FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Kay Kim, Plaintiff, )

)v. )

)VEC HOA (Village at Eagle Creek ) Cause No. 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML Home Owner’s Association) ) Judge Theodore M Sosin, the Court Staff & )

Commissioner Richard Gilroy )Northwest District Prosecutor(s) )Officers Melvin Clayton & his Partner )Officer Ryan J. Romeril ) State of Indiana Attorney General, et al. )

Defendants. )

CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. Parties and Representatives

A. Plaintiff: Kim KayPro Se

4250 Village Pkwy Circle E Unit 2 Indianapolis, IN 46254

Pho (317) 641-5977 / Fax# (317) 641-5977call firsteml: [email protected]

B. Defendant’s Counsel: Kathy Bradley Deputy Attorney General State of Indiana Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General Indiana Government Center, 5th Floor

302 W. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Phone: (317) 234-2968 / Fax: (317) 232-7979 Email: [email protected]

Defendants : Judge Theodore M Sosin & the staff,Commissioner Richard GilroyNorthwest District Prosecutor(s).

of 17FED1 CMP-uniform compiled by Plaintiff 09APR2009

mailto:[email protected]

Defendant’s Counsels: Nicole R. KelseyAssistant Corp., Office of Corporation Counsel 200 East Washington St., Room 1601Indianapolis, IN 46204; T# (317) 327-4055F# (317) 327-3968 / E-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan L. MayesChief Litigation Counsel, Office of Corporation Counsel200 East Washington St., Room 1601Indianapolis, IN 46204T# (317) 327-4055 / F# (317) 327-3968E-mail: [email protected]

Defendants : Lt. Jim Waters as an officer of IMPD and as a VEC HOA Security guard & individual

capacity, IMPD NW District Supervisor (name unknown), IMPD Gregory Wilkes, IMPD Shawn Smith, IMPD Robert Lowe, IMPD Ryan J. Romeril,

IMPD Melvin Clayton & his Partner

Defendant’s Counsels: James Edgar Attorney, J. Edgar Law Office, Prof. Corp., 1512 N. Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202

Pho# (317) 472-4000Fax# (317) 472-0640eml: [email protected]

Defendants : Mae Vera, Scott Perry, Rhonda Heath, Patricia Ladenthin, Linda Handlon.

Defendant’s Counsels: unknown

Defendants: Susan Sclipcea & Charles Ritter 4250 Village Parkway Cr. E., #5 Indianapolis, IN 46254

Defendant’s Counsels: unknown

Defendants: Village at Eagle Creek Home Association7225 Village Parkway Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46254 Phone (317) 291-4916, E-mail - [email protected]





Counsel shall promptly file a notice with the Clerk if there is any change in this information. II. Synopsis of Case

A. Plaintiff’s Statement of Claims:

Plaintiff filed a Motion for the United States Attorney General (US AG) to intervene at the same time the “Complaint” was filed. Board of Directors of VEC HOA and the Police for conspircy to intentionally and maliciously violated Plaintiff’s Housing and Civil rights. As a result there were more than 100 police runs and the Plaintiff was arrested on 5 different occasions without any valid probable cause. There were constant vandalisms, harassments and intimidations to the Plaintiff and her property. The Plaintiff has filed sufficient supplement files which includes affidavits of Charles Chuang to justify and warrant the US AG intervention. The Plaintiff respectfully request the court to rule on the motion for the US AG intervention.

Civil rights, Fair Housing Act and the U.S. Constitutions have been violated by the named and unnamed Defendants of VECHOA, VEC HOA Boards of Directorss-Kim Timmis, Bryan Whitfield, etc., VEC HOA property managers-Sharon Overley, Laura Ritter, etc., IMPD Police Officer/VEC HOA Security guards-James Waters, IMPD Police Officers, civilian employees of the State of Indiana, Judges, Prosecutors, court appointed psychologist & psychiatist; Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; Equal rights under the law; Acted under color of law; Action for neglect to prevent; Arrested without probable cause and warrant in the real and personal property; Used excessive force on a handicapped person; Disparate treatments. Depriving the rights of enjoyment in the real & personal property; Discrimination against race and handicapped; Violation of Plaintiff rights for self representation in courts; Violations of Plaintiff rights for due process/unusal and cruel punishment financially and mentally; Violation of search and seizer.

State of Indiana is destroying evidence and protecting the conspirators and/or

individuals for their wrong doing. Over the years, State of Indiana’s only purpose is to “hang” the Plaintiff and cover up any wilful and illegal actions against the Plaintiff. One of the best way to prove the conspiracy theory on the last arrest on November 6, 2008 and previous arrests, I, Plainitff need police communication event history &/or transcript on the days of incidents. I was told to get the court order(s). Initial discovery process, The Marion County Sheriff Department claimed that their server was down/malfunctioned on November 6, 2008 the record that I requested ; therefore, they are unable to provide what I requeted. I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se demand the court to impose a maximum fine $100,000.00 to the Marion County Sheriff Department &/or whatever department/whoever is/are responsible for losing the file because, this is cover up – conspiracy within the conspiricy.

The Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se respectfully ask the court to look into the totality of my sufferings over the years.


The Plaintiff demand monetary compensation for both actual and punitive damages since 1999 to this day. (See estimate dollar amount for “Plaintiff’s Estimate of Damages” below for detail.)

Plaintiff’s Statement of Relevant Facts:

Plaintiff moved into VEC unit in February 1999. Since then the police were called by both parties. The police were on scene more than 100 times leading up to last arrest on November 6, 2008. The VEC HOA Boards placed restraining orders and threatened lawsuits against the Plaintiff and Charles Chuang when a couple of neighbors complained that the Plaintiff, Kay Kim was harassing-talking to them in an unsecured-grass common area in front of my unit. I requested for a handicap ramp numerous times for many years but, because of their non response, I have to buy a own portable ramp. After spent $200.00 and about 7 years later, VECHOA finally provided a ramp.

VEC HOA property manager and MCSD/VEC HOA Security guard Jerry Shalluom tried to get the court to issue a restraining order while I was arrested in jail (I was/went jail by the President of the Board of VEC HOA/Prison Walden Chris Meloy. The case was dismissed because the State’s witnesses-VEC HOA President/Prison Walden Chris Meloy & polices failed to show up in the court. Further conspiriacy by the police and neighbors resulted in my arrests and jailed on 4 different occasions. Since that time, the Plaintiff and her family were afraid of retaliation and has never used secured common facilities. Since 1999, as soon as Plaintiff moved into the VECHOA unit. VEC HOA and the Boards of Directors, Property manager and Police/VEC HOA secrutiy guard tried to put the Plaintiff in a mental hospital and jail many times. This has been going on 10 years. My complaints to the VEC HOA Boards were always ignored. To make the matter worse, the Plaintiff was constantly ridiculed by the Defendants for the police arrests and craziness.

I was transported to mental hospital few times and was coerced to take the blood and urine test because the Defendants accused me that I, Plaintiff is “mental”, “crazy”, & “drug addict”. Even if last arrest on November 6, 2008 did not happened, VEC and a few neighbors planned to turn me over the prosecutor to prosecute me – they hired the lawyer to write a letter addressed to my building 4250 but its intended target is me. VEC HOA as a whole with good on the words, “… Make your life so miserable, and … I make sure that you move out of your unit….” Last arrest on November was conspiracy.

I was transported to the mental hospital few times and was coerced to take the blood and urine test because the Defendants alleged without any evidence that the Plaintiff is “mental”, “crazy”, & “drug addict”. Just before the last arrest on November 6, 2008, the VECHOA hired a lawyer to write a letter addressed to my building 4250 and threatening to turn me over the prosecutor for criminal charges. The VEC HOA property manager said it all for their intended to “… make your life so miserable, and … make sure that you move out of your unit….” The arrest on November 6 was part of the grand conspiracy to make me to move.

VEC HOA smeared dog feces and vandalized the Plaintiff property-vehicles, mailbox, unit door & window screen doors, restraining her use of the common areas. The VECHOA allowed trash/dog feces, sharp objects-knifes, nails, knife like items to be thrown


near her property. Her vehicles are vandalized on numerous occasions. Trash, knives like sharp objects are also thrown near my patio. I requested to VEC HOA Boards and property managers on numerous times in writing over the years for replacements or reinbursement for the damages but I was never compensated and damages still exist today.

The State of Indiana violated US Constitution on five different occasions for arresting the Plaintiff without probable causes at the time of arrest. The State of Indiana also deliberately disregards of the Plaintiff Rights for due process by not enforcing the statute of limitations for the 2005-2007 misdemeanor cases. 4 cases are still on the preliminary hearing stage/pending. Indiana criminal court judges, prosecutors, accusers, public defender, psycho doctors tried to label the Plaintiff as mental even own State appointed psycho doctors have certified the Plaintiff has no psychosis mental disorder on three different occasions when she was arrested. One of psycho doctor’s report was never given to me and disappeared. No Indiana criminal court judges wanted to hear her cases.

The Indiana Civil court Judge, the court clerks and the police conspired to have the Plaintiff thrown out of city building and prevented her from filing. Finally the Plaintiff was arrested for trespassing in city county building without a probable cause.

All this time my vehicles and property are vandalized. Scott Perry, Patricia Ladenthin, and the Police ordered to the Plaintiff to move away from the common area with threat of arrest; so, the Plaintiff did move from the common-grass area. Plaintiff had no choice but to comply with the police threat and unlawful order. Plaintiff was humulated with the incident. Plaintiff was singled out as her rights were inferior than others and was treated such countelss times for 10 years and counting. On November 6, 2008 the Police came into to my house and arrested me without a valid probable cause or warrant. The police used unwarranted force on a handicapp person causing her to bleed internally for more than two months.

VECHOA Security guard, an IMPD Lt. James Waters has been involved over the years. He has directly and indirectly conspired with IMPD officers, VEC HOA Boards and other defendants. All the arrests are civil matters which must be resolved by the Laws and Byelaws of the VECHOA. He steered and directed IMPD officers to arrest me. He conspired to plot against the Plaintiff many times for her to get arrested and transported to mental hospital. Three of my arrests at my home are directly due to his malice. Even if without conviction, arrested record alone, my peacful life is literally over; especially those who wants to exploit in mal tention(s).

VEC HOA Board of Directors selectively discriminate and target me so that they can achieve their ultimate goal of defrauding the association and pocketing hundreds of thousands dollar. The Board used the Plaintiff in a “wag the dog” scheme so that they can continue to enrich themselves. The VEC HOA Boards accomplish their goal by paying paying active police officers like IMPD Lt. James Waters literally doing nothing. The main reason is for VEC HOA Board of Directors and property managers to pay him is to influence/steer police so, they don’t get investigate and prosecute for their embezzlements. This method and scheme was introduced by ex-Prison Walden Chris Meloy and has been used long before I have moved into the unit. Because of their connection to the police/police department made me a “habitual criminal” since 1999. According to my estimate, the VEC HOA Boards & Property managers


embezzled/defraud more than $1.5 million from the Association since 1989. VEC HOA President Kim Timmis, VEC HOA Treasurer Bryan Whitfield, Sharon Overley, Jim Bumb, Chris Meloy and their cronies embazzled(s) at least $500,000.00 est. during the last 5 years. I allege that Kim Timmis and Bryan Whitfield embezzels(ed)/defrauds(ed) the money from the VEC HOA for more than $300,000.00 est. and pockted(s) the bulk of it and used me as a scrap meat to feed the others to take the mind off on them & … I, Plaintiff will be named Kim Timmis and Bryan Whitfield as parties to this suit as a VEC HOA individual capacity with the demand.

The, Plaintiff feel that she has given up/sacrificed her housing and civil rights more than anyone else living in a condo in the United States. As a matter of fact, this will never happened if her race was “white.” This has been going on continously for 10 years. All the disputes are civil matters and the police should never be involved. The Defendants maliciously took this deceit a new and higher level cumulating to the well cheorographed accusation on November 6,2008. The Plaintiff hold the Court greatly responsible and igniting the ongoing problems. This Court failed/neglected to protect the Plaintiff during and posting of the first lawsuit-1:05-cv-SEB-JMS and the Defendants got bolder by the ruling/final judgment of the the 1:05-cv-SEB-JMS & Indidan Civil Court ruling 49D01-0604-PL-0013949 against the Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se.

The only way for Police, residents/owners of building 4250, VEC HOA Boards and State of Indiana to protect themselves is to make up more false accusations against the Plaintiff. However lies begets more lies and cover up leads to more cover up.

My last pleading to VEC HOA, HOA-buildig 4250 & VEC HOA Boards ended due to incident on October 5, 2008: (ref. Original “Complaint” line 37.) The Plaintiff was humiliated in the common area. 4250 #8 Scott Perry, #3 Patricia Ladenthin and IMPD Police Officers together humiliated me many times. Their intentio is to brake me. They have no intention to stop their harassments and intimations which include put me jail &/or mental instituion. A month later on November 6, 2008, I got arrested by conspiracy to intentional frame the Plaintiff with false witness. The Police arrested the Plaintiff at her home without a valid probable cause and warrant. The Police used unnecessary and excessive force on a handicap person. Though, Charles Ritter, Susan Sclipsea, Mae Vera and Scott Perry are involved though they did not sign State’s witness list, I have every intention to prove their involvement in the conspiracy.

Plaintiff’s Legal Theories:

Violation of Civil rights, Fair Housing Act and U.S. Constitution: Title VII, VIII-FH, 18, 42, 43 & US Constitution-I/IV/V/VIII/XI.

Plaintiff’s Basis for Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

Police officers, Judges, Prosecutors for violating a federal civil rights statute that authorizes civil damages lawsuits by a person who are unlawfully arrested, jailed and coerced to take the blood and urine test in purpose of phishing to justify wrongful arrests and jailed. Arrested by excessive force, without a probable cause and warrant in real and personal property.


Plaintiff’s Estimate of Damages:

November 6, 2008 arrest:Bond cost: $ 1,500.00misc exp (expense): $ 200.00Criminal exp (ongoing): $ 500.00Fed court cost & exp (ongoing): $ 1, 350.00

Judge Sosin & his staff: $ 7,000.00

VEC HOA Boards:Half of the association fee: $ 6,000.00

non use of the secured common areas for 10years because of restrained and fear of retailiation.

My own expense to up keep common area: $ 1,800.00$15./mo x 12 mos x 10 years.

Damages to personal property: $ 500.00unit door, mailbox, screen doors, misc.

Refused/delayed of handicapped ramp $ 200.00own ramp ($100.) & doctor’s note ($100.)

VEC HOA: (I put up $10,000.00 notice of reward for these ongoing incidents.)hated/targeted Vehicle vandalism: $ 300.00

tire, tailgate light, bumpers, window frames,windshield wiper, stole 2 hubcaps.

Conspirators of last arrest on November 6, 2008 - Charles Ritter+Susan Sclipsea, Scott Perry+Mae Vera, Rhonda Heath+Linda Handlon, Patricia Ladenthin each person to pay same actual damages and not divide by number of conspirators to the total dollar amount listed on the above Nov 6, ’08 arrest which total of (ongoing case): $ 3,350.00

IMPD/VEC Security guard James Waters involvement my arrests numerous times directly and indirectly since 2005 leading up to last arrest Nov 6, ’08 as an individual capacity:

Nov 6, ’08 arrest (ongoing case): $ 3,350.00

IMPD/VEC Security guard James Waters, VEC property manager Sharon Overley & ?everybody who called me “crazy” & “mental” resulted for Plaintiff to get arrested, transported to mental hospital, and jailed (ongoing criminal case) and (each pays):

Indiana criminal court exp (ongoing): $ 1,000.00Federal civil court exp: $ 1,000.00

IMPD James Waters, Linda Handlon, Patricia Ladenthin 7/31/06 arrest & each pays

Indiana criminal court exp (ongoing):$ $ 300.00


1999 arrest – only disposed/dismissed case: lawyer fee exp. $ 1,500.00Bond cost $ 300.00misc exp: $ 500.00

_________________________________________________________*Actual Estimate Damages total: $30,650.00=================================================== Punitive Estimate Damages (3times of actual est dmg.): $91,950.00===================================================

*WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE Actual esimate damages and not limited to:

- Actual esimate damages total of $30,650.00 is not included number of Defendants’ for their obligations.

- Actual estimate damages of 1,000.00 price of the car gave up due to VEC HOA president and IMPD/VEC Security guard James Waters’s harassments.

- Ongoing incurred actual cost and punitive damages are not included because of the faults of named and unnamed Defendants of VEC HOA Boards, Indiana Criminal court Prosecutor(s), Judge(s), psychologists.

- Notice of reward amount of $10,000.00 is not included.

The degree of seriousness combined/varied with the actual and punitive damages to the Plaintiff by the named and unnamed Defendants are interdependant of all the matters in front of this court.

B. Defendant’s Synopsis of Case:

Plaintiff fails to state any factual allegations on which to base a claim against Defendant State of Indiana Attorney General, and State of Indiana Attorney General denies any liability to Plaintiff. . Defendants Lt. Jim Waters as an officer of IMPD and Individual Capacity, IMPD NW District Supervisor (name unknown), Gregory Wilkes, Shawn Smith, and Robert Lowe deny any liability to Plaintiff. These Defendants acted reasonably and in good faith at all times. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Defendants Mae Vera, Scott Perry, Rhonda Heath, Patricia Ladenthin and Linda Handlon may have counterclaims against the Plaintiff.

1III. Pretrial Pleadings and Disclosures


Actual est dmg + Punitive est dmg: GRAND TOTAL OF $122,600.00

A. The parties shall serve their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures on or before April 30, 2009 [no later than 4 months from Anchor Date]. [Note: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E) permits the parties to object to making initial disclosures or to stipulate to a different deadline for making such disclosures based upon the circumstances of the action. If any objection and/or stipulation is made to initial disclosures in the CMP, the parties shall briefly state the circumstances justifying their respective positions.

B. Plaintiff(s) shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists on or before May 8, 2009 [no later than 5 months from Anchor Date].

C. Defendant(s) shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists on or before June 8, 2009 [no later than 6 months from Anchor Date].

D. All motions for leave to amend the pleadings and/or to join additional parties shall be filed on or before May 8, 2009 [no later than 5 months from Anchor Date].

E. Plaintiff(s) shall serve Defendant(s) (but not file with the Court) a statement of special damages, if any, and make a settlement demand, on or before May 8, 2009 [no later than 5 months from the Anchor Date]. Defendant(s) shall serve on the Plaintiff(s) (but not file with the Court) a response thereto within 30 days after receipt of the demand.

F. Plaintiff(s) shall disclose the name, address, and vita of all expert witnesses, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) on or before January 8, 2010 [no later than 13 months from Anchor Date]. However, if Plaintiff uses expert witness testimony at the summary judgment stage, such disclosures must be made no later than 60 days prior to the summary judgment deadline.

G. Defendant(s) shall disclose the name, address, and vita of all expert witnesses, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) within 30 days after Plaintiff(s) serves its expert witness disclosure; or if none, Defendant(s) shall make its expert disclosure on or before February 8, 2010 [no later than 14 months from Anchor Date]. However, if Defendant uses expert witness testimony at the summary judgment stage, such disclosures must be made no later than 30 days prior to the summary judgment deadline.

H. Any party who wishes to limit or preclude expert testimony at trial shall file any such objections no later than 60 days before trial [60 days before trial]. Any party who wishes to preclude expert witness testimony at the summary judgment stage shall file any such objections with their responsive brief within the briefing schedule established by Local Rule 56.1.

I. All parties shall file and serve their final witness and exhibit lists on or before February 8, 2010 [no later than 14 months from Anchor Date].


J. Any party who believes that bifurcation of discovery and/or trial is appropriate with respect to any issue or claim shall notify the Court as soon as practicable.

K. The parties have discussed preservation and disclosure of electronically stored discovery information, including a timetable for making the materials available to the opposing party.

IV. Discovery 1 and Dispositive Motions

11 The term “completed,” as used in Section IV.B, means that counsel must serve their discovery requests in sufficient time to receive responses before this deadline. Counsel may not serve discovery requests within the 30-day period before this deadline unless they seek leave of Court to serve a belated request and show good cause for the same. In such event, the proposed belated discovery request shall be filed with the motion, and the opposing party will receive it with service of the motion but need not


Due to the time and expense involved in conducting expert witness depositions and other discovery, as well as preparing and resolving dispositive motions, the Court requires counsel to use the CMP as an opportunity to seriously explore whether this case is appropriate for such motions (including specifically motions for summary judgment), whether expert witnesses will be needed, and how long discovery should continue. To this end, counsel must select the track set forth below that they believe best suits this case. If the parties are unable to agree on a track, the parties must: (1) state this fact in the CMP where indicated below; (2) indicate which track each counsel believes is most appropriate; and (3) provide a brief statement supporting the reasons for the track each counsel believes is most appropriate. If the parties are unable to agree on a track, the Court will pick the track it finds most appropriate, based upon the contents of the CMP or, if necessary, after receiving additional input at an initial pretrial conference.

A. Does any party believe that this case may be appropriate for summary judgment or other dispositive motion? If yes, the party(ies) that expect to file such a motion must provide a brief statement of the factual and/or legal basis for such a motion.

Defendant State of Indiana Attorney General has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In the event that motion is denied, State of Indiana Attorney General anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment that will likely include that Plaintiff’s suit is barred on the basis of sovereign immunity and he is entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants Lt. Waters, IMPD NW District Supervisor name unknown, Gregory Wilkes, Shawn Smith, and Robert Lowe anticipate filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Should that motion be denied Defendants anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment. The issues will likely include that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as she claims.

Defendants Mae Vera, Scott Perry, Rhonda Heath, Patricia Ladenthin and Linda Handlon anticipate filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), arguing that the plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Should that motion fail, these defendants anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment asserting that the claims asserted by the plaintiff do not apply to them as individuals.

B. Select the track that best suits this case:

Track 1: No dispositive motions are anticipated. All discovery shall be completed by _________.

__X__ Track 2: Dispositive motions are expected and shall be filed by November 6, 2009 [no later than 11 months from Anchor Date]; non-expert witness discovery and discovery relating to liability issues shall be completed by October 8, 2009 [no later than

respond to the same until such time as the Court grants the motion.


7-10 months from Anchor Date]; expert witness discovery and discovery relating to damages shall be completed by April 10, 2010.

Track 3: Dispositive motions are expected and shall be filed no later than _____________; expert witness discovery that may be necessary at the dispositive motions stage shall be completed by .

Track 4: Dispositive motions shall be filed by ; non-expert discovery shall be completed by __________; expert witness discovery shall be completed by ..

V. Pre-Trial/Settlement Conferences

The parties do not request a settlement conference at this time.

VI. Trial Date

The presumptive trial date is June, 2010 . The trial is by Court and is anticipated to take 2-3 days. Counsel should indicate here the reasons that a shorter or longer track is appropriate. While all dates herein must be initially scheduled to match the presumptive trial date, if the Court agrees that a different track is appropriate, the case management order approving the CMP plan will indicate the number of months by which all or certain deadlines will be extended to match the track approved by the Court.

VII. Referral to Magistrate Judge

At this time, all parties do not consent to refer this matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 73 for all further proceedings including trial.

VIII. Required Pre-Trial Preparation

A. TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, the parties shall:

1. File a list of witnesses who are expected to be called to testify at trial.


2. Number in sequential order all exhibits, including graphs, charts and the like, that will be used during the trial. Provide the Court with a list of these exhibits, including a description of each exhibit and the identifying designation. Make the original exhibits available for inspection by opposing counsel. Stipulations as to the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits are encouraged to the greatest extent possible.

3. Submit all stipulations of facts in writing to the Court. Stipulations are always encouraged so that at trial, counsel can concentrate on relevant contested facts.

4. A party who intends to offer any depositions into evidence during the party's case in chief shall prepare and file with the Court and copy to all opposing parties either:

a. brief written summaries of the relevant facts in the depositions that will be offered. (Because such a summary will be used in lieu of the actual deposition testimony to eliminate time reading depositions in a question and answer format, this is strongly encouraged.); or

b. if a summary is inappropriate, a document which lists the portions of the deposition(s), including the specific page and line numbers, that will be read, or, in the event of a video-taped deposition, the portions of the deposition that will be played, designated specifically by counter-numbers.

5. Provide all other parties and the Court with any trial briefs and motions in limine, along with all proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions, and areas of inquiry for voir dire (or, if the trial is to the Court, with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law).

6. Notify the Court and opposing counsel of the anticipated use of any evidence presentation equipment.

B. ONE WEEK BEFORE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, the parties shall:

1. Notify opposing counsel in writing of any objections to the proposed exhibits. If the parties desire a ruling on the objection prior to trial, a motion should be filed noting the objection and a description and designation of the exhibit, the basis of the objection, and the legal authorities supporting the objection.


2. If a party has an objection to the deposition summary or to a designated portion of a deposition that will be offered at trial, or if a party intends to offer additional portions at trial in response to the opponent's designation, and the parties desire a ruling on the objection prior to trial, the party shall submit the objections and counter summaries or designations to the Court in writing. Any objections shall be made in the same manner as for proposed exhibits. However, in the case of objections to video-taped depositions, the objections shall be brought to the Court's immediate attention to allow adequate time for editing of the deposition prior to trial.

3. File objections to any motions in limine, proposed instructions, and voir dire questions submitted by the opposing parties.

4. Notify the Court and opposing counsel of requests for separation of witnesses at trial.

IX. Other Matters

None at this time.

_____________________________ _____________________________Kay Kim Village at Eagle Creek Home Asso.Plaintiff, Pro Se 7225 Village Parkway Drive,


Indianapolis, IN 46254

______________________________ __________________________Kathy Bradley Nicole R. Kelsey Attorney for Defendants Attorney for DefendantsDeputy Attorney General Assistant Corporation CounselOffice of the Attorney General Office of Corporation Counsel

___________________________ ___________________________Jonathan L. Mayes James Edgar Chief Litigation Counsel, Attorney for DefendantsAttorney for Defendants J. Edgar Law Officers, Prof. Corp.Office of of Corporation Counsel

CMP filed dkt 80 by S. Sclipsea CMP filed dkt 88 by C.Ritter Susan Sclipsea Charles RitterDefendant Defendant4250 Village pkwy cir e #5 4250 Village pkwy cir e #5Indianapolis, IN 46254 Indianapolis, IN 46254

******************************************************************************

PARTIES APPEARED IN PERSON/BY COUNSEL ON FOR A PRETRIAL/STATUS CONFERENCE.

APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.

APPROVED AS AMENDED.


APPROVED AS AMENDED PER SEPARATE ORDER.

APPROVED, BUT ALL OF THE FOREGOING DEADLINES ARE SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY ______________ MONTHS.

APPROVED, BUT THE DEADLINES SET IN SECTION(S) _______________ OF THE PLAN IS/ARE SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY ________ MONTHS.

THIS MATTER IS SET FOR TRIAL BY __________________ ON________________________. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR _______________________________________ AT _____.M., ROOM .

A SETTLEMENT/STATUS CONFERENCE IS SET IN THIS CASE FOR ___________ AT .M. COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR: IN PERSON IN ROOM ; OR

BY TELEPHONE, WITH COUNSEL FOR __________ _______________________ INITIATING THE CALL TO ALL OTHER PARTIES AND ADDING THE COURT JUDGE AT (____) ___________________; OR

BY TELEPHONE, WITH COUNSEL CALLING THE JUDGE'S STAFF AT (____) ___________________; OR

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN

Upon approval, this Plan constitutes an Order of the Court. Failure to comply with an Order of the Court may result in sanctions for contempt, or as provided under Rule 16(f), to and including dismissal or default.

Approved and So Ordered.

________________________ ___________________________________Date U. S. District Court

Southern District of IndianaDISTRIBUTION: Chief Judge David F. Hamilton; Judge Larry J. McKinney; Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing to the counsels were mailed on April 13, ’09 by

first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and served to the defendants on no later than April 18, 2009:

Kathy BradleyDeputy Attorney General


State of Indiana Attorney GeneralOffice of Attorney General,Indiana Government Center South, Fifth floor302 West Washington St.,Indianapolis, IN 46204T# (317) 234-2968 / F# (317) 232-7979

Nicole R. KelseyAssistant Corp. Counsel, Office of Corporation Counsel200 East Washington St., Room 1601Indianapolis, IN 46204T# (317) 327-4055 / F# (317) 327-3968 / E-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan L. MayesChief Litigation CounselOffice of Corporation Counsel200 East Washington St., Room 1601Indianapolis, IN 46204T# (317) 327-4055 / F# (317) 327-3968E-mail: [email protected]

James EdgarAttorney, J. Edgar Law Office, Prof. Corp.,1512 N. Delaware StreetIndianapolis, IN 46202 Pho# (317) 472-4000 / Fax# (317) 472-0640 / em: [email protected]

Village at Eagle Creek Home Association7225 Village Parkway Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46254 Phone (317) 291-4916, E-mail - [email protected]

Susan Sclipcea & Charles Ritter4250 Village Pkwy c.e. unit 5, Indianapolis., IN 46254

____________________Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff4250 Village Pkwy c e apt. 2Indpls., IN 46254, Ph# 317-641-5977e-mail: [email protected]




FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Documents

Transcript of FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN