Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01362/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01362-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence Heath, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Maricopa County, a municipality, and Joseph

Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, a married couple, Dr.

Brett Beloud, a single man,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1362 PHX-JAT

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

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

Conference on September 4, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

Plaintiff: Nicholas S. Hentoff

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Tel: (602) 257-1776

Fax: (602) 391-2263

Email: hentofflaw@gmail.com

Defendant(s):Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

Brian Kaven

702 E. Osborn Road

Phoenix, AZ 85014

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 18
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

- 2 -

Tel: (602) 274-7611

Fax: (602) 234-0341

Email: bkaven@bcattorneys.com

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that this action arises under and seeks redress for the deprivation of

rights secured by the laws of the United States. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is

authorized by 42 U.S.C § 1988. Venue is proper because all of the acts complained of

occurred within the District of Arizona.

 2. Jurisdiction is not disputed by any of the parties.

C. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS AND LAW

1. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: On

April 30, 2003, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Maricopa County Madison Street jail on

charges of child molestation. Plaintiff was put through the jail's booking process which

includes a classification system. During booking, plaintiff was given the option of being

placed in administration segregation. Plaintiff declined administrative segregation and

signed a form refusing administrative segregation.

On May 19, 2003, Plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates. Upon learning

of the assault, an officer called for medical assistance and Plaintiff was taken to the

medical clinic. Plaintiff was then transported to the emergency room at Good Samaritan

Hospital. On May 20, 2003, Plaintiff was transferred to Maricopa Medical Center.

D. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

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

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 18
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 -

Issue No. 1: Whether Maricopa Medical Center staff intentionally inflicted

physical pain and psychological torture on the Plaintiff during the course of his treatment

as a patient at MMC.

Plaintiff Contends: Maricopa Medical Center staff intentionally inflicted physical

pain and psychological torture on the Plaintiff during the course of his treatment at MMC.

Defendants Contend: Maricopa Medical Center staff did not intentionally

inflict physical pain and psychological torture on plaintiff during the course of his

treatment at MMC.

Issue No. 2: Did Dr. Beloud know of the cruel and unusual punishment (torture)

inflicted by MMC staff on Plaintiff and fail to take action to stop it. 

Plaintiff Contends: Dr. Beloud knew of the cruel and unusual punishment (torture)

inflicted by MMC staff on plaintiff and failed to stop it. 

Defendant Contends: Dr. Beloud had no knowledge of alleged unusual punishment

(torture) inflicted by MMC staff. Instead, Dr. Beloud was aware of plaintiff receiving

appropriate care, treatment, and attention. Also, Dr. Beloud denies plaintiff ever indicated

to him in any way by note or otherwise that he was tortured or abused in any way.

2(a). Defendants' (additional) Issues of Fact to be Tried.

Issue No. 1: Whether plaintiff has any evidence to establish municipal liability

under section 1983.

Defendants contend: Because there is no respondeat superior liability under

Section 1983 and no evidence of an unconstitutional policy under Monell or violation

under City of Canton, plaintiff does not have a case of municipal liability.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 18
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 -

Plaintiff contends: Plaintiff contends that at this stage of the proceedings the

question of whether the evidence is sufficient to establish municipal liability is for the trier

of fact.

Issue No. 2: Can plaintiff even give competent testimony since he was under the

influence of morphine and other powerful drugs during his stay at MMC?

Defendants contend: Plaintiff cannot give competent testimony given his heavy

medication, including morphine, at the time of his stay at MMC.

Plaintiff contends: Defendant has offered no evidence nor disclosed any experts

able to establish that Plaintiff is not competent to testify. Plaintiff's ability to recall events

is a question for the trier of fact.

Issue No. 3: Can plaintiff give credible testimony at the time of trial in light of his

heavy medication, which included morphine?

Defendants contend: Plaintiff cannot give credible testimony because of his heavy

medication that included morphine (which can cause hallucinations) and other drugs.

Plaintiff contends: Plaintiff's ability to recall events and testify credibly is a

question for the trier of fact.

Issue No. 4: Because the court found no deliberate indifference by defendants

(Docket 44, p.12) is not a claim of cruel and unusual punishment (torture) also eliminated

and therefore there are no claims left for trial.

Defendants contend: Assuming arguendo, if there had been the torture that plaintiff

alleges in his complaint, it would logically follow there would be deliberate indifference

too, since deliberate indifference would be a "lesser" and therefore included claim (torture

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 18
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 -

is worse treatment than deliberate indifference). But since the court found no deliberate

indifference, there could be no torture either.

 Plaintiff contends: The Court addressed the question of deliberate indifference

with respect to the classification issues. Torture, by its very nature, rises to the level of

deliberate indifference and the Court has already ruled there is a question of fact to be

determined by the trier of fact with respect to the torture claims.

2(b). Defendants' (additional) Issues of Law to be tried.

Law No. 1: Is there a triable issue left in the case since the court found that, in

effect, defendants did not move for summary judgment on the "torture" issue as opposed

to the deliberate indifference issue with respect to the Maricopa County Medical Center

and Dr. Beloud?

Defendants contend: The evidence at trial from Dr. Beloud and defendants'

medical expert, Dr. Demeure, will be plaintiff received only proper care and there was no

torture. The medical records, too, only reflect proper medical care, not torture. Even if

the County Attorney's Office may not have been specific enough in its motion for

summary judgment (to specifically address torture and not just care), a trial is not

warranted.

Plaintiff contends: One would not generally expect criminal malfeasance by

medical personnel, such as torture, to be reflected in the medical records. The fact that

there is no indication in the medical records that the defendant was tortured

Law No. 2: Is a trial against Dr. Beloud warranted when plaintiff did not oppose

defendants' motion for summary judgment as to him?

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 5 of 18
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 -

Defendants contend: Because plaintiff did not oppose defendants' motion for

summary judgment as to Dr. Beloud (plaintiff's reply was silent), a trial against Dr. Beloud

is not warranted.

 Plaintiff contends: The appropriate vehicle for seeking clarification or

modification of this Court order would have been a Motion for Reconsideration which was

not filed.

Law No. 3: With Sheriff Arpaio out of the case, his spouse, Ava Arpaio (who

was only joined for community property reasons) should not be a defendant at trial.

Defendants contend: Though the County Attorney's Office only noted in its

reply that Ava Arpaio had not been served (and so the court did not consider an argument

raised for the first time in the reply), on the court's own motion Ava Arpaio should be

dismissed.

 Plaintiff contends: Defense counsel for the County agreed to accept service of

process for Ava Arpaio but agrees that any claims against Mrs. Arpaio are contingent on

the validity of the claims against Sheriff Arpaio.

E. LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Plaintiff's Witnesses.

a. Plaintiff, Lawrence Edward Heath.

2. Defendants' Witnesses.

a. Witnesses Who Shall be Called at Trial:

1. Dr. Brett Beloud, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E. Osborn,

Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Dr. Beloud is a fact witness, but as a defendant, he will

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 6 of 18
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 -

also have expert opinions. He is expected to testify about his education, training and work

experience. He is also expected to testify about his care, treatment, observations and

assessments of plaintiff while hospitalized at Maricopa County Medical Center from May

20, 2003 through May 28, 2003. Dr. Beloud will also testify that plaintiff was regularly

assessed and evaluated; that all medications, including those for pain, were administered

as prescribed; that medications were not withheld from plaintiff as a means of inflicting

cruel and unusual punishment (torture); that plaintiff was not tortured either by him or any

hospital personnel while a patient at Maricopa County Medical Center; and that at no time

during plaintiff's hospital stay did plaintiff express any discontent with Dr. Beloud or pass

a note, or any type of written communication to Dr. Beloud. He will testify plaintiff was

heavily medicated with Morphine and other medications that can and do affect a person's

perception of reality.

2. Maricopa County Medical Center personnel, employees, staff members,

nurses, physicians, residents, interns, sub-contractors, and/or technicians whose names

appear in the medical records of plaintiff, Lawrence Heath, respecting his hospitalization

from May 20, 2003 through May 28, 2003, including, but not limited to:

a. Comfort Aggrey, R.N.

b. Sharon Buckley, R.N.

c. Mary Coombs, R.N.

d. Thomas Empson, R.N.

e. Martin Famatiga, C.R.R.T.

f. Stanley Feldcamp, R.N.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 7 of 18
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 -

g. Jeana Finnegan, R.N.

h. Vincent Gathings

i. Jeannie Giacalone, R.N.

j. Thomas Gunderson 

k. Ravidas Khalsa, CRT

l. Antonette Kinslow, R.N.

m. Nancy Kurtok, R.N.

n. Theresa Lee, L.P.N.

o. Jeffrey Luckett, R.N.

p. Justina Okon, RN

q. Oluyemisi Olusa, RN

r. Abbe Pitera

s. Charla Rispoli, C.R.R.T.

t. Marie Anne Rowe, R.N.

u. Gilbert Sauceda, RN

v. Anamarie K. Stough, R.N.

w. Michelle Torres - Velinsky, R.N.

x. Any other medical personnel, employees, nurses, physicians, interns,

residents and/or technicians whose names appear in the medical records and

whose identity has not yet been determined; will supplement. 

It is anticipated that these witnesses will testify to those matters contained in the

medical records as they relate to each providers' individual care of plaintiff, including but

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 8 of 18
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 -

not limited to describing plaintiff's injuries; care and treatment of plaintiff; history and

physical; diagnosis on admission and discharge; and operative procedures performed on

plaintiff. They are further expected to testify that plaintiff was regularly assessed and

evaluated as evidenced in the chart; that all medications, including those for pain, were

administered as prescribed; that medications were not withheld from plaintiff as a means

of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment (torture); that plaintiff was not tortured by

hospital personnel while a patient at Maricopa County Medical Center; that plaintiff was

treated with the same level of care as any other patient, regardless of criminal charges

pending against plaintiff at the time. They will testify plaintiff was heavily medicated.

3. Michael J. Demeure, M.D., The University of Arizona, Health Sciences

Center, College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, 1501

N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724. Dr. Demeure is an expert witness who is

expected to testify about his education, training and work experience as a general surgeon.

He is also expected to testify to those matters contained in his report dated June 26, 2006

and affidavit dated September 25, 2006, including but not limited to: review of plaintiff's

medical chart shows pain medications were ordered and given. Nurses' notes document

that plaintiff was regularly assessed for pain; that pain medications were given to plaintiff;

and that plaintiff's pain improved after receiving pain medications. Dr. Demeure will also

testify that he found no evidence that any of the medical treatment plaintiff received while

a patient at Maricopa Medical Center could be classified as torture. Dr. Demeure found

no record of plaintiff having complained about the treatment he received from Dr. Beloud

or hospital staff, or any record documenting that a note was passed to Dr. Beloud. Dr.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 9 of 18
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 -

Demeure will further testify that there is no evidence that the medical staff of Maricopa

Medical Center or Dr. Beloud inflicted cruel and unusual punishment to include torture

upon plaintiff.

b. Witnesses Who May be Called at Trial:

1. Rick Bailey, Classification Counselor, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO,

P.A., 702 E. Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Mr. Bailey may be called to testify

to those matters contained in his affidavit of September 26, 2006 and as to the contents

of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office records respecting plaintiff, including but not

limited to inmate classification procedures.

2. Gary W. Deland, DeLand and Associates, Inc., 1169 E. Mesa Vista Drive,

Ivins, UT 84738. Mr. Deland is an expert witness in jail operations and detention issues

who may be called to testify to those matters contained in his report dated March 18, 2006

and affidavit dated September 22, 2006. 

3. Detention Officer Higbee, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E.

Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Officer Higbee may be called to testify about

what he saw and heard when plaintiff was in his custody at Good Samaritan Medical

Center. 

4. Victoria Nyland, #17875, Classification Counsel, c/o BURCH &

CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E. Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Ms. Nyland may

be called to testify to those matters contained in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

records respecting plaintiff, including but not limited to inmate classification procedures.

5. Martha Lamarre, M.D., c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 10 of 18
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 -

Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Dr. LaMarre may be called to testify that she

was the on-call physician at the jail when plaintiff was assaulted by other inmates. Dr.

Lamarre will testify as to the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff; her conversations

with CHS Nurse Sweeny with regard to plaintiff's injuries; and that she ordered that

plaintiff be taken to Good Samaritan Medical Center for further treatment of his injuries.

6. Detention Officer Steyerman, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702

E. Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Officer Steyerman may be called to testify

regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the assault on plaintiff by other

inmates; the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff immediately following the assault;

and the subsequent investigation into the assault on plaintiff.

7. Nurse Sweeny, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E. Osborn, Suite

200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Nurse Sweeny is a nurse with Correctional Health Services who

may be called to testify regarding the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff immediately

following the assault; her conversations with the on-call doctor regarding plaintiff's

injuries; and the orders she received to transport plaintiff to an outside medical facility for

treatment of his injuries.

 8. Detention Officer Temple, c/o BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A., 702 E.

Osborn, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Officer Temple may be called to testify to what

he saw and heard while accompanying plaintiff in the ambulance to Good Samaritan

Medical Center, as well as when plaintiff was in his custody at Good Samaritan Medical

Center.

9. Custodian of records, if needed, to lay foundation for exhibits.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 11 of 18
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 -

10. Any witnesses listed by plaintiff.

 c. Witnesses Who are Unlikely to be called at Trial:

1. Brandon Armstrong (address unknown)

2. Dan Beason (address unknown)

3. Todd Kelly (address unknown)

4. Angelo Queen (address unknown)

5. Jason Smith (address unknown)

The above listed individuals were inmates at the jail and are fact witnesses who

were either involved in the assault of or participated in the assault of plaintiff on May 19,

2003.

6. Charles Chapman (address unknown). Mr. Chapman was an inmate at the

jail who was also assaulted by the inmates listed in C(1) through (5) above, at or about

the same time plaintiff was assaulted. He is a fact witness to the assault.

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:

b. Defendant's Exhibits:

(50) Medical Records from Maricopa Medical Center (Bates Nos.

MC0001-MC0255);

(51) Inmate Release Checklist (Bates No. MC0256);

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 12 of 18
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 -

 (52) Photo (Bates No. MC0257);

(53) Arrest/Booking Record (Bates No. MC0259);

(54) ICIS printout (Bates Nos. MC0260-MC0261);

(55) Inmate Property Inventory (Bates Nos. MC0262-MC0263);

(56) Inmate Clothing Record (Bates No. MC0264);

(57) Inmate Account Statement (Bates No. MC0265);

(58) Transfer form (Bates No. MC0266);

(59) Inmate Release Checklist (Bates No. MC0267);

(60) Inmate booking summary (Bates No. MC0268);

(61) Minute Entry in CR00-150218 and -137079 dated 5/28/03

(Bates Nos. MC0269-MC0270);

(62) Letter from Pretrial Services (Bates Nos. MC0271 and 

MC0274);

(63) Release Order in CR00-150218 (Bates Nos. MC0272-MC0273);

(64) Arraignment form in CR00-150218 (Bates No. MC0275);

(65) Initial Appearance document in CR00-137079 (Bates No. MC0276);

(66) Release Order in CR00-150218 (Bates Nos. MC0277-MC0278);

(67) MCSO Incident Report #03-14913 (Bates Nos. MC0281-MC0291);

(68) Booking Detail Inquiry for Lawrence Heath (Bates Nos.

MC0292-MC0295);

(69) Booking Detail Inquiry for Charles Chapman (Bates Nos.

MC0296-MC0299);

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 13 of 18
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 -

(70) Administrative Segregation Refusal Form (Bates No. MC0300);

(71) Inmate Classification Program interview form (Bates No. MC0301);

(72) Inmate Classification Assessment (Bates No. MC0302);

(73) Special Housing Form (Bates No. MC0303);

(74) Administrative Segregation Assignment Consent and Understanding

Form (Bates No. MC0304);

(75) Court Card for 5/7/03 (Bates No. MC0305);

(76) Maricopa County Sheriff's Office log for Estrella Jail, Dorm E on

May 19, 2003 (Bates No. MC0376-MC0382);

(77) Gary W. DeLand's Report, dated March 18, 2006 (Bates Nos.

MC0306-MC0345;

(78) Michael J. Demeure, M.D.'s Report, dated June 26, 2006 (Bates Nos.

MC0346-MC0347);

(79) Affidavit of Gary W. DeLand, dated September 22, 2006;

(80) Affidavit of Michael J. Demeure, M.D., dated September 25, 2006;

and

(82) Affidavit of Brett R. Beloud, M.D., dated September 27, 2006.

(82) Blow-ups, demonstrative and illustrative exhibits.

(83) Anatomical charts/drawings

(84) Any exhibits listed by plaintiff, reserving objections thereto.

(85) Any exhibits to depositions, reserving objections thereto.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 14 of 18
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 -

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

stipulations:

a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:

(1) Plaintiff's medical records.

Defendants' Objection: Defendants object to this generic listing since

defendants do not know what plaintiff intends to include. If the records are

Maricopa Medical Center, Bates MC0001-MC0255, defendants have no objection.

b. Defendant's 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. Defendant's Exhibits:

4. Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint proposed final pretrial

order that any objections not specifically raised herein are waived.

G. DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED

No depositions have been taken in this matter.

H. MOTIONS IN LIMINE (JURY TRIAL)

Not applicable.

I. LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS 

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 15 of 18
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 -

None.

J. ESTIMATED LENGTH TRIAL

 1⁄2 hours - Plaintiff's Opening statements

 1⁄2 hours - Defendants' Opening statements

 2 hours - Plaintiff's case

 8 hours - Defendants' case

 1⁄2 hours - Plaintiff's Closing Arguments

 1 hours - Defendants' Closing Arguments

 12.5 hours - Total

K. JURY DEMAND

This is a bench trial. Demand for a jury trial was previously rejected by the Court.

L. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The separately lodged Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law

are incorporated by referenced into this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order.

M. CERTIFICATIONS

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

acknowledge the following:

1. All discovery has been completed. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has

disclosed witnesses nearly one year after the close of fact discovery and additional

discovery would have to be conducted if these witnesses were allowed to testify.

Defendants contend the witness names are right out of the medical chart and plaintiff's

counsel has, therefore, had knowledge of these people since plaintiff's counsel had the

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 16 of 18
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 -

chart. No depositions have been taken in this case and so plaintiff cannot claim prejudice.

The persons listed are the people who plaintiff would say tortured him. They will say they

did not. Present defense counsel cannot say why the County Attorney's Office did not list

the persons whose names are in the chart, but they should be allowed to testify if there is

to be a trial on the merits.

2. The identity of each witness has been disclosed to opposing counsel.

Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of the witnesses listed in Defendants second and third

supplemental disclosure statements were disclosed untimely, nearly a year after the close

of fact discovery in this case, and should not be allowed to testify. It is defendants'

position that each witness now disclosed is identified in the chart and plaintiff's counsel

has had the chart since before the suit was filed. Plaintiff's counsel took no depositions

in this case. No one took depositions. Plaintiff's counsel did not send interrogatories

(such as to ask who would say what). Accordingly, plaintiff is not prejudiced by

defendants' listing people now. Moreover, if plaintiff wishes to depose the newly listed

witnesses or any of them, defendants do not object. Defendants ask the court's leave to

be able to call all witnesses defendants have now disclosed.

3. Each exhibit listed: (1) is in existence; (2) is numbered; and 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.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 17 of 18
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

- 18 -

6. The parties acknowledge that once this joint proposed final pretrial order has

been entered, no amendments to this order can be made without leave of Court.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

HENTOFF LAW OFFICE BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A.

By: s/Nicholas S. Hentoff By: s/Brian Kaven by Daniel R. Malinski

Nicholas S. Hentoff Brian Kaven

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants

Maricopa County, Ava Arpaio, and Dr.

Brett Beloud

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting this Final Pretrial Order as the official Pretrial Order

of this Court.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01362-JAT Document 53 Filed 09/05/07 Page 18 of 18