HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-cv-1983-SKC - Townley v. Fort Collins, et al - 038 - Scheduling Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC
MICHAEL PIPER TOWNLEY, ANNA KRUGER, and JOSHUA DeLEON;
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIAN MALLORY, in his individual capacity;
ETHAN VANSICKLE, in his individual capacity;
DANIEL NETZEL, in his individual capacity;
JARED ROBERTSON, in his individual capacity;
JOE SCHILZ, in his individual capacity;
JASON HAFERMAN, in his individual capacity;
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER
1. DATE OF CONFERENCE AND APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
The Telephonic Scheduling Conference is set for January 19, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
E. Milo Schwab
Ascend Counsel, LLC
2401 S. Downing Street
Denver, CO 80210
(303) 888-4407
milo@ascendcounsel.co
Counsel for Defendants Mallory, VanSickle,
Robertson, Schilz, and Young (“Fort Collins
Defendants”)
Mark Scott Ratner
Andrew David Ringel
Katherine Hoffman
Hall & Evans LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 15
ringela@hallevans.com
hoffmank@hallevans.com
Counsel for Defendant Haferman
Jonathan M. Abramson
Yulia Nikolaevskaya
Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80209
303-320-6100
jonathan@kandf.com
julie@kandf.com
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331.
Fort Collins Defendants and Defendant Haferman: The Fort Collins Defendants and
Defendant Haferman admit jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, but deny jurisdiction
in all other respects, including, but not limited to, the notion Plaintiffs are somehow entitled to
attorneys’ fees or costs.
3. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
a. Plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their rights protected under the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by arresting them and using force on them for their
political speech. Plaintiffs were Black Lives Matter protesters who were protesting in the
City of Fort Collins on August 8, 2020. During protests that day, Plaintiffs were each
assaulted by Back the Blue activists and other right-wing extremists. Throughout the day,
Defendants associated with these pro-police individuals and intentionally removed
themselves from the protests so that the Back the Blue and right-wing individuals would
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 15
have the opportunity to engage in violence. Defendant Mallory is heard on camera
directing his fellow officers and all Defendants to leave the scene because “if we stay,
they’ll think they don’t have to fight.” Later, Mallory stated that “if we intervene, then
Antifa wins.”
When the police did intervene, it was after these right-wing agitators had initiated
violence and retaliated against the Black Lives Matter protesters for being insufficiently
supportive of police. When Defendants did intervene, they arrested only Plaintiffs for
fighting, even though Defendants had knowledge that it was in fact the Back the Blue
individuals who were engaged in fighting. Defendants used force, their authority to
arrest, and their authority to charge to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their viewpoints on
police brutality and police killings.
b. Defendants:
For Defendant Haferman: Defendant Haferman denies all allegations set forth in
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF 20). Plaintiffs failed to
assert Defendant Haferman’s personal participation in any of the alleged constitutional
violations. Plaintiffs failed to allege a viable Malicious Prosecution claim against
Defendant Haferman. In addition, Defendant Haferman asserts additional following
defenses:
1. Defendant Haferman, to the extent he is properly sued in his individual capacity, is
entitled to Qualified Immunity inasmuch as his actions did not violate the constitutional rights of
Plaintiff, did not violate clearly established law at the time of the events at issue, and were
undertaken with a good faith belief in the lawfulness of his actions. The actions of Defendant
Haferman were objectively reasonable under the circumstances with which Defendant Haferman
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 15
was confronted.
2. Defendant Haferman was lawfully exercising his Public Duties in accordance with
§ 18-1-701, C.R.S. Further, Defendant Haferman was properly exercising his police powers and
the authority vested in him by virtue of §§ 16-3-101, 16-3-102, 16-3-103, 18-1-701, and 18-1-707,
C.R.S., at all times pertinent to the incident complained of.
3. Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking inasmuch as Plaintiffs’ claims fail to rise to
the level of a deprivation of federal constitutional rights.
4. Plaintiffs’ injuries, damages and losses may be the result of Plaintiffs’ conduct.
5. Damages alleged by Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint may have been caused
in whole or in part by Plaintiffs’ own comparative fault as provided by C.R.S. §13-21-111.
6. Plaintiffs’ injuries, damages, and losses, if any, were the result of the negligence or
unlawful conduct of a third party or parties over whom Defendant Haferman had no control or
ability to exercise a right of control.
7. Plaintiffs have failed to allege and cannot establish an affirmative link between the
actions of Defendant Haferman and the alleged constitutional injury.
8. Plaintiffs has failed to mitigate their damages as required by law.
9. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were not proximately caused by any act or omission of
the Defendant Haferman.
10. At all times material, Plaintiffs were accorded all rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Haferman are frivolous and groundless
entitling Defendant Haferman to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 15
Defendant Haferman reserves the right to assert any and all additional claims and
defenses.
Fort Collins Defendants: Fort Collins Police Officers Brian Mallory and Jared
Robertson file an Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses in response to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, denying the substantive allegations. (ECF 21). In addition, the
Answer set forth the following affirmative defenses:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
3. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were either pre-existing or not
aggravated by any action omission of or by these Defendants, nor proximately caused by
or related to any act or omission of these Defendants.
4. All or part of Plaintiffs’ claims never achieved the level of any
constitutional violation sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, no
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be grounded in any theory of respondeat superior
or vicarious liability respecting these Defendants.
5. At all times pertinent herein, these Defendants acted in accordance with all
common law, statutory and constitutional obligations, and without any intent to cause
Plaintiffs harm. These Defendants also lacked the requisite intent to establish any claim
against them in this matter. The claims of the Plaintiffs also fail to establish any basis for
concluding that these Defendants acted with deliberate indifference or in a willful and
wanton manner.
6. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused, in whole
or in part, by her own acts or omissions, either in combination with one another or
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 15
independent of one another.
7. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused, in whole
or part, by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom these Defendants possessed no
ability to control or right to control.
8. These Defendants never breached any obligation or responsibility to anyone
associated with any property or liberty interest of any party in relation to this matter.
9. At all times pertinent herein, these Defendants acted in accordance with all
legal obligations.
10. Plaintiff cannot satisfy all or some of the perquisites to a grant of injunctive
or declaratory relief in this matter. Any request for injunctive or declaratory relief is moot.
11. Defendants are not liable for any punitive damages pursuant to state or
federal law and no Defendant could become liable for any such damages.
12. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Officers Mallory and Robertson also reserved their right to assert other or additional
defenses and affirmative defenses as may become known in the course of these
proceedings.
Fort Collins Police Officers VanSickle, Schliz, Haferman, and Young, filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, which is pending before this Court
(ECF 22). Should these Defendants ultimately file an Answer to the Amended Complaint,
it is anticipated they will deny the substantive allegations of said Complaint, and set forth
the affirmative defenses as identified above.
4. UNDISPUTED FACTS
The following facts are undisputed: None
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 15
5. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES
Plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs’ damages include: economic losses or injuries which the plaintiffs have had to
the present time or which the plaintiffs will probably have in the future, including loss of
earnings or damage to their ability to earn money in the future, as well as medical, hospital, and
other expenses; noneconomic losses or injuries which plaintiffs have had to the present time or
which plaintiffs will probably have in the future, including: physical injury, physical and mental
pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, impairment of the quality of life, loss of
liberty, and the inability to exercise one’s constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also seek costs and
attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law. Damages will ultimately
be determined by a jury.
Defendants:
Defendant Haferman and the Fort Collins Defendants: Defendant Haferman and the Fort
Collins are not seeking damages at this time. However, they reserve the right to seek attorneys’
fees and costs, expert witness fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
6. REPORT OF PRECONFERENCE DISCOVERY AND MEETING
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)
a. Dates of Rule 26(f) meeting: January 11 & 12, 2023
b. Names of each participant and party he/she represented:
For all Plaintiffs
E. Milo Schwab
Ascend Counsel, LLC
2401 S. Downing Street
Denver, CO 80210
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 15
(303) 888-4407
milo@ascendcounsel.co
For Defendants Mallory, VanSickle, Robertson, Schilz, and Young
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Counsel for Defendant Haferman
Jonathan M. Abramson
Yulia Nikolaevskaya
Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80209
303-320-6100
jonathan@kandf.com
julie@kandf.com
c. Statement as to when Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made or
will be made:
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be served by January 26, 2023.
The Fort Collins Defendants made their disclosures on or about January 6, 2023.
d. Proposed changes, if any, in timing or requirement of disclosures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):
None.
e. Statement concerning any agreements to conduct informal
discovery:
None.
f. Statement concerning any other agreements or procedures to
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 15
reduce discovery and other litigation costs, including the use of a unified exhibit numbering
system:
The parties agree to use a unified exhibit numbering system for deposition exhibits
and where otherwise appropriate.
g. Statement as to whether the parties anticipate that their claims or defenses will
involve extensive electronically stored information, or that a substantial amount of disclosure or
discovery will involve information or records maintained in electronic form:
The parties anticipate that there may be discovery of electronically stored information such
as Body-Worn Camera (BWC) video, other camera video, cell phone data, e-mails, and social
media posts, if any. The parties will work together to facilitate the discovery of such information
and to produce it in the best format. Parties have incorporated the language of the Rule 502(d)
order below.
h. Statement summarizing the parties’ discussions regarding the possibilities for
promptly settling or resolving the case: Parties propose to have a meeting after they serve their
initial disclosures to discuss the possibility of promptly settling or resolving the case.
7. CONSENT
The Parties consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction.
8. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS
a. Modifications which any party proposes to the presumptive numbers of depositions
or interrogatories contained in the Federal Rules:
Depositions: Plaintiffs propose: 10 depositions per side, excluding depositions of parties..
If additional depositions are needed, the parties will confer and attempt to reach agreement in good
faith.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 15
Interrogatories: Rule 33 provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than
25 written interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Plaintiff and Defendants proposes a total of
50 written interrogatories per side.
b. Limitations which any party proposes on the length of depositions: Plaintiffs
propose 4 hours per deposition, excluding Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
Defendant Haferman proposes 5 hours per deposition, excluding Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions. Depositions of the parties are limited to one day of seven hours. All other
depositions are limited to four hours.
c. Limitations which any party proposes on the number of requests for production
and/or requests for admission: Plaintiffs and Defendants propose 50 requests for production and
50 requests for admission total per side.
d. Deadline for service of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents
and/or Admissions: 30 days before the discovery cut-off.
e. Other Planning or Discovery Orders:
The production of privileged or work-product protected documents, electronically
stored information (“ESI”) or information, whether inadvertently or otherwise, is not a waiver of
the privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding.
This Stipulated Order shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection allowed by Federal
Rule of Evidence 502(d).
The Fort Collins Defendants and Defendant Haferman anticipate production of sensitive
information, which might otherwise be protected from production pursuant to applicable rules
and/or law. As such, the Fort Collins Defendants anticipate the necessity of a protective order.
9. CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 15
a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings: March 6, 2023
Plaintiffs propose: The filing of amended and supplemental pleadings will be
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
b. Discovery Cut-off: October 19, 2023 (deadline for all discovery, including expert
depositions).
c. Dispositive Motion Deadline: November 20, 2023
d. Expert Witness Disclosure
1. The parties shall identify anticipated fields of expert testimony, if any.
Plaintiffs anticipate disclosing 4 expert witnesses in the fields of: 1)
police practices, 2) crowd management/crowd control, 3) right-wing
extremism & right-wing extremism within law enforcement, and 4) Law
Enforcement psychology in responding to police brutality protests.
Defendants anticipate
Defendant Haferman and the Fort Collins Defendants anticipate
calling experts in the fields of police tactics, police procedure and training,
and/or use of force; and any expert necessary for rebuttal and/or
impeachment purposes in the fields set forth by Plaintiffs. Defendant
Haferman and the Fort Collins Defendants may call experts in other areas
as well.
2. Limitations which the parties propose on the use or number of expert
witnesses.
Four retained (Rule 26(a)(2)(B)) expert witnesses per side.
3. The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel and
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 15
any pro se parties with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before:
July 21, 2023
4. The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel
and any pro se party with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before:
September 5, 2023 (The expert deadlines in this paragraph and the preceding one include
disclosure of information applicable to “Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report”
under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and information applicable to “Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a
Written Report” under Rule 26(a)(2)(C).)
The Fort Collins Defendants and Defendant Haferman propose a staggered expert witness
disclosure schedule as follows:
Plaintiffs shall disclose their experts on or before July 19, 2023.
Defendants shall disclose their experts on or before August 21, 2023.
Rebuttal experts by September 21, 2023.
e. Identification of Persons to Be Deposed:
Plaintiff:
● Defendants
● Representatives of the Fort Collins Police Department
● Representatives of the city of Fort Collins
● Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
● Witnesses listed on Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
Defendants:
● Plaintiffs
● Any and all expert witnesses of Plaintiffs
● Any and all medical treatment providers of Plaintiffs
10. DATES FOR FURTHER CONFERENCES
a. Joint Status Report shall be filed by April 14, 2023. Counsel shall
refer to Judge Crews’ Practice Standards for the required content.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 15
b. A combined final pretrial and trial preparation conference will be held in
this case on March 21, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared
by the parties and submitted to the court no later than seven (7) days before the final
pretrial conference.
11. OTHER SCHEDULING MATTERS
a. Identify those discovery or scheduling issues, if any, on which counsel after a
good faith effort, were unable to reach an agreement: None.
b. Anticipated length of trial and whether trial is to the court or jury: The parties
anticipate a jury trial in this matter will take 10 trial days.
c. Identify pretrial proceedings, if any, that the parties believe may be
more efficiently or economically conducted in the District Court’s facilities at 212 N.
Wahsatch Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903-3476; Wayne Aspinall U.S.
Courthouse/Federal Building, 402 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2520;
or the U.S. Courthouse/Federal Building, La Plata County Courthouse 1060 E. 2nd
Avenue, Suite 150, Durango, Colorado 81301: None.
12. NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
The parties filing motions for extension of time or continuances must comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c) by serving the motion contemporaneously upon the moving attorney's
client.
Counsel will be expected to be familiar and to comply with the Pretrial and Trial
Procedures or Practice Standards established by the judicial officer presiding over the trial of this
case.
With respect to discovery disputes, parties must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a).
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 15
Counsel and unrepresented parties are reminded that any change of contact information must be
reported and filed with the Court pursuant to the applicable local rule.
13. AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULING ORDER
The scheduling order may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of January, 2023.
BY THE COURT: s/ S. Kato Crews
United States Magistrate Judge
APPROVED:
/s/ Edward Milo Schwab
Edward Milo Schwab, #47897
Ascend Counsel, LLC
2401 S. Downing Street
Denver, CO 80210
(303) 888-4407
milo@ascendcounsel.co
Andrew David Ringel
Katherine Hoffman
Mark Scott Ratner
Hall & Evans LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 15
Counsel for Plaintiffs ringela@hallevans.com
hoffmank@hallevans.com
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Counsel for Defendants Mallory,
VanSickle, Robertson, Schilz, and Young
Jonathan M. Abramson
Yulia Nikolaevskaya
Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80209
303-320-6100
jonathan@kandf.com
julie@kandf.com
Counsel for Defendant Haferman
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 38 filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 15