Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Jay A. Zweig (011153) Melissa R. Berren (020993) 2 GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 3 (602) 530-8407 4 Attorneys for Defendants 5 6 7 8
! " # $ % &' ) * # &" # # #

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Matthew Shaffer, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV-03-2344-PHX-FJM DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ADDITIONAL FORM OF VERDICT

9 10

State of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections 11 Commission; Colleen Connor and Chad Jacobs, husband and wife; and Jessica 12 Funkhouser and Lindy Funkhouser, husband and wife; John Does I-X; 13 Jane Does I-X, 14 15 16 Defendants submit their proposed Form of Verdict related to Count IV, Plaintiff's Defendants.

(% #

17 First Amendment claim. 18 19 20 21 22
Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 90 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 4

/// /// ///

1 2 3 4 5 6

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of September, 2005. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. By s/Jay A. Zweig________________ Jay A. Zweig Melissa R. Berren 2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 Attorneys for Defendants

7 COPY of the foregoing electronically transmitted via the U.S. District Court 8 Electronic Case Filing system this 9th day of September, 2005 to: 9 Richard J. Harris, Esq. 10 Richard J. Harris Law Offices, P.C. 4445 E. Holmes Avenue, Suite 106 11 Mesa, Arizona 85206-3398 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 12 David C. Larkin, Esq. 13 David C. Larkin, P.C. 4645 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite 6 14 Tempe, Arizona 85282-3747 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 15 s/Dawn Sylvester_________ 568-0140/1297221 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 90

2Filed 09/09/2005

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3

COUNT VI: FIRST AMENDMENT (Answer the question on this form regardless of whether you found for the plaintiff Matthew Shaffer or defendant Colleen Connor on plaintiff's claim for a violation of his First Amendment right.)

Do you, the jury, find that one or more of the following factors was an element of 4 plaintiff Matthew Shaffer's job as Deputy Director of the CCEC: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 90

· As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had broad responsibilities · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had high relative pay · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff was required to have technical competence · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had power to control others · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff's had the authority to speak in the names of policymakers · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff's job involved public perception · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had the ability to influence programs · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had contact with elected officials · As Deputy Director, the plaintiff had the duty to be responsive to partisan politics and political leaders. ____ Yes ____ No (1) (2)

Printed Name Printed Name

Signature Signature

3Filed 09/09/2005

Page 3 of 4

1 (3) 2 3 4 (5) 5 6 7 (7) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (8) (6) (4)

Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name

Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature FOREPERSON

Source: Biggs v. Best, Best & Krieger, 189 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM

Document 90

4Filed 09/09/2005

Page 4 of 4