Jejjiey D. Hill v. New Castle County, et al.
C. A. No. 07-228 (GMS) _
Plaintiff s Answering Brief In Opposition Of Defend2u1ts’ Motion For Summary Judgment
4 · sQ7*i**Ce§g?¢;~L§#6p§ée;g?i£%;‘§§§e3£*nr Bwéiiéé L?l‘}§26§£ Egge ; O}; 1 y
`Txsi PU -= —-· `
Mounted Unit Statistics y
October thru December 2004-:_ l
4 Hill 32 gontacfg `<—¤~<;s,uee’rg eewe. -¤.>ec—w¤¤\ went? wr
Hoff C.C>l`¤€u’TEQ.¤Lq=_[) "T\\E_t?_'E;_€g;(!jE ’T\-\§E\‘ WESLE UC"
Guyton 80 %eV6¤>.
Brown 79 -
Weekend days worked: 4 H e
Hill 1
Hoff 5
Guyton 3 .
Henasey 5
Brown 5 0 _ ‘
J enuary thru April 2005:
_ . wllial-Kill UPN ‘
Hill 24 contacts y $6%*% M°¤Z’~.xL= W3 `Cdm 9** -
_ Hoff 98
4 Guyton 27
i Henasey 59
Brown 43 e 7
e Weekend days worked: `
Hill 3
Hoif 4 _
Guyton - 2 G 7
. Henasey 4 i
_ Brown 4 . .
Excl
Case 1 ‘07—cv—00228-G0I\/IS Document 59 Filed 07/29/2008 PGQQ 3 Of 3
May thru August 2005:
Hill 63 contacts M7 "'“‘-· Z TL
, HoH` 165
Guyton 1 13
Henasey 157 H · »_
Brown 96
y Weekend days worked: y _
Hill 1
Hoff 2 9 ` `
Guyton 3 ` _ .
Henasy 1 I 6
Brown 4 2 _
6 5 eeeeasz l