DUI Patrol Mcso Melendres
Content
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Timothy J. Casey (#013492) James L. Williams (#026402) SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. 1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540 Telephone: (602) 277-7000 Facsimile: (602) 277-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Thomas P. Liddy (#019384) MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Civil Services Division 222 N. Central, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 602-506-8066 Co-counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 13 Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., 14 Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
No. CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING A WRITTEN PROTOCOL FOR MCSO PARTICIPATION IN A HOLIDAY DUI TASK FORCE THAT MAY, ON OCCASION, CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT OPERATION UNDER THE ORDER
The Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (“GOHS”) has requested that defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) participate in its annual multi-law enforcement agency 2013 Holiday Task Force starting on November 29, 2013 and ending January 1, 2014 (“the DUI Task Force”). The DUI Task Force will patrol designated areas for impaired drivers, alcohol violations and other traffic related offenses. The DUI Task Force will be conducted through unincorporated and incorporated areas of Maricopa County. The DUI Task Force will split forces known as the East Valley DUI Task Force and the West Valley DUI Task Force.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
Over the years, the MCSO has participated in the DUI Task Force for several reasons. First and foremost, the MCSO submits that the DUI Task Force protects the local community against impaired drivers, saves lives, helps prevent catastrophic personal injury, and lessens the adverse economic impact of impaired automobile driving. In 2012, 34% of all traffic fatalities in Arizona were alcohol-related. Over the past years, the DUI Task Force has proven most effective during the holiday season when numerous law enforcement agencies participate to patrol the streets of different cities in Maricopa County. During the 2012 Holiday Task Force season, for example, the combined law enforcement agency effort resulted in 5,905 DUI arrests. The average blood alcohol content for an impaired driver was .150%. Second, the MCSO has a contractual obligation with GOHS to conduct enforcement operations for impaired drivers in return for the MCSO receiving from the state grants for equipment and overtime funding. Defendants provide this Notice because the MCSO’s involvement in the DUI Task Force, at times in the future may qualify as a “Significant Operation” or “Significant Patrol” as such terms are defined in the Court’s Order dated October 2, 2013 (Dkt#606) (“the Order) at ¶ 1(kk).1 The Order further provides that a “written protocol [for a Significant Operation] shall be provided to the Monitor in advance of any Significant Operation or Patrol.” Id. at ¶ 36. Because no Monitor is yet in place to receive a copy of the MCSO’s written protocol for its participation in this DUI Task Force, and the Order is silent as to the treatment of the written protocol under such circumstances, Defendants file with the Court the written
1
The MCSO respectfully submits that its participation in the DUI Task Force on 11/29-30/13 does not qualify as “Significant Operations” pursuant to the terms of the Order. On Friday, November 29, 2013, MCSO had six (6) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Phoenix Police Department at or near 29th Avenue and Devonshire in Phoenix. On Saturday, November 30, 2013, MCSO had seven (7) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Glendale Police Department at or near Glendale Road and 115th Avenue in Glendale. On Saturday, November 30, 2013, MCSO had seven (7) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Tempe Police Department at or near Dorsey Road and University in Tempe. Please note, however, that regardless of whether the MCSO’s participation in the DUI Task Force those dates qualifies under the Order as a “Significant Operation,” the MCSO is voluntarily collecting to the extent possible, for its involvement, the categories of data set forth in the Order. Such data will be made available to the monitor, when appointed, and to the Plaintiffs’ representative.
2
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
protocol for the operation.2 DATED this 2nd day of December, 2013. SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. s/Timothy J. Casey_ Timothy J. Casey James L. Williams 1221 E. Osborn Rd., Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: (602) 277-7000 Facsimile:(602) 277-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 2, 2013, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: The Honorable G. Murray Snow United States District Court 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2158 Stanley Young, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Road Redwood Shores, California 94065 Counsel for Plaintiffs Daniel Pochoda, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Counsel for Plaintiffs
2
Undersigned counsel apologizes for the timing of this filing after the start of the DUI Task Force. The MCSO delivered the attached Operations Plan to the office of undersigned defense counsel on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 11:11 a.m. However, defense counsel and staff on this case were out-of-the-office given the Thanksgiving holiday and could not file the attached until this date.
3
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
Cecillia Wang AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Segura, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Plaintiffs Nancy Ramirez, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014 Counsel for Plaintiffs Thomas P. Liddy Deputy County Attorneys, Civil Services Division Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 222 N. Central, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Co-counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office s/Eileen Henry Eileen Henry, Paralegal SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
4
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 5 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 6 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 7 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 8 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 9 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 10 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 11 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 12 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 13 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 14 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 15 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 16 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 17 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 18 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 19 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 20 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 21 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 22 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 23 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 24 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 25 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 26 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 27 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 28 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 29 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 30 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 31 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 32 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 33 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 34 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 35 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 36 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 37 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 38 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 39 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 40 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 41 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 42 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 43 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 44 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 45 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 46 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 47 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 48 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 49 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 50 of 50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Timothy J. Casey (#013492) James L. Williams (#026402) SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. 1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540 Telephone: (602) 277-7000 Facsimile: (602) 277-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Thomas P. Liddy (#019384) MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Civil Services Division 222 N. Central, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 602-506-8066 Co-counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 13 Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., 14 Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
No. CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING A WRITTEN PROTOCOL FOR MCSO PARTICIPATION IN A HOLIDAY DUI TASK FORCE THAT MAY, ON OCCASION, CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT OPERATION UNDER THE ORDER
The Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (“GOHS”) has requested that defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) participate in its annual multi-law enforcement agency 2013 Holiday Task Force starting on November 29, 2013 and ending January 1, 2014 (“the DUI Task Force”). The DUI Task Force will patrol designated areas for impaired drivers, alcohol violations and other traffic related offenses. The DUI Task Force will be conducted through unincorporated and incorporated areas of Maricopa County. The DUI Task Force will split forces known as the East Valley DUI Task Force and the West Valley DUI Task Force.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
Over the years, the MCSO has participated in the DUI Task Force for several reasons. First and foremost, the MCSO submits that the DUI Task Force protects the local community against impaired drivers, saves lives, helps prevent catastrophic personal injury, and lessens the adverse economic impact of impaired automobile driving. In 2012, 34% of all traffic fatalities in Arizona were alcohol-related. Over the past years, the DUI Task Force has proven most effective during the holiday season when numerous law enforcement agencies participate to patrol the streets of different cities in Maricopa County. During the 2012 Holiday Task Force season, for example, the combined law enforcement agency effort resulted in 5,905 DUI arrests. The average blood alcohol content for an impaired driver was .150%. Second, the MCSO has a contractual obligation with GOHS to conduct enforcement operations for impaired drivers in return for the MCSO receiving from the state grants for equipment and overtime funding. Defendants provide this Notice because the MCSO’s involvement in the DUI Task Force, at times in the future may qualify as a “Significant Operation” or “Significant Patrol” as such terms are defined in the Court’s Order dated October 2, 2013 (Dkt#606) (“the Order) at ¶ 1(kk).1 The Order further provides that a “written protocol [for a Significant Operation] shall be provided to the Monitor in advance of any Significant Operation or Patrol.” Id. at ¶ 36. Because no Monitor is yet in place to receive a copy of the MCSO’s written protocol for its participation in this DUI Task Force, and the Order is silent as to the treatment of the written protocol under such circumstances, Defendants file with the Court the written
1
The MCSO respectfully submits that its participation in the DUI Task Force on 11/29-30/13 does not qualify as “Significant Operations” pursuant to the terms of the Order. On Friday, November 29, 2013, MCSO had six (6) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Phoenix Police Department at or near 29th Avenue and Devonshire in Phoenix. On Saturday, November 30, 2013, MCSO had seven (7) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Glendale Police Department at or near Glendale Road and 115th Avenue in Glendale. On Saturday, November 30, 2013, MCSO had seven (7) deputies participate in the DUI Task Force hosted by the Tempe Police Department at or near Dorsey Road and University in Tempe. Please note, however, that regardless of whether the MCSO’s participation in the DUI Task Force those dates qualifies under the Order as a “Significant Operation,” the MCSO is voluntarily collecting to the extent possible, for its involvement, the categories of data set forth in the Order. Such data will be made available to the monitor, when appointed, and to the Plaintiffs’ representative.
2
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
protocol for the operation.2 DATED this 2nd day of December, 2013. SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. s/Timothy J. Casey_ Timothy J. Casey James L. Williams 1221 E. Osborn Rd., Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: (602) 277-7000 Facsimile:(602) 277-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 2, 2013, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: The Honorable G. Murray Snow United States District Court 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2158 Stanley Young, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Road Redwood Shores, California 94065 Counsel for Plaintiffs Daniel Pochoda, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Counsel for Plaintiffs
2
Undersigned counsel apologizes for the timing of this filing after the start of the DUI Task Force. The MCSO delivered the attached Operations Plan to the office of undersigned defense counsel on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 11:11 a.m. However, defense counsel and staff on this case were out-of-the-office given the Thanksgiving holiday and could not file the attached until this date.
3
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 4
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 27 28
SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C. Professional Corporation
Cecillia Wang AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Segura, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Plaintiffs Nancy Ramirez, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014 Counsel for Plaintiffs Thomas P. Liddy Deputy County Attorneys, Civil Services Division Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 222 N. Central, Suite 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Co-counsel for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office s/Eileen Henry Eileen Henry, Paralegal SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
4
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 5 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 6 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 7 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 8 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 9 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 10 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 11 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 12 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 13 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 14 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 15 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 16 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 17 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 18 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 19 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 20 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 21 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 22 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 23 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 24 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 25 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 26 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 27 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 28 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 29 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 30 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 31 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 32 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 33 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 34 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 35 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 36 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 37 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 38 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 39 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 40 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 41 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 42 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 43 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 44 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 45 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 46 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 47 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 48 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 49 of 50
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 623-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 50 of 50
