=

Nw NM NM |B Ba Bw BoB eo ew a an a a
SRFRSRRSSaeartraaESHASN

© MN OD A KR WD,

was Walter Ozell Cooper, Jr. Mr. Cooper had listed that address in numerous documents
obtained by the Oakland Police Department. While Plaintiffs denied that Mr. Cooper lived
at the address, he was arrested during the execution of the search warrant outside of this

apartment.

As is clear from the Personal Digital Recording Device (“PDRD”) footage of several
officers, Plaintiffs were carefully escorted from the residence once they opened the front
door of the apartment. They were not “thrown down the steps leading to the apartment” as
alleged by Plaintiffs. They were briefly detained and once the officers completed
searching the apartment, Plaintiffs were escorted back into the apartment. The apartment
was not ransacked and was left in virtually the same manner as when officers entered the
apartment.

3. Legal Issues:

Plaintiffs claim that officers with the Oakland Police Department unlawfully
searched and detained them and in doing so committed excessive force, violated Plaintiffs’
State civil rights, were negligent, assaulted and battered Plaintiffs, falsely imprisoned
Plaintiffs, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claim
Monell violations against the City of Oakland.

Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ claims.

4. Motions: There are no pending or prior motions. Defendants anticipate filing

a dispositive motion as to all claims.

5. Amendment of Pleadings: The parties do not anticipate any amendments to
the pleadings.

6. Evidence Preservation: The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to
the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”). The Parties have
met and conferred pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(f) regarding reasonable and

proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident

-5-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT. 16-cv-07393-CW



oO ON DO oO FF WOW DY =

MM NY NY YY NY BSB B@a a we Bo oa a ew a a
SRR SBRSSaRSaRFrSRKAS|Y

21. There are no other matters to address at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 9, 2017

By:

Dated: August 9, 2017

BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney

OTIS McGEE, Jr., Chief Assistant City Attorney
COLIN T. BOWEN, Supervising Trial Attorney
CHARLES E. VOSE, Senior Deputy City Attorney

: /S/

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF OAKLAND, WILLIAM FEBEL, and
JASON BELLIGAN

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ.
LATEEF GRAY, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

LS/
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
EVELYN WRIGHT-TURBIN &
CLIFTON GUPTON

-8-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW



oO ON ODO aA FF WOW DY =

NN NY NY NY SB Ba sea ea a a an aw a oo

Plaintiffs allege that only unreasonable officers would execute a search warrant in
the manner and under the circumstances the Defendant officers did, that Plaintiffs Wright-
Turbin and Gupton never presented any threat to anyone that could justify the amount of
force that Defendant officers used, and that the Defendant officers had a clear opportunity

to evaluate the situation and determine that the search warrant was flawed.

As a result of the incident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin has experienced extreme pain and
suffering. Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s surgically replaced knee was injured and required
additonal months of treatment in order to heal properly. In addition, Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin

and Gupton currently suffer from paranoia, anxiety, and emotional distress as a

-| Consequence of the unlawful search.

The actions and omissions of the City and the Defendant Oakland Police
Department Officers were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, without legal
justification or other legal right, done under color of law, within the course and scope of
their employment as law enforcement officers and/or public officials, and pursuant to
unconstitutional customs, policies and procedures of the City and/or other jurisdictions.
The City was also responsible for Plaintiffs’ injuries through its own acts and omissions,
negligent and otherwise, by failing to properly and adequately investigate, train, supervise,
monitor, instruct, and discipline its law enforcement officers and/or employees and agents,

including the officers and officials described herein.

Defendants’ Version of Facts: On February 24, 2015, officers with the Oakland
Police Department served a valid search warrant at 2230 84'" Avenue, Apartment A.

Plaintiffs resided at that address on that date. The individual named in the search warrant

-4-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW



oO ON DO oO FF WwW DY =

MN MN NY NY NY B SB Ba Ba a a a a a a

in this action.

7. Disclosures: The parties will exchange initial disclosure requirements
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26 before the date of the Initial Case Management
Conference. Defendant will identify witnesses and identify and produce non-privileged
documents relevant to plaintiff's claims. Defendant will also produce the search warrant
and the Personal Data Recording Device (“PDRD’) footage of several officers involved in
the search.

8. Discovery: No discovery has taken place to date. The parties anticipate the
need for expert testimony, disclosure, and discovery in this case. The parties propose the
following discovery plan:

Each side may take up to ten (10) depositions not including expert
depositions.
Each party may propound up to twenty-five (25) Interrogatories.
Each party may propound up to twenty-five (25) Request for Production of
Documents.
Each party may propound up to twenty-five (25) Request for Admissions.
There are no known discovery disputes at this time.
9. Class Actions: This is not a class action.
10. Related Cases: There are no known related cases.
11. Relief: Plaintiffs seek general, special, and punitive damages, attorneys’

fees, and costs of suit.

12. Settlement and ADR: The parties have discussed ADR and possibilities for
settlement, and agree that this case is suitable for the Northern District’s ADR program.

13. Magistrate Judge: All parties will consent to a magistrate judge conducting all
further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment in this case.

14. Other References: The parties agree that this case is not suitable for

reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

-6-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW



=

MD MN NY DY @ w& Bw BoB Bw Ba a a a a
SRRBSRBRSSGRBASARFSRIAS

o oN Oa KR WN

BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney - state Bar #069722

OTIS McGEE, Jr., Chief Asst. City Attorney — State Bar #71885
COLIN T. BOWEN, Supervising Trial Atty. — State Bar # 152489
CHARLES E. VOSE, Senior Deputy City Atty. — State Bar #139700
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 238-2961 Fax: (510) 238-6500
30763:2205422

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF OAKLAND, WILLIAM FEBEL,
And JASON BELLIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EVELYN WRIGHT-TURBIN, an individual;
CLIFTON GUPTON, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:16-cv-07393 CW

Vv. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT
CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal

corporation; WILLIAM FEBEL, individually Date: August 22, 2017

and in his capacity as Police Officer for the Time: 2:30 p.m.
CITY OF OAKLAND; JASON BELLIGAN, Courtroom: TBD
individually and in his capacity as Police
Officer for the CITY OF OAKLAND; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in
their official capacity as Police Officers for
the CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendants.

The Parties to this action have conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 16, and file this Joint Case Management Statement

addressing the topics set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District

of California.

1. Jurisdiction and Service: The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and 1988 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

~1-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

16-cv-07393-CW



=

NM NY NY NY |= Bw Ba ew Ba an Ba a

© ON OD Ak WD

Litigation.

15. Narrowing of Issues: The parties may be able to narrow factual issues either
by their complete resolution in motions for summary judgment, or by the presentation of
stipulated evidence at trial, and commit their good faith efforts to so doing. The parties do
not anticipate requesting bifurcation of issues, claims, or defenses, and do not so request
at this time.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure: This case is not the type that can be handled
under the Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64.

17. Scheduling: The parties propose the following dates:

Designation of experts: Monday, April 2, 2018.

Discovery Cutoff: Monday, April 30, 2018.

“Discovery Cutoff’ means that all discovery requests are served on a date
from which responses will be due on or before the cutoff date; depositions are completed;
and any discovery motions are properly noticed to be heard on or before the cutoff date.

Hearing of Dispositive Motions: Tuesday, July 10, 2018.

Pretrial Conference: Monday, September 10, 2018.

Trial: Monday, October 8, 2018.

18. — Trial: The case will be tried to a jury and is expected to require no more than
seven court days.

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Plaintiff has filed the
“Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-15, in which
Plaintiff disclosed that no non-party has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or a party to the proceeding, or any other kind of interest that would be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. Defendant is not required to file
this certificate.

20. Professional Conduct: All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed
the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.

-7-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW


=

NNN NY HB NY NY B@ Bsa se a oa oa oa an aw
oa Ff WH = OO OG AN DOD TO KRW NH = 2

o© ont Oa bh WON

There are no issues regarding either personal jurisdiction or venue. Service on all named
defendants is complete.

2. Facts:

Plaintiffs’ Version of Facts:

In 1987, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin, broke the tibia in her left leg after she was involoved
in a major car accident. After the accident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin continued to suffer
complications as a result of the structural damage to her leg. Sometime in 2014, Plaintiff
Wright-Turbin began to suffer from an unbearable pain in her left knee. On February 2,
2015, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin underwent a knee replacement at Alta Bates Summit Medical

Center in Berkeley, California.

On the date of the incident, February 24, 2015, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin was asleep
on the living room couch in her apartment, recovering from her knee replacement. Plaintiff
Gupton was asleep in the bedroom. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Plaintiff Wright-Turbin

was awoken by the sound of aggressive knocking at her front door and the adjacent

-| windows. Confused, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin managed to make her way to her front door.

When Plaintiff Wright-Turbin got to the front door, she asked,“Who is it?”, then proceeded
to look out the window. When Plaintiff Wright- Turbin looked out the window, she saw

Defendants Febel, Belligan, and seven yet-to-be identified Oakland Police Department

Officers.

The Defendant officers drew their guns and lifted up a battering-ram. The
Defendants told Plaintiff Wright-Turbin that if she did not open the door, they would enter
her apartment by force. Afraid, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin opened her door. Without

~2-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW



=

No NM NY NY NY YB NN SF Ss B= so se se se aw a aw
Oo a fF wn A OD OG DON DOD TO BF WHY = OO

© @©@N OO KR wWHD

justification, the Defendant officers immediately grabbed Plaintiff Wright-Turbin. In a move
of desparation, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin lifted up her pant leg and told the Defendant officers
that she recently had a knee replacement. Even still, without regard for Plaintiff Wright-
Turbin’s condition, the Defendant officers forcefully removed Plaintiff Wright-Turbin from

her apartment.

The Defendant officers proceeded to throw Plaintiff Wright-Turbin down the steps
that led to her apartment, injuring her surgically replaced knee in the process. The
Defendants then dragged Plaintiff Gupton out of the apartment and threw him down the

stairs. The Defendant Officers handcuffed both Plaintiff Wright-Turbin and Plaintiff Gupton.

During the course of the incident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin pleaded with the defendant
officers. Plaintiff Wright-Turbin told the officers that they had the wrong apartment. In
response, the seargeant on the scene said, “so what?” and “take it up with the people up

front.”

The search warrant listed 2230 84th Avenue, Apt. A Oakland, CA, 94605 as the
addressed to be searched. The address listed was Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s address,

however, the officers were looking for suspected drug dealer, Walter Ozell Cooper. Mr.

.| Cooper did not live at the listed address, nor did he have any connection to Plaintiffs

Wright-Turbin or Gupton.

On information and belief, the search warrant was issued as the consequence of
Defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable care in the investigation and presentation of

accurate statements that were essential to the finding of probable cause for the warrant.

-3-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 16-cv-07393-CW