Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02306/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Lyon &

Towanda Lyon, for

Taralyn D. Lyon,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Estrella Foothills High School

Henry Schmitt, Superintendent of Schools

for Estrella Foothills School,

Eric Godfrey,

Jerry Nunez,

Marty Arambel,

Phillip Echeverria,

Jeannie Guy,

Jerry Kerr, and

Gary Mayfield,

Defendants.

NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

FINAL PRETRIAL FORM OF

ORDER

The following is the joint Final Pretrial Order considered at the Final

Pretrial Conference on April 17, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

Plaintiff(s): Joseph E. Collins, Esq.

Collins & Collins, LLP

10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3

Phoenix, Arizona 86028

Phone: (602) 788-7227

Fax: (602)569-6091

Defendant: Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Phone: (602) 263-1752

Fax: (602) 200-7854

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Plaintiff refuses to acknowledge as an undisputed fact that Plaintiff

admitted to consuming alcohol. This Court has already held that this is an undisputed

fact and that it is no longer an issue in this case. See Order, August 30, 2005.

2

Plaintiff refuses to acknowledge as an undisputed fact that these hearings

were in accordance with District policy. This Court has already held that this is an

undisputed fact and that it is no longer an issue in this case. See Order, August 30,

2005.

2

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is not disputed.

C. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS AND LAW

1. The following facts are stipulated to by the parties and

 require no proof:

(a) Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon was a student at Estrella Foothills High

School in the Buckeye Union High School District in 2002.

(b) On November 6, 2002, Eric Godfrey, the assistant principal,

suspended Ms. Lyon and two other girls from school for 10 days following allegations

that they drank alcohol following a gym class earlier that day.1

(c) Formal hearings were held.2

(d) The Administration recommended that Plaintiff and the other

two girls be placed on long-term suspension (suspension for the remainder of school

year 2002-03) in accordance with District policy.

(e) The hearing officer concluded that Plaintiff and the two other

girls had consumed alcohol on campus, in violation of the District’s policy. 

(f) The hearing officer affirmed the 10-day suspensions, but

declined to recommend long-term suspension. 

(g) Plaintiff, along with one of the other girls, appealed the

hearing officer’s decision to the District Governing Board.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

(h) On December 6, 2002, the District Governing Board affirmed

the hearing officer’s findings that alcohol was consumed by the Plaintiff, but modified

the hearing officer’s Order to hold the long-term suspension in abeyance, add an

additional 5-day suspension and require that she enter into a behavioral contract for the

remainder of the school year. The other girl was given the same discipline.

2. The following facts, although not admitted, will not

 be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary:

None

3. The following issues of law are contested and

 stipulated to by the parties:

None.

D. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

1. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and 

decided: 

Issue No. 1: Were Board Members sued in their official capacity?

Plaintiff Contends: The Board Members were sued in their individual

capacity.

Defendant Contends: Plaintiff sued members in their personal capacity.

(See p. 8, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.)

Issue No. 2: Were the actions of Board Members of Buckeye Union High

School District in upholding the hearing officer’s findings and in assessing sanctions

against the Plaintiff taken in a capacity other than as board members?

Plaintiff Contends: The board members were acting under color of state

law, when they imposed the sanctions upon the plaintiff, but were not acting in their

official capacities because they violated the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Defendant Contends: The Board Members’ actions were taken only in

their capacity as members of Buckeye Union High School District’s governing board.

Issue No. 3: Did Administrators and/or Board Members intentionally, and

without a rational basis, treat Plaintiff differently than similarly situated students and

do so for an improper purpose?

Plaintiff Contends: Defendants treated plaintiff differently than similarly

situated students and students with worse records than plaintiff and did not follow

district policy when imposing discipline.

Defendant Contends: Plaintiff was not treated differently than other

similarly situated students. Plaintiff received the discipline that was established by the

district policy. The other girls who consumed alcohol on campus with her received the

same discipline and were afforded the same appeal process. Both Plaintiff and the

other girl were given the same discipline.

2. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined:

Issue No. 1: Whether Estrella Foothills High School is a proper party

Defendant.

Plaintiff contends: The issue has previously been resolved by the court on

the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant contends: Rule 17(b) F.R.C.P. provides that the capacity to be

sued shall be determined by the law of the State in which the District Court is situated.

A.R.S. § 15-326 provides that only the school district may sue or be sued. Estrella

Foothills High School is merely a school within the District and is, therefore, an

improper party defendant. 

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

Issue No. 2: Are the Board Members and/or Administrators entitled to

qualified immunity?

Plaintiff contends: Defendants are not entitled to immunity.

Defendant contends: A school board member is liable only if he/she knew

or reasonably should have known that the action he/she took as a board member

violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiff or if he/she took the action with the

malicious intention because a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the

student.

Issue No. 3: Whether the District denied Plaintiff equal protection under

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff contends: Defendants intentionally denied Plaintiff equal

protection. They punished her more than any other student for any offense.

Defendants did not follow their own published policy.

Defendant contends: Defendants did not deny Plaintiff equal protection.

Plaintiff does not allege discrimination based on a suspect class. Instead she alleges

“class of one” discrimination, i.e. that she was treated differently from other similarly

situated students without a rational basis. Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg,

375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2004). The standard for such claims is extremely high.

Plaintiff must prove (1) a difference in treatment between Plaintiff and other similarly

situated students, (2) the difference was intentional, and (3) the difference was without

a rational basis. Id. Mere differences in punishment are not enough because “the

Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal laws, not equal results.” McQueary v.

Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting Personnel Adm’r. v. Feeney, 442

U.S. 256, 273 (1979). Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of the elements of this claim.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 5 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Issue No. 4: Whether board members who act solely in their capacity as

Board members can be held personally liable?

Plaintiff Contends: Defendants cannot assert that they were acting as board

members when their conduct occurred, because once they violate the constitutional

rights of Plaintiff they have stepped out of their role as board members.

Defendant Contends:

Yes, but each board member is entitled to assert the defense of qualified

immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from liability

if “a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful,

in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.” Stivers v. Pierce,

71 F.3d 732, 749 (9th Cir. 1995) citing Thorsted v. Kelly, 858 F.2d 571, 573 (9th Cir.

1988). Whether officials could have believed that their conduct is reasonable is a factspecific test and is a question for the Court. Sinaloa Lake Owners Assoc. v. City of

Simi Valley, 70 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 1995).

E. LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Plaintiff:

 A. Tara Lyon

C/O COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P

10801 NORTH 32ND STREET #3 

PHOENIX ARIZONA 85028

Fact Witness

Ms. Lyon will testify regarding her involvement as school and the disciplinary

process. Ms. Lyon will testify that Andy Rios spoke with Jerry Nunez and Henry

Schmidt (sic) about the proceedings on numerous occasions.

 B. Towanda Lyon

C/O COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P

10801 NORTH 32ND STREET #3 

PHOENIX ARIZONA 85028

Fact Witness

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 6 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Ms. Lyon will testify regarding her involvement as school and the disciplinary

process. Ms. Lyon will testify that Andy Rios spoke with Jerry Nunez and Henry

Schmidt (sic) about the proceedings on numerous occasions.

Shall be called__x___ May be called _____ Unlikely to be called 

Listed by: Plaintiff x_ Defendant 

 C. Kenneth Lyon

 C/O COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P

10801 NORTH 32ND STREET #3 

PHOENIX ARIZONA 85028

Fact Witness

Mr. Lyon will testify regarding his involvement as school and the disciplinary

process. 

Shall be called__x___ May be called _____ Unlikely to be called 

Listed by: Plaintiff x_ Defendant 

 D. Andy Rios

 C/O COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P

10801 NORTH 32ND STREET #3 

PHOENIX ARIZONA 85028

Fact Witness

Ms. Rios will testify regarding his involvement as school and the disciplinary

process.

Shall be called___x__ May be called _____ Unlikely to be called 

Listed by: Plaintiff x_ Defendant 

 

 E. Dr. Henry B. Schmitt

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI,PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Dr. Schmidt (sic) will be called to authenticate the disciplinary records.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 7 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

X Shall be called _____ May be called _____ Unlikely to be called 

Listed by: Plaintiff ______ Defendant X

2. Defendants: 

Phillip Echeverria

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Echeverria was a member of the District Governing Board at the

time relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint. He reviewed the exhibits and other

documents introduced at Taralyn Lyon’s hearing. Mr. Echeverria is expected to

testify regarding his review of evidence and disciplinary decision.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Jerry Kerr

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Kerr was a member of the District Governing Board at the time

relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint. He reviewed the exhibits and other documents

introduced at Taralyn Lyon’s hearing. Mr. Kerr is expected to testify regarding his

review of evidence and disciplinary decision.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 8 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Gary Mayfield

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Mayfield was a member of the District Governing Board at the time

relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint. He reviewed the exhibits and other documents

introduced at Taralyn Lyon’s hearing. Mr. Mayfield is expected to testify regarding

his review of evidence and disciplinary decision.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Eric Godfrey 

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Godfrey was the assistant principal at Estrella Foothills High School

at the time period pertinent to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mr. Godfrey has knowledge of

and may testify regarding his investigation into student misconduct, involving

alcohol consumption, on November 6, 2002. Mr. Godfrey is also expected to testify

regarding the School District policies and the discipline imposed for student

misconduct.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 9 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Jerry Nunez

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Nunez was the principal at Estrella Foothills High School at the time

period pertinent to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mr. Nunez has knowledge of and may

testify regarding his investigation into student misconduct, including alcohol

consumption, on November 6, 2002. Mr. Nunez is also expected to testify

regarding the School District policies and the discipline imposed for student

misconduct. Mr. Nunez will also testify regarding the disciplinary procedures used

in this case.

 X Shall be call May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Marty Arambel

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Mr. Arambel was on the District Governing Board at the time relevant to

Plaintiff’s Complaint. He is expected to testify regarding his review of evidence and

disciplinary decision.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 10 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

Fact Witness

Jeannie Guy

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Ms. Guy was on the District Governing Board at the time relevant to

Plaintiff’s Complaint. She is expected to testify regarding her review of evidence

and disciplinary decision.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Dr. Henry E. Schmitt

c/o Georgia A. Staton

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue

Suite 800

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602 263-1700

Dr. Schmitt was the Superintendent of the Buckeye Union High School

District at the time relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dr. Schmitt is expected to

testify as to his knowledge regarding the disciplinary process as applied to Ms. Lyon

and other students.

 X Shall be called May be called Unlikely to be called

Listed by: Plaintiff Defendant X 

Fact Witness

Each party understand that it is responsible for ensuring that the

witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each party further understands

that any witness a party wishes to call shall be listed on that party’s list of witnesses

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 11 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

above and that party cannot rely on that witness having been listed or subpoenaed

by another party.

F. LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence

and may be marked in evidence by the Clerk:

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

A. Formal Hearing Proceeding 11/21/02 7:30 a.m. Tara Lyon

B. Formal Hearing Proceeding 11/21/02 10:00 a.m. Laci Ogle

C. Letter 8/6/03 with attached Public Hearing Board Meeting Minute dated 12/9/02; Public

notice 12/9/02; Letter dated 11/22/02 from m. Nunez: Letter dated 12/10.02 and J4850@JKD, Student Suspension

D. Estrella Foothills HS Discipline Listing 7/23/04

E. Estrella Foothills HS Discipline Listing 7/21/04

F. Discipline Hearings 2000 - 2001

G. Discipline Hearings 2001 - 2002

H. Due Process Hearings 2002- 2003

I. Due Process Hearings/Behavior Contracts 2003 - 2004 

J. Buckeye Union High School Discipline Listing 7/21/04

K. Buckeye Union High School Discipline Listing 7/23/04

L. Estrella Foothills High School Student Handbook 2002- 2003

M. Three week Progress Term 2 10/14/02 to 11/08/02

N. Three week Progress Term 1 8/12/02 to 8/30/02

O. Letter 12/10/02 from Dr. Henry E. Schmitt

P.J-4850 @ JKD Student Suspension

Q. Permissible Penalties

R.J-4550.1 @ JJJ Extracurricular Activity Eligibility

S.J-4611 @ JK-RA Student Discipline

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 12 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

T.J-4613.1 JK-RC Student Discipline

U.J-3400 @ JIH Student Interrogations, Searches and Arrests

V.J-1300 @ JFC Student Withdrawal From School/ Dropouts

W.J-3050 @ JICH Drug and Alcohol Use By Students

X.J-4600 @ JK Student Discipline

Y. Hand written notes

Z. 11/21/02 Hand written Notes

AA. 11/13/02 Letter from Jerry Nunez

BB. 11/18/02 Crimes Management System Incident Report Goodyear Police Department

CC. Instant Messages 11/10/02

b. Defendants’ Exhibits:

1. Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact, Re: Taralyn Lyon, Bates Nos. 

EF160-161.

2. November 22, 2002 Letter from Nunez to Lyon, Bates No. EF 

160.

3. Student Referral/Administrative Disposition.

4. November 13, 2002 Letter from Dr. Schmitt, Bates Nos. EF 129-

132.

5. District Policies:

JK-RC, Bates Nos. EF 134-135

JK-RA, Bates Nos. EF 136-139

JIC, Bates Nos. EF 140-141

JKD, Bates Nos. EF 143-151.

6. December 10, 2002 Letter from Dr. Schmitt, Bates No.167.

7. Handbook, Bates Nos. EF 216-235.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 13 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

8. November 21, 2002 Letter to Arbell Rose, Bates No. EF 237.

9. Hearing Officer Findings of Fact, Re: Kailey Hainline-Rose,

Bates Nos. EF 230-239.

10. Hearing Officer Findings of Fact, Re: Laci Ogle, Bates Nos. EF 

240-241.

11. December 10, 2002 Letter to Laci Ogle, Bates Nos. EF240-241.

12. Discipline lists, Estrella Foothills High School, Bates Nos. EF 

176-187, 188-196.

2. As to the following exhibits, the party have reached

 the following stipulations:

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

b. Defendants’ Exhibits:

3. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom

 the exhibit is to be offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and offers the

objection stated below:

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

b. Defendants’ Exhibits:

Each party hereby acknowledges that by signing this Joint Proposed

Final Pretrial Order that any objections not specifically raised herein are waived.

G. DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED

Barring unforeseen and unexpected circumstances it is not anticipated

that depositions will be offered in lieu of live testimony.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 14 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15

Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this Joint Proposed Final

Pretrial Order that any deposition not listed as provided herein will not be allowed,

absent good cause.

H. MOTIONS IN LIMINE (JURY TRIAL)

Motions in limine are filed as separate pleadings and responded to in

accordance with the Court’s instructions contained in the Order Setting Final

Pretrial Conference.

I. LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS

None other than Motions in Limine. 

J. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL

5 days.

K. JURY DEMAND

A jury trial has been requested by both parties and the parties stipulate

that the request was timely and properly made.

L-2. JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, JOINT

PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED

FORMS OF VERDICT

The separately filed Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Joint Proposed

Voir Dire Questions and Proposed Form of Verdict are incorporated by reference

into this Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order.

M. CERTIFICATIONS

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 15 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this action do hereby

certify and acknowledge the following:

1. All discovery has been completed.

2. The identity of each witness has been

 disclosed to opposing counsel.

3. Each Exhibit listed herein: (1) is existence; 

(2) is numbered; and (3) has been disclosed and shown to opposing counsel.

4. The parties have complied in all respects with the 

mandates of the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order and Order Setting Final Pretrial

Conference.

5. The parties have made all of the disclosures required

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Unless otherwise previously ordered to

the contrary.)

6. The parties acknowledge that once the proposed joint

Final Pretrial Order has been signed and lodged by the parties, no amendments to

this Order can be made without leave of Court. 

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 16 of 17
JONES, SKELTON 

&

HOCHULI, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2901 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

SUITE 800

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

TELEPHONE (602) 263-1700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

___________________________ __________________________

Joseph E. Collins Georgia A. Staton

10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

[parties signed lodged copy]

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED, that the proposed Final Pretrial Order jointly

submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED as the official

Pretrial Order of this Court.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 64 Filed 05/02/06 Page 17 of 17