Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine regarding the PSB investigation.

112.

Photographs of Teresa August in arm brace [000160 - 000166]. Defendants object to Exhibit 112 as lacking foundation and irrelevant.

DEFENDANTS: 1. Phoenix Police Department Report DR 21067717, and supplements thereto. [AUGUST0027-38, 77, 82,87] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice 2. Superior Court Release Questionnaire regarding State of Arizona v. Teresa August. [AUGUST0078-79] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice 3. Photographs of subjects taken by the Phoenix Police Department following the incident. [AUGUST0006, 08,10,13-15,18,23 & 26]. The parties
have stipulated to this exhibit.

4.

Phoenix Police Department Communications Bureau CAD printouts regarding the incident. [AUGUST0089-93, AUGUST-BLACK00042] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation.

5,

Audiotape ofthe 9-1-1 phone call from Plaintiffs home on June 10,2002. [AUGUST0074] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice; lack of compliance with A.R.S. 13-3989.01(A) failing which no foundation may be laid, even with a person who can identify their voice on the tape {tbe 9-1-1 operator} as that person can not lay foundation for what happened to the tape between the time the 9-1-1 call occurred and its being offered at trial.

6.

Transcript of the 9-1-1 call for this incident [AUGUSTl445 - 56] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation

7.

Audiotape of interview with Sam Hickey. [AUGUST0073]. Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, should be only for impeachment

8.
1685005,]

Transcript of interview with Sam Hickey. [AUGUST0055-58) - 40Document 170-4

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 1 of 17

9.

Audiotape of recorded communications by Officer Monson during and after Teresa August is placed under arrest. [AUGUST0072). The parties have stipulated to this exhibit. Transcript of Officer Monson's recording of Teresa August during incident on 6/10/02. IAUGUST2257 - 69] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation

10.

11.

The Phoenix Police Department Use of Force policy that was in effect on the day of the incident. [AUGUSTOI52 -170] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, relevance, foundation

12.

Phoenix Fire Department EMS Incident Report pertaining to Teresa August regarding the subject incident. [AUGUST0114-117] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

13.

Medical Records from Arizona Heart Hospital with custodian of records affidavit. Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, subject to redaction of insurance information and reference to inaccurate statement of medical history.

14.

Medical Records from Maricopa County Medical Center. IAUGUST259260] Training Records of Officer Lyle Monson. IAUGUSTOI71-173] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

15.

16.

Training Records of Officer Nicholas Lynde. IAUGUST0174-175] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundatioD, relevance

17.

Training Records of Officer Toby Dunn. IAUGUSTOI76-180) Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

18.

Training Records of Officer Robert Griffin. [AUGUSTOI84-187) Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

19.

Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Lyle Monson IAUGUST22202224) Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

168500.').1

- 41-

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 2 of 17

20.

Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Nicholas Lynde IAUGUST22152219)
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

21.

Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Toby Dunn. [AUGUST2212 2214]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

22.

Equivalent Value Statement received from Cigna [AUGUST0408 - 416, 1407)
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

23.

Minute Entry pertaining to Preliminary Hearing in State of Arizona v.

Teresa August, CRl0903-009751 [AUGUST0538 - 539]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

24.

C.V. of Commander J. Hynes [AUGUST1668 -1680]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

25.

Report prepared by Commander Hynes with attachments [AUGUST1634 -1667]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

26.

Report of Stephen Brown, M.D. dated July 28, 2004. [AUGUST17091712)
PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

27.

C.V. of Stephen Brown, M.D. [AUGUST1692 -1694]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

28.

The IrvIEreport of Dr. Stephen Brown datcd December 1, 2004.

[AUGUST2491 - 94]
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

29.

Report of Dr. Michael Carhart [AUGUST1695 -1702]
PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

30.

C.V. of Dr. Michael Carhart [AUGUST1704-1708)
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

]685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

-42 Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 3 of 17

31.

Color photographs taken by Investigative Research, Inc. 7/27/04 of Teresa August's residence (AUGUSTl716-1717, 1719-1721, 1729-1733, 1736-1737,1739]. The parties have stipulated to this exhibit. Drawing No.1 of the residence of Teresa August prepared by Investigative Research, Inc. (AUGUST2031]. The parties have stipulated to this exhibit. Drawing No.2 of the residence of Teresa August prepared by Investigative Research, Inc. (AUGUST2030]. The parties have stipulated to this exhibit. Phoenix Police Department Law Enforcement Accreditation (AUGUST2151 - 56]

32.

33.

34.

Plaintiffs objection: bearsay, foundation, relevance
35. Status Codes prepared by Dan McNamee of Phoenix Police Department Communications Bureau. [AUGUST2495-97]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance
36. Photograph of Varus movement of the elbow. [AUGUST2498]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
37. Demonstration of elongation and injury mechanism to the lateral collateral ligament complex. [AUGUST 2499]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
38. Demonstration of mechanism oflateral epicondyle with demonstration of Plaintiff Teresa August bending and twisting in an effort to resist. (AUGUST2500].

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
39. Demonstration of mechanism oflateral epicondyle with a demonstration of Plaintiff Teresa August bending over in an attempt to resist. (AUGUST2501]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.

1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

- 43Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 4 of 17

40.

Anatomy of the lateral elbow (top diagram) and a lateral view of the elbow demonstrating avulsion of common extensor origin (lower diagram). [AUGUST 2502]

PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
41. Diagram of the "Right Foreann: Anterior View" showing pronator and supinator muscle pathways. [AUGUST 2503]

Plaintifrs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
42. Diagram of the "Right Forearm: Posterior (Dorsal) Views!! showing anatomy offoreann and extensor muscle pathways. (AUGUST25041

Plaintiff's objectiou: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
43. Diagram of lateral view of elbow demonstrating bony avulsion of the lateral collateral ligament origin on the lateral epicondyle. [AUGUST 2505)

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart.
46. List of Reference Materials reviewed and/or relied upon by Michael Carhart, Ph.D. [AUGUST2596)

Plaintiffs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance
47. Article: "Elbow dislocations and instability." D.C. Flanagan and L.D. Kaplan (2004)

Plaintifrs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart
48. Article: "Occasional Notes: Varus and Valgus - No Wonder They Are Confused." C.S. Houston and L.E. Swischuk (1980)

Plaintifrs objection: bearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart
49. Article: "The pathoanatomy of lateral ligamentous disruption in complex elbow instability." McKee, M.D. and E.H. Schemitsch, et al (2003)

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from Carhart

]685005.1

-44 -

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 5 of 17

50.

Article: "Classification and evaluation of recurrent instability of the elbow." S.W. O'Driseoll (2000) Plaintiffs Carhart objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from

51.

Article: "functional anatomy of the lateral coIlateralligament the elbow." A. Seki and B.S. Olsen, et 01. (2002) Plaintiff's Carhart objection: hearsay, foundation,

complex of

relevance if comes from

52.

Article: "Elbow Instability." S.W. O'Driseoll (1999) Plaintiffs Carhart objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from

53.

Article: "Hyperextension of the elbow joint: pathoanatomy and kinematics ofligament injuries." S. Tyrdal and B.S. Olsen (1998) Plaintiff's Carhart objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes from

54.

Arizona P .a.ST. Board Model Lesson Plan for "Control Techniques" [AUGUST2516 - 2525] PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

55.

Arizona P.D.S.T. Board Model Lesson Plan for "Handcuffing" [AUGUST2506 - 2515] Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

56.

Daniel Treon's letter to Dr. Beth Purdy dated 8/31/04. [BethAPurdyMD00049 - 51) Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

57.

Plaintiffs deposition transcript with exhibits. PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

58.

Audio and video of Plaintiffs deposition testimony on CD Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

59.

Clips of video/audio recording of Plaintiffs deposition for demonstrative purposes Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, - 45relevance

1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 6 of 17

60.

Model of a right elbow for demonstrative purposes.
No objection.

61.

Skeleton for demonstrative purposes.
No objection.

62.

Dr. Seligson's deposition transcript and CD of video/audio.
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

63.

Sam Hickey's deposition transcript and CD of video/audio
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

64.

Timeline
Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITS:
PLAINTIFF'S: Defendants object to aU of Plaintiffs Impeachment exhibits based on Plaintiffs lack of disclosure (See Motion in Limine); also, hearsay, relevance, prejudice foundation.

1.

Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 02/21/2002 deposition testimony in Hess v. EMC Insurance Company (binding arbitration).

See objections above.

2.

Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 03/28/2002 deposition testimony in Brier v.
Toyota and State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

CVI999-005603.
See objections above.

3.

Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/15/2003 deposition testimony in Koss v.
Maricopa County, et aI, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

CV2001-001247.
See objections above.

4.

Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 08/19/2003 deposition testimony in Chapman v.
Morrison-Knudsen, et ai, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

1685005.]

-46-

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 7 of 17

CV2001-008434. See objections above. 5. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 01/19/2004 deposition testimony in Greenhalgh v. Zurich Insurance (binding arbitration). See objections above. 6. Michael Carhart, Ph.D. 's 04/19/2004 deposition testimony in Hanson v. James, Maricopa County Superior Court Case. See objections above. 7. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/27/2004 deposition testimony in Wyatt v.

Blaser, State of Arizona, et aZ, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.
CV2002-013631. See objections above. 8. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/29/2004 deposition testimony in Delucchi v. Cardoza Properties, et ai, Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California Case. See objections above. DEFENDANTS: 1. 2. Plaintiffs Notice of Claim [AUGUST2593 - 2595) The file of Dr. Beth Purdy, plaintifrs expert witness, received in response to subpoena. [BethAPurdyMD-OOOA - 514] Phoenix Police Department DR 12027462 pertaining to "Assault" on 10/29/01, involviug Plaintiff. [AUGUST0094 - 98] Phoenix Police Department DR 10619511 pertaining to "Attempt Suicide" on 10/13/91, involving Plaintiff. [AUGUST0210-212) Phoenix Police Department DR 40870033 regarding 5/06/04 incident involving disruption of education institution. [AUGUST0540 - 45] Documents from Maricopa County Superior Court case Pamela Hickey v. Teresa August, DR92-90801 [AUGUST0546 - 563]

3. 4.
5.

6.

1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

-47 Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 8 of 17

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Audiotape of the recorded telephone calls between Sgt. Tomory to Teresa
August and Daniel Treon. (AUGUST1583]

Transcript of the recorded telephone call from Sgt. Tomory to Teresa
August on July 31, 2002. [AUGUST1744-52)

Transcript of the recorded telephone call from Sgt. Tomory to Dan Treon
on October 17, 2002. [AUGUST1743]

Sergeant Tomory's Professional Standards Bureau File regarding Teresa
August's arrest. (AUGUST1620-1633]

Letter written by Daniel B. Treon to Sgt. Tomary regarding Mrs.
August's refusal to submit to interview. (AUGUST 0258]

Daniel Treon's Response to Defendants' First Request Far Admission &
Non-Uniform Interrogatories. (AUGUST2572 - 2583)

Daniel Treon's Supplemental Response to Defendants' First Request
For Admission & Non-Uniform Interrogatories. [AUGUST2584 - 2592]

Phoenix Police Department DR 10717161, Domestic Violence,
pertaining to Mark August. [AUGUST0216 - 0222]

Phoenix Police Department DR 71908446, Domestic Violence/Criminal
Damage, pertaining to Mark August. IAUGUST0232 - 0236]

Phoenix Police Department DR 21067717 A, Obstructing Governmental
Operations, pertaining to Mark August. (AUGUST0254 - 0257]

Documents from Maricopa County Superior Court Case DR89- 07034, pertaining to the dissolution of marriage of Mark August and Josie Lee
August. [AUGUST0564 - 0611]

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Employment file of Mark August from Paradise Valley School District.
[AUGUST2280 - 2490]

Cell phone records for Mark August received from Alltell in response to
subpoena. [AUGUST1431 - 14441

Deposition transcript and CD Rom of Mark August's deposition testimony in this matter. Phoenix Police Department Field Interrogation No. 0202180121 regarding
incident involving Plaintiff on 2/18/02. [AUGUST0215]

Portions of employment records of Plaintiff received from Phoenix Union
High School District in response to subpoena (AUGUST0727-730]

1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

48Document 170-4
_

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 9 of 17

23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' First Request For Admissions and Non-Uniform Interrogatories. [AUGUST2526 - 2533] Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' First NonRUniformInterrogatories. [AUGUST2534-2543] Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' Second Non-Uniform Interrogatories. [AUGUST2544 - 2547] Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' First Request For Production.[AUGUST2548 - 2553] W-2's for Teresa August for the year 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 received from the I.R.S. [AUGUST2226, 2233, 2236, 2243, 2245, 2252 (redacted), 2271, 2274] MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND REQUESTED EVIDENTIARY RULINGS PLAINTIFF: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Motion in Limine regarding Michael Carhart's opinion. Motion in Limine regarding Dr. Seligson's comments and opinions. Motion in Limine regarding Defense 1MEDr. Brown Motion in Limine re criminal charges filed against Teresa August Motion in Limine regarding Teresa August's unrelated physical conditions. 6. Motion in Limine regarding Teresa August's alleged unrelated, collateral bad acts. 7. Motion in Limine regarding Mark August's alleged unrelated, collateral bad acts. 8. Motion in Limine regarding Sam Hickey's alleged unrelated, collateral bad acts.

N.

1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

-49 Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 10 of 17

9.

Motion in Limine regarding improper suggestion that plaintiffs counsel drafted Dr. Purdy's expert witness opinion.

10.

Motion in Limine regarding collateral source payments from Teresa August's health insurance company, CIGNA.

11. 12.

Motion in Limine regarding Commander Hynes' opinion. Motion in Limine regarding inadmissibility of911 tape. DEFENDANTS:

A.

MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS
1. Motion in Limine regarding Professional Standards Bureau investigation and Plaintiffs Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement 2. Motion in Limine regarding Disciplinary Action against Officers 3. Motion in Limine regarding Mark August's Arrest 4. Motion in Limine regarding Impeachment Exhibits 5. Motion in Limine regarding Entry and Probable Cause 6. Motion in Limine regarding Tape Recordings

B. OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF ANY ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY WITH CITATION TO APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.
None known at this time, other than objections to deposition designations.

C. OTHER ISSUES
Defendants sent Plaintiff a Request for Admission on March 16, 2004, requesting her to admit that the 911 transcript and the police officer interviews were true and accurate transcriptions of the disclosed audiotape recordings. (August 0041-0071).
1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

50Document 170-4
_

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 11 of 17

Plaintiff refused to admit that the tapes were accurately transcribed in her Requests for Admission, stating that she had: (1) "Teresa August has no way of authenticating the 911 tape, a recording made by police and in police custody and control, and thus subject to possible tampering, thus she cannot know if the tape is actually what was said to the 911 operator, thus she cannot authenticate the transcript of the tape prepared by agents of the police"; and (2) "no way of authenticating the tape recordings, which were recordings made by police and in police custody and control, and thus subject to possible tampering, thus she cannot know if the tape is actually what was said to the police interrogatories, thus she cannot authenticate the transcript of the tapes prepared by agents ofthe police." (See Response to Plaintiffs Request for Admission Numbers 6 and 7). Further, in Plaintiffs deposition taken August 26,2004, Plaintiff testified that in answering Defendants' Request for Admission, she never listened to the audiotapes and compared them to the written transcript. Thus, no good faith effort was made to answer the Request for Admission. As a result of Plaintiffs refusal to admit that the 911 and police interview transcripts were accurate transcriptions, Defendants will be forced to call the custodian of records for each tape taking additional time at trial to lay the appropriate foundation.

O.

PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

The parties estimate that it will take approximately six days to try this matter.

P.

TRIAL DATE

Trial is scheduled to begin on January 9, 2007.

FOR A JURY TRIAL Q-2. STIPULATED PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE, JURY

INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS, JUROR QUESTION-NAIRES, IF ANY, FORMS OF VERDICT AND TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW SHALL BE FILED WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER.
[685005.1

- 51 -

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 12 of 17

R.

MISCELLANEOUS

The parties submit the following deposition designations: PLAINTIFF:
1. Deposition of Dr. Seligson

Designations:
Page 4 Line 8-20

Defendants' Obiections
No Objection, however Defendants request through line 21 Prejudice, relevance Prejudice, relevance,

7 8

2-11 19-25

speculation
9 1 Prejudice, speculation,

foundation
10 11 12 13 20 28 29 30 31 14-25 1-25 1-25 1-10 7-16 7-25 1 10-25 1-25 Foundation, relevance Foundation, relevance

Relevance, speculation Relevance. speculation
No objection Relevance, prejudice

Relevance, prejudice
Prejudice, speculation, foundation Foundation, speculation, relevance

32
33

1-25 1-25

Foundation, speculation, relevance Foundation, speculation,

prejudice
1685005.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

- 52Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 13 of 17

34 36 37

1-25 1-25 1-25 1-11

Foundation, speculation,
prejudice Foundation, prejudice Foundation, prejudice No objection, provided that

38

the entire affidavit is
submitted

38

19-22

No objection, provided that
the entire affidavit is submitted

DEFENDANTS: 1. Page 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19
]685005.1

Deposition of Dr. Seligson Line 8-21 2-25 1-23 2-25 1-25 1-25 1-7 11-25 1-7 9-25 1-25 1-25 1-4 14-25 1-25 - 53Plaintiffs Objections None Obj. 12-25; relevance; prejudice Obj. 1-18; relevance; prejudice Obj. 2-15; relevance; prejudice Obj. 1-13; relevance; prejudice None None Obj. 11-25; rei; prej; no foundation Obj. 1-7; rei; prej; no foundation Obj. 9-25; reI; prej; no

foundation
Obj. 1-8; rel; prej; no foundation 9-25; rei; Obj 1-25; reI. Obj. 1-4; reI. 5-13; rei. Obj. rei. prej; no fdation; specultion Obj. rei; prej; no

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 14 of 17

[ndation;speculation 20 21 22 23 24 25 38
2. Deposition of Plaintiff

1-25 1-25 1-25 16-25 1 1-25 1-25

Obj. 1-6; rei; prcj; no fndation; spec. Obj. 6-25; reI; prej; no fndation; spec. Obj.l-25; reI; no foundation; specltion Obj.re1. Obj.rel. Obj. rel. no foundation.

Designation
4:8 - 5:2

Plaintiffs Objections
All as not best evidence.

12:2 - 22 16:9 - 13 17:4-20:4 20:14-23:4 23:13-24:20 31:2-34:15 35:12-43:11 44:17 -46:7 60:11 - 62:24 70:25 - 92:25 94:16 - 95:10 96:23 - 99:25 118:7 -9 119:11-120:24 121:21-125:19 126:20-134:12 134:19-136:12 150:18 -162:1
1685005.1

- 54-

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 15 of 17

169:1 -173:3 173:10-15 178:23 -180:4 181:23-183:25 189:18 -190:6
Defendants reserve the right to show the entire deposition of Plaintiff to the jury pursuant to Rule 32, FED.R.Civ.P. S. MODIFICATION OF ORDER

The court may. in order to prevent manifest injustice or for good cause shown, at the trial of the action or prior thereto upon application of counsel for either party, made in good faith, or upon the motion of the court, modify the Final Pretrial Order upon such conditions as the court may deem just and proper. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: s/Danicl B. Treon -perauthorization Daniel B. Treon Stephen E. SilvcIman TREON & SHOOK, PLLC s/KatWeen L. Wieneke Kathleen L. Wieneke Jennifer L. Hoisman JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 265-7100 Faesinllle: (602) 265-7400
[email protected]

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Faesimile: (602) 263-1785
[email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Defendants, City of Phoenix, Griffin, Lynde, Dunn and Monson DAY

[email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Teresa August

THIS JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER IS HEREBY APPROVED ON THIS OF NOVEMBER, 2006. Roslyn O. Silver United States District Judge

1685005,]

- 55-

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 16 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of the United States District Court using the CMIECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CMlECF registrants:
Daniel B. Treon:

dbt@,treonshook.com; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected];

Kathleen Wieneke:

Jennifer L. Holsman: Randall H. Warner:

[email protected]

[email protected];[email protected]

By:

sNicki Wells

1685005.1

_

56-

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 170-4

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 17 of 17