Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00956-GIVIS Document 185 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
B. KURT PRICE, WAYNE WARREN, )
AND CHRISTOPHER D. FORAKER, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. 04-956 (GMS)
L. AARON CHAFFINCH, ) C.A. N0. 04-1207 (GMS)
THOMAS F. MACLEISH, )
DAVID B. MITCHELL, AND DIVISION )
OF STATE POLICE, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
WHEREAS after further review ofthe court’s upcoming calendar and docket, the need exists
to revise the tentative scope and due dates of the parties’ post—trial briefing discussed at the
teleconference of June 1, 2006;
WHEREAS the court will direct the defendants to submit an opening brief on June 19, 2006,
the plaintiffs to submit an answering brief on July 7, 2006, and the defendants to submit a reply brief
on July 14, 2006;
WHEREAS the court further directs the parties to address all issues in this single round of
briefing;
WHEREAS the court also directs the parties to address the question of whether plaintiff
Foraker’s Petition Clause claim arising from his successful 2002 lawsuit is immune under San
F ilzppo v. Bongiovanni, from the "public concem" requirement in light of the fact that his 2002
lawsuit was a petition to the Federal Government and the retaliation was carried out by officers of
the State Government, 30 F.3d 424, 442 (3d Cir. 1994) (noting that "it would seem to undermine the
Constitution’s vital purposes to hold that one who in good faith files an arguably meritorious
‘petition’ invoking th[e] mechanism [for redress of those grievances for which government is
allegedly accountable] may be disciplined for such invocation by the very government that in
compliance with the petition clause has given the particular mechanism its constitutional
imprimatur") (emphasis added); and
WHEREAS after the trial transcript is completed and released, the parties will each be
permitted to file a short memorandum supplementing their previously-submitted briefs and
highlighting any material differences between the evidence contained in the summary judgment
record and the evidence adduced at trial.

Case 1 :04-cv—00956-GIVIS Document 185 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The parties COMPLY with the briefing schedule in the manner described above.
Dated: June 5, 2006 x
UNT D ST ES DISTRIC TDGE
2