, 27 and 28, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the District, at its own expense, shall cause Groupware to access the data in its server and cause the creation of a running resume for September 26, 27 and 28, 2002. It is further ORDERED that the District file a written report by no later than November 1, 2010 regarding the success or failure of this effort. It is further ORDERED that defendants show cause, by no later than November 1, 2010, why the Special Master should not be permitted to examine the declarations, depositions or affidavits of any witness who testified before him in the manner set forth in the Preliminary Report and Request for Guidance. Plaintiffs may reply to the defendants' response to this show cause order by no later than November 8, 2010. It is further ORDERED that the defendants show cause by no later than November 1, 2010 why the Special Master's investigation should not be expanded to include (1) solicitation, preparation, and submission of false or misleading testimony/affidavits, and (2) misleading statements by District Counsel. Plaintiffs may reply to the defendants' response to this show cause order by no later than November 8, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 25, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District shall file a written report gegarding the success or failure of the effort; defendants to show cause why the Special Master should not be permitted to examine the declarations, depositions or affidavits; defendants to show cause why the special Masters investigation should not be expanded are due by 11/1/2010. Plaintiff's Reply to defendants' response to the show cause orders due by 11/8/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER re 711 Order. Defendants' counsel shall comply with the Order by COB November 3, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/28/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
715 RESPONSE Of Defendant Ramsey to October 25, 2010 Minute Order Re Preliminary Report of the Special Master filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
716 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,, filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
717 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,, Regarding Preliminary Report of the Special Master filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
718 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,, Regarding Report on Data Retrieval Efforts filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
719 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order Regarding Proposed Schedule for Evidentiary Hearing Witnesses filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 101 of 153

11/04/2010 11/08/2010 11/09/2010 11/10/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/12/2010 11/17/2010

Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/9/2010 − 11/10/10 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
720 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,, Regarding the Special Master's Preliminary Report and Request for Guidance filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/9/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/10/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Sergeant Donald Yates, Denise Alexander. (Court Reporter Lisa S. Schwam.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. On October 25, 2010, in response to 712 Preliminary Special Master Report and Request for Guidance, the Court ordered the District of Columbia ("District") to show cause why the Special Master should not be permitted to examine the declarations, depositions or affidavits of any witness who testified before him in the manner set forth in the Preliminary Report and Request for Guidance, and, separately, why the Special Master's investigation should not be expanded to include (1) solicitation, preparation, and submission of false or misleading testimony/affidavits, and (2) misleading statements by District Counsel. Upon consideration of 712 the Preliminary Special Master Report, 717 the District's response, 720 the Chang plaintiffs' reply, the Barham plaintiffs' reply as set forth in Barham v. Ramsey, Case No. 02−2283, Doc. No. 646, the applicable law, and the record as a whole, the Court makes the following determinations. With respect to the first issue, all parties agree that the Special Master should be permitted to examine any declaration, deposition or affidavit of any witness who testifies before him, provided that any finding of fact be based upon admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Special Master shall be permitted to examine such prior statements of witnesses in the manner set forth in his 712 Preliminary Report. With respect to the second issue, the Court refers back to 645 Order Appointing Special Master. In that order, the Court ordered the Special Master to investigate potential destruction of evidence regarding the September 27, 2002 Running Resume; the September 27, 2002 Recordings of Radio Runs; and the September 27, 2002 Video Recordings. The Court authorized the Special Master to utilize "the full panoply of powers and authority" under Rule 53, "including, but not limited to: 1) holding evidentiary proceedings; [and] 2) making recommendations of findings of fact and conclusions of law[.]" Doc. No. 645 at 2−3. By definition, this authority permits the Special Master to make credibility determinations and to resolve conflicts of evidence. Accordingly, so long as the Special Master's request to investigate "(1) solicitation, preparation, and submission of false or misleading testimony/affidavits, and (2) misleading statements of District counsel" relates to or stems from the destruction of or tampering with the Running Resume, the Radio Runs, and the Video Tapes, the Court concludes that the Special Master already has the authority to do so pursuant to 645 Order Appointing Special Master. Therefore, the order to show cause is hereby DISCHARGED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
721 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/10/2010. Matters to be taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Lisa S. Schwam AM, Wendy Ricard PM.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 721 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: At the conclusion of the hearing held on November 10, 2010, counsel for Chang plaintiffs first raised the issue of whether a certain e−mail existed based on a conversation he had with counsel for a person named Jones who told him that counsel for the District of Columbia had never asked Jones to search for and produce the e−mail. While I appreciate that the District of Columbia cannot find such a document in its now computerized record keeping system, I will ORDER counsel for the District of Columbia to contact counsel for Jones and ask counsel to have Jones

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 102 of 153

11/19/2010 11/23/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 12/03/2010
12/03/2010

search for and produce the e−mail to which counsel for the Chang plaintiffs referred. I will further ORDER counsel for the District of Columbia to file a praecipe within ten days of this Order indicating the result of that conversation and whether it yielded the e−mail in question and whether it will produce that e−mail, if found, to the Chang plaintiffs. It also appears that there are two additional documents as to which there are claims of privilege. One, as I understand it, is an e−mail between Costas and Harris and the other an e−mail that may be privileged because it was between Thomas Koger and a union representative. It is ORDERED that both documents be submitted to me for my in camera inspection. Finally, counsel for Chang plaintiffs advances the argument that the representations by counsel for the District of Columbia, Monique Pressley, Esq. and George Valentine, Esq., to Judge Sullivan pertaining to the existence of the originals of certain videotapes be taken under oath. I will take that request under advisement but in the meanwhile, it is ORDERED that Pressley and Valentine submit declarations to the Court under oath that specifically refer to the above representations made to Judge Sullivan. In their declarations, they shall explain why they made such representations in light of the evidence now elicited in the hearings that have taken place before me that raises at least serious questions about whether originals of videotapes pertinent to this case ever existed. They shall also indicate in those declarations (1) whether they continue to believe in the correctness of those representations or wish to withdraw and correct them and (2) whether they now believe that originals of the videotapes to which counsel for the Chang plaintiffs referred ever existed. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 11/17/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
722 NOTICE Regarding Special Master's November 17, 2010 Order by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting as unopposed 702 District of Columbia's motion to strike 701 letter of Kristopher K. Baumann and attached materials. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 23, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
723 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, Regarding Declaration of Monique Daniel Pressley, Esq. filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
724 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, Regarding Declaration of George C. Valentine, Esq. filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
725 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, Regarding Search for Jones/Murill Email filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
726 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,,,,,, Regarding Submission of Costas and Koger Documents for In Camera Inspection filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' e−mail of November 18, 2010 to the court (through counsel P.J. Meitl) will be deemed a motion to have the District of Columbia pay the costs of the transcripts of the hearings held before the special master. It is therefore ORDERED that the District of Columbia show cause in writing by December 15, 2010 why it should not bear the cost of the the production of said transcripts. Plaintiffs may reply thereto by December 30, 2010. It is further ORDERED that the e−mail of November 18, 2010 to the court be sent by plaintiff's counsel to all opposing counsel for the defendants, including the attorneys for the District of Columbia and that it be filed in the record herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/3/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
727 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Regarding November 18, 2010 Email / Motion Related to Special Master Hearing Transcript Costs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/03/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 103 of 153

12/03/2010 12/13/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/15/2010
12/15/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010
01/06/2011 01/13/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines: District of Columbia's Response to Show Cause in writing due by 12/15/2010. Plaintiffs Reply to Show Cause due by 12/30/2010. (ldc, ) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
728 RESPONSE to Declarations of Monique Pressley and George Valentine and Request for Special Master Examination of Same filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/14/2010. Witness: Kymberly Thorpe (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro−Miller.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
738 Exhibit List by RAYMING CHANG. (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
739 Exhibit List by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
740 Court Exhibit List submitted by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/14/10. (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. In December 2009, plaintiffs filed 572 motion to amend/correct third amended complaint, principally for the purpose of adding a common law tort of spoliation. In June 2010, plaintiffs agreed to stay their motion to amend the complaint pending finalization of the Special Master proceedings and the Court's resolution of sanctions issues. See June 7, 2010 Minute Order. In light of the facts that (1) Special Master proceedings are ongoing, (2) this Court will not resolve sanctions issues before those proceedings are concluded, and (3) the Court has made clear that the motion to amend the complaint will require renewed briefing if and when it goes forward, see Transcript of May 27, 2010 Status Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that 572 motion to amend/correct the third amended complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling at the appropriate time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 15, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
729 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, to Show Cause Regarding Transcript Costs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
730 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, to Show Cause Why the District of Columbia Should Not Pay Transcript Costs filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
731 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, to Show Cause Why District Should Not Pay Transcript Costs, Response to Chang Reply filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
732 MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/30/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: The parties are ordered contact the chambers of Judge Facciola to arrange to pick up the documents released by the Memorandum Order issued this same day at 732 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/30/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER In light of an e−mail received by Chambers from Ms. Pressley indicating defendants' intention to appeal my Memorandum Order and Minute Order of 12/30/10, it is ORDERED that compliance with said order is STAYED and that plaintiffs' counsel shall seal the documents they received from chambers and not review them further pending any appeal defendants may make. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/30/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
733 NOTICE of Appearance by William T. Welch on behalf of JIM COSTAS (Welch, William) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
734 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Order, 732 Memorandum & Opinion Objections and Request for Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THOMAS L. KOGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit One)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 104 of 153

01/13/2011 01/14/2011 01/18/2011
01/19/2011 01/21/2011
01/21/2011 01/21/2011 01/31/2011

735 MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THOMAS L. KOGER. (See Docket Entry 734 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
736 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Leah Brownlee Taylor terminated. (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
737 RESPONSE re 734 Response to Order of the Court Regarding Koger Documents and Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 735.) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 620 Motion for Protective Order; granting nunc pro tunc 629 Motion re Interrogatories 7 and 8. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/19/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
MINUTE ORDER authorizing all Court Reporters who transcribe proceedings before Magistrate Judge Facciola to release unredacted copies of the transcripts to any of the parties of record in this case who order such transcripts. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/21/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/21/11 : Telephone Conference held. (Court Reporter : Bowles Reporting Service) (kk) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/21/2011. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
743 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Telephone Conference held on 1/21/2011; Page Numbers: 1−26. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service, Telephone number (860) 464−1083,

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/03/2011 02/14/2011 02/15/2011

Redaction Request due 2/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/3/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2011.(znmw, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
741 MEMORANDUM ORDER re discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/1/11. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart) (SP, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2011: # 2 Exhibit Redacted Chart) (SP, ). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
742 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/1/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/3/2011. (Sealed) (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
744 PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 02/14/11. (ldc, ) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
745 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration of February 1, 2011 Memorandum Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 105 of 153

02/16/2011
02/18/2011
02/22/2011 02/22/2011 02/23/2011 02/23/2011 02/24/2011

MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties going forward with the intended depositions and the court's expressed willingness to rule on any privilege objections made during those depositions, including claims that the testimony to be given or a document to be shown to the witness is work product or covered by the attorney−client privilege, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Overruling Defendants' Privilege Objections and Permitting Completion of Depositions 635 is denied as moot. As to plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters, the court notes that it has now ruled on all claims of privilege asserted by the defendants, including their claim that advice pertaining to the preservation of certain documents was work product. While I dislike the phrase "the document speaks for itself," in this instance I can say that it is not my province or obligation to denominate or characterize any particular document as a "litigation hold." Instead, I have ruled on the privileges claimed without characterizing the documents. Since, in my view, all claims of privilege have been resolved by my prior orders, it is therefore, hereby, ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Litigation Hold Letters 617 is also denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/16/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 734 , 735 the District of Columbia and Thomas Kroger's objection to the portion of 732 the Special Master's Memorandum Order of December 30, 2010, which requires the District to disclose to plaintiffs certain documents pertaining to Mr. Kroger (hereinafter, the "Kroger documents"). The Court's review of the Special Master's Memorandum Order is de novo as to findings of fact or law, and abuse of discretion as to procedural matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(d) and (f). Upon consideration of the Memorandum Order, the objection and response, and the record in this case as a whole, the objection is DENIED. As an initial matter, the Court notes that defendants have raised no objection to the Special Master's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the documents at issue are not privileged and are relevant. See Defs' Objection at 8 (the defendants are not "seeking review of [the special master's] decision that the documents should be produced.") Rather, the defendants "respectfully request[s] the Court to not permit such production absent the protective order that [the Special Master] has [put] in place" for certain other materials the Special Master has ordered produced. Id. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that this decision constitutes neither a finding of fact nor a conclusion of law, and accordingly may be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. See e.g. Evans v. Fenty, 714 F. Supp. 2d 116, 125 (D.D.C. 2010). The District has not identified any abuse of discretion, and while this Court may have chosen to apply the protective order to the documents in similar circumstances, the Court does not find that the Special Master abused his discretion by choosing not to do so. As plaintiffs correctly point out, Judge Facciola has already instructed the parties to "not disseminate, transmit to another person, or disclose to anyone who is not a party to this lawsuit documents, electronically stored information and all other information that has been produced in discovery by any party to this lawsuit." See Memorandum Opinion of February 16, 2010, Doc. No. 604 . Moreover, the outlines of the information at issue regarding Mr. Kroger have been in the public record in this case for years, and defendants have never sought to seal the information or otherwise make it confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds no abuse of discretion for the Special Master to decline to do so now. The defendants' objection is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 18, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 745 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/22/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District Motion for Reconsideration of February 1, 2011 Memorandum Order due by 2/23/2011. (ldc, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
746 MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
747 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 741 Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 1)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 746 consent motion for attorneys' fees by Peter J. Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 106 of 153

02/24/2011 02/28/2011

MINUTE ORDER granting 747 consent motion to modify 741 February 1, 2011 sealed memorandum order. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and further ORDERED that the District Defendants' production of redacted documents to Chang plaintiffs on February 18, 2011 comports with the February 1, 2011 memorandum order as modified. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
748 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−12−2010; Page Numbers: 1−112. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Schwam, Telephone number 202−354−3238, Court Reporter Email Address : LisaSchwam@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

02/28/2011

Redaction Request due 3/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2011.(Schwam, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
749 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−13−2010; Page Numbers: 1−153. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Schwam, Telephone number 202−354−3238, Court Reporter Email Address : LisaSchwam@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

02/28/2011

Redaction Request due 3/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2011.(Schwam, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
750 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−14−2010; Page Numbers: 1−109. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Schwam, Telephone number 202−354−3238, Court Reporter Email Address : LisaSchwam@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 107 of 153

02/28/2011

Redaction Request due 3/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2011.(Schwam, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
751 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 11−09−2010; Page Numbers: 1−207. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Schwam, Telephone number 202−354−3238, Court Reporter Email Address : LisaSchwam@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

02/28/2011

Redaction Request due 3/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2011.(Schwam, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
752 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 11−10−2010; Page Numbers: 1−103. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Schwam, Telephone number 202−354−3238, Court Reporter Email Address : LisaSchwam@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

03/01/2011 03/03/2011
03/04/2011 03/05/2011

Redaction Request due 3/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2011.(Schwam, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
753 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
754 MOTION for Hearing and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Findings of Fact, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Conclusions of Law)(Meitl, Philip). Added MOTION for Leave to File on 3/4/2011 (jf, ). Modified on 3/9/2011 to seal Exhibit 1 and 2 which contain confidential information. (jeb, ). (Entered: 03/03/2011)
755 Emergency MOTION to Strike 754 MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) ATTACHMENTS by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
756 Memorandum in opposition to re 755 Emergency MOTION to Strike 754 MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 108 of 153

03/07/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011
03/07/2011
03/08/2011

File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions oEmergency MOTION to Strike 754 MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions o filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/05/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 753 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 7, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
757 REPLY to opposition to motion re 755 Emergency MOTION to Strike 754 MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions oEmergency MOTION to Strike 754 MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Special Master) MOTION for Leave to File and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions o f Law filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
758 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 11/17/09; Page Numbers: 1−36. Date of Issuance:3/7/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/28/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/7/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/5/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
759 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 1/26/10; Page Numbers: 1−73. Date of Issuance:3/7/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/28/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/7/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/5/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
760 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 2/23/10; Page Numbers: 1−89. Date of Issuance:3/8/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/29/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/8/2011. Release of Transcript

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 109 of 153

03/08/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/10/2011 03/10/2011

Restriction set for 6/6/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
762 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 3/2/10; Page Numbers: 1−53. Date of Issuance:3/8/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/29/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/8/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
763 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 3/30/10; Page Numbers: 1−41. Date of Issuance:3/9/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/30/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
764 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 5/27/10; Page Numbers: 1−27. Date of Issuance:3/9/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/30/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of Defendant District of Columbia's Emergency Motion to Seal the Attachments to Chang Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing and Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [#755], the Court has pendite lite sealed the attachments. Defendant is, hereby, ORDERED to show cause by 3/18/11 why the Special Master should not accept Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings and Conclusions and why the Special Master should not also order Defendant to file its Proposed Findings and Conclusions within 45 days of the Special Master's ruling, with both sides to be allowed to file, if they wish, supplemental Proposed Findings and Conclusions with two weeks thereafter. Finally, the Special Master notes that neither he nor anyone in his Chambers has reviewed Plaintiff's Proposed Findings and Conclusions. SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/10/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 755 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/10/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 110 of 153

03/11/2011 03/16/2011 03/18/2011 03/21/2011 03/24/2011 03/28/2011 04/04/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/13/2011 04/14/2011 04/14/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Response to Show Cause due by 3/18/2011. (ldc, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
765 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM ORDER FILED ON 04/15/11.....NOTICE Declaration of Ronald Harris by RONALD B. HARRIS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Blunt, Jennifer) Modified on 4/18/2011 (ldc, ). (Entered: 03/16/2011)
766 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Regarding Submission of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
767 MOTION to Compel Production of Document from Thomas Koger by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
768 ERRATA by RONALD B. HARRIS 765 Notice (Other) filed by RONALD B. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5)(Blunt, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
769 MOTION to Strike 765 Notice (Other) Declaration of Ronald Harris or, in the Alternative, MOTION to Resume Examination of Harris by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (O'Connor, Daniel). Added MOTION for Misc. Relief on 3/29/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/28/2011)
770 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 767 MOTION to Compel Production of Document from Thomas Koger by THOMAS L. KOGER (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 770 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/6/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses/Reply to Chang Plaintiffs motion to compel due by 4/8/2011 (ldc, ) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
771 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Document by THOMAS L. KOGER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
772 Memorandum in opposition to re 767 MOTION to Compel Production of Document from Thomas Koger filed by THOMAS L. KOGER. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
773 REPLY to opposition to motion re 767 MOTION to Compel Production of Document from Thomas Koger filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
774 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 769 MOTION to Strike 765 Notice (Other) Declaration of Ronald Harris or, in the Alternative, to Resume Examination of Harris filed by RONALD B. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blunt, Jennifer) Modified on 4/15/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/14/2011)
775 Memorandum in opposition to re 769 MOTION to Strike 765 Notice (Other) Declaration of Ronald Harris or, in the Alternative, to Resume Examination of Harris< filed by RONALD B. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Blunt, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 774 Memorandum in Opposition, was entered in error as a duplicate filing. (See Docket Entry 775 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
776 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 754 Motion for Hearing; granting 754 Motion for Leave to File; granting 769 Motion to Strike; denying 769 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/15/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 111 of 153

04/18/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011
05/04/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011 05/27/2011

777 Proposed Findings of Fact by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Conclusions of Law)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
778 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 767 Motion to Compel; denying 771 Motion to Quash; denying 771 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/4/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
779 NOTICE Regarding JOCC Running Resume by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon representations made by Ms. Monique Pressley, Esq., counsel for the District of Columbia, during a telephone status held this day, the following is, hereby, ORDERED: 1) the so−called "Second Server" that contains an exact duplicate of the data on the "First Server," which was examined by Mr. Bynam, the District's forensic expert, shall be FORTHWITH preserved inviolate, 2) Mr. Bynam shall produce an output, capable of being read by a lay person, summarizing the data that was the target of the forensic search ordered by the District, 3) the District shall provide both the Court and all parties in this matter a copy of the output summary. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/4/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Conference held on 5/4/2011. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting.) (lm ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
780 MOTION for Protective Order for Privileged Information Sought by Subpoena by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
781 NOTICE of In Camera Submission by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 780 MOTION for Protective Order for Privileged Information Sought by Subpoena (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
782 Consent MOTION for Order for approval of payment of interim attorneys fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
783 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with April 15, 2011 Order by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, PETER J. NEWSHAM, MICHAEL FITZGERALD, and BRIAN JORDAN (in his individual and personal capacity only) (Tuohey, Mark) Modified on 5/16/2011 to add additional filers (dr). (Entered: 05/13/2011)
784 Memorandum in opposition to re 780 MOTION for Protective Order for Privileged Information Sought by Subpoena filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 783 Motion for Extension of Time to; emailed to mtuohey@brownrudnick.com, cc'd 76 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please select all filers/defendants in future. (znmw, ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 782 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 783 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/20/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District's Summary due by 5/27/2011. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
785 REPLY to opposition to motion re 780 MOTION for Protective Order for Privileged Information Sought by Subpoena filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Conference held on 5/27/2011. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/27/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 112 of 153

06/01/2011 06/01/2011 06/03/2011 06/07/2011
06/10/2011 06/14/2011
06/17/2011 06/20/2011

786 ORDER re Running Resume. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/1/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 6/7/2011 04:00 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
787 PRAECIPE PERIODIC REPORT by USA by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/7/11 : Telephone Status Conference held. Further Telephone Status Conference set for 6/14/11 at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter : Bowles Reporting Service) (kk) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
788 SECOND PERIODIC REPORT by USA by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/14/11 : Telephone Status Conference held. Further Telephone Status Conference set for 6/22/11 at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter : Bowles Reporting Service) (kk) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
789 Third PERIODIC REPORT by USA by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
790 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−12−10; Page Numbers: 1−190. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia.Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/20/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
791 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−13−10; Page Numbers: 1−175. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/20/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
792 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−14−10; Page Numbers: 1−155. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 113 of 153

Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/20/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
793 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−15−10; Page Numbers: 1−202. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/20/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
794 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−18−10; Page Numbers: 1−138. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/20/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
795 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−18−10; Page Numbers: 1−114. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 114 of 153

After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/22/2011

Redaction Request due 7/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
796 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−14−10; Page Numbers: 1−155. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/22/2011

Redaction Request due 7/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
797 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 12−14−10; Page Numbers: 1−85. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : Patricia_Kaneshiro−Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/22/2011
06/24/2011 06/27/2011

Redaction Request due 7/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2011.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
Minute Entry for Telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/22/11 : (In−Court) Status Conference set for 7/12/11 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter : Bowles Reporting Service) (kk) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
798 FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT by USA by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
799 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on November 10, 2010(PM); Page Numbers: 1−129. Court Reporter/Transcriber Wendy Ricard, Telephone number 202−354−3111, Court Reporter Email Address : Wacricard@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 115 of 153

07/01/2011 07/03/2011 07/05/2011 07/08/2011 07/12/2011 07/12/2011
07/17/2011 07/21/2011

reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/25/2011.(Ricard, Wendy) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
800 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Production of the Running Resume by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
801 RESPONSE re 800 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Production of the Running Resume filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/03/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 800 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/5/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
802 NOTICE Regarding E Team Document and Proposed Topics to Be Addressed at July 12, 2011 Hearing by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Conference held on 7/12/2011. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the status conference held this day, the following is, hereby, ORDERED: 1) Defendants shall file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the audio recordings and video footage within thirty (30) days; 2) The parties are to meet and confer immediately to discuss the need for additional discovery relating to the "E Team" document recently produced by the District of Columbia; 3) The parties are to submit a joint proposal for such discovery within ten (10) days; 4) The parties are to immediately schedule the deposition of Mark Bynum and the Court is to be provided, on a daily basis, a copy of the transcript; 5) The parties are to jointly coordinate with Chambers regarding the schedule for the evidentiary hearing to take place in August and/or September, 2011. SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/12/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
803 MOTION for Protective Order TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION OF THE E TEAM DATA AND A SHOW CAUSE ORDER by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/17/2011)
804 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Status Conference held on 7/12/2011; Page Numbers: 1−35. Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephen C. Bowles, Bowles Reporting Service,

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 8/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/19/2011.(znmw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 116 of 153

07/22/2011
07/27/2011
07/28/2011 07/31/2011
08/10/2011 08/10/2011
08/11/2011 08/11/2011 08/11/2011 08/11/2011 08/11/2011
08/15/2011
08/16/2011 08/16/2011

805 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Proposal for Discovery Relating to the E Team Document filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
806 Memorandum in opposition to re 803 MOTION for Protective Order TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION OF THE E TEAM DATA AND A SHOW CAUSE ORDER filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
807 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/28/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
808 REPLY to opposition to motion re 803 MOTION for Protective Order TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION OF THE E TEAM DATA AND A SHOW CAUSE ORDER filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/31/2011)
809 Proposed Findings of Fact by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
810 RESPONSE in Opposition to Chang Plaintiffs' 809 Proposed Conclusions of Fact and Law for Report and Recommendations of Special Master filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
811 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
812 RESPONSE re 777 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
813 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Regarding Objections and Responses to Chang Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
814 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Regarding E−Teams Data by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
815 Memorandum in opposition to re 814 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Regarding E−Teams Data filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/15/2011. Telephone Status Conference continued to 8/16/2011 04:30 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/16/2011. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
816 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on May 04, 2011; Page Numbers: 1 through 20. Date of Issuance:June 10, 2011. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service,

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 117 of 153

includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

08/18/2011 08/24/2011 08/24/2011 08/24/2011
08/31/2011
09/01/2011 09/07/2011 09/07/2011 09/07/2011 09/07/2011 09/08/2011 09/16/2011
09/16/2011 09/17/2011
09/18/2011

Redaction Request due 9/6/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/16/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/14/2011.(jf, ) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
817 MOTION to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Extraction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Notice, # 2 Exhibit 30(b)(6) Notice)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
818 NOTICE of Submission of the Transcript of the Marc Bynum Deposition by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
819 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
820 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Chang Plaintiff's Previous Motion for a Show Cause Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
821 Memorandum in opposition to re 817 MOTION to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Extraction filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 819 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 1, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
822 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . . .SURREPLY to re 820 Supplemental Memorandum filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) Modified on 9/8/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 09/07/2011)
823 SURREPLY to re 820 Supplemental Memorandum filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
824 SURREPLY to re 820 Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Previous Motion for a Show Cause Order filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
825 REPLY to opposition to motion re 817 MOTION to Stay Discovery Regarding JOCC Running Resume Data Extraction filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 822 Surreply was entered in error and counsel refiled said pleading as docket entry no. 823 . (td, ) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
826 MINUTE ORDER posting on the public docket correspondence from the Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, to the Court, dated August 31, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 16, 2011. (lcegs4) (UNSEALED pursuant to an Order of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola filed 10/20/11) jeb. (Entered: 09/16/2011)
827 MOTION to Strike 826 Order Placing Correspondence From the Fraternal Order of Police Containing Privileged Infdormation from the Public Docket by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
828 Memorandum in opposition to re 827 MOTION to Strike 826 Order Placing Correspondence From the Fraternal Order of Police Containing Privileged Infdormation from the Public Docket filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/17/2011)
MINUTE ORDER directing the District of Columbia to file its reply in support of 827 Motion to Strike by no later than 5:00 pm on Monday September 19, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/18/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 118 of 153

09/19/2011 09/20/2011 09/20/2011 09/20/2011
09/21/2011
09/22/2011
09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011
09/23/2011 09/23/2011

829 REPLY to opposition to motion re 827 MOTION to Strike 826 Order Placing Correspondence From the Fraternal Order of Police Containing Privileged Infdormation from the Public Docket filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion to Strike due by 5:00 p.m. on 9/19/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
830 MOTION to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
831 MOTION for Leave to File A THREE−PAGE SUR−REPLY ADDRESSING A NEW ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S REPLY CONCERNING ITS EMERGENCY MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE PUBLIC DOCKET CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DATED AUGUST 31, 2011 by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Sur−Reply)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
832 Memorandum in opposition to re 831 MOTION for Leave to File A THREE−PAGE SUR−REPLY ADDRESSING A NEW ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S REPLY CONCERNING ITS EMERGENCY MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE PUBLIC DOCKET CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF PO LICE CONTAINING PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. Chang plaintiffs move for leave to file a three page sur−reply (Doc. No. 831 ) in further opposition to the District's motion to strike (Doc. No. 827 ). The District opposes the motion for leave to file a sur−reply, or, in the alternative, requests leave to file a sur−surreply. Upon consideration, the Chang plaintiffs' motion to file a sur−reply is GRANTED, and the District's request to file a sur−surreply is likewise GRANTED. The District shall file its sur−surreply, which shall be limited to no more than three pages, by no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 23, 2011. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 22, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District's sur−reply due by 9/23/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
835 SURREPLY to re 827 MOTION to Strike 826 Order Placing Correspondence From the Fraternal Order of Police Containing Privileged Infdormation from the Public Docket filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (jf, ) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
833 ENTERED IN ERROR.....REPLY to opposition to motion re 830 MOTION to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA MOTION to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA Sur−surreply filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) Modified on 9/23/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 09/23/2011)
834 REPLY to opposition to motion re 827 MOTION to Strike 826 Order Placing Correspondence From the Fraternal Order of Police Containing Privileged Infdormation from the Public Docket Sur−surreply filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 833 Reply to opposition to Motion,, was entered in error and refiled by counsel. (See Docket Entry 834 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 119 of 153

09/26/2011 09/26/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011
09/27/2011 10/03/2011

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 827 the District's Motion to Strike Correspondence from the Fraternal Order of Police from the docket in this case, the Court has determined that the motion falls squarely within the scope of the Special Master's duties as outlined by 645 this Court's May 5, 2010 Order appointing him. Specifically, the submission from the Fraternal Order of Police contains references which may be relevant to the potential destruction of both the September 27, 2002 JOCC Running Resume and the IMF September 27, 2002 Video Recordings. Accordingly, 827 the District's Motion to Strike is hereby referred to the Special Master. The Court will provide the correspondence from the Fraternal Order of Police to the Special Master directly, without posting it on the docket at this time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 26, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
836 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Lead Trial Counsel and, MOTION to Quash Subpoena by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email, # 2 Exhibit Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit Notice of Deposition, # 4 Exhibit Declaration and Attachments, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
837 Report of Special Master: Second Request for Guidance. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/27/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed 837 the Special Master's Second Request for Guidance, asking whether this Court wishes him "to take testimony at an evidentiary hearing and prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law as to (1) any effort to delete data from the E−Teams server; (2) any knowledge by agents, representatives, and employees of the District of that effort; (3) any knowledge by counsel for the District of that effort and all the circumstances that pertain or relate to counsel's advising fellow defendants, plaintiffs' counsel, and this Court of what [counsel] had learned about the effort to delete data; (4) when the district and its counsel first learned that NC4 [an IT contractor] could access the data captured during the weekend of September 26−28, 2002, and (5) whether [the Special Master should] resolve the District's motion to stay discovery." Doc. 837 at 3. These questions are best answered by referring back to this Court's May 5, 2010 645 Order Appointing Special Master. That Order instructs the Special Master to investigate the potential destruction of evidence regarding, inter alia, the International Monetary Fund September 27, 2002 JOCC Running Resume. Doc. No. 645 at 2−3. The Order further instructs the Special Master to, inter alia, take testimony, make recommendations of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue orders relating to his investigation. In the Court's view, matters (1), (2) and (5) fall squarely within the Special Master's authority, as these matters all relate directly to potential destruction of the JOCC Running Resume and the Special Master's authority to conduct that investigation as he sees fit. Accordingly, this Court directs the Special Master to act on matters (1), (2) and (5) as provided for in this Court's May 5, 2010 Order. It appears, however, that matters (3) and (4) do not directly relate to the destruction of evidence. Rather, they relate to possible withholding and late production of evidence, to possible solicitation, preparation and submission of false or misleading testimony/affidavits, and to possible misleading statements or omissions by District Counsel. These matters are not within the scope of the Special Master's duties. See Doc. No. 645 at 3, n.2. The Court notes that, to the extent the Special Master may need to investigate whether District Counsel was involved in the potential destruction of data from the E−Teams server, he may do so through matters (1) and (2). SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 27, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
838 NOTICE Regarding Status of Discovery by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon further consideration of 837 the Special Master's Second Request for Guidance, the Court MODIFIES its September 27, 2011 minute order as pertains to the Special Master's requests relating to items (3) and (4). See 837 at 3. Specifically, the Court concludes that the Special Master shall investigate "(3) any knowledge by counsel for the District of [the effort to destroy E−Teams data] and all the circumstances that pertain or relate to counsel's advising fellow defendants, plaintiffs' counsel, and this Court of what [counsel] had learned about the effort to delete data," insofar as it implicates the destruction of evidence regarding the Running Resume and/or counsel's involvement in any false or misleading testimony, affidavits, or statements to the Court regarding destruction of that evidence. See 645 Order

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 120 of 153

10/04/2011 10/04/2011
10/04/2011 10/05/2011

Appointing Special Master and November 17, 2010 Minute Order. The Court further concludes that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the investigation of "(4) when the District and its counsel first learned that the NC4 could access the data captured during the weekend of September 26−28, 2002," falls within the scope of the Special Master's investigation. To the extent that the Special Master concludes that his investigation of this matter implicates destruction of evidence relating to the Running Resume, the Court invites him to seek further guidance at an appropriate time. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 3, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
839 ORDER denying 817 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/4/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
840 Memorandum in opposition to re 830 MOTION to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA MOTION to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
841 MOTION for Protective Order Precluding 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Attempted Deletion of E Teams Data by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Precluding Deposition)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
842 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 10−18−10 AM Session; Page Numbers: 1−138. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro−Miller, Telephone number 202−354−3243, Court Reporter Email Address : patfromhawaii@aol.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

10/05/2011 10/07/2011 10/07/2011
10/11/2011

Redaction Request due 10/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/3/2012.(Courtrep, ) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
843 NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Shaw Goldman on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
844 Memorandum in opposition to re 836 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Lead Trial Counsel and MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
845 Memorandum in opposition to re 841 MOTION for Protective Order Precluding 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Attempted Deletion of E Teams Data and Reply to 840 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PRODUCE ONE OR MORE WITNESSES FOR FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED DELETION OF E TEAM DATA MOTION filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
846 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,,,,,,,,, Order,,,,,, and Motion to Stay or Close Special Master Proceedings by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration)(Pressley, Monique). Added

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 121 of 153

10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011

MOTION to Stay on 10/25/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
847 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 05/27/10; Page Numbers: 1−27. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
848 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 09/08/10; Page Numbers: 1−62. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
849 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 11/17/09; Page Numbers: 1−36. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
850 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 01/26/10; Page Numbers: 1−73. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 122 of 153

10/12/2011
10/12/2011
10/12/2011
10/14/2011 10/14/2011 10/16/2011

identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
851 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 02/23/10; Page Numbers: 1−89. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
852 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 03/02/10; Page Numbers: 1−63. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
853 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 03/30/10; Page Numbers: 1−41. Date of Issuance:10/12/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
854 REPLY to opposition to motion re 841 MOTION for Protective Order Precluding 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Attempted Deletion of E Teams Data filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
855 REPLY to opposition to motion re 836 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Lead Trial Counsel and MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
856 Memorandum in opposition to re 846 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,,,,,,,,, Order,,,,,, and Motion to Stay or Close Special Master Proceedings filed by

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 123 of 153

10/17/2011
10/18/2011 10/19/2011 10/20/2011 10/21/2011
10/21/2011

RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/16/2011)
857 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Ivan Jay Snyder terminated. (Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
858 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 839 Order on Motion to Stay (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
859 ORDER denying 780 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/19/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
860 ORDER denying 827 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/20/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
861 NOTICE of Correction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 858 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
864 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on February 03, 2011 (SEALED) ; Page Numbers: 1 through 6. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service, Telephone number (860) 464−1083, Court Reporter Email Address : brs−ct@sbcglobal.net.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

10/23/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011
10/31/2011 11/14/2011 11/15/2011 11/25/2011

Redaction Request due 11/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2011. (jf, ) (jf, ). (Entered: 10/25/2011)
862 RESPONSE re 858 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/23/2011)
863 REPLY to opposition to motion re 846 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,,,,,,,,, Order,,,,,, and Motion to Stay or Close Special Master Proceedings filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 863 Reply to opposition to Motion; emailed to shana.frost@dc.gov, cc'd 78 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two−part docket entry, 2. Please file the same document under the Motion(s) Event (jf, ) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
865 REPLY to Response re 858 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) Modified on 11/1/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/31/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 814 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 11/14/11. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
866 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
867 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 124 of 153

11/29/2011 11/29/2011 12/02/2011 12/07/2011
12/08/2011 01/05/2012
01/05/2012 01/05/2012 01/06/2012 01/26/2012 02/22/2012 02/29/2012 03/11/2012
03/13/2012

individual and personal capacity only), M. SMITH, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS. Attorney Monique Daniel Pressley terminated. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/25/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 866 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 29, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
868 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
869 NOTICE of Corrected Docket Entry by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 867 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance, (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
870 NOTICE of Appearance by William F. Causey on behalf of B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department), M. SMITH (dr) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 868 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
871 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 09/08/10; Page Numbers: 1−62. Date of Issuance:1/5/12. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 1/26/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/4/2012.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
872 ORDER granting 830 Motion to Compel; granting 836 Motion for Protective Order; granting 836 Motion to Quash; denying 841 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/5/2012. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
873 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 830 , 836 , and 841 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/5/2012. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 803 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/6/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
874 ORDER re deposition of Neil Trugman. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 1/26/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
875 STIPULATION (STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
MINUTE ORDER adopting 875 Stipulation filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/29/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
876 NOTICE Regarding Newly Discovered Evidence of Recorded Video Footage from the Fall 2000 IMF Protests by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − District Responses to RFAs, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Photographs, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Camera Manuals, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Email dated 2/29/12, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Email dated 3/2/12)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/11/2012)
877 MOTION Request for Resumption of Special Master Hearings by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 125 of 153

03/15/2012 03/22/2012
03/22/2012 03/28/2012
03/28/2012 03/30/2012 04/04/2012

Philip) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
878 RESPONSE re 876 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Newly Discovered Video Evidence filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Kant photos))(Causey, William) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
879 REPLY re 876 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) TO DISTRICT RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE FILED BY CHANG PLAINTIFFS REGARDING NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF RECORDED VIDEO FOOTAGE filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
880 RESPONSE re 877 MOTION Request for Resumption of Special Master Hearings filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
MINUTE ORDER: This Court's Memorandum Opinion of January 5, 2012 at 873 is hereby modified as follows. On page 9, the first sentence of the last paragraph before the "Conclusion" is modified as follows: "Lest there be any confusion, however, I want to make it clear that topic number 3 in the notice of deposition is a legitimate area of inquiry of the District's representative at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition." Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/28/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Conference held on 3/28/2012. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
881 REPLY to opposition to motion re 877 MOTION Request for Resumption of Special Master Hearings filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
882 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/28/2012; Page Numbers: 1−12. Date of Issuance:4/4/2012. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service,

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

04/09/2012 04/10/2012

Redaction Request due 4/25/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/3/2012.(znmw, ) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
883 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alexander Francuzenko (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court are two motions by the District of Columbia: 846 Motion for Partial Reconsideration of September 27, 2011 and October 3, 2011 Minute Orders and Motion to Stay or Close Further Proceedings Before Special Master, and 858 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Facciola's Order Denying Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding Joint Operations Command Center ("JOCC") Running Resume. Both motions sought to shut down discovery and/or further proceedings before the Special Master relating to the JOCC Running Resume. Since these motions were filed, however, the parties have filed additional pleadings directed to the Special Master regarding these proceedings. The Court has reviewed these recent filings addressed to the Special Master, and the filings reveal that (1) significant additional discovery has occurred regarding both electronic and hard copies of the JOCC Running Resume, as well as its attempted or actual destruction, and the parties agree that discovery is or will soon be completed (See, e.g., Doc. No. 876 p. 2−4, Doc. No. 880 p. 1−2); and (2) the parties further agree to a status hearing before the Special Master to discuss how his investigation should proceed in light of the new discovery

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 126 of 153

04/11/2012
04/11/2012 04/17/2012
04/23/2012 04/25/2012
05/02/2012 05/04/2012 05/05/2012
05/07/2012 05/08/2012 05/09/2012 05/09/2012 05/14/2012 05/16/2012 05/17/2012 05/22/2012

(See, e.g., Doc. No. 877 at 1, Doc. No. 880 at 2). Accordingly, the District's motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to refiling at an appropriate time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 10, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
884 NOTICE REGARDING DEPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERTAINING TO THE BASIS FOR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ATTEMPED DELETION OF E−TEAM DATA (Special Master Topic of Investigation) by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
885 NOTICE of Results of FBI Investigation by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
886 MOTION to Compel Completion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
887 RESPONSE re 886 MOTION to Compel Completion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition MOTION to Compel Completion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
888 REPLY to opposition to motion re 886 MOTION to Compel Completion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition MOTION to Compel Completion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
889 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 886 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/2/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
890 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
891 NOTICE Regarding Deposition of the District of Columbia Pertaining to the Attempted Deletion of E Team Data by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2012)
892 RESPONSE re 891 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs' Notice Regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 890 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 8, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
893 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/9/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Statement due by 5/22/2012. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
894 NOTICE of Receipt of FBI Report by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FBI Report)(Causey, William) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
895 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 895 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 17, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
896 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 893 Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ADRIAN M. FENTY, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, CATHY L. LANIER, LEANNE LEE, RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 127 of 153

05/22/2012 05/23/2012
05/31/2012 07/10/2012 07/13/2012 07/16/2012 07/30/2012 07/30/2012 08/23/2012
08/25/2012 08/28/2012 09/25/2012 09/27/2012 09/27/2012 10/04/2012 10/07/2012

897 RESPONSE re 885 Notice (Other), 894 Notice (Other) CHANG PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DISTRICT NOTICE REGARDING FBI REPORT filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
898 RESPONSE TO DISTRICT MOTION TO STRIKE ISSUE BEFORE SPECIAL MASTER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR EIGHT DAYS TO REPLY TO RESPONSE TO DISTRICT NOTICE REGARDING FBI REPORT filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
899 REPLY re 898 Response to Document, Plaintiffs' Response to District Notice Regarding FBI Report filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Causey, William) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
900 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 893 Order (Supplemental) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
901 NOTICE of Intent to File Supplemental Response by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 893 Order (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
902 NOTICE of Correction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 901 Notice (Other) (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
903 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Causey, William) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
904 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 893 Order re Statement of Issues To Be Considered by the Special Master filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
905 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Audio and Video Recordings by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memo in Support of Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Supplement Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7)(Causey, William) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
906 Memorandum in opposition to re 905 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Audio and Video Recordings filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 08/25/2012)
907 REPLY to opposition to motion re 905 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Audio and Video Recordings filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
908 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 908 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 27, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
909 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/27/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
910 MOTION for Reconsideration re 909 Order Regarding the Testimony of the District's Former Lead Counsel Monique Pressley by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
911 Memorandum in opposition to re 910 MOTION for Reconsideration re 909 Order Regarding the Testimony of the District's Former Lead Counsel Monique Pressley filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 10/07/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 128 of 153

10/09/2012 10/10/2012 10/11/2012
10/19/2012 10/23/2012 10/24/2012 10/26/2012 10/26/2012 10/31/2012 10/31/2012 10/31/2012
10/31/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012

912 REPLY to opposition to motion re 910 MOTION for Reconsideration re 909 Order Regarding the Testimony of the District's Former Lead Counsel Monique Pressley filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
913 Unopposed MOTION to Stay the Filing of Objections to the Special Master's September 27, 2012 Order Requiring the Testimony of the District's Former Lead Counsel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 913 the District's consent motion to stay the deadline to file objections to Judge Facciola's September 27, 2012 order regarding the testimony of Monique Pressley. The District shall file any objections by no later than three business days or five calendar days from the date Judge Facciola files any order resolving the District's pending motion for reconsideration of his September 27, 2012 order regarding Ms. Pressley's testimony. The Chang plaintiffs shall file any response to the District's objections by no later than three business days or five calendar days from the filing of the District's objections, and the District shall file any reply by no later than three business days or five calendar days from the date of the filing of the plaintiffs' response. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 11, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/26/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 903 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/23/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference originally set for 10/26/2012 at 10:00 AM has been moved to 02:00 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
914 ORDER denying 910 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/26/12. (lcjmf1, ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Conference held on 10/26/2012. Bench Trial set for 11/1/2012 − 11/2/12 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (Court Reporter: Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
915 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 909 Order (Attachments: # 1 Oral Hearing Request, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Causey, William) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
916 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas S. Sloey on behalf of RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
MINUTE ORDER: The evidentiary hearings originally scheduled for November 1−2, 2012 are cancelled. On November 8, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m., the Court will hear testimony from 1) Officer John Strader, 2) Terry Ryan, 3) Teresa Quon, and possibly 4) Captain Herold. On November 28, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m., the Court will hear testimony from 1) Marc Bynum, and 2) Eric Kant. The District is reminded to take any steps necessary to facilitate the testimony of its officers, such as issuing any required CANS orders. The Court will hold both November 9 and November 29, 2012 for additional testimony, if needed. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/31/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/31/2012. Minute Order to be prepared by the Court. (Court Reporter: Bowles Reporting Services.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/8/2012 and on 11/28/12 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
917 NOTICE by District of Columbia Regarding Return of Servers to the District from the FBI by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Causey, William) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 129 of 153

11/01/2012 11/05/2012 11/06/2012 11/07/2012 11/07/2012
11/08/2012 11/08/2012

918 RESPONSE re 915 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
919 REPLY re 915 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court Regarding Testimony of Monique Pressley filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
920 ORDER re testimony of Marc Bynum. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 11/6/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/8/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Notice the change in the courtroom only. (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is 915 the District of Columbia's (hereinafter District) objections to the Special Master's September 27, 2012 Order directing the District's former lead counsel, Monique Pressley, to provide testimony about "what she knew about the attempted destruction of the E Team data and her decision to tell counsel for the co−defendants, but not the Court nor plaintiffs' counsel," and his October 26, 2012 Order denying the District's motion for reconsideration. See Oct. 26, 2012 Order at 2. Upon careful consideration, the Court concludes that the District has not met its heavy burden to establish that the Special Master's Orders were either clearly erroneous (the standard of review the District urges the Court to apply) or an abuse of discretion (the standard of review plaintiffs urge the Court to apply, and which the Court finds appropriate here. See Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 53(f)(5)). The District does not make any new arguments in its Objections, rather, it restates three principal arguments which were already considered and rejected by the Special Master in his Orders. First, the District claims there is no substantial need for the testimony because other evidence reveals that "nothing was destroyed and there was no attempt to destroy any portion of the running resume." See District's Objections at 17. While plaintiffs appear to agree that ultimately, none of the E Team data was destroyed, they argue strongly that there was attempted destruction of the data. See Pls.' Opp'n to Objections at 10−15. As the Special Master correctly noted, resolution of this question − namely, whether there was an attempt to destroy or tamper with the E Team data, and counsel's role in bringing that information to the attention of the court and the other parties, or failing to do so − is "squarely" within the scope of his investigation, which this Court ordered and clarified on multiple occasions without objection from the District. See, e.g., Order of Oct. 26, 2012 at 2, see also 545 Order Appointing Special Master at 2−3; Minute Orders of Nov. 10, 2010 and Oct. 3, 2011. Accordingly, it was not abuse of discretion for the Special Master to rule that he, and the plaintiffs, have substantial need for the testimony. The District's second argument, that information about the E Team data has already been provided by other sources and that Ms. Pressley has no additional information to reveal, fails for the same reason. It may be that Ms. Pressley has no additional information to reveal, just as it may be that there was no attempt to destroy evidence. However, these are questions for the Special Master to investigate and make factual findings on, not for this Court to circumscribe in the middle of the fact finding proceeding. Finally, the District claims that the Special Master will require Ms. Pressley to testify as to her opinion work product. See Districts Objections at 10−13, 20−22. This is incorrect; the Special Master has made clear that he seeks only facts from Ms. Pressley, as opposed to "her mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories[,] [which] are absolutely protected from disclosure as work product." See Sept. 27, 2012 Order, 1−2. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the District's Objections are DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 7, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
921 NOTICE of Appearance by Natalie Olivia Ludaway on behalf of Monique Pressley (Ludaway, Natalie) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/8/2012. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/9/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: John Straider and Terrance D. Ryan; (Court Reporter: Patty Gels.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 130 of 153

11/09/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/28/2012
11/29/2012
12/13/2012 12/17/2012 12/18/2012 12/20/2012 12/21/2012
12/21/2012

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/9/2012. Matter to be reset at a later date. Witness: Terrance D. Ryan. (Court Reporter: Lisa Griffith.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/28/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
922 NOTICE REGARDING EXAMINATION OF MONIQUE PRESSLEY AND OTHER ISSUES BEFORE SPECIAL MASTER by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
923 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeannie S. Rhee on behalf of TERRENCE D. RYAN (Rhee, Jeannie) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
924 NOTICE of Appearance by John DeGenova on behalf of TERRENCE D. RYAN (DeGenova, John) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
925 NOTICE of Appearance by Howard M. Shapiro on behalf of TERRENCE D. RYAN (Shapiro, Howard) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/28/2012. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/29/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Marc Bynum, Eric Kant, Teresa Quon (Court Reporter Lisa Griffith.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/29/2012. This hearing is not concluded. Evidentiary Hearing to be continued at a later date. Parties to call Chambers of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to set further continued scheduling dates. Witnesses: Sargeant Delroy Burton, Teresa Quon. (Court Reporter Susan Tyner.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
926 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/13/12. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 12/18/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (ldc, ) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/18/2012. Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/3/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Monique Pressley. (Court Reporter: Rebecca Stonestreet) (ldc, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
927 NOTICE Regarding Evidence of the Use of Only the E Team System for the Creation of the JOCC Running Resume During the September 2002 IMF Event by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
928 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 11−9−12; Page Numbers: 110. Date of Issuance:12−21−12. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Griffith, Telephone number (202) 354−3247, Court Reporter Email Address : Lisa_Griffith@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 1/11/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/21/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/21/2013.(Griffith, Lisa) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
929 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 11−28−12; Page Numbers: 309. Date of Issuance:12−21−12. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Griffith, Telephone number (202) 354−3247, Court

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 131 of 153

12/23/2012 01/03/2013
01/04/2013 01/10/2013
01/11/2013 01/12/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013

Reporter Email Address : Lisa_Griffith@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 1/11/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/21/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/21/2013.(Griffith, Lisa) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
930 RESPONSE re 927 Notice (Other) Chang Response to District Notice Regarding Purported Evidence of the Use of Only the E Team System During the September 2002 IMF Event filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 12/23/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/3/2013. Evidentiary Hearing continued to 1/4/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Terry Ryan, Jeffrey Herold, Michael Anzallo. (Court Reporter Patty Gels.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/4/2013. Evidentiary Hearing continued to 1/9/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Michael Anzallo (Court Reporter Catalina Kerr.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/09/2013. Evidentiary Hearing continued to 1/11/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Witnesses: Monique Pressley, Shana Frost. (Court Reporters: Vicki Eastvold (AM); Catalina Kerr (PM).) (ldc, ) Modified on 6/20/2013 (ldc, ). (Entered: 01/10/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/11/2013. This matter is not concluded. Evidentiary Hearing to be continued at a later date. Witnesses: Shana Frost (Court Reporter: Patty Gels.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
931 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Philip James Meitl terminated. (Meitl, Philip) (Entered: 01/12/2013)
932 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
933 TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 1/9/2013 (A.M. Session); Page Numbers: 1−121. Date of Issuance:1/22/2013. Court Reporter Vicki Eastvold, Telephone number 202−354−3242, Court Reporter Email Address : vickieastvold@yahoo.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 2/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/22/2013.(Eastvold, Vicki) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 132 of 153

01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/27/2013 01/31/2013 02/01/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/14/2013
02/14/2013

934 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 932 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 934 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 25, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
935 NOTICE of Proposed Topics for The Examination of Chief of Police Cathy Lanier by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/27/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set to continue on 3/19/2013 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
936 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 2/1/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
937 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
938 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 937 Consent Motion for Attorneys Fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 938 Consent Motion for Attorneys Fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
939 NOTICE (Praecipe) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 936 Order (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
940 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 1/4/13; Page Numbers: 1−28. Date of Issuance:2/14/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/7/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/17/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/15/2013.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
941 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 1/9/13; Page Numbers: 1−117. Date of Issuance:2/14/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 3/7/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/17/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/15/2013.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 133 of 153

03/05/2013 03/08/2013 03/08/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/22/2013
03/22/2013
04/05/2013 04/08/2013

942 NOTICE District of Columbia's Notice in Response to Plaintiffs' Filing Regarding Testimony of Chief Lanier by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
943 ORDER granting 905 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/8/13. (lcjmf1, ) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
944 Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Chang Plaintiffs Responses due by 4/5/2013 (ldc, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 877 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 3/11/15. (SP, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
945 NOTICE Filing of Exhibits by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 944 Proposed Findings of Fact (Causey, William) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/19/2013. Evidentiary Hearing to be continued at a later date. Witness: Chief Cathy L. Lanier. (Court Reporter Patty Gels.) (ldc, ) Modified on 3/20/2013 (ldc, ). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
946 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 11/08/12; Date of Issuance:3/22/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patty Gels, Telephone number 202−354−3236, Court Reporter Email Address : Patty_Gels@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 4/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/20/2013.(Gels, Patty) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
947 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 1/3/13; Date of Issuance:3/22/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patty Gels, Telephone number 202−354−3236, Court Reporter Email Address : Patty_Gels@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 4/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/20/2013.(Gels, Patty) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
948 RESPONSE District's 944 Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chief Ramsey Judiciary Committee Testimony, # 2 Exhibit District Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition (Gaffigan), # 3 Exhibit Chart of District's Late Productions, # 4 Exhibit Documents Produced after Officer Strader's Testimony, # 5 Exhibit Deposition of D. Alexander)(Sloey, Nicholas) . (Entered: 04/05/2013)
949 MOTION to Modify Order from Eric Tucker, The Associated Press. "Let This Be Filed", signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 04/08/13. (FIAT) (ldc, ) Modified on 4/9/2013 pursuant minute order filed on 04/09/2013 (jf, ). (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 134 of 153

04/09/2013 04/09/2013
04/09/2013
04/09/2013 04/10/2013 04/18/2013 04/18/2013
04/18/2013 04/18/2013 04/18/2013 04/26/2013 04/26/2013 04/29/2013

04/08/2013)
950 NOTICE Regarding the Scheduling of Possible Testimony of Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: This Court is in receipt of a letter 949 dated March 26, 2013 from Eric Tucker, Associated Press, seeking relief from a protective order that Mr. Tucker states restricts the sharing of discovery to non−parties. It is therefore, hereby, ORDERED that this letter be deemed a motion to modify the order to which Mr. Tucker refers and That the parties show cause in writing by April 26, 2013 why the relief Mr. Tucker seeks should not be granted. It is further, hereby, ORDERED that the Clerk mail a copy of this order to Mr. Tucker. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/9/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties coordinate forthwith with Chambers (via e−mail) regarding the scheduling of a date and time for the taking of the testimony of District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan. After a date and time has been set, the Court will issue a supplemental order addressing the scope and length of the Attorney General's testimony. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/9/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties Response to Show Cause due by 4/26/2013. (ldc, ) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/8/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. The purpose of this hearing is to take the testimony of District of Columbia Attorney General Nathan. As noted previously, the Court will further define the scope and length of the AG's testimony in a future order. The hearing is presently set from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.(SP, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
951 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/18/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: Counsel in this case have gotten into the bad habit of making substantive legal arguments in e−mails directed to the Court's law clerk. As counsel surely know, this is an improper evasion of the requirement that documents seeking any form of judicial relief or speaking to a legal issue then pending before the judge are to be filed using the court's electronic filing system. See LCvR 5.4. Accordingly, the e−mails received have been marked "Fiat" and will be filed on the docket. From this point on, counsel will not address any legal issues whatsoever in e−mails addressed to the Court or its clerks. E−mail to the Court from counsel is reserved for brief statements that a particular date for a hearing or the submission of briefs is or is not acceptable, and the proposing of a new date. SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/18/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
952 E−mails dated 03/28/13 from Nicholas Sloey and William Causey. "Let This Be Filed", signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 04/18/13. (ldc, ) (FIAT) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
953 E−Mail dated 03/28/13 from William Causey. "Let This Be Filed", signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 04/18/13. (FIAT) (ldc, ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
954 E−Mail dated 04/10/13 from William Causey. "Let This Be Filed", signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 04/18/13. (FIAT) (ldc, ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
955 NOTICE Joint Defendants' Notice Regarding Modification of the Court's February 16, 2010 Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
956 RESPONSE re 949 MOTION to Modify Order filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: It appearing, pursuant to the Joint Defendants' Notice Regarding Modification of the Court's February 16, 2010 Protective Order 955 and Chang Plaintiffs' Response to the Associated Press's Motion to Modify the Protective Order 956 that parties have no objection to modifying the protective order and providing AP reporter Eric Tucker with the information he seeks, it is therefore, hereby, ORDERED

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 135 of 153

05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 06/20/2013
06/21/2013
06/21/2013

that 949 is GRANTED and that the protective order is modified in this limited regard and defendants are permitted to provide Mr. Tucker with the information sought. SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/29/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Evidentiary Hearing held and concluded on 5/8/2013. Order to be prepared by the Court. Witness: Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan. (Court Reporter: Lisa Griffith.) (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
957 Plaintiffs Exhibit List.(ldc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
MINUTE ORDER: Parties to file Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by 07/02/13. Responses are due by 07/31/13. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 05/08/13. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law due by 7/2/2013. Responses due by 7/31/2013. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
958 The Court's Exhibit List. " Let This be Filed" signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 05/08/13. (FIAT) (ldc, ) (Main Document 958 replaced on 5/8/2013) (ldc, ). (Entered: 05/08/2013)
959 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 5−8−13; Page Numbers: 1−92. Date of Issuance:6−20−13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Griffith, Telephone number (202) 354−3247, Court Reporter Email Address : Lisa_Griffith@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/11/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2013.(Griffith, Lisa) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
960 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 1/11/13; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patty Gels, Telephone number 202−354−3236, Court Reporter Email Address : Patty_Gels@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2013.(Gels, Patty) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
961 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 3/19/13; Court Reporter/Transcriber Patty Gels, Telephone number 202−354−3236, Court Reporter Email Address : Patty_Gels@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 136 of 153

06/21/2013
06/28/2013 06/28/2013
07/02/2013 07/02/2013 07/02/2013 07/22/2013

personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2013.(Gels, Patty) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
962 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on December 18, 2012; Page Numbers: 1 − 134. Date of Issuance:June 21, 2013. Court Reporter/Transcriber Rebecca Stonestreet, Court Reporter Email Address : rrstonestreet@aol.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2013.(Stonestreet, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
963 Proposed Findings of Fact by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
964 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola Page Numbers: 251. Date of Issuance:11/29/2012. Court Reporter/Transcriber susan tyner, Telephone number 202: 354−3267, <P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/19/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/26/2013.(Tyner, Susan) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
965 NOTICE Proposed Findings of Fact Regarding JOCC Running Resume by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
966 Proposed Findings of Fact by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
967 Proposed Findings of Fact by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
968 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 02/23/10; Page Numbers: 1−89. Date of Issuance:07/22/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−226−9257, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/20/2013.(Kerr,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 137 of 153

07/22/2013
07/23/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013 08/02/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013
08/07/2013 08/08/2013

Catalina) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
969 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 03/02/10; Page Numbers: 1−63. Date of Issuance:07/22/13. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−226−9257, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/12/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/20/2013.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
970 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses and Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 970 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 7/24/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties Responses and Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law due by 8/6/2013 (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
971 RESPONSE re 967 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
972 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
973 RESPONSE re 967 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Evidence for Special Master's Report and Recommendations filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Herold Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Frisch Report)(Causey, William) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
974 RESPONSE re 967 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
975 RESPONSE re 963 Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Assistant Chief Peter Newsham filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
976 RESPONSE re 966 Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by former Chief of Police Charles Ramsey filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
977 RESPONSE re 965 Notice (Other) Proposed Findings of Facts Submitted by the District of Columbia filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
978 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Response re 967 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by TERRENCE D. RYAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order re Motion for Leave to File a Response, # 2 Exhibit −−Terrence D. Ryan's Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Filing for Special Master's Report and Recommendations)(DeGenova, John) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
979 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 978 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 8/8/13. (lcjmf1, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 138 of 153

08/08/2013 08/08/2013 12/09/2013 12/11/2013 12/16/2013 12/23/2013 12/24/2013
01/14/2014 01/14/2014 05/07/2014
05/08/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014

HANG. MINUTE ORDER granting 972 and 979 Charles Ramsey's consent motions for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 8, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
980 RESPONSE re 967 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by TERRENCE D. RYAN. (jf, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
981 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 981 Defendant Newsham's consent motion for payment of attorneys fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 11, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
982 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY SPECIAL MASTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/16/13. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
983 MOTION to Stay re 982 Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, stays all proceedings in this matter pursuant to further order of the Court. Accordingly, the parties' 983 Partial Consent Motion to Stay is hereby denied as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 24, 2013. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
984 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lauren Elizabeth Curry (Curry, Lauren) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
985 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Daniel T. O'Connor terminated. (O'Connor, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing in this matter May 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A. The parties shall file, by no later than May 14, 2014, status reports and recommendations regarding: 1) the underlying merits of the case, and what remains to litigate in terms of liability and damages; 2) remedies for the underlying arrests, as well as for alleged discovery violations; 3) the extent of the District's financial responsibility for plaintiffs' discovery costs, and for proceedings before the Special Master; 4) the continuation, or conclusion, of proceedings before the Special Master; and 5) settlement. To the extent the parties can file joint status reports and recommendations, they are encouraged to do so. No party's submission may exceed 10 pages. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 5/14/2014. Status Conference set for 5/20/2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
986 STATUS REPORT by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
987 STATUS REPORT by RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
988 STATUS REPORT and Recommendations by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Causey, William) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
989 STATUS REPORT by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
990 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Kies Mammen on behalf of RAYMING CHANG (Mammen, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 5/20/2014. Status Conference set for 6/3/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Order To Be Issued. (Court Reporter BARBARA DEVICO.) (mac) (Entered: 05/20/2014)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 139 of 153

05/22/2014 05/23/2014 06/02/2014 06/03/2014
06/03/2014 06/04/2014
06/04/2014 07/18/2014 07/18/2014 07/21/2014 08/26/2014

991 MINUTE ORDER. In advance of the status hearing on June 3, 2014, the parties shall file, by no later than June 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM, brief status reports updating the court on their recommendations for further proceedings. To the extent the parties can file joint status reports and recommendations, they are encouraged to do so. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Reports due by 6/2/2014. (mac) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
992 STATUS REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF ALL PARTIES by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
993 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 5−20−14; Page Numbers: 1−26. Date of Issuance:6−3−14. Court Reporter Barbara DeVico, Telephone number 202−354−3118, Court Reporter Email Address : barbara_DeVico@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 6/24/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/4/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/1/2014.(DeVico, Barbara) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 6/3/2014. (Court Reporter PAT KANESHIRO−MILLER.) (mac) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties have represented that they are attempting to settle this case, and will attend mediation with Judge Robertson on July 14 and 15. During the status hearing in open court on June 3, 2014, the Court suggested that, in order to facilitate Judge Robertson's preparation for mediation, it could provide Judge Robertson with the transcript of the May 20, 2014, hearing as well as a factual memorandum summarizing the lengthy history of this case. All parties agreed. The Court will send these 2 documents to Judge Robertson electronically, and will also provide them to the parties. In the event that all or part of this matter settles, the parties are directed to notify the court by filing a stipulation no later than July 18, 2014. In the event this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than that same date. SO ORDERED.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 4, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 7/18/2014 (mac) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
994 STATUS REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF ALL PARTIES by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of 994 the parties' joint status report, which provides the parties' competing recommendations for how to proceed with this case. It is hereby ORDERED that further proceedings in this case shall remain STAYED pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 18, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
Case Stayed (mac) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 982 the Report and Recommendation by the Special Master, the Court directs the Special Master not to address and/or resolve any issues of attorney referrals to attorney discipline entities, and not to address and/or resolve the issue of any referrals of anyone to any government prosecutor for criminal prosecution consideration. The Special Master shall, in all other respects, complete his responsibilities, resolving all other legal issues presented. Signed by Judge Emmet G.

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 140 of 153

08/26/2014
08/26/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/25/2014 10/04/2014

Sullivan on August 26, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
MINUTE ORDER. A pre−trial conference is scheduled for March 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. In advance of the pre−trial conference, the Court will issue a detailed Order setting forth the Court's pre−trial requirements and the parties' obligations for the pre−trial conference. It is FURTHER ORDERED that trial will commence on April 6, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 26, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 3/3/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jury Trial set for 4/6/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
995 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/9/14. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Miscellaneous Hearing set for 9/25/2014 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola: Status Conference held on 9/25/2014. (Court Reporter Bowles Reporting Services, LLC;.); FTR Time Frame: Ctrm 6: [3:29:03 − 4:09:18] (ldc, ) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
996 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held on 9/25/2014; Page Numbers: 1−35. Court Reporter/Transcriber Bowles Reporting Service, Court Reporter Email Address : brs−ct@sbcglobal.net.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

10/09/2014
10/09/2014 10/10/2014 10/17/2014 10/20/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014

Redaction Request due 10/25/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/4/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2015.(znmw, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
MINUTE ORDER: The record in this matter is unclear on one issuedid the parties exchange initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)? On or by the close of business 10/10/14, the plaintiffs and the District of Columbia shall file a joint praceipe with the Court indicating whether they exchanged initial disclosures under that rule. If they did, and the disclosures were memorialized in writing, they shall attach any such writing to the praecipe. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 10/9/14. (SP, ) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff and District of Columbia joint praceipe due by 10/10/2014. (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
997 NOTICE /Praecipe by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
998 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 17, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
999 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Pretrial Statement due by 2/17/2015. Motions in Limine due by 2/3/2015. Oppositions due by 2/10/2015. Replies due by 2/17/2015. 404(b) disclosures due by 1/20/2015. (mac) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 999 Defendant Newsham's consent motion for payment of attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 21, 2014. (lcegs7)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 141 of 153

(Entered: 10/21/2014)

10/28/2014 1000 NOTICE to Withdraw as Attorney George F. Murphy by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Murphy, George) Modified on 10/28/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/28/2014)

11/04/2014 1001 Report of Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/4/14. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/24/2014

MINUTE ORDER. On May 5, 2010, this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, appointed 53 Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to serve as the Special Master in this case. The Special Master was granted the full panoply of powers and authority provided for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 including, but not limited to, making recommendations of findings of fact and conclusions of law. See May 5, 2010 Order, ECF No. 645. On December 16, 2013, the Special Master issued 982 a report and recommendation, which contained his findings of facts. On December 24, 2013, the Court, sua sponte, stayed all proceedings in this matter, including the filing of objections or motions to adopt/modify the Special Master's report and recommendation. On July 18, 2014, the Court issued the following Minute Order: "the Court directs the Special Master not to address and/or resolve any issues of attorney referrals to attorney discipline entities, and not to address and/or resolve the issue of any referrals of anyone to any government prosecutor for criminal prosecution consideration. The Special Master shall, in all other respects, complete his responsibilities, resolving all other legal issues presented." On November 4, 2014, the Special Master issued 1001 a report and recommendation, which contained his conclusions of law. To avoid any confusion in the record concerning the timing of filing objections to, or motions to adopt/modify, the Special Master's reports, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: all objections or motions to adopt/modify 982 , 1001 the Special Master's reports regarding his findings of facts and conclusions of law shall be filed by no later than December 15, 2014; all oppositions shall be filed by no later than January 5, 2015; and all replies shall be filed by no later than January 15, 2015. See generally Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Each brief shall be limited to 25 pages. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f)(1), the Court will hold a hearing on January 30, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 24, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

11/25/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Motions To Adopt Or Modify Special Masters Report Regarding Finding of Facts And Conclusions due by 12/15/2014. Oppositions due by 1/5/2015. Replies due by 1/15/2015. Status Conference set for 1/30/2015 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

11/25/2014 1002 Consent MOTION to Continue Hearing Scheduled for 01/30/2015 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) Modified on 11/26/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 11/25/2014)

12/01/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1002 the District of Columbia Defendants' consent motion for rescheduling of January 30, 2015 hearing. The hearing scheduled for January 30, 2015 is hereby vacated and rescheduled for January 23, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 1, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/01/2014

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/23/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/15/2014 1003 MOTION for Order to Adopt Special Master Reports by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

1004

MOTION To Adopt the Special Master's First Report and Recommendation, Objections to the Special Master's Second Report and Recommendation, and Renewed Motion for Sanctions by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/18/2014 1005 MOTION to Dismiss the Conspiracy Claims As They Pertain to Him, MOTION for Summary Judgment by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lt. Jeffrey D. Herold dated 10−9−2003, # 2 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Barham dated 12−11−2003, # 3 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on 9−6−2007,

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 142 of 153

# 4 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Barham on 11−5−2007, # 5 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on 3−12−2010, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of Captain Ralph McLean in Abbate on 9−7−2004, # 7 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Barham on 9−18−2007, # 8 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on 9−19−2007, # 9 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on 3−26−2010, # 10 Exhibit Deposition of USPP Captain Richard Murphy in Barham on 2−2−2005, # 11 Exhibit Deposition of Randy Myers in Barham on 1−4−2008, # 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

12/18/2014

1006

MOTION to Dismiss Claim for Punitive Damages Against Him, MOTION for Summary Judgment by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lt. Jeffrey D. Herold in Abbate on 10−9−2003, # 2 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Barham dated 12−11−2003, # 3 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on 9−6−2007, # 4 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Barham on 11−5−2007, # 5 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on 3−12−2010, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of Captain Ralph McLean in Abbate on 9−7−2004, # 7 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Barham on 9−18−2007, # 8 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on 9−19−2007, # 9 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on 3−26−2010, # 10 Exhibit Deposition of USPP Captain Richard Murphy in Barham on 2−2−2005, # 11 Exhibit Deposition of Randy Myers in Barham on 1−4−2008, # 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

12/22/2014

1007

MOTION for Summary Judgment by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27)(Causey, William) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1008 Joint MOTION to Modify Schedule Set in Pretrial Order and to Set a Schedule for the Exchange of Information and the Filing of Dispositive Motions by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/23/2014

MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed 1008 the joint motion filed by the parties, in which the parties request that the 998 Pretrial Order be amended and "request guidance from the Court" on whether a briefing schedule for dispositive motions should be put in place. The parties' request that the Pretrial Order be amended is GRANTED. The 998 Pretrial Order is hereby AMENDED as follows: motions in limine shall be filed with the Court by no later than February 10, 2015; oppositions thereto shall be filed by no later than February 17, 2015; and any replies shall be filed by no later than February 24, 2015. The Chang Plaintiffs have indicated that the Court should set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions; the Defendants' position is that "they should be permitted to file dispositive motions at their convenience." In the interest of fairness, judicial economy and the Court's efficient management of its docket, the Court will proceed as follows: all potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by no later than January 10, 2015; oppositions shall be filed by no later than January 20, 2015; and replies shall be filed by no later than January 30, 2015. The Court will not consider any potentially dispositive motions filed after January 10, 2015. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all potentially dispositive motions already filed −− 1005 , 1006 , and 1007 −− are DENIED without prejudice; the parties are directed to comply with the briefing schedule set forth above. With respect to page limitations, the parties are directed to comply with Local Rule 7(e). Within one business day of each of the filings, the parties shall deliver to the chambers of the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan two copies of their pleadings and exhibits. Requests for extension of time shall not be filed absent an exigent circumstance and will be viewed with extreme disfavor. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 23, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 1/10/2015. Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 1/20/2015. Replies to Dispositive Motions due by 1/30/2015. Motions of Limine due by 2/10/2015. Oppositions due by 2/17/2015 Replies due by 2/24/2015. (mac) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 143 of 153

01/05/2015

1009

Memorandum in opposition to re 1004 MOTION To Adopt the Special Master's First Report and Recommendation, Objections to the Special Master's Second Report and Recommendation, and Renewed Motion for Sanctions filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH. (Causey, William) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015

1010

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN, M. SMITH (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27)(Causey, William) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 1011 RESPONSE re 1003 MOTION for Order to Adopt Special Master Reports filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Photographs)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015

1012

ERRATA by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH 1010 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity filed by M. SMITH, B. DIGIROLAMO, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BRIAN K. JORDAN, A. HARRISON. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Version of Motion for Qualified Immunity or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment)(Causey, William) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/06/2015 1013 STIPULATION of Dismissal of the Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief Against All Defendants by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/06/2015 1014 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant Brian K Jordan by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/07/2015

1015

MOTION to Dismiss Demand/Claim for Punitive Damages, MOTION for Summary Judgment by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lt. Jeffrey D. Herold in Abbate on 10−9−2003, # 2 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Barham dated December 11, 2003, # 3 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Chang on September 6, 2007, # 4 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Barham on November 5, 2007, # 5 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on March 12, 2010, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of Captain Ralph McLean in Abbate on September 7, 2004, # 7 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Barham on September 18, 2007, # 8 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on September 19, 2007, # 9 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on March 26, 2010, # 10 Exhibit Deposition of USPP Captain Richard Murphy in Barham on February 2, 2005, # 11 Exhibit Deposition of Randy Myers, Esquire, DOI, in Barham on January 4, 2008, # 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015

1016

MOTION to Dismiss the Common Law Conspiracy Claim, MOTION for Summary Judgment by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lt. Jeffrey D. Herold in Abbate on 10−9−2003, # 2 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Barham dated December 11, 2003, # 3 Exhibit Newsham Declaration in Chang on September 6, 2007, # 4 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Barham on November 5, 2007, # 5 Exhibit Newsham deposition in Chang on March 12, 2010, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of Captain Ralph McLean in Abbate on September 7, 2004, # 7 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Barham on September 18, 2007, # 8 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on September 19, 2007, # 9 Exhibit Ramsey deposition in Chang on 3−26−2010, # 10 Exhibit Deposition of USPP Captain Richard Murphy in Barham on February 2, 2005, # 11 Exhibit Deposition of Randy Myers in Barham on 1−4−2008, # 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/08/2015

1017

MOTION for Summary Judgment Upon Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 144 of 153

01/08/2015

1018

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Punitive Damages Against Him, or In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015

1019

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Claim As it Pertains to Him or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit 4 Part 2, # 9 Exhibit 5, # 10 Exhibit 6, # 11 Exhibit 7, # 12 Exhibit 8, # 13 Exhibit 9, # 14 Exhibit 10, # 15 Exhibit 11, # 16 Exhibit 12, # 17 Exhibit 13, # 18 Exhibit 14, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/09/2015

1020

MOTION for Summary Judgment by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit Maltagliati Deposition, # 4 Exhibit Memorandum of Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Cachuela Deposition, # 6 Exhibit Neider Deposition, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015

1021

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/10/2015

1022

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , MOTION to Strike 153 Amended Complaint,, (Jury Demand), MOTION for Reconsideration (Denial of Qualified Immunity) by RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Murphy Decl.), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Murphy Dep.), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Pls' Admin. Claims), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Zarconi Dep.), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Lee Dep.), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Choi Dep.), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Chang Dep.), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Newsham Dep.), # 9 Exhibit 9 (Lanier Dep.), # 10 Exhibit 10 (Myers Dep.), # 11 Exhibit 11 (USPP G.O. 2108), # 12 Exhibit 12 (Email of 1/2/2015), # 13 Exhibit 13 (Murphy Westfall Cert.), # 14 Statement of Facts, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 01/10/2015)

01/15/2015 1023 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1003 MOTION for Order to Adopt Special Master Reports filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Causey, William) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015

1024

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1004 MOTION To Adopt the Special Master's First Report and Recommendation, Objections to the Special Master's Second Report and Recommendation, and Renewed Motion for Sanctions filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/16/2015 1025 Memorandum in opposition to re 1021 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2015)

01/20/2015

1026

Memorandum in opposition to re 1021 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Causey, William) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/20/2015

1027

RESPONSE re 1022 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION to Strike 153 Amended Complaint,, (Jury Demand) MOTION for Reconsideration (Denial of Qualified Immunity) filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Chang Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 145 of 153

Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/20/2015

1028

RESPONSE re 1016 MOTION to Dismiss the Common Law Conspiracy Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment , 1015 MOTION to Dismiss Demand/Claim for Punitive Damages MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues Regarding Conspiracy, # 2 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues Regarding Punitive Damages, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Conspiracy, # 22 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Punitive Damages)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/20/2015

1029

RESPONSE re 1020 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/20/2015

1030

RESPONSE re 1019 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Claim As it Pertains to Him or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 1017 MOTION for Summary Judgment Upon Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity, 1018 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Punitive Damages Against Him, or In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues Regarding Conspiracy, # 2 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues Regarding Punitive Damages, # 3 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues Regarding Qualified Immunity, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, # 21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20, # 24 Exhibit 21, # 25 Exhibit 22, # 26 Exhibit 23, # 27 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Conspiracy, # 28 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Punitive Damages, # 29 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Qualified Immunity)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/20/2015

1031

RESPONSE re 1010 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (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, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 50 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/22/2015

MINUTE ORDER. In the event that the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to an adverse evidentiary inference in connection with the matters referred to the Special Master, the Court requires concrete proposals from the parties. Accordingly, the parties are directed to file, by no later than 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, January 23, 2015, the adverse evidentiary inferences they would request that the Court enter, including the precise language they would ask the Court to adopt. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 22, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/23/2015 1032 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, concerning adverse evidentiary inferences filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 146 of 153

01/23/2015 1033 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 1034 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, concerning adverse evidentiary inferences filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 1035 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Causey, William) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 1036 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/23/2015. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/26/2015

MINUTE ORDER. On December 15, 2014, the 1003 District and the 1004 plaintiffs filed separate motions to adopt 982 the Special Master's Report and Recommendation, which contained the Special Master's findings of fact. For the reasons stated during the motions hearing held on January 23, 2015, the 1003 , 1004 motions are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts as its own 982 the Special Master's findings of fact. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 53(f)(1)("The court [after a hearing] may adopt the [Special Master's Report and Recommendation]."). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

01/27/2015 1037 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1020 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Francuzenko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/27/2015)

01/29/2015 1038 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1010 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, BRIAN K. JORDAN. (Causey, William) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015 1039 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1016 MOTION to Dismiss the Common Law Conspiracy Claim MOTION for Summary Judgment , 1015 MOTION to Dismiss Demand/Claim for Punitive Damages MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PETER J. NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/30/2015 1040 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1021 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015

1041

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1018 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Punitive Damages Against Him, or In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 1019 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Claim As it Pertains to Him or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, 1017 MOTION for Summary Judgment Upon Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015

1042

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1022 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION to Strike 153 Amended Complaint,, (Jury Demand) MOTION for Reconsideration (Denial of Qualified Immunity) filed by RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

02/09/2015

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs are directed, by no later than 5:00 p.m. today, February 9, 2015, to file a copy of the E−Team data, as produced by the District to the plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 9, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

02/09/2015 1043 NOTICE OF FILING OF E TEAM DATA by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI re Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E Team Document)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 147 of 153

02/09/2015 1044 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

02/10/2015 1045 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY. Attorney Mark Henry Tuohey, III terminated. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1046

MOTION in Limine by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Council Report), # 2 Exhibit B (Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Exhibit List), # 3 Exhibit C (Judiciary Committee Hearing Transcripts), # 4 Exhibit D (Newspaper Article), # 5 Exhibit E (Newspaper Article), # 6 Exhibit F (Newspaper Article), # 7 Exhibit G (Newspaper Article), # 8 Exhibit H (Newspaper Article), # 9 Exhibit I (Newsham Council Testimony Excerpt))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1047

MOTION in Limine by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' First Proposed Exhibit List), # 2 Exhibit B (Plaintfifs' Revised Proposed Exhibit List), # 3 Exhibit c (MPD Investigative Report and Exhibits))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1048

MOTION in Limine by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' First Propsoed Exhibit List), # 2 Exhibit B (Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Exhibit List), # 3 Exhibit C (Plaintiffs' Proposed Witness List))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1049

MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Phrase "Trap and Arrest" at Trial by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Mass Demonstration Manual), # 2 Exhibit B−1 (Command Manual, Part 1), # 3 Exhibit B−2 (Command Manual, Part 2), # 4 Exhibit C (Outside Agencies Manual), # 5 Exhibit D (Ramsey Deposition Excerpt), # 6 Exhibit F (Fitzgerald Deposition Excerpt), # 7 Exhibit F (Murphy 2.2.2005 Depo Excerpt), # 8 Exhibit G (Murphy 2.3.2005 Depo Excerpt), # 9 Exhibit H (USPP General Order 2108))(Frost, Shana) (Attachment 3 replaced on 2/12/2015) (znmw, ). (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1050

MOTION in Limine to Permit Use of the Special Master Report at Trial and to Exclude Certain Evidence Conflicting with the Special Master's Findings by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

1051

MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SUGGESTING PROBABLE CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MASS ARREST AT PERSHING PARK by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/11/2015 1052 NOTICE of Substitution of Exhibit by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 1049 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Phrase "Trap and Arrest" at Trial (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−2 (Substituted for Dkt. No. 1049−3))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

02/11/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1044 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 11, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

02/13/2015 1053 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Nikki A. Ott terminated. (Ott, Nikki) (Entered: 02/13/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 148 of 153

02/17/2015

1054

Memorandum in opposition to re 1051 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SUGGESTING PROBABLE CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MASS ARREST AT PERSHING PARK filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1055

Memorandum in opposition to re 1050 MOTION in Limine to Permit Use of the Special Master Report at Trial and to Exclude Certain Evidence Conflicting with the Special Master's Findings filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1056

PRETRIAL STATEMENT by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit B − Defendants' Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit C − M. Enright Deposition Designations, # 4 Exhibit D − Plaintiffs' P. Maltagliati Deposition Designations, # 5 Exhibit E − Defendants' P. Maltagliati Deposition Designations, # 6 Exhibit F − Joint Proposal for Jury Voir Dire Quesitons, # 7 Exhibit G − Proposed Jury Instructions)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1057

Memorandum in opposition to re 1046 MOTION in Limine to Exclude from Evidence the Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia Dated March 24, 2004 filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1058

Memorandum in opposition to re 1047 MOTION in Limine to Exclude from Evidence the Report of Investigation Prepared By the Metropolitan Police Department Regarding the Fall 2002 IMF/World Bank Protests filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1059

Memorandum in opposition to re 1048 MOTION in Limine to Prevent a Retrial of the Special Master's Proceedings and to Exclude Certain Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403 filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

1060

Memorandum in opposition to re 1049 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Phrase "Trap and Arrest" at Trial filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/20/2015 1061 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MONIQUE PRESSLEY. Attorney Monique Daniel Pressley terminated. (Ludaway, Natalie) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/24/2015 1062 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1046 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Council Report filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/24/2015

1063

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1047 MOTION in Limine To Exclude MPD Investigative Report filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/24/2015

1064

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1048 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Special Master Report and Related Evidence filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 149 of 153

02/24/2015

1065

REPLY to opposition to motion re 1049 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Phrase "Trap and Arrest" at Trial filed by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/24/2015 1066 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1051 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SUGGESTING PROBABLE CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MASS ARREST AT PERSHING PARK filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/24/2015 1067 REPLY to opposition to motion re 1050 MOTION in Limine to Permit Use of the Special Master Report at Trial and to Exclude Certain Evidence Conflicting with the Special Master's Findings filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/26/2015

1068

MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY to re 1046 MOTION in Limine and Motion for Leave to File Surreply filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Surreply, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Sloey, Nicholas) Modified on 2/26/2015 to correct event (rdj). (Entered: 02/26/2015)

02/28/2015

MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, it is necessary to reschedule the pretrial conference scheduled for March 3, 2015 and the trial scheduled for April 6, 2015. The pretrial conference will now take place on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. It is FURTHER ORDERED that trial will commence on July 1, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 28, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/28/2015)

03/02/2015

Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 5/29/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jury Selection set for 7/1/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 03/02/2015)

03/16/2015 1069 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

04/09/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1069 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 9, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/30/2015 1070 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Nicholas S. Sloey terminated. (Sloey, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/30/2015)

05/20/2015 1071 MOTION for Leave to File a Revised Exhibit List by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Revised Exhibit List)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/20/2015

1072

ERRATA by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI 1071 MOTION for Leave to File a Revised Exhibit List filed by RAYMING CHANG, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, YOUNG CHOI. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Leave to File a Revised Exhibit List, # 2 Plaintiffs' Revised Exhibit List)(Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/21/2015 1073 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (San Francisco v. Sheehan, No. 13−1412 (U.S. May 18, 2015) (slip op.)))(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2015)

05/28/2015

MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, converts the pretrial conference scheduled to take place on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A to a status hearing. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2015.(lcegs1) (Entered: 05/28/2015)

05/29/2015

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/29/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 150 of 153

05/29/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 5/29/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 7/23/2015 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jury Selection set for 9/28/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

06/03/2015

1074

NOTICE of District Defendants' Position Regarding Court's Participation in Settlement Discussions by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity), CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH (Pittman, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/04/2015 1075 RESPONSE re 1074 Notice (Other), Response of Chang Plaintiffs to Notice Filed by District of Columbia Defendants filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

06/04/2015 1076 NOTICE of Position on Settlement Discussions by FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

06/23/2015

1077

MOTION for New Trial Date by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, PETER J. NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, M. SMITH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Causey, William) Modified on 6/24/2015 (jf). (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/24/2015 1078 Memorandum in opposition to re 1077 MOTION for New Trial Date filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

07/02/2015

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 1077 the defendants' motion and the plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the defendants' motion for a new trial date is granted. The parties are directed to confer and inform the Court of three mutually agreeable dates and times for a pretrial conference during the month of December 2015. The parties are further directed to propose to the Court mutually agreeable trial dates after January 19, 2016, which shall be scheduled subject to the Court's availability. The parties shall file their joint motion by no later than July 10, 2015. In view of the Court's granting of this motion, the pretrial conference scheduled to take place on July 23, 2015 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 2, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/09/2015 1079 Joint MOTION TO SET DATES FOR THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/10/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1079 the parties' joint motion to set dates for the pretrial conference and trial. The pretrial conference shall take place on December 15, 2015 at 11:00 am in Courtroom 24A. The dates proposed by counsel for trial are not acceptable to the Court. The trial will commence on January 11, 2016 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/13/2015

Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2015 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jury Selection set for 1/11/2016 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 07/13/2015)

07/20/2015 1080 NOTICE of Available Mediation Dates by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Causey, William) (Entered: 07/20/2015)

07/24/2015 1081 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

07/24/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1081 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 24, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 151 of 153

07/27/2015 1082 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re Order on Motion for Attorney Fees ;USCA Case Number 0705306. (jf) Modified on 7/28/2015 (jf). (Entered: 07/27/2015)

11/14/2015 1083 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/14/2015)

11/17/2015 1084 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER J. NEWSHAM(In his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and in his individual and personal capacity) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/17/2015 1085 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by RICHARD MURPHY, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Mullenix v. Luna (slip op.))(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/18/2015 1086 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by B. DIGIROLAMO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, A. HARRISON, M. SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Causey, William) (Entered: 11/18/2015)

11/18/2015 1087 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Mullenix v. Luna (slip op.))(Curry, Lauren) (Entered: 11/18/2015)

11/19/2015 1088 RESPONSE re 1087 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, 1086 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, 1085 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 11/19/2015)

11/20/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1083 the District of Columbia's unopposed motion to permit Assistant Attorney General Shana Frost to withdraw as counsel in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 20, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/23/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1081 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 23, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/30/2015

MINUTE ORDER. Due to the Court's calendar, which has been significantly impacted by an extremely time sensitive merger trial that commenced on November 9, 2015 and is still pending, it is necessary to reschedule the pretrial conference scheduled for December 15, 2015 and the trial scheduled to begin on January 11, 2016. The parties are directed to confer and inform the Court of three mutually agreeable dates and times during the month of March, 2016 for a pretrial conference. The parties are further directed to propose to the Court three mutually agreeable dates during the month of April, 2016 for the trial, which shall be scheduled subject to the Court's availability. The parties shall file their joint motion by no later than December 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 30, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Motion due by 12/30/2015. (mac) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

12/07/2015 1089 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert Edward Deso (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/29/2015 1090 Joint MOTION TO SET DATES FOR THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Goldman, Heather) (Entered: 12/29/2015)

12/30/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1090 the parties' joint motion to set dates for the pretrial conference and trial. The Court appreciates the parties' willingness to participate in mediation. In view of the posture of this case, however, the Court finds it appropriate to refer the parties to the Honorable James Robertson (Ret.), who is available to preside over mediation on the dates suggested by counsel (January 19, 25, and 26, 2016). It is the responsibility of the parties to arrange for mediation. Judge Robertson can be contacted at JAMS Arbitration and Mediation Services. The parties are directed to file a status report with the Court as soon as practicable following the mediation. The Court is unable to accommodate the pretrial conference and trial dates proposed by the parties. The pretrial conference will take place on April 20, 2016 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 24(A). The trial will commence on May 17, 2016 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 24(A). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 152 of 153

December 30, 2015. (lcegs1) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/30/2015

Set/Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 4/20/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Jury Trial set for 5/17/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

01/06/2016

1091

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 05−29−15; Page Numbers: (1−28). Date of Issuance:1−6−16. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href=http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/node/2189>Transcript Order Form.</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 1/27/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/6/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/5/2016.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

01/26/2016 1092 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Lauren Curry by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Curry, Lauren) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

01/27/2016 1093 NOTICE of Appearance by William Frederick Causey on behalf of CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Causey, William) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016

MINUTE ORDER granting 1092 defendant Charles H. Ramsey's motion to permit Attorney Lauren Curry to withdraw her appearance in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 27, 2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

02/02/2016

MINUTE ORDER. Counsel for plaintiffs called chambers to request a teleconference with the Court to provide an update on the status of the parties' mediation discussions. A teleconference shall be held on February 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm in Courtroom 24A. The parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Mark Coates to obtain call−in information. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/2/2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

03/03/2016

MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing in this case on March 10, 2016 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 26A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 3, 2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

03/03/2016

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/10/2016 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

03/09/2016

MINUTE ORDER. In view of the call to Chambers this afternoon by counsel for plaintiffs and the United States, the status hearing scheduled for March 10, 2016 is cancelled. By no later than March 18, 2016, the parties are directed to submit a motion proposing three dates and times for a status hearing, which shall be scheduled at the convenience of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

03/18/2016 1094 Joint MOTION Joint Motion to Set Dates For Status Conference by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Schwartz, Daniel) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/22/2016

MINUTE ORDER granting 1094 Joint Motion to Set Dates For Status Conference. A status conference shall take place on April 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/22/2016. (lcegs1) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

03/23/2016

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/5/2016 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 03/23/2016)

Case: 1:02-cv-2010 As of: 04/18/2016 07:10 PM EDT 153 of 153

04/05/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 4/5/2016. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/07/2016 1095 NOTICE of Settlement by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

 
 Chang v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

2011 WL 313747 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Rayming CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 02–2010 (EGS/JMF). | Feb. 1, 2011.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 I have now finished resolving the District’s claims of privilege as to the documents submitted for my in camera review. I note however that there is a distinct difference, depending upon the function I was performing, in how I resolved the issues before me. In my capacity as the magistrate judge presiding over discovery, I resolved claims of privilege that were asserted in response to discovery demands. In the most recent opinion of that type, dated January 24, 2011, although I overruled the

District’s claims of privilege, I stayed its obligation to produce the documents to permit review of my decision by the presiding judge.
Alternatively, during the course of the hearings I held in my capacity as special master, I would take a claim of privilege under advisement and resolve it after the hearing. In those instances, however, I permitted plaintiffs immediate access to the documents. The difference in my treatment of these privilege claims when presiding as special master flows from my perception that the Order appointing me as special master does not appear to contemplate interlocutory appeals from my rulings. I would no more expect such an interlocutory appeal had I been presiding over a trial in which I was functioning as trial judge and sustained or overruled any objection, whether it was premised on a privilege or urged the irrelevancy of an exhibit or that certain testimony was hearsay. Additionally, the Supreme Court (overturning this Circuit’s law to the contrary) has held that interlocutory appeals from rulings overturning privilege claims are prohibited. FTC v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., No. 10–Misc.–149, 2010 WL 5209257, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing Mohawk Indus. Inc. v.Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009)).
While I appreciate that the determination of whether to consider the District’s interlocutory appeal from my ruling as special master is before Judge Sullivan, I wanted to provide the Judge and the parties an explanation of what would otherwise be an inexplicable inconsistency in my ruling on privilege claims.
	  

1