IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, 

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through his )

next friend, ADDIE WARD, on behalf of )

himself and all other similarly situated; )

) Case No: 2:06-CV-755-MHT

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WALTER WOOD, in his individual )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

J.B., a minor child, by and through his )

next friend, ADDIE WARD, on behalf of )

himself and all other similarly situated; )

) Case No: 2:06-CV-908-MHT

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WALTER WOOD, in his individual )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 24
2

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Comes now the Defendant, through undersigned

counsel, and moves this Court to suppress the following

submissions in opposition to summary judgment: (1)

Plaintiff’s brief, pages 9-13 (Doc. 38, p. 9-13), (2)

the Classification Manual (Doc. 38, Exhibit 13), (3)

the entire deposition of Patrick Pendergast (Doc. 38,

Exhibit 29), (4) the entire deposition of J. Walter

Wood, Jr. (Doc. 38, Exhibit 30), (5) Plaintiff’s brief,

pages 16-19 (Doc. 38, p. 16-19), (6) a specific excerpt

from J. Walter Wood’s deposition (Doc. 38, p. 19), (7)

DYS Annual Reports for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 (Doc.

39, Exhibits 21 and 22), (8) specific excerpts from J.

Walter Wood’s deposition (Doc. 38, p. 20-21 and 24-25),

and (9) specific excerpts from Patrick Pendergast’s

deposition (Doc. 38, p. 27-40). 

In support thereof, the Defendant submits the

following:

Applicable Legal Standard: Submissions in

opposition to a motion for summary judgment must

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 24
3

present an issue of a "material" fact. Rule 56,

F.R.C.P. Such material facts include only those which

"may affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.

Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Plaintiff's entire

case is a sham because every fact he disputes is

immaterial. 

Notwithstanding J.B.’s apparent contention to the

contrary, J. Walter Wood, Jr. is not automatically

liable because he is the Executive Director of DYS.

Instead, the material facts must shed light on the

dispositive question in this case, namely, whether J.

Walter Wood, Jr. acted with deliberate indifference. 

J.B. must present evidence that J. Walter Wood, Jr. had

the ability to remove J.B. from detention sooner than

J.B. was removed from detention, but consciously and

deliberately chose to commit a wrongful act or

wrongfully create a policy or custom for the purpose of

causing J.B. to remain in detention longer than was

reasonable. That act or policy must have been so

outrageous that it “shocks the conscience.” Mere

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 24
4

negligence has been ruled out. Sacramento v. Lewis,

523 U.S. 833, 836, 846-47, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L.

Ed.2d 1043 (1998). And that act or policy must have

been the actual nexus between Mr. Wood and J.B.’s time

in detention. 

Causation by Mr. Wood can be supplied by one of

several theories, all of which require a conscious

decision by Mr. Wood to cause the alleged

constitutional deprivation. See, e.g. Gebserv. Lago

Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290-291

(1998) (equating deliberate indifference to "an

official decision not to remedy the violation"). J.B.

is pursuing supervisory liability–not personal

participation by Mr. Wood. (Plaintiff’s Brief in

Opposition, Doc. 38, p. 45-46). J.B. thus has an

extremely high burden of proof. 

Material evidence must establish deliberate

indifference. J.B. desperately wants to profit from

this case by imposing personal liability on Mr. Wood

simply because delinquents in the Alabama Juvenile

Justice system have periodically been held in detention

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 24
5

after commitment to DYS and Mr. Wood, as Executive

Director of DYS, has not “fixed” that Juvenile Justice

system problem. The undersigned submits J.B.’s case

woefully fails to meet the deliberate indifference

standard.

Screening and Placement: J.B., has fabricated only

a smoke and mirrors argument that the Screening and

Placement Committee should have screened J.B. sooner. 

That argument has no possibility of affecting the

outcome of this suit for two reasons. (1) the

Screening and Placement Committee did not cause J.B. to

remain in detention, and (2) J. Walter Wood, Jr. does

not control the Screening and Placement Committee. 

Without some factual evidence from which a rational

inference could be drawn to supply both of those

logical prerequisites, J.B.’s entire case fails because

there are no material facts in issue regarding Mr.

Wood’s alleged deliberate indifference.

J.B. filed this lawsuit against the Defendant J.

Walter Wood, Jr., in his individual capacity, seeking

monetary damages. The complaint alleges deliberate

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 24
6

indifference.

The Montgomery County Juvenile Court committed J.B.

to state custody on May 18, 2005, (for 1 degree

st

burglary), on April 4, 2006, (for possession of drugs),

and again on January 31, 2007 (for theft of property,

receiving stolen property, and possession of a

firearm). The committing judge ordered after the May

18, 2005 and April 4, 2006 adjudications that J.B. be

held in detention pending placement at DYS. Although

J. Walter Wood, Jr. had absolutely nothing to do with

J.B. being placed in detention or remaining in

detention after his commitment, this lawsuit seeks

money damages from J. Walter Wood, Jr. for time J.B.

spent in detention without “treatment.”

J.B.’s argument focuses on the practices and

procedures of the Screening and Placement Committee,

not on the actions of the Defendant J. Walter Wood, Jr. 

The Screening and Placement Committee is made up of a

group of DYS employees within the Screening and

Placement Division. The Screening and Placement

Division is supervised by Coordinator of Screening and

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 24
7

Placement Patrick Pendergast. Patrick Pendergast is

supervised by Deputy Director Tim Davis. Executive

Director Walter Wood, Jr., in turn supervises Tim

Davis. The undisputed evidence shows that Mr. Wood

does not participate in the screening and placement

process and had no knowledge of J.B.’s case until this

lawsuit was filed. J.B. has supplied no facts to

establish a causal link between J.B.’s time in

detention and any relevant action, failure to act,

policy, or custom, by Mr. Wood. This is true for two

reasons: (1) the undisputed evidence shows that no beds

were available to place J.B., and (2) even if J.B.

presented evidence that the Screening and Placement

Committee caused J.B. to remain in detention (as

opposed to the undisputed evidence that he remained in

detention because of the unavailability of a bed in his

needs category), J.B. has still produced no evidence of

a policy of Mr. Wood to supply a causal link between

the Screening and Placement Committee’s decisions and

Mr. Wood. The fact that Mr. Wood is the Executive

Director of the agency is NOT a “link.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 24
 HIT stands for “High Intensity Treatment.”

1

 A&D stands for “alcohol and drug.” 2

 J.B. ran away from the Bridge A&D and therefore 3

was transferred to the Intensive Treatment Unit, which

is a highly secure facility at the Mt. Meigs campus,

where he completed A&D.

 The number of days (26) was derived by counting 4

the days from the date DYS received the complete

commitment package. That is in conformity with the

Screening and Placement Committee’s practice. J.B. on

the other hand believes the Screening and Placement

Committee should staff juveniles immediately upon

receipt of the commitment order–without waiting to

receive the pertinent information. The Screening and

Placement Committee considers “notice of commitment” to

include the documents and information pertinent to an

8

The DYS Screening and Placement Committee gathers

information necessary to ascertain the characteristics

and needs of juveniles committed to DYS custody and

decides where each juvenile can be most appropriately

placed within the DYS system. The Screening and

Placement Committee determined that J.B. should be

placed at HIT , followed by A&D for his first 1 2

commitment in May 2005, and determined that he should

be placed at the Bridge A&D on the second commitment in

April 2006.3

J.B. remained in detention–26 days after notice of

4

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 24
appropriate placement decision. (See, e.g. § 12-15-71

(g), Code of Alabama 1975, as amended, which states:

“Whenever the court vests legal custody in an agency or

department, it shall transmit with the order copies of

the clinical reports, predisposition study, and other

information it has pertinent to the care and treatment

of the child.”)

 J.B. has two theories of recovery: First is the

5

so called “7 day statute,” under which J.B. simply

claims placement must be within 7 days regardless of

whether beds are available. Second J.B. claims the due

process clause imposes a “reasonable” time period in

detention before treatment begins. The number of days

for which J.B. seeks compensation for is therefore

different under each theory.

9

the first commitment in May 2005 and 26 days after

notice of the second commitment in April 2006–because

no bed was available in the category the Screening &

Placement Committee determined was appropriate. This

suit was filed to get money damages for only a portion

of those days. There is no evidence, and there can be

5

no evidence, that J.B.’s placement was delayed by the

practices or policies of the Screening and Placement

Committee or by any factors other than the

unavailability of a bed in the category the Screening

and Placement Committee determined was most

appropriate. 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 24
10

J.B.’s lawsuit is manufactured for the sole purpose

of misdirection and diversion from the issues the true

facts present. Specifically, that issue the facts

present is that no bed was available in the facilities

in which the Screening and Placement Committee staffed

J.B. J.B.’s flimsy straw man argument, on the other

hand, is that the DYS Screening and Placement Committee

should make staffing decisions immediately, regardless

of whether they have the necessary information for

making appropriate placement decisions. 

The Screening and Placement Committee procedures

and practices could be improved, but they have no

bearing on this case because they did not affect J.B.’s

time in detention. Again, there was simply no bed

available for him at the necessary facility for 26

days.

J.B.’s argument is two tiered. The first tier

attacks the Classification Manual. This manual was

adopted pursuant to DYS policy and governs the

screening and placement of delinquent youth. J.B.

argues that because the Manual requires the Placement

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 24
11

Committee to “initially classify all juveniles referred

to the Alabama Department of Youth Services within two

weeks of completed notification”, rather than

immediately, Mr. Wood should be held personally liable

for J.B.’s time in detention pending placement. 

However J.B. has presented no evidence nor made an

argument that the manual, or the Screening and

Placement committee’s procedure, caused J.B. to wait in

detention. It did not. He waited because there were

no beds available for him in the category for which he

was staffed.

The second tier of J.B.’s argument is that because

staffing occurs once every week, and only after the

necessary information is received, the system is flawed

and Mr. Wood should therefore be held personally liable

for J.B.’s time in detention. That alleged systemic

flaw is attributed to Mr. Wood simply because he is the

Executive Director. However, again J.B. has presented

no evidence or even made an argument to connect that

alleged systemic flaw to J.B.’s time in detention. 

That argument not only fails to connect the alleged

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 24
12

systemic flaw to J.B.’s time in detention, but it is

farther still from being connected to J. Walter Wood,

Jr., individually. If the Screening and Placement

Committee’s timing was not the cause of J.B.’s time in

detention, it is nonsense to attempt to connect the

Screening and Placement Committee’s system to Mr. Wood. 

But there are no facts in evidence from which a

inference can be drawn that Mr. Wood intentionally

created that committee’s policies with the evil intent

of causing J.B. to remain in detention for an

unreasonable period of time. 

Even assuming arguendo that the Committee staffed

J.B. immediately, J.B. would still have remained in

detention 26 days after notification. The Committee

could not have been taken J.B. out of detention one day

sooner than he was. Why? Because, regardless of the

date J.B. was staffed, there was simply no bed

available for his needs category until 26 days after

receipt of notice of commitment. J.B. waited in

detention because of the absence of an available

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 12 of 24
 That, along with the fact that the committing

6

judge ORDERED that he remain in detention pending

placement.

13

bed –not because of the allegedly belated screening 6

date. J.B.’s straw man argument, and indeed his entire

case, is based on smoke and mirrors. It cannot

withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. There is no

evidence of any culpable act or policy by J. Walter

Wood, Jr. There are no facts to establish a causal

nexus between an act or policy by Mr. Wood and J.B.’s

time in detention. 

Accordingly, the Defendant moves to suppress the

following portions of J.B.’s brief and the following

exhibits:

Doc 38 pages 9-13

Doc 38 Exhibit 13

J.B.’s arguments and submissions shed no light on the

questions to be decided by this court in this case and

should be suppressed.

Entire Depositions of J. Walter Wood, Jr. And

Patrick Pendergast: J.B. submitted the entire

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 13 of 24
14

depositions of Patrick Pendergast and J. Walter Wood,

Jr. (Doc. 38, Exhibits 29 and 30). It is J.B.’s

obligation, not the Court’s, to scour the record in

search of evidence that would defeat the Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment. Likewise, it should not

be the obligation of the court to rule on motions

regarding portions of depositions not referenced by

J.B. The Defendant will not search J.B.’s submissions

for inadmissible material not referenced in J.B.’s

brief but simply submitted in bulk, or ask the Court to

rule on them individually. J.B. made only a few

references to the depositions. (Many of those

references are objectionable, see below.) The entire

depositions–not referenced in the brief–should be

suppressed. They are replete with objectionable

questions, immaterial and irrelevant testimony and

otherwise inadmissible evidence. It would take a month

of Sundays to clean it up.

Excerpt of J. Walter Wood’s Deposition: At pages 16

through 19 of his brief (Doc. 38), J.B. excerpted a

portion of Mr. Wood’s deposition wherein J.B.’s counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 14 of 24
15

mischaracterized the previous deposition testimony.

J.B.’s counsel incorrectly stated “we have reviewed that

when you have legal custody, you can place a child where

and when you want. We’ve reviewed that statute.” There

is no statute that says that, and there was no testimony

to that effect. The DYS Executive Director most

certainly CANNOT place children “where and when he

wants.” 

Mr. Wood testified that certain types of placements

are possible “under certain circumstances.” However,

J.B.’s counsel attempted to frame that testimony in

conformity with his unsupported position. In other

words, even though Mr. Wood stated that allowing a child

to go home on electronic monitoring or to go home and

participate in community services, or otherwise get out

of detention, is only an option in certain circumstances,

J.B. has argued that Mr. Wood should have allowed J.B. to

go home. But J.B. has offered no proof that the

“circumstances” Mr. Wood spoke about are applicable to

J.B. Those “circumstances” are NOT applicable to J.B.

and no options other than detention were available to

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 15 of 24
16

J.B. The committing order clearly required that J.B. be

held in detention pending placement–not sent home, not

placed in the community, and not placed on electronic

monitoring. The argument that Mr. Wood had (or should

have created) an option to send J.B. home is specious.

Accordingly, the excerpt and J.B.’s argument should be

suppressed.

Unsupported Statement in J.B.’s Brief, at p. 19:

J.B. makes another argument in which he refers to Mr.

Wood’s efforts to expand institutional capacity and

absorb the wait lists. On page 19, J.B. states that Mr.

Wood “has no documentation reflecting corrective action.

(Doc. 38, Exhibit 29, Wood depo. Pgs. 12-16).” That

statement is not supported by the testimony or the facts.

For example, at page 15 of his deposition, Mr. Wood

stated:

 

 5 Operationally when I look at space 

 6 requirements, it's almost on a weekly or 

 7 sometimes daily basis. And the documents 

 8 that we use to evaluate requirement needs 

 9 are usually confined to the weekly or daily

10 population list and the daily intake list 

11 that are produced on a weekly basis. And 

12 since those documents include the capacities

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 16 of 24
17

13 of each facility and the populations of each

14 facility, that -- I use that to determine 

15 fluctuations in populations. And it's 

16 something we do more than on an annual 

17 basis. And the weekly intake list is the 

18 document that identifies fluctuations in 

19 numbers of people coming into those beds. 

In addition, through discovery in this case the

Department has produced more than 3700 documents and has

made available to J.B.’s counsel voluminous files of the

department. J.B.’s counsel has been to DYS on several

occasions and has had almost unlimited access. J.B.’s

statement that there are no documents reflecting review

of space requirements or reflecting corrective action is

not supportable by the evidence and should be suppressed.

The attached annual budget requests to the governor, for

example, also reference space requirements, request funds

for alternative placement programs, and funds for

sufficient facilities for immediate placement of

juveniles committed to DYS custody. (See Exhibits 1 and

2 attached hereto.) J.B.’s statement on page 19 should

be suppressed because it is contrary to the undisputed

evidence.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 17 of 24
18

DYS Annual Reports FY 2004 and 2005: Similarly, J.B.

states at page 19 of his Brief in opposition to Summary

Judgment that neither the FY 2004 nor FY 2005 reports to

the Governor mention “the need for additional facilities

nor the wait list issue.” J.B. attached as Exhibits 21

and 22, copies of the FY 2004 and FY 2005 annual reports.

However, J.B. laid no predicate to show that the annual

reports are even relevant. The apparent assumption

underlying J.B.’s use of Exhibits 21 and 22 is that J.B.

was caused to wait in detention because overall space

available within the DYS system was simply insufficient.

That assumption is incorrect. J.B. has submitted no

information on which to base that assumption, or from

which an inference could be drawn that it is correct. 

As shown by the Defendant’s submissions in support of

summary judgment, the problems that create a wait list in

a particular category are fluctuations of commitments

within that category, changes in available staffing, and

other variables not under J. Walter Wood’s control–not

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 18 of 24
 The Defendant has submitted uncontested evidence

7

of Departmental efforts to ascertain future needs,

including the categories needed to place juveniles

committed to DYS custody and the number of beds needed

in each category. The evidence shows those efforts are

carried out in cooperation with the University of

Alabama School of Social Work and resources are

allocated to create the anticipate beds needed. J.B.

has completely ignored those facts.

19

simply overall lack of bed space. Because J.B. failed to 7

show that absence of mentioning “the need for additional

facilities nor the wait list issue” in the annual report

is relevant to J.B.’s case, the annual reports should be

suppressed.

Excerpts of J. Walter Wood’s and Patrick Pendergast’s

Depositions: At page 20-21 and page 24-25 of J.B.’s

brief are excerpts of Mr. Wood’s deposition. Also at

page 26-40 of J.B.’s brief is an excerpt of Patrick

Pendergast’s deposition. These excerpts reflect a brow

beating of the Executive Director and the Screening and

Placement Coordinator Patrick Pendergast in an attempt to

force them to give a blanket opinion of the number of

days children may “reasonably” wait in detention pending

placement. That line of questioning was improper and

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 19 of 24
20

should be suppressed. One of the issues J.B. attempts to

have adjudicated in this case is the question of whether

there is a blanket constitutional limit to the number of

days a delinquent child may wait in detention pending

placement, and if so, how many days is reasonable. Mr.

Wood and Mr. Pendergast correctly responded, even in the

face of Plaintiff’s counsel’s brow beating, without

giving a blanket answer. Obviously every juvenile’s case

is unique. And with regard to individual cases, whether

or not there is a blanket constitutional standard, how

much time in detention is reasonable depends on ALL the

circumstances of the individual case–not just a limited

hypothetical set of circumstances dreamed up by J.B.’s

attorney. The questions were improper and should be

suppressed. 

The remainder of the excerpt of Pendergast’s

deposition on pages 27 through 40 of J.B.’s brief

includes irrelevant and immaterial testimony that sheds

no light whatsoever on the question of whether J. Walter

Wood, Jr. intentionally caused J.B. to wait in detention

pending placement at DYS. It also includes testimony not

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 20 of 24
21

shown to be connected to J.B.’s case in any way. The

excerpt also includes questions seeking legal conclusions

and questions for which the witness had no first hand

information. In addition, the excerpt includes

argumentative questions and questions based on facts

contrary to the evidence in the record. For example, Mr.

Drummond asked “How do you justify holding a child in

detention for six weeks to be placed in ... an absolute

least restrictive environment.” The uncontradicted facts

in this case show that juvenile judges hold children–not

Patrick Pendergast and certainly not J. Walter Wood, Jr.-

-when no bed is available. The entire line of questions

in the excerpt was little more than another brow beating

with no relevance to J.B.’s case, and should be

suppressed.

A Legal Question Cannot Become a Disputed Material

Question of Fact: At page 40, J.B. states that “the

Defendant, by his failure to specify what was reasonable

or unreasonable for J.B., creates a general issue of

fact.” This conclusion is so imprecisely drawn that it

has little value or meaning, and it should be suppressed.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 21 of 24
22

First, unless J. Walter Wood, Jr. violated a

constitutional right of J.B., there is no question to

answer in this case how much time was “reasonable.” J.B.

has not articulated a constitutional right. He vaguely

argues that he had a right to drug treatment (which does

not exist under the law) and somehow connects that

alleged right to a vague parens patriae argument that

time in state custody should be related to the purposes

for which the child was committed. (In other words–a

right to juvenile delinquency treatment). And the

argument concludes that J.B. should have received

immediate drug treatment, rather than receiving drug

treatment when he did receive it. Unless J.B. has raised

a constitutional question and connected the material

facts that avoid summary judgment to that constitutional

question, J.B. has not raised an issue of reasonableness.

Second, if the facts presented a material question

whether J. Walter Wood, Jr. deliberately caused J.B. to

remain in detention in violation of J.B.’s constitutional

rights, the answer to the reasonableness question is

legal–not factual. The Executive Director’s “failure” to

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 22 of 24
23

state a blanket amount of time that is “reasonable”

cannot magically change that legal question into a

factual question. The reference to the Executive

Director’s “failure” to answer J.B.’s ultimate legal

question should be suppressed.

Respectfully submitted

TROY KING

ATTORNEY GENERAL

s/ T. Dudley Perry, Jr. 

T. Dudley Perry, Jr.

Bar Number: 3985-R67T

Deputy Attorney General

Alabama Dept of Youth Services

Post Office Box 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

Telephone: (334) 215-3803

Fax: (334) 215-3872

E-Mai l :

dudley.perry@dys.alabama.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 20 day of July, 2007,

th

I electronically filed the forgoing Motion to Substitute

Document, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send notification of such filing to the

following:

Michael J. Crow, Esq.

Beasley, Allen

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 23 of 24
24

Post Office Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

Robert D. Drummond, Jr., Esq

Attorney At Law

323 De La Mare Avenue

Fairhope, AL 36532

s/T. Dudley Perry, Jr. 

T. Dudley Perry, Jr.

Deputy Attorney General

Alabama Department of

Youth Services

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 24 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-2 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 43-4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 34 of 34