Free Lodged Proposed Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7854 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants, Robert M. Gregory LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY 1930 South Alma School Road Suite A-115 Mesa, AZ 85210 Telephone: 480-839-4711 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Robert Gant and Betty Gant, Husband and Wife UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Robert Gant and Betty Gant, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Roger Vanderpool, Sheriff of Pinal County; Pinal County, a political subdivision; John Does and Janes Does I-X; ABC Corporations I-X; and XYZ Partnerships I-X, Defendants. PROPOSED PRE-TRIAL FORM OF ORDER NO. CV 03-2077-PHX-EHC

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the following is the Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order to be considered at the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 5, 2006.

1639648.1

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 1 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

A.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. Plaintiff(s): Robert Gregory LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY, P.C. 1930 South Alma School Road Suite A-115 Mesa, AZ 85210 Phone: 480-839-4711 Fax: 480-452-1753

Defendant(s): Georgia A. Staton JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602-263-1752 Fax: 602-200-7854

B.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 29

U.S.C. § 626. The parties do not dispute jurisdiction. C. NATURE OF ACTION. Plaintiff claims he was subjected to race, age and hostile work environment discrimination, as well as retaliation by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. He alleges that he should have been promoted to Lieutenant in June 2001 and to Sergeant in 2004. He has sued both the County and Pinal County Sheriff, Roger Vanderpool. He alleges claims for violations of Title VII, the ADEA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligent supervision. Defendants deny discriminating or retaliating against Plaintiff in any way. Pinal County and Sheriff Vanderpool contend that Plaintiff was not promoted to Lieutenant in June 2001 because others were more qualified. He was not promoted to Sergeant in 2004 because he refused to take the re-test of the examination required of all applicants.

2

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 2 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Defendants further deny that Plaintiff was subjected to age or race discrimination and that all employment decisions were based on lawful reasons. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff was retaliated against or subjected to a hostile work environment. D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES.

Plaintiff: Count One ­ Age Discrimination A. The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; the plaintiff was 40 years of age or older at the time of the adverse employment action; and The plaintiff's age was a motivating factor in the Defendant's failure to promote the plaintiff.

3.

29 U.S.C. § 623; Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); 9th Cir. Civ. Jury Instructions (2001), 14.2, revised March 2002. B. If Plaintiff established those elements, the burden of production, but

not persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the alleged action. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). If the County does so, then Plaintiff must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. Bodett v. Cox Com, 366 F.3d 736, 743 (9th Cir. 2004).

3

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 3 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Count Two ­ Race Discrimination A. The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. 3. 4. he belongs to a protected class; he was performing the job satisfactorily; he suffered an adverse employment action; and other employees with the same qualifications were treated more favorably.

See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2004); see also McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). B. If Plaintiff established those elements, the burden of production, but

not persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the alleged action. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). If the County does so, then Plaintiff must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. Bodett v. Cox Com, 366 F.3d 736, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). Retaliation A. The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. 3. he engaged in a protected activity; he suffered an adverse employment action, and there is a causal link between the two.

Hernandez v. Spacelabs Medical, Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 4 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

B.

If Plaintiff established those elements, the burden of production, but

not persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the alleged action. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). If the County does so, then Plaintiff must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. Bodett v. Cox Com, 366 F.3d 736, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). Count Three ­ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim A. The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The County had an official policy, custom or practice that caused a deprivation of his Constitutional rights, privileges or entitlements; and The policy was the "moving force" behind the Constitutional violation.

2.

Monell v. Department of Social Srvcs., 769 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.3d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Count Four ­ Title VII Hostile Work Environment A. In order to establish a racially hostile work environment, the plaintiff

must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. the plaintiff was subjected to slurs, insults, or intimidation of a racial nature, or was denied promotion in rank due to plaintiff's race; the conduct was unwelcome; the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment; the plaintiff perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile; and

2. 3.

4.

5

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 5 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

5.

a reasonable man in the plaintiff's circumstances would consider the working environment to be abusive or hostile.

Fuller v. City of Oakland, California, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995). B. Whether the environment constituted a racially hostile work

environment is determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the harassing conduct, the severity of the conduct, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee's work performance. 9th CIR. CIV. JURY INSTR. (2001), 12.2A; Fuller v. City of Oakland, California, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir.1995); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). Count Six ­ Negligent Supervision A. Plaintiff must prove that (1) Defendant Roger Vanderpool's conduct

was tortious or violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights; (2) the Board of Supervisors knew or should have known that Defendant Roger Vanderpool would act in a way that would violate Plaintiff's rights; (3) the Board of Supervisors had a duty to supervisor Sheriff Vanderpool; (4) the Board of Supervisors failed to adequately supervise Roger Vanderpool; and (5) the failure to supervise caused Plaintiff's injury. Human Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 396, 742 P.2d 1382 (App. 1987). Defendant: Count One - Age Discrimination 1. Plaintiff must prove that he filed a claim with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission on a timely basis, i.e., within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 622 F.2d 584, 586, 591 (9th Cir. 1981).

6

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 6 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

2.

Plaintiff must prove that he filed this lawsuit timely, i.e., within 90

days of his receipt of a Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 626(e); National R. R.

Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). 3. To show that the County violated the ADEA, Plaintiff must prove by

a preponderance of evidence that: (1) (2) (3) He suffered an adverse employment action, He was over 40 years of age at the time he suffered the adverse employment action, and His age was the motivating factor in Pinal County's decisions to cause the adverse employment action; in other words, Pinal County would not have made the same decisions but for the plaintiff's age.

29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; Coleman v. Quaker Oats, 232 F.3d 1271, 1281 (9th Cir. 2000); 9th Cir. Civ. Jury Instructions (2001), 14.2, revised March 2002. 4. If Plaintiff establishes those elements, the burden of production, but

not of persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the alleged action. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). If the County does so, then Plaintiff must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. Bodett v. Cox Com, 366 F.3d 736, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). Count Two - Race Discrimination 1. Plaintiff must prove that he filed a claim with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission on a timely basis, i.e., within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 622 F.2d 584, 586, 591 (9th Cir. 1981). 2. Plaintiff must prove that he filed this lawsuit timely, i.e., within 90

days of his receipt of a Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity

7

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 7 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Commission. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). 3. prove that: (1) (2) (3) (4) he belongs to a protected class; he was qualified for his position or performing the job satisfactorily he was subject to an adverse employment action; and similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Plaintiff must

Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2004); McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). 4. If Plaintiff establishes those elements, the burden of production, but

not of persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the alleged action. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). If the County does so, then Plaintiff must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. Bodett v. Cox Com, 366 F.3d 736, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). Retaliation Plaintiff also claims that Pinal County retaliated against him for filing complaints alleging race discrimination. 1. As with the age and race discrimination claims, Plaintiff must show

that he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the date the cause of action accrued. He must also show that he filed this lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; National R. R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002); Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 622 F.2d 584, 586, 591 (9th Cir. 1981).

1639648.1

8

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 8 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

2. show:

The elements of a prima facie case of retaliation require that Plaintiff

(1) (2) (3)

he engaged in protected activity; he suffered an adverse employment action; and, a causal link between the two.

Hernandez v. Sparelabs Medical, Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. As with claims of race discrimination, if Plaintiff established a prima

facie case of retaliation the burden of production, but not of persuasion, shifts to the County to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its decision. Ray v.

Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2000). If the County articulates such a reason, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the reason was merely a pretext for a discriminatory motive. Id. Count Three - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim 1. If Plaintiff fails to establish intentional discrimination under Title VII

or the ADEA, he cannot establish intentional discrimination under Section 1983. SischoNownejad v. Merced Comm'ty College, 934 F.2d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991); Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1180 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1998). 2. If Plaintiff establishes intentional discrimination, he still must prove

the following to establish his claim under Section 1983: (1) The County had an official policy, custom or practice that caused a deprivation of his Constitutional rights, privileges or entitlements; and

(2) The policy was the "moving force" behind the Constitutional violation. Monell v. Department of Social Srvcs., 769 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.3d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 9 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Count Four - Title VII Hostile Work Environment 1. In order to make a prima facie case of hostile work environment, the

Plaintiff must prove that: a. the plaintiff was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature; b. the conduct was unwelcome; c. the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment; d. the plaintiff perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile; and e. a reasonable man in the plaintiff's circumstances would consider the working environment to be abusive or hostile. Fuller v. City of Oakland, California, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir.1995). 2. Whether the alleged discriminatory conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment is determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the harassing conduct, the severity of the conduct, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee's work performance. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); Fuller v. City of Oakland, California, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir.1995). 3. Time-barred, discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 (2002). Count Five - Arizona Civil Rights Act A.R.S. § 41-1401 et seq. Although this claim remains in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the Court granted Summary Judgment as to this count.

10

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 10 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Office.
1639648.1

Count Six - Negligent Supervision 1. In order to properly make a state based claim either by statute or by

common law, Plaintiff was required to file a notice of claim within 180 days of the date the cause of action accrued. See A.R.S. § 12-821.01. Plaintiff was also required to serve his Notice of Claim before he filed this lawsuit. Arizona Dep't. of Revenue, 200 Ariz. 515, 520 (2001); Andress v. City of Chandler, 198 Ariz. 112, 114 (App. 2000). 2. Plaintiff must prove that: (a) Defendant Roger Vanderpool's conduct was tortious or violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights; (b) the Board of Supervisors knew or should have known that Defendant Roger Vanderpool would act in a way that would violate Plaintiff's rights; (c) the Board of Supervisors had a duty to supervise Sheriff Vanderpool; (d) the Board of Supervisors, armed with that actual or constructive knowledge, failed to adequately supervise Defendant Roger Vanderpool; and, (e) the failure to supervise caused Plaintiff injury.

Humana Hosp. Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 396, 742 P.2d 1382 (App. 1987); Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc., 131 Ariz. 163, 639 P.2d 353 (App. 1981). Count Seven - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Although this claim remains in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the Court granted Summary Judgment as to this count. E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS. 1. In 2001 Plaintiff was a Sergeant for the Pinal County Sheriff's

11

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 11 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 age. race. F.

2. 3. 4.

In June 2001, Plaintiff sought promotion to Lieutenant. Plaintiff was not promoted to Lieutenant in June 2001. Plaintiff was terminated from the Pinal County Sheriff's

Office on February 8, 2002, for his actions on Thanksgiving Day 2001. 5. On August 9, 2002, Plaintiff entered into a Settlement

Agreement with the County and was reinstated with the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, but demoted to the rank of Corporal. 6. for promotion to Sergeant. 7. On March 22, 2004, Defendant notified all applicants that the On March 16, 2004, Plaintiff took the examination required

examination would need to be re-administered. 8. On April 8, 2004, Plaintiff refused to retake the test.

CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW. 1. Whether Plaintiff properly and timely filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the EEOC as to each of the claims asserted which require this predicate act to filing this lawsuit. 2. under A.R.S. § 12-821.01. 3. Whether Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of Whether Plaintiff properly and timely filed a Notice of Claim

4.

Whether Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of

5. 6. 7.

Whether the acts of Defendants were intentional. Whether the Defendants acted under color of state law. Whether the acts of Defendants caused the deprivation of

Plaintiff's Constitutional or federally protected rights.
1639648.1

12

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 12 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 amount. environment.

8. solely because of his race. 9. solely because of his age. 10. 11.

Whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action

Whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action

Whether Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. Whether Pinal County subjected Plaintiff to an adverse

employment action as a result of his engaging in a protected activity. 12. Whether Plaintiff's protected activity was a substantial or

motivating factor in the adverse employment action. 13. Whether Plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile work

14.

Whether Plaintiff was subjected to severe and pervasive

racially hostile conduct by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office during the relevant time period of Plaintiff's Complaint. 15. Whether a County Board of Supervisors in the State of

Arizona has a duty to supervise a Sheriff. 16. Whether Pinal County Board of Supervisors negligently

supervised Sheriff Vanderpool. 17. Whether the actions of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors

were a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 18. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages and, if so, in what

19.

Whether the Settlement Agreement reached in August 2002 is

a full and complete release of the County and Sheriff Vanderpool as to Plaintiff's termination in February 2002 and work assignments after reinstatement in August of 2002.
1639648.1

13

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 13 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 1.

20.

Whether Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is barred

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.04 for all state-based claims and as to any request against Pinal County or Sheriff Vanderpool acting in his official capacity pursuant to City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 101 S.Ct. 2748 (1981), and Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983). G. LIST OF WITNESSES. Plaintiffs: Robert Gant Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Defendant _____

Fact Witness Plaintiff Robert Gant is expected to testify regarding any information or knowledge he may have to support the allegations contained in the Complaint filed in this matter. 2. John Akram Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Defendant _______

Fact Witness John Akram is a human resource assistant in the Pinal County. Mr. Akram will be called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office, and
1639648.1

14

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 14 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

personal knowledge of the testing and promotional policies and procedures used by the County and the Sheriff's Office. 3. Allen Miles Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called X Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Allen Miles is employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Miles will be

10 called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's 11 work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's 12 13 14 15 16 17 __X____ Shall Be Called 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Office, about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office, and personal knowledge of testing and promotion policies and procedures used by the County and the Sheriff's Office. 4. Phil LeBlanc Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called Unlikely to Be Called

Listed by:

Plaintiff

X

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Phil LeBlanc is a deputy in the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Mr. LeBlanc will testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, and about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office.

15

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 15 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

5.

Paul Martinez Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800

______ Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff X

X

May Be Called

Unlikely to Be Called

Defendant _______ Mr.

Fact Witness Paul Martinez is a former deputy in the Pinal County Sheriff's Office.

Martinez will be called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, and about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office. 6. Sylvia Shaffer Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 X X May Be Called Unlikely to Be Called

______ Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Sylvia Shaffer is employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Ms. Shaffer will be called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, and about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office. 7. Shelly Sparlock Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800

16

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 16 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

_____ Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff X

X

May Be Called

Unlikely to Be Called

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Shelly Sparlock is employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Ms. Sparlock will testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, and about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office. 8. Lupe Ibarra Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Lupe Ibarra is a deputy in the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Ms. Ibarra will be called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the Sheriff's Office, about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office, complaints she has personally filed against the Sheriff's Office, and personal knowledge of discriminatory practices by Hal Campbell and other persons employed by the Sheriff's Office. 9. Angelo Gonzales Pinal County Sheriff's Office 31 N. Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 PH: (520) 866-6800 May Be Called Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called X

Listed by: Plaintiff Fact Witness

1639648.1

17

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 17 of 39

1 2 3 4

Angelo Gonzales is employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Gonzales will be called upon to testify regarding general work conditions that were present in Plaintiff's work area, personal knowledge of complaints brought by Plaintiff against the

5 Sheriff's Office, about disciplinary actions brought against Plaintiff by the Sheriff's Office, 6 complaints he has personally filed against the Sheriff's Office, and personal knowledge of 7 discriminatory practices by Hal Campbell and other persons employed by the Sheriff's 8 Office. 9 10. Jay M. Finkelman, Ph.D. 10 Alliant International University 1000 S. Fremont Avenue, Unit 5 11 Alhambra, CA 91803 12 (626) 284-2777 13 X Shall Be Called May Be Called Unlikely to Be Called 14 Listed by: Plaintiff X Defendant ____ 15 Expert Witness 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Dr. Finkelman is a professor of human resources at Alliant International University. Dr. Finkelman will testify as an expert witness regarding Defendant's human resource policies and procedures, the application of those policies and procedures by Defendants and other employees of Defendants, and whether or not, in his professional opinion, Defendants complied with their own policies and procedures and what is customary and acceptable in the human resource management community, including whether Defendants' use and implementation of an assessment center was done in compliance with standard human resource policies, Defendants' own policies and procedures, or in a way that was violative of Plaintiff's rights.

18

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 18 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

11.

Robert Grosse Thunderbird Graduate School of Management 15249 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85306 (480) 216-2906 May Be Called Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called X

Listed by: Plaintiff Expert Witness

Robert Grosse is a professor at Thunderbird Graduate School of Management. Prof. Grosse will testify as an expert witness regarding the economic loss suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants failure to promote Plaintiff Robert Gant. 12. Michael Arnold Pinal County Human Resources Department Administration Building A 31 North Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff X

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Mike Arnold is the Pinal County Human Resources Director. Mr. Arnold will testify regarding his knowledge of Robert Gant=s history of employment with the Pinal County Sheriff=s Department and Gant=s right to take certain promotional tests. He will also testify as to the promotional tests given, the format used, and the results. 13. Sergeant Doug Brown P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

X Listed by:

Shall Be Called Plaintiff X

Fact Witness

19

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 19 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Doug Brown is a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Brown will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant=s employment with the Pinal County Sheriff=s Department. He will also testify consistent with the facts and findings as set forth in investigation 2001-50. 14. Harold "Hal" Campbell 63942 E. Whispering Tree Lane Saddlebrooke AZ 85739 X X May Be Called Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Harold Campbell is the former Pinal County Sheriff's Chief Deputy. Mr. Campbell will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Robert Gant=s employment with the Pinal County Sheriff=s Department. He will also testify regarding his knowledge of investigation 2001-50. 15. Karla Royal P.O. Box 1387 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff X

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Karla Royal works in the Pinal County Human Resources Department. She will testify to her knowledge of Plaintiff=s employment. She will also testify regarding the promotional processes, including examinations taken by Plaintiff. Karla Royal is also a secretary to the Pinal County Merit System Commission. She will testify regarding her knowledge of the Pinal County Merit System Commission Meeting on July 30, 2002. 16. Diane Varela Arizona Attorney General Office Florence, AZ 85232

20

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 20 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff X

X

May Be Called

Unlikely to Be Called

Defendant _______

Fact Witness Ms. Varela is employed by the Arizona Attorney General. She will be called upon to testify regarding her investigation into allegations of discrimination at the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, including interviews she conducted, and her findings. 17. Kaye Dickson P.O. Box 1387 Florence, AZ 85232 X X May Be Called Defendant _______ Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Kaye Dickson is employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. She will testify to her knowledge of Plaintiff=s employment and interactions she had with Plaintiff. Defendants: 1. Michael Arnold Pinal County Human Resources Department Administration Building A 31 North Pinal Street Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Mike Arnold is the Pinal County Human Resources Director. Mr. Arnold will testify regarding his knowledge of Robert Gant's history of employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department and Gant's right to take certain promotional tests. He will also testify as to the promotional tests given, the format used, and the results.

21

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 21 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

2.

Sergeant Doug Brown P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Doug Brown is a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Brown will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. He will also testify consistent with the facts and findings as set forth in investigation 2001-50. 3. Harold "Hal" Campbell 63942 E. Whispering Tree Lane Saddlebrooke AZ 85739 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Harold Campbell is the former Pinal County Sheriff's Chief Deputy. Mr.

Campbell will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Robert Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. He will also testify regarding his knowledge of investigation 2001-50. 4. Lisa Clapp 3120 W. Carefree Highway #1-150 Phoenix, AZ 85086 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Expert Witness Ms. Clapp performed a labor market survey assessing employment opportunities for someone with Plaintiff's background, all in accordance with her report.

22

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 22 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

5.

Lieutenant George DeGon P.O. Box 2473 Arizona City, AZ 85223 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness George DeGon was a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. He will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Robert Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department including but not limited to Gant's assignments, personnel performance appraisals and discipline record. He is also expected to testify consistent with his statements in

investigation 2001-50. 6. Sergeant Kaye Dickson P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Kaye Dickson is a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Dickson will testify regarding her interactions with Robert Gant and her knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. 7. Richard Fincher Workplace Resolutions LLC 3420 East Shea Blvd, Suite 243 Phoenix, AZ 85028 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Expert Witness

23

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 23 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

Richard Fincher is an expert in the area of human resources. He will testify that the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and Pinal County acted in accordance with generally accepted human resource guidelines in taking the various actions it did as it relates to Plaintiff in making its decision regarding promotion, all as set forth in his report. 8. Robert Gant c/o Robert M. Gregory, Esq. 2737 West Southern Avenue, Suite 8 Tempe, AZ 85282 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Plaintiff Robert Gant is expected to testify regarding any information or knowledge he may have to support the allegations contained in the Complaint filed in this matter. 9. Commander Dave Jordan P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Dave Jordan is a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. Commander Jordan will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department, including but not limited to Gant's grievances and complaints, his assignments, and his discipline record. He will also testify to the promotional process in the department and

all facts relating to the 2004 sergeant's promotional exam.

24

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 24 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

10.

Commander Jeffery Karns P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Jeffery Karns is a law enforcement officer employed by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department. Commander Karns will testify regarding the leave policies followed during the Reyes administration. He will also testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department, including but not limited to Gant's grievances and complaints, his assignments, and his discipline record. He will also testify to the promotional process in the department and

the process used in the 2001 lieutenant's promotion. 11. Sgt. Philip LaBlanc Pinal County Sheriff's Office P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Philip LaBlanc will testify as to his interaction with the plaintiff in the workplace and, specifically, plaintiff's habits of taking time off from work that was not authorized 12. Chief Deputy Jerry Monahan Pinal County Sheriff's Office P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness

25

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 25 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X

Jerry Monahan will testify as to his interaction with plaintiff in the workplace and his habit of taking time off from work that was not authorized. 13. Commander Dave Neuman Chandler Police Department Mail Stop 303 P.O. Box 4008 Chandler, Arizona 85244 X May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Fact Witness Dave Neuman will testify with his investigation into allegations made by Deputy Gonzales all as is reflected in IA Investigation 2001-44. 14. Richard Platt, Chief Criminal Deputy Pinal County Attorney's Office P. O. Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Richard Platt, Pinal County Deputy attorney, will testify regarding discussions he had with Sheriff Roger Vanderpool regarding the advisability of assigning Robert Gant to criminal investigation duties in light of the nature of his demotion. He will further testify he made it known to Sheriff Vanderpool that, as a prosecutor, the Pinal County Attorney's Office would have an obligation to disclose to criminal defense counsel in any case investigated by Gant the discipline (demotion) he received and the basis for such demotion. Disclosure would be required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 15. Autumn Rand Tom Ezell & Associates May Be Called Defendant
26

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Unlikely to Be Called

Listed by:
1639648.1

X

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 26 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Fact Witness Autumn Rand is employed by Tom Ezell & Associates. Ms. Rand will testify regarding her observations of Robert Gant and the facts and findings of the polygraph examination she conducted on Robert Gant. She will also testify consistent with her testimony during Robert Gant's appeal hearing. 16. Commander Ray Roerdink CIB Unit Pinal County Sheriff's Office P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Defendant

Fact Witness Ray Roerdink will testify as to his interactions with plaintiff in the workplace and plaintiff's habit of taking time off from work that was not authorized. 17. Karla Royal P.O. Box 1387 Florence, AZ 85232 X May Be Called X Unlikely to Be Called

Shall Be Called Listed by: Plaintiff

Defendant

Fact Witness Karla Royal works in the Pinal County Human Resources Department. She will testify to her knowledge of Plaintiff's employment. She will also testify regarding the promotional processes. Karla Royal is also a secretary to the Pinal County Merit System Commission. She will testify regarding her knowledge of the Pinal County Merit System Commission Meeting on July 30, 2002. 18. Roger Vanderpool P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232

1639648.1

27

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 27 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

May Be Called Defendant X

Unlikely to Be Called

Listed by:

Fact Witness Roger Vanderpool was the Pinal County Sheriff during all applicable times. Sheriff Vanderpool will testify regarding his interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department, including but not limited to the grievances filed by Gant and the investigations into Gant's conduct. Sheriff Vanderpool will also testify that Plaintiff was assigned to a position in the Community Services Region and given the duty to serve civil process. This assignment was made in order to not jeopardize criminal prosecutions. Sheriff Vanderpool will also testify as the promotional process used by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and specifically discuss the implementation of the Assessment Center in 2001. 19. Sheriff Chris Vasquez f/n/a Chief Deputy Chris Vasquez P.O. Box 867 Florence, AZ 85232 May Be Called Defendant X Unlikely to Be Called

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

Listed by:

Fact Witness Chris Vasquez is the current Pinal County Sheriff. At all relevant times he was either a Commander or Chief Deputy. Sheriff Vasquez will testify regarding his

interactions with Robert Gant and his knowledge of Gant's employment with the Pinal County Sheriff's Department, including but not limited to Gant's grievances and complaints, his assignments, and his discipline record. He will also testify regarding his knowledge of investigation 2001-50. 20. Sam Weiss 8470 North Overfield Drive Coolidge, AZ 85228

1639648.1

28

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 28 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

X

Shall Be Called Plaintiff

May Be Called Defendant X

Unlikely to Be Called

Listed by:

Fact Witness Mr. Weiss is the Director of CARLOTA and was retained to establish the Assessment Center which was used in June 2001 to evaluate candidates for the position of lieutenant. He will testify as to the process used and Plaintiff's conduct at the Assessment Center. H. LIST OF EXHIBITS.

Plaintiff's Exhibits and Defendants' Objections thereto: No. 1.
2. 3.

Date

Description
Pinal County Uniform Merit Rules Pinal County Policies, Procedures and Rules Deposition of Harold M. "Hal" Campbell

Bates
PC001642 PC001656

Defendants' Objections

Relevance Hearsay, relevance; form; foundation ­ Plaintiff has listed an entire deposition as an exhibit. It is impossible to identify specific objections; depositions are not properly listed as exhibits. Hearsay, relevance; form; foundation ­ Plaintiff has listed an entire deposition as an exhibit. It is impossible to identify specific objections; depositions are not properly listed as exhibits.

4.

Deposition of Roger Vanderpool

1639648.1

29

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 29 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No.
5.

Date

Description
Deposition of John Akram

Bates

Defendants' Objections
Hearsay, relevance; form; foundation ­ Plaintiff has listed an entire deposition as an exhibit. It is impossible to identify specific objections; depositions are not properly listed as exhibits. Hearsay, relevance; form; foundation ­ Plaintiff has listed an entire deposition as an exhibit. It is impossible to identify specific objections; depositions are not properly listed as exhibits.

6.

Deposition of Richard T. Platt

7. 8.

Internal Affairs Bureau Case #2001-44 Internal Affairs Bureau Case #2001-50

PC001491 PC001590

Hearsay, foundation Designation is misstated. Ex. 8 is a conglomeration of documents many of which are unrelated to IA #2001-50. The exhibit contains hearsay, lacks foundation and is irrelevant. Furthermore, many documents not previously disclosed by Plaintiff. Hearsay, foundation. Hearsay, foundation.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Report of Dr. Robert E. Grosse Report of Jay M. Finkelman, Ph.D. Report of Richard D. Fincher Report of Lisa A. Clapp Charge of Discrimination, Charge No. 350A201162 PC001684 PC001693 PC001657 PC001683

Hearsay

1639648.1

30

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 30 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No.
14. 15. 16. 17.

Date

Description
Letter from Roger Vanderpool to Robert Gant dated 6/18/01 Letter from Robert Gant to Michael S. Arnold dated 8/27/01 Letter from Michael S. Arnold to Cpl. Robert Gant dated 11/12/02 Letter (4 pages) from Allen Miles

Bates

Defendants' Objections

Hearsay

Hearsay, foundation, Plaintiff failed to disclose pursuant to Rule 26. PC000952 PC000953

18. 19.

Memorandum from Chris Vasquez dated 4/10/01

Pinal County Classification PC000211 Specification Sergeant, Class Code PC000212 0832 Classification Specification Lieutenant, Class Code 0833 Pinal County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Assessment Center Assessment Center Confidential Memorandum Pinal County Lieutenant Employment Opportunity Announcement No. 0833 Settlement Agreement dated 8/9/02 Letter from Doug Brown to Roger Vanderpool dated 5/8/02 Letter from Allen C. Miles to Andrew Williams Hearsay, foundation, relevance Hearsay, foundation, relevance, Plaintiff failed to disclose pursuant to Rule 26 Hearsay, foundation, relevance PC000213 PC000214 PC000995 PC001008 PC001374PC001378

20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

Letter from Lupe Ibarra to Michael PC000269 Arnold dated 8/30/01 PC000270 Letter from Roger Vanderpool to Hal Campbell dated 11/28/01

1639648.1

31

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 31 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No.
29. 30. 31. 32.

Date

Description
Email from Lori Schaum to Karla Royal dated 2/28/01 Email from Chris Vasquez to Sheriff dated 1/14/03 Email from Hal Campbell to Sheriff dated 9/27/01 Memorandum from Roger Vanderpool to All Personnel dated 01/02/01 Charge of Discrimination, Charge No. 350-2004-03883 Pinal County Sergeant Employment Opportunity, Announcement No. 0832 Sergeant Testing Applicant List Email from Lori Schaum to Dave Jordan dated 2/13/04 Email from Karla Royal to Lori Schaum dated 3/2/04 Email from Lori Schaum to Dave Jordan dated 3/3/04 Email from John Akram to Lori Schaum dated 3/3/04 Email from Lori Schaum to applicants dated 3/4/04 Email from Karla Royal to Dave Jordan dated 3/16/04 Email from Dave Jordan to applicants dated 3/16/04 Email from Dave Jordan to applicants dated 3/22/04 Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions

Bates
PC000993

Defendants' Objections
Relevance, hearsay

PC000419 PC000397

33. 34.

Hearsay PC001340

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

PC001354 PC001355 PC001357 PC001358 PC001360 PC001362 PC001364 PC001370 PC001371 Relevance. Form objection to requests stated.

1639648.1

32

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 32 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No.
45.

Date

Description
Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents

Bates

Defendants' Objections

Defendants' Exhibits1 and Plaintiffs' Objections thereto No. 101 102 103 Date Description Bates Numbers PC000374 PC000373 PC000372 PC000371 PC000150PC000151; PC000153PC000155 PC000152 FRE 401, 403 Plaintiff's Objections FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403

05/26/89 Performance Improvement Recommendation. 02/11/94 Performance Improvement Recommendation. 07/13/00 Memo from J.B. Sharff to Sgt. Gant. 11/18/00 Performance Improvement Recommendation. emails 12/04/00 Employee Grievance and th dated December 1st and 6 2000.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1

104 105

106

12/21/00 Memo from Capt. Martinez to Sheriff Eck, Sgt. Gant, and Lt. DeGon. 11/29/01 Pinal County job description for Corporal. 11/13/01 Classification Specification for Sergeant. 05/08/01 Classification Specification for Lieutenant. 11/18/01 Employee Time Accounting Summary. 11/18/01 Pinal County Duty Roster. 11/22/01 Radio Log Summary Report.

107 108 109 110 111 112

PC000209PC000210 PC000211PC000212 PC000213PC000214 PC000301 PC000303 PC000305346 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403

26

By listing an exhibit Defendants do not stipulate to the admission of said exhibit since such exhibit may be sued for the purpose of refreshing memory or other purposes.
33

1639648.1

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 33 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No. 113 114 115

Date

Description

Bates Numbers PC000394PC000396 PC000302 PC000491PC000493; PC000495PC000614 PC001470PC001490 PC000377393 PC000347 PC000123125 PC000117PC000119 PC000130132

Plaintiff's Objections FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403

11/22/01 Radio Log Tables. 12/12/01 Memo from Sgt. Gant to Lt. DeGon. 12/13/01 Pinal County Internal Affairs Investigation 2001-50.

116

12/21/01 Corrected transcript of December 21, 2001, interview of Robert Gant. 12/27/01 Transcript of the December 27, 2001, interview of Lt. George DeGon. 01/16/02 Memorandum from Douglas Brown to Hal Campbell. 02/05/02 Notice of Intent to Take Disciplinary Action and Statement of Charges. 02/08/02 Order for Disciplinary Action and Notice of Intent to Take Administrative Action. 02/21/02 Notice of Charge of Discrimination and Charge of Discrimination 350A201162.

FRE 401, 403

117

FRE 401, 403

118 119

FRE 401, 403

120

FRE 401, 403

121

122

Gant Dep. 03/12/02 Letter from Berta Echeveste to Robert Gant regarding dismissal of Ex. # 7 charge 350A201162. 06/13/02 Notice of Right to Sue. 08/09/02 Settlement Agreement and Statement of Charges. Gant Dep. Ex. # 8 PC000103PC000106; PC000128PC000129 Gant Dep. Ex. # 10 FRE 401, 403

123 124

125

03/23/04 Dismissal Order in CV 200200638.

FRE 401, 403

1639648.1

34

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 34 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No. 126

Date

Description

Bates Numbers PC000616PC000834 PC000107

Plaintiff's Objections FRE 401, 403

07/30/02 Transcript of July 30, 2002, Merit Commission In Re: Appeal of Termination Hearing. 11/27/02 Email from Jeffrey Karns to Robert Gant.

127 128 129 130

FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403

02/10/04 E-mail from Raymond Roerdink to PC000892Jeffrey Karns. PC000896 03/30/03 Pinal County Employment Opportunity for Lieutenant. Documents maintained by the Pinal County Resource Department regarding the applicants for the lieutenant's position advertised on or about March 30, 2003. 04/04/01 Email from Chris Vasquez to Lori Schaum with handwritten notes. PC000853 PC000897PC000922

131 132 133 134 135 136 137

PC000927

04/10/01 Memorandum from Chris Vasquez PC000928to Lieutenant Candidates. PC000930 04/10/01 Memorandum from Chris Vasquez PC000952to Lieutenant Candidate. PC000953 05/24/01 Lieutenant's written exam results. PC000923 05/25/01 Memorandum from Chris Vasquez PC000931 to Robert Gant. 06/04/01 Memorandum from Chris Vasquez PC000932to All Lieutenant Candidates. PC000934 Pinal County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Assessment Center documents. 06/13/01 Lieutenant assessment Center Scores. Pinal County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Assessment Center documents. 06/14/01 Lieutenant's promotional process final results. PC000996PC0001036 PC000941 PC000995; PC0001037PC0001040; PC0001175 PC000924

138 139

140

1639648.1

35

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 35 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No. 141 142

Date

Description

Bates Numbers PC000950PC000951 PC000944PC000945 PC000948PC000949 PC000946PC000947 PC000942PC000943

Plaintiff's Objections

06/19/01 Memorandum from Samuel Weiss to Sergeant R. Gant. 06/19/01 Memorandums to Sergeant R. Roerdink regarding Assessment Center Results. 06/19/01 Memorandums to Sergeant N. Mullard regarding Assessment Center Results. 06/19/01 Memorandums to Sergeant D. Francis regarding Assessment Center Results. 06/19/01 Memorandums to Sergeant Karns regarding Assessment Center Results. Portions of the Lieutenant Assessment Center testing packet for Sgt. Gant. 06/14/01 Employee Grievance. 06/18/01 Memorandum from Roger Vanderpool to Robert Gant 08/27/01 Memo from Sgt. Robert Gant to Michael Arnold regarding discrimination.

143

144

145

146

PC0001206- FRE 401, 403 PC0001234 PC000138PC000140 PC000098PC000100 Gant Dep. Ex. # 5

147 148 149

150 151 152 153 154

Pinal County Uniform Merit Rules PC001642revised June, 1989. PC001656 09/19/01 Pinal County Uniform Merit Rules PC000858revised September 19, 2001. PC000889 Video tape of February 28, 2002, interview in 2001-50. Oral presentation videos. Report from Richard Fincher PC001684PC001693 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 FRE 401, 403 to extent addresses disciplinary actions

1639648.1

36

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 36 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No. 155

Date

Description Report from Lisa A. Clapp, MA, CRC, CDMS, CEA

Bates Numbers PC001657PC001683

Plaintiff's Objections FRE 401, 403 to extent addresses disciplinary actions

156

11/28/01 Memorandum from Roger Vanderpool to Hal Campbell and Angelo Gonzales 01/16/02 Letter for Formal Reprimand. No Date Letter from Robert Gant to Mr. Arnold

PC001641

157 158 159 160 161 162

PC000158 PC000096 PC000101 PC000093 PC001461 PC000984

11/07/02 Memorandum from R. Gant to Mike Arnold 11/12/02 Interoffice memorandum from Michael Arnold to Robert Gant 05/09/03 Memorandum from Jerald Monahan to Robert Gant 03/19/01 Robert Gant's internal job change application.

I.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Plaintiffs: 1. Motion in Limine re: Pre-Employment Records and

Testimony of Plaintiff Robert Gant, filed June 9, 2006. 2. Motion in Limine re: Testimony of Disciplinary Actions by

Defendants against Plaintiff Robert Gant, filed June 15, 2006. 3. Motion in Limine re: Evidence of Performance by Plaintiff

Robert Gant and other Persons on the Assessment Center Examination. Defendants: 1. Order. Motion in Limine re: Facts Ruled upon In Summary Judgment

1639648.1

37

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 37 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1639648.1

2. Employees. 3.

Motion in Limine re: Allegations of Discrimination By Other

Motion in Limine re: Information Relied Upon by Expert

Testimony by Jay Finkelman After He Wrote His Report. J. LIST OF ANY PENDING MOTIONS. All motions listed above are still pending. K. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL. The parties expect that the trial will last for six to eight days. L-2. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS, PROPOSED JUROR QUESTIONNAIRES, IF ANY, AND PROPOSED FORMS OF VERDICT. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: DATED this 27th day of June, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

BY s/Georgia A. Staton Georgia A. Staton 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants, DATED this 27th day of June, 2006. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. GREGORY BY s/Robert M. Gregory (with permission) Robert M. Gregory Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Robert Gant and Betty Gant, Husband and Wife

38

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 38 of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORIGINAL of the foregoing lodged this 27th day of June, 2006, with: Hon. Earl H. Carroll United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 West Washington Street, SPC48 Suite 521 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2158 s/Gwen Coon

1639648.1

39

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC

Document 100

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 39 of 39