Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT; v. Plaintiff, CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO DECLARATION OF CAITLIN ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FEES I, Caitlin R. Anderson, hereby declare that: 1. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge. I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify to the facts set forth below. 2. I am a paralegal at the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center ( CREEC ), counsel for Plaintiff in this action. 3. I reviewed the invoices from Hall & Evans ( H&E ) to the City and County of Denver, Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Amy F. Robertson in Support of Plaintiff s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Fees. I entered the total from each invoice in an Excel spreadsheet and then used the sum function to calculate the total, which was $136,670.69. 4. On January 16, 2013, I received an email from David Washington, paralegal in Denver City Attorney s Office, requesting more legible copies of ten documents. On January 17, 2013, I spent.5 hours identifying the documents in question (hand-written letters, some in very
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 9 faint pencil), looking for the hard copies of the documents (which I found had been returned to Ms. Scott), and reviewing the native scanned files, at which point I determined that no more legible copies could be produced. I then emailed Mr. Washington back with this information. 5. To obtain total number of documents and pages, as well as the number of documents in specific page ranges, I used CaseMap software. I filtered for a specific Bates number prefix, then filtered for page-amount ranges (for example, greater than or equal to three, but less than or equal to ten). Once a filter is applied, CaseMap automatically shows the total number of documents that the filter produced. I repeated this process for each Bates number prefix in the case, tallying total documents, total pages, and the following page-amount ranges: 1, 2, 3-10, 11-50, 51+. I entered all of this information in an Excel spreadsheet. 6. Document production by the City and County of Denver, with the prefix Denver, totaled 1,318 documents and 6,456 pages. This consisted of 940 one-page documents, 192 two-page documents, 149 three- to ten-page documents, 22 eleven- to fifty-page documents, and 12 fifty-one-and-above page documents. Many of the shorter documents were forms filled in with handwritten information, making them difficult to read and code. 7. The remaining 1,604 documents were obtained by Plaintiff s counsel from a variety of sources, including Plaintiff s mother, his public defender, medical providers, elementary through high schools, probation departments, halfway houses, social media, and other sources. These documents totaled 4,567 pages. This consisted of 849 one-page documents, 399 two-page documents, 295 three- to ten-page documents, 52 eleven- to fifty-page documents, and 9 fiftyone-and-above page documents. -2-
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9 8. There were 2,922 documents in this case, consisting of 11,023 pages. 2,824 pages of these were one- to ten-page documents. 9. On July 26, 2012, I drafted the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and the Proposed Order granting same. In order to draft this motion, I had to review relevant email traffic and gather relevant dates. On July 31, 2013, I edited the Joint Motion with Mr. Rivera s markups, read through for typos, formatting, and clarity, filed the motion and proposed order, and sent a WordPerfect version of the order to Chambers. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the October 16, 2012 deposition of Captain John Romero. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed at Denver, Colorado on October 3, 2013. /s/ Caitlin R. Anderson Caitlin R. Anderson -3-
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 9 Scott v. City & County of Denver CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO 10/16/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Page 1 Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF: CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO - October 16, 2012 City & County of Denver MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant. PURSUANT TO NOTICE, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO, City & County of Denver, was taken on behalf of the Plaintiff at 104 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203, on October 16, 2012, at 11:24 a.m., before Darcy Curtis, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within Colorado. scheduling@huntergeist.com HUNTER + GEIST, INC. 303.832.5966 / 800.525.8490
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 9 Scott v. City & County of Denver CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO 10/16/2012 1 A P P E A R A N C E S Page 2 2 For the Plaintiff: 3 AMY F. ROBERTSON, ESQ. Fox & Robertson, P.C. 4 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80203 5 6 For the Defendant: 7 JOSEPH M. RIVERA, ESQ. Denver City Attorney's Office 8 Litigation Section 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 1108 9 Denver, Colorado 80202 10 11 12 Also Present: Carol Liang 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scheduling@huntergeist.com HUNTER + GEIST, INC. 303.832.5966 / 800.525.8490
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 9 Scott v. City & County of Denver CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO 10/16/2012 1 just to confirm something we were chatting about Page 35 2 before. It talks about the intake medical unit and 3 then it refers to intake medical staff. That's the 4 medical screening process, I think, we were talking 5 about earlier; is that correct? 6 A. Is this No. 1 on 606.0? 7 Q. No. I'm sorry. 607, intake medical 8 unit. 9 A. Okay. Okay. What is the question? I'm 10 sorry. 11 Q. That intake medical unit and the intake 12 medical staff, is that where the medical screening 13 process happens that we were talking about earlier? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And that's under the jurisdiction 16 essentially of Denver Health? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. So if you could turn to page 10 of 19 Exhibit 5, please, and this has a Section 611 called 20 "Deaf." Do you see where I'm looking? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And it states, "When it comes to the 23 attention of an Intake Officer, during the interview 24 process, that a prisoner is deaf or hard of hearing, 25 the following procedure shall be followed," and then scheduling@huntergeist.com HUNTER + GEIST, INC. 303.832.5966 / 800.525.8490
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 9 Scott v. City & County of Denver CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO 10/16/2012 1 there are five items. Did I read that accurately? Page 36 2 A. Yes, you did. 3 Q. It sounds like what you're saying is the 4 following procedure is followed, but only if the 5 intake officer judges that communication is not 6 occurring; is that correct? 7 A. Well, this one is your most revised 8 policy. If you see the date, September 13 -- 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. -- that was almost just a month ago. 11 This is the most current one. Before that it would be 12 by request or a need. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. This one now is driving us -- our 15 decision to call an interpreter. 16 Q. So as of September 13, 2012, the policy 17 is just call an interpreter -- if an inmate is deaf, 18 you call an interpreter one way or another? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. And prior to that time, it would have 21 been left up to the judgment of the intake officer as 22 to whether communication was happening, correct? 23 A. Whether -- if communication was happening 24 or the person requested it. 25 Q. Okay. Terrific. This is just a matter scheduling@huntergeist.com HUNTER + GEIST, INC. 303.832.5966 / 800.525.8490
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 9
Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-7 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 9