HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-cv-1344 - Sever V. V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al. - 027 - Proposed Scheduling Order
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN
CARL SEVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
JASON HAFERMAN,
SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON, and
CORPORAL REDACTED.
Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER
1. DATE OF CONFERENCE
AND APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
The Scheduling Conference was held on September 21, 2023 at 11:30 am.
Present at the Scheduling Conference were the following counsel of record:
Sarah Schielke
The Life & Liberty Law Office
1209 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
P: (970) 493-1980
Attorney for Plaintiff
Yulia Nikolaevskaya, Esq.
Jonathan Abramson, Esq.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80209
P: (303) 320-6100
Attorneys for Defendant Jason Haferman
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 17
2
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Robert Weiner, Esq.
Katherine Hoffman, Esq.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
P: (303) 628-3300
Attorneys for City of Fort Collins and
Sergeant Allen Heaton
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1343 this being an action to redress the alleged deprivation, under color of state
law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. No party has currently
raised objections to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Defendants City of Fort Collins (“City”), Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman:
These Defendants admit the Court has jurisdiction over the matter as set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint, but deny Plaintiff’s characterization of the issues as set forth above.
3. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
a. Plaintiff: Plaintiff Carl Sever brings claims against Defendant Fort Collins Police
Officers Jason Haferman, Allen Heaton, and Corporal Redacted in their individual
capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their violation of his right to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and pursuant to § 13-21-131, C.R.S. for their violation of his right to be
free of unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to his Article II, section 7 of the
Colorado state constitution. He also bri ngs a Monell claim against the City of Fort
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 17
3
Collins for its failure to train and supervise Defendant Haferman and for its
unconstitutional customs and practices related to DUI arrests, both of which were
substantial and significant contributing proximate c auses and moving forces behind
the constitutional violations in this case. That same claim is also brought against
Defendant Sergeant Heaton for his knowing failure to supervise/train Haferman
despite being personally aware of his ongoing propensity for ma king wrongful DUI
arrests. Plaintiff Carl Sever also brings malicious prosecution claims against
Defendant Haferman for violation of his rights to due process under both the state and
federal constitutions.
b. Defendants:
Defendant City and Sergeant Heaton: On August 21, 2023, these Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Motion, which is currently pending before this Court, argues Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to comply with applicable pleading standards, including the failure
to allege anything other than liability under a theory of respondeat superior, which
is improper, and the failure to identify and custom, practice, policy, or procedure of
the City of Fort Collins. In additio n, Sergeant Heaton argues he is entitled to
qualified immunity.
Should an Answer on behalf of the City and/or Sergeant Heaton be filed in this
matter it is anticipated the substantive allegations will be denied and affirmative
defenses which include but are not limited to the following, will be set forth:
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 17
4
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief being sought or claimed in the Complaint
under any of the legal theories asserted therein.
3. Plaintiff relies substantially on their own investigations and not upon the
representations, if any, of the Defendant.
4. Plaintiff has unclean hands, which preclude any recovery from the
Defendant.
5. Plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages, if any, as required by law.
6. All or part of Plaintiff’s claims never achieved the level of any constitutional
violation sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel, equitable and
otherwise.
8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations or statute
of repose.
Defendant Haferman: Defendant Haferman denies that he violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment or Colorado constitution. Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to state a viable claim for Unlawful Arrest or Malicious Prosecution.
Defendant Haferman denies arresting Plaintiff without viable probable cause. Defendant
Haferman denies falsely prosecuting Plaintiff. Defendant Haferman is entitled to Qualified
Immunity under applicable federal law on Section 1983 claims.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 17
5
Defendant Haferman reserves the right to assert any affirmative defenses which become
ascertainable, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every Claim for Relief against the Defendant
Haferman set forth therein, fails to state a valid claim upon which the relief prayed
for may be granted.
2. Officer Haferman, to the extent 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 Officer Haferman were objectively reasonable under the
circumstances with which Officer Haferman was confronted.
3. Officer Haferman was lawfully exercising his Public Duties in accordance with §
18-1-701, C.R.S. Further, Officer Haferman was properly exercising h is 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.
4. Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking inasmuch as Plaintiff’s claims fail to rise to the
level of a deprivation of federal constitutional rights.
5. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are not to the extent and nature as alleged by Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were not approximately caused by any act or omission
of Officer Haferman.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 17
6
7. At all times material, Plaintiff was accorded all rights, privileges and immunities
guaranteed them by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and
Colorado Constitution.
8. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Haferman are substantially frivolous and
groundless, entitling Officer Haferman to recover his reasonable expenses,
including attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
11.
9. Officer Haferman is entitled to qualified immunity as to Section 1983 claims.
10. Plaintiff has failed to reasonably mitigate his damages, if any, and has failed to
exercise due diligence in an effort to mitigate his damages, and to the extent of
such failure to mitigate, any damages awarded to Plaintiff should be reduced
accordingly.
11. Officer Haferman reserves the right to assert any and all additional affirmative
defenses.
4. UNDISPUTED FACTS
The following facts are undisputed:
1. Plaintiff Carl Sever is a citizen of the United States and at all times relevant hereto
were residents of and domiciled in the State of Colorado.
2. At the time of the events described in the Complaint, Jason Haferman was a citizen
of the United States, a resident of the State of Co lorado, and was employed as an
officer with Fort Collins Police Services.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 17
7
3. At the time of the events described in the Complaint, Allen Heaton was a citizen of
the United States, a resident of the State of Colorado, and employed as a sergeant
with Fort Collins Police Services.
5. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES
Plaintiff: Plaintiff claims compensatory damages, including damages for emotional
distress, stress, anxiety, humiliation, and other pain and suffering, as well as economic
losses on all claims allowed by law, punitive damages on all claims allowed by law, in
amounts to be determined by a jury at trial.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: These Defendants do
not seek damages at this time, but reserve the right to do so pursuant to any applicable
Rules and case law.
6. REPORT OF PRECONFERENCE DISCOVERY AND
MEETING UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)
a. Date of Rule 26(f) meeting.
On August 11, 2023 at 3:00 pm the parties held a 26(f) conference via telephone between
counsel for the parties.
b. Names of each participant and party he/she represented.
Sarah Schielke representing Plaintiff Carl Sever.
Jonathan Abramson and Julie Nikolaevskaya representing Defendant Jason Haferman.
Mark S. Ratner representing Defendants City of Fort Collins and Allen Heaton.
c. Statement as to when Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made or will be made.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 17
8
The parties will make their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on or before fourteen (14) days
after the Scheduling Conference is held in this case.
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:
The parties do not have any specific agreement at this time to conduct informal di scovery.
f. Statement concerning any other agreements or procedures to reduce
discovery and other litigation costs, including the use of a unified exhibit
numbering system.
The parties agree to utilize a unified exhibit numbering system for deposition exhibits.
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 do not anticipate having extensive electronically stored information to
produce.
h. Statement summarizing the parties’ discussions regarding the possibilities
for promptly settling or resolving the case.
The parties have not discussed possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution of the
case.
7. CONSENT
All parties do not consent to the exercise of jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
8. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS
a. Modifications which any party proposes to the presumptive
numbers of depositions or interrogatories contained in the
Federal Rules.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 17
9
Depositions. As to depositions, the parties [ agree/disagree ]
Plaintiff: Plaintiff is requesting 7 depositions per side exclusive of experts.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: Seven (7) depositions per
side exclusive of experts is acceptable, but should be defined as 1 deposition of each
party, plus 3 others, exclusive of experts.
Interrogatories.
Plaintiff: Plaintiff proposes 30 interrogatories permitted per side. Sides are defined as
“Plaintiff” and “Defendants”.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: These Defendants agree
to 30 interrogatories per side.
b. Limitations which any party proposes on the length of depositions.
Plaintiff: Plaintiff proposes that each deposition should be limited to 1 day of 7 hours, as
stated by FRCP 30(d).
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: As stated in the Notice of
Related Cases (ECF 2), there are 3 other lawsuits pending in this District, involving similar
allegations as set forth in this matter. While acknowledging the specific underlying facts
for each Plaintiff’s DUI arrest in the matters set forth in ECF 2, duplicative discovery
among all the lawsuits is inevitable. In an attempt to conserve resources and minimize
duplicative discovery, these Defendants propose limiting depositions to no more than 3
hours each.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 17
10
In addition, a corporate party who is deposed under Rule 30(b)(6) may be deposed only
for up to seven (7) hours, regardless of the number of representatives designated to testify
on the corporation’s behalf. Despite these limitations, the parties anticipat e they will use
reasonable efforts to keep the depositions to the amount of time reasonably necessary to
accomplish legitimate purposes of discovery.
c. Limitations which any party proposes on the number of requests for production and/or
requests for admission.
Requests for Production.
Plaintiff: Plaintiff requests 30 RPDs be permitted per side.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: These Defendants agree
to 30 Requests for Production per side.
Requests for Admission.
Plaintiff: Plaintiff requests 30 RFAs per side.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman: Defendants’ position is that
RFA’s are intended to streamline litigation through admission of basic factual information,
such as the authenticity of documents. The Rule is not intended to set forth multiple legal
premises in an attempt to support a parties’ entire lawsuit, and doing so is improper.
These Defendants request RFA’s be limited to 10.
d. Deadline for service of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of
Documents and/or Admissions:
Deadline for Interrogatories: 35 days before the cutoff for discovery.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of
17
11
Deadline for Requests for Production of Documents and/or Admissions:
35 days before the cutoff for discovery.
e. Other Planning or Discovery Orders
The City and Sergeant Heaton have circulated a proposed protective order
among the parties, and are awaiting input before submission to the Court. In addition,
Sergeant Heaton is contemplating the filing of a motion to stay discovery of the entire
matter, pending determination of qualified immunity. This requ est has not yet been
discussed among the parties.
9. CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings:
Plaintiff propose that amended and supplemental pleadings will be made pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. by no later than _________________. (The parties propose 45 days
after the entry of the Scheduling Order).
b. Discovery Cut-off: May 21, 2024 (8 months from the scheduling
conference)
c. Dispositive Motion Deadline (including 702 and 704 motions): July 9, 2024
(45 days after the discovery cut-off date).
d. Expert Witness Disclosures
1. The parties shall identify anticipated fields of expert testimony,
if any.
Plaintiff: Police procedure and training, SFST (Standardized Field
Sobriety Test) Training/DUI Investigation, and any expert necessary
for rebuttal or impeachment purposes in the fields set forth by
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of
17
12
Defendants City and Sergeant Heaton: These Defendants
anticipate retaining those experts necessary to address and rebut
Plaintiff’s experts as set forth above. The need for affirmative
experts has not yet been determined.
Defendant Haferman anticipates calling experts in the fields of
police tactics, police procedure and training, DUI enforcement; and
any expert necessary for rebuttal and/or impeachment purposes in
the fields set forth by Plaintiff. Defendant Haferman may call experts
in other areas as well.
2. Limitations which the parties propose on the use or
number of expert witnesses.
The parties agree to a limit of three (3) experts per party group,
plus rebuttal experts, if necessary. Party groups shall be
defined as: (1) Plaintiff; (2) Defendant Haferman; (3) City and
Sergeant Heaton.
3. Plaintiff proposes that the parties shall designate all
experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se parties
with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or
before February 21, 2024.
4. Plaintiff proposes 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
April 13, 2024.
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman:
Plaintiff bears the burden with respect to his claims, and
therefore these Defendants request a “staggered” expert
disclosure schedule as follows: Plaintiff shall disclose his
experts by February 21, 2024; Defendants’ shall disclose their
experts by March 21, 2024; Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed
by April 21, 2024.
e. Identification of Persons to Be Deposed:
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of
17
13
Plaintiffs:
1. Jason Haferman
2. Allen Heaton
3. Corporal Redacted
4. Jeff Swoboda
5. Kim Cochran
6. Any other FCPS personnel or other witnesses named in the internal affairs
investigative report into Haferman related to this incident (unable to be named at
this time due to FCPS redacting all such names from the report)
7. Any other scene or supervisory witnesses identified during discovery
Defendants City, Sergeant Heaton and Defendant Haferman:
1. Plaintiff
2. Shane Hasebroock
3. Sam Roth
4. Any witness called by Plaintiff or disclosed by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s disclosures
5. Any additional scene witness identified during discovery.
10. DATES FOR FURTHER CONFERENCES
a. Status conferences will be held in this case at the following dates and times:
.
b. A final pretrial conference will be held in this case on ____________at o’clock
_____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.
Trial will be to jury and is anticipated to last 1 week (5 days).
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of
17
14
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).
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 only be amended or altered upon a showing
of good cause.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this day of , 2023.
BY THE COURT:
United States Magistrate Judge
APPROVED:
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of
17
15
The Life & Liberty Law Office, LLC
/s/ Sarah Schielke
Sarah Schielke
The Life & Liberty Law Office
1209 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
P: (970) 493-1980
E: sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/_______________
Jonathan Abramson, Esq.
Yulia Nikolaevskaya, Esq.
Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80209
Email: jonathan@kandf.com
julie@kandf.com
Attorneys for Defendant Jason Haferman
/s/
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Robert Weiner, Esq.
Katherine Hoffman, Esq.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Email: ratnerm@hallevans.com
weinerr@hallevans.com
hoffmank@hallevans.com
Attorneys for City of Fort Collins and
Sergeant Allen Heaton
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 15, 2023, I electronically filed PROPOSED
SCHEDULING ORDER with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system with service on
all parties of record.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of
17
16
s/ Sarah Schielke
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 16 of
17
17
Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-NYW-NRN Document 27 filed 09/15/23 USDC Colorado pg 17 of
17