UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) BEN J AMI

N B ECKER, et al., ) ) Pla int if fs , ) ) v. ) C iv il Act io n No . 0 1-0 81 1 (P L F-J MF) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, et al., ) ) De fe nd ants

. ) __________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER The Court has be fore it Mag istrate Judge F acc iola’s Report and Re commendation of F ebrua ry 28, 2008, as we ll as defe ndants’ objec tions and plaintiffs’ re sponses there to. As the pa rt ie s w e ll k

no w, thi s c a se — invo lvi ngma ss d e mon str a tio ns and arr e sts in c on

jun c tio n w ith

me e tin g s o f t

he Inte rn a tio na l Mo ne tary F un d a nd the Wor ld B ank

in A pr il o f 2 00 0 —

ha s b e e n in lit ig a tio n f

or many y e ars . In p re vio us wr itt e n o rd e rs , b oth the un de rs ig ne d a

nd Judg e F a c c iol a have ur g ed the pa

rties to attempt to resolve this ca se by settlement rathe r than c ontinued litigation. Indeed, f

ollowing the issuanc e of the Report and Rec ommendation, the Court issued an Or der which stated:

Readingthe fa cts as desc ribed by Mag istrate Judge F acc iola is like “de ja vu all over a g ain” f

or those who r emember

the anti-wa

r demonstrations of the e arly 1970’s, when thousa

nds of de mon str a tor s w e re arr e ste d o n a the or y of “ g ro up ” pr ob a

ble c a us e on the steps of the Capitol, in West P otomac Park, a nd on the str e e ts o f t

he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

. . . . Th is C ourt , o f c ours e , is pr e pa re d to a c c e pt ye t ano the r r ound of br ie fi ng on ob je c tio ns to Mag istrate Judge F acc iola’s conc lusions and to view the matter a fr e shun de r t

he sta nd ard s o f R

ule 72 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e. B ut Mag istrate Judge F acc iola’s assessment of the2 un dis pute d e vid e nc e in t

his c a se su g g e sts that it

is t ime to p ut t

his chapte r behind us without further litigation — and to do so now. Memorandum Opinion and O rder at 1-2, Dkt. No. 324 ( D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2008) . The Court then urg ed the pa

rties to ag ree to stay

the ca se and pr ocee d to mediation, which they did. Mediation havingbeen unsuc cessf

ul, the parties then br iefe d the def endants’ obje ctions to the Report and Recommendation.

Th e Court

is a wa re of de ve lop me nts in t

he re late d c a se s, Cha

ngv. Un ite d St a te s, Civil Action No. 02-2010, a nd Ba rnham v. Ramsey , Civil Action No. 02-2283, which ar e

curr ently pendingbefor e Judge Sullivan. In particula r, the Court has r eviewe d the dec larations of District of Columbia Attorney Gene ral Peter

J . Nickles a

nd Senior Assistant Attorney Gene ral Thomas L . Kog er, who is also lead counse l of rec ord in the instant case , which we re f iled on August 12, 2009. Both Mr. Nickle s and Mr. Kog er de scribe, in Mr. N ickles’s wor ds, the “fa ilures in discovery

and the pr oblems with preser vation of evide nce” by

the District of Col umb ia in t ho se c a se s, c a se s w hic h, a s Mr . K og e r p oints o ut, are sim ila r i n s ub je c t matte r t o Be cker v. District of Columbia. See Changv. United States, Notice of Filing Dec laration of Peter J. Nickles, Dec laration of Peter J. Nickles at 2 and De clar ation of Thomas J. Koge r at 3, Dkt. No. 490 (D.D .C. Aug . 12, 2008). The de clar ants also both emphasize the District of Col umb ia ’s c omm itm e nt t o s e ttl e me nt i n th os e c a se s. Se e De c lara tio n o f P e te r J. N ic kle s at 13-14; Dec laration of Thomas J . Kog er at 11-13.

In light of the history

of this case as we ll as the deve lopments in Chang v. United States and B arnha

m v. Ramsey , the Court believes nowwould be an a ppropriate time for the pa rt ie s to c on su lt w ithe a c h o the r a nd to r e c on sid e r t

he pr os pe c ts f

or se ttl e me nt, and

to r e po rt to the Court the re sults of their preliminary discussions at a status confe renc e. I f at that point the3

pa rt ie s r e pr e se nt t o th e Court that f ur the r e ng a g e me nt i n s e ttl e me nt d isc us sio ns wo uld be us e fu l, the Court c ou ld r e fe r t

he matte r t o a

me diator or a ma g istra te jud g e . I f n ot, the Court wi ll promptly proce ed to re solution of the defe ndants’ objec tions to t he Report a nd Recommendation on the merits. In light of the fore g oing, it is here by

ORDERED that counse l shall appea r for a status conf

ere nce be fore this Court on Se pte mbe r 1 8, 20 09 a t 11 :00 a .m.

SO ORDERED. _/s/_________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: August 20, 2009