In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine … addition, Defendants have filed a Motion...

In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine regarding thePSB investigation.

112. Photographs of Teresa August in arm brace [000160 - 000166].

Defendants object to Exhibit 112 as lacking foundation andirrelevant.

DEFENDANTS:

1. Phoenix Police Department Report DR 21067717, and supplementsthereto. [AUGUST0027-38, 77, 82,87]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice

2. Superior Court Release Questionnaire regarding State of Arizona v.Teresa August. [AUGUST0078-79]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice

3. Photographs of subjects taken by the Phoenix Police Department followingthe incident. [AUGUST0006, 08,10,13-15,18,23 & 26]. The partieshave stipulated to this exhibit.

4. Phoenix Police Department Communications Bureau CAD printoutsregarding the incident. [AUGUST0089-93, AUGUST-BLACK00042]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation.

5, Audiotape ofthe 9-1-1 phone call from Plaintiffs home on June 10,2002.[AUGUST0074]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, prejudice; lack of compliance withA.R.S. 13-3989.01(A) failing which no foundation may be laid, evenwith a person who can identify their voice on the tape {tbe 9-1-1operator} as that person can not lay foundation for what happened tothe tape between the time the 9-1-1 call occurred and its being offeredat trial.

6. Transcript of the 9-1-1 call for this incident [AUGUSTl445 - 56]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation

7. Audiotape of interview with Sam Hickey. [AUGUST0073].

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, should be only forimpeachment

1685005,]

8. Transcript of interview with Sam Hickey. [AUGUST0055-58)

- 40-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

168500.').1

9. Audiotape of recorded communications by Officer Monson during andafter Teresa August is placed under arrest. [AUGUST0072). The partieshave stipulated to this exhibit.

10. Transcript of Officer Monson's recording of Teresa August during incidenton 6/10/02. IAUGUST2257 - 69]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation

11. The Phoenix Police Department Use of Force policy that was in effect onthe day of the incident. [AUGUSTOI52 -170]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, relevance, foundation

12. Phoenix Fire Department EMS Incident Report pertaining to TeresaAugust regarding the subject incident. [AUGUST0114-117]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

13. Medical Records from Arizona Heart Hospital with custodian of recordsaffidavit.

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, subject to redaction ofinsurance information and reference to inaccurate statement ofmedical history.

14. Medical Records from Maricopa County Medical Center. IAUGUST259-260]

15. Training Records of Officer Lyle Monson. IAUGUSTOI71-173]


16. Training Records of Officer Nicholas Lynde. IAUGUST0174-175]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundatioD, relevance

17. Training Records of Officer Toby Dunn. IAUGUSTOI76-180)


18. Training Records of Officer Robert Griffin. [AUGUSTOI84-187)


19. Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Lyle Monson IAUGUST2220-2224)



]685005.1

20. Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Nicholas Lynde IAUGUST2215-2219)


21. Patrol Division Worksheet for Officer Toby Dunn. [AUGUST2212 -2214]


22. Equivalent Value Statement received from Cigna [AUGUST0408 - 416,1407)


23. Minute Entry pertaining to Preliminary Hearing in State of Arizona v.Teresa August, CRl0903-009751 [AUGUST0538 - 539]


24. C.V. of Commander J. Hynes [AUGUST1668 -1680]


25. Report prepared by Commander Hynes with attachments [AUGUST1634-1667]


26. Report of Stephen Brown, M.D. dated July 28, 2004. [AUGUST1709-1712)

PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

27. C.V. of Stephen Brown, M.D. [AUGUST1692 -1694]


28. The IrvIEreport of Dr. Stephen Brown datcd December 1, 2004.[AUGUST2491 - 94]


29. Report of Dr. Michael Carhart [AUGUST1695 -1702]


30. C.V. of Dr. Michael Carhart [AUGUST1704-1708)


-42 -Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

1685005.1

31. Color photographs taken by Investigative Research, Inc. 7/27/04 ofTeresa August's residence (AUGUSTl716-1717, 1719-1721, 1729-1733,1736-1737,1739]. The parties have stipulated to this exhibit.

32. Drawing No.1 of the residence of Teresa August prepared byInvestigative Research, Inc. (AUGUST2031]. The parties have stipulatedto this exhibit.

33. Drawing No.2 of the residence of Teresa August prepared byInvestigative Research, Inc. (AUGUST2030]. The parties have stipulatedto this exhibit.

34. Phoenix Police Department Law Enforcement Accreditation(AUGUST2151 - 56]

Plaintiffs objection: bearsay, foundation, relevance

35. Status Codes prepared by Dan McNamee of Phoenix Police DepartmentCommunications Bureau. [AUGUST2495-97]


36. Photograph of Varus movement of the elbow. [AUGUST2498]

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart.

37. Demonstration of elongation and injury mechanism to the lateral collateralligament complex. [AUGUST 2499]


38. Demonstration of mechanism oflateral epicondyle with demonstration ofPlaintiff Teresa August bending and twisting in an effort to resist.(AUGUST2500].


39. Demonstration of mechanism oflateral epicondyle with a demonstration ofPlaintiff Teresa August bending over in an attempt to resist.(AUGUST2501]



]685005.1

40. Anatomy of the lateral elbow (top diagram) and a lateral view of the elbowdemonstrating avulsion of common extensor origin (lower diagram).[AUGUST 2502]

PlaintiWs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart.

41. Diagram of the "Right Foreann: Anterior View" showing pronator andsupinator muscle pathways. [AUGUST 2503]

Plaintifrs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart.

42. Diagram of the "Right Forearm: Posterior (Dorsal) Views!! showinganatomy offoreann and extensor muscle pathways. (AUGUST25041

Plaintiff's objectiou: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart.

43. Diagram of lateral view of elbow demonstrating bony avulsion of thelateral collateral ligament origin on the lateral epicondyle. [AUGUST2505)


46. List of Reference Materials reviewed and/or relied upon by MichaelCarhart, Ph.D. [AUGUST2596)

Plaintiffs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance

47. Article: "Elbow dislocations and instability." D.C. Flanagan and L.D.Kaplan (2004)

Plaintifrs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart

48. Article: "Occasional Notes: Varus and Valgus - No Wonder They AreConfused." C.S. Houston and L.E. Swischuk (1980)

Plaintifrs objection: bearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart

49. Article: "The pathoanatomy of lateral ligamentous disruption in complexelbow instability." McKee, M.D. and E.H. Schemitsch, et al (2003)

Plaintiff's objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart


1685005.1

50. Article: "Classification and evaluation of recurrent instability of theelbow." S.W. O'Driseoll (2000)

Plaintiffs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart

51. Article: "functional anatomy of the lateral coIlateralligament complex ofthe elbow." A. Seki and B.S. Olsen, et 01. (2002)


52. Article: "Elbow Instability." S.W. O'Driseoll (1999)

Plaintiffs objection: hearsay, foundation, relevance if comes fromCarhart

53. Article: "Hyperextension of the elbow joint: pathoanatomy and kinematicsofligament injuries." S. Tyrdal and B.S. Olsen (1998)


54. Arizona P .a.ST. Board Model Lesson Plan for "Control Techniques"[AUGUST2516 - 2525]


55. Arizona P.D.S.T. Board Model Lesson Plan for "Handcuffing"[AUGUST2506 - 2515]


56. Daniel Treon's letter to Dr. Beth Purdy dated 8/31/04. [BethAPurdyMD-00049 - 51)


57. Plaintiffs deposition transcript with exhibits.


58. Audio and video of Plaintiffs deposition testimony on CD


59. Clips of video/audio recording of Plaintiffs deposition for demonstrativepurposes



60. Model of a right elbow for demonstrative purposes.

No objection.

61. Skeleton for demonstrative purposes.

No objection.

62. Dr. Seligson's deposition transcript and CD of video/audio.


63. Sam Hickey's deposition transcript and CD of video/audio


64. Timeline


IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITS:

PLAINTIFF'S:

Defendants object to aU of Plaintiffs Impeachment exhibits based onPlaintiffs lack of disclosure (See Motion in Limine); also, hearsay, relevance,prejudice foundation.

1. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 02/21/2002 deposition testimony in Hess v. EMC

Insurance Company (binding arbitration).

See objections above.

2. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 03/28/2002 deposition testimony in Brier v.

Toyota and State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

CVI999-005603.


3. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/15/2003 deposition testimony in Koss v.

Maricopa County, et aI, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

CV2001-001247.


4. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 08/19/2003 deposition testimony in Chapman v.

Morrison-Knudsen, et ai, Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

1685005.] -46-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

CV2001-008434.


5. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 01/19/2004 deposition testimony in Greenhalgh

v. Zurich Insurance (binding arbitration).


6. Michael Carhart, Ph.D. 's 04/19/2004 deposition testimony in Hanson v.

James, Maricopa County Superior Court Case.


7. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/27/2004 deposition testimony in Wyatt v.

Blaser, State of Arizona, et aZ,Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.

CV2002-013631.


8. Michael Carhart, Ph.D.'s 04/29/2004 deposition testimony in Delucchi v.

Cardoza Properties, et ai, Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State

of California Case.


DEFENDANTS:

1685005.1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Plaintiffs Notice of Claim [AUGUST2593 - 2595)

The file of Dr. Beth Purdy, plaintifrs expert witness, received inresponse to subpoena. [BethAPurdyMD-OOOA - 514]

Phoenix Police Department DR 12027462 pertaining to "Assault" on10/29/01, involviug Plaintiff. [AUGUST0094 - 98]

Phoenix Police Department DR 10619511 pertaining to "AttemptSuicide" on 10/13/91, involving Plaintiff. [AUGUST0210-212)

Phoenix Police Department DR 40870033 regarding 5/06/04 incidentinvolving disruption of education institution. [AUGUST0540 - 45]

Documents from Maricopa County Superior Court case Pamela Hickeyv. Teresa August, DR92-90801 [AUGUST0546 - 563]


7. Audiotape of the recorded telephone calls between Sgt. Tomory to TeresaAugust and Daniel Treon. (AUGUST1583]

8. Transcript of the recorded telephone call from Sgt. Tomory to TeresaAugust on July 31, 2002. [AUGUST1744-52)

9. Transcript of the recorded telephone call from Sgt. Tomory to Dan Treonon October 17, 2002. [AUGUST1743]

10. Sergeant Tomory's Professional Standards Bureau File regarding TeresaAugust's arrest. (AUGUST1620-1633]

11. Letter written by Daniel B. Treon to Sgt. Tomary regarding Mrs.August's refusal to submit to interview. (AUGUST 0258]

12. Daniel Treon's Response to Defendants' First Request Far Admission&Non-Uniform Interrogatories. (AUGUST2572 - 2583)

13. Daniel Treon's Supplemental Response to Defendants' First RequestFor Admission & Non-Uniform Interrogatories. [AUGUST2584 - 2592]

14. Phoenix Police Department DR 10717161, Domestic Violence,pertaining to Mark August. [AUGUST0216 - 0222]

15. Phoenix Police Department DR 71908446, Domestic Violence/CriminalDamage, pertaining to Mark August. IAUGUST0232 - 0236]

16. Phoenix Police Department DR 21067717 A, Obstructing GovernmentalOperations, pertaining to Mark August. (AUGUST0254 - 0257]

17. Documents from Maricopa County Superior Court Case DR89- 07034,pertaining to the dissolution of marriage of Mark August and Josie LeeAugust. [AUGUST0564 - 0611]

18. Employment file of Mark August from Paradise Valley School District.[AUGUST2280 - 2490]

19. Cell phone records for Mark August received from Alltell in response tosubpoena. [AUGUST1431 - 14441

20. Deposition transcript and CD Rom of Mark August's deposition testimonyin this matter.

21. Phoenix Police Department Field Interrogation No. 0202180121 regardingincident involving Plaintiff on 2/18/02. [AUGUST0215]

22. Portions of employment records of Plaintiff received from Phoenix UnionHigh School District in response to subpoena (AUGUST0727-730]

1685005.1 _ 48-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

1685005.1

23. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' First Request For Admissions andNon-Uniform Interrogatories. [AUGUST2526 - 2533]

24. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' First NonRUniformInterrogatories.[AUGUST2534-2543]

25. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' Second Non-Uniform Interrogatories.[AUGUST2544 - 2547]

26. Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' First Request ForProduction.[AUGUST2548 - 2553]

27. W-2's for Teresa August for the year 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003received from the I.R.S. [AUGUST2226, 2233, 2236, 2243, 2245,2252 (redacted), 2271, 2274]

N. MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND REQUESTED EVIDENTIARYRULINGS

PLAINTIFF:

1. Motion in Limine regarding Michael Carhart's opinion.

2. Motion in Limine regarding Dr. Seligson's comments and opinions.

3. Motion in Limine regarding Defense 1MEDr. Brown

4. Motion in Limine re criminal charges filed against Teresa August

5. Motion in Limine regarding Teresa August's unrelated physical

conditions.

6. Motion in Limine regarding Teresa August's alleged unrelated,

collateral bad acts.

7. Motion in Limine regarding Mark August's alleged unrelated, collateral

bad acts.

8. Motion in Limine regarding Sam Hickey's alleged unrelated, collateral

bad acts.


9. Motion in Limine regarding improper suggestion that plaintiffs counsel

drafted Dr. Purdy's expert witness opinion.

10. Motion in Limine regarding collateral source payments from Teresa

August's health insurance company, CIGNA.

11. Motion in Limine regarding Commander Hynes' opinion.

12. Motion in Limine regarding inadmissibility of911 tape.

DEFENDANTS:

A. MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS

1. Motion in Limine regarding Professional Standards Bureau investigation

and Plaintiffs Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement

2. Motion in Limine regarding Disciplinary Action against Officers

3. Motion in Limine regarding Mark August's Arrest

4. Motion in Limine regarding Impeachment Exhibits

5. Motion in Limine regarding Entry and Probable Cause

6. Motion in Limine regarding Tape Recordings

B. OBJECTIONS TOADMISSION OF ANY ANTICIPATED TESTIMONYWITH CITATION TOAPPLICABLE FEDERAL RULESOF EVIDENCE.

None known at this time, other than objections to deposition designations.

C. OTHER ISSUES

Defendants sent Plaintiff a Request for Admission on March 16, 2004, requesting

her to admit that the 911 transcript and the police officer interviews were true and

accurate transcriptions of the disclosed audiotape recordings. (August 0041-0071).1685005.1 _ 50-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

Plaintiff refused to admit that the tapes were accurately transcribed in her Requests

for Admission, stating that she had: (1) "Teresa August has no way of authenticating the

911 tape, a recording made by police and in police custody and control, and thus subject

to possible tampering, thus she cannot know if the tape is actually what was said to the

911 operator, thus she cannot authenticate the transcript of the tape prepared by agents of

the police"; and (2) "no way of authenticating the tape recordings, which were recordings

made by police and in police custody and control, and thus subject to possible tampering,

thus she cannot know if the tape is actually what was said to the police interrogatories,

thus she cannot authenticate the transcript of the tapes prepared by agents ofthe police."

(See Response to Plaintiffs Request for Admission Numbers 6 and 7).

Further, in Plaintiffs deposition taken August 26,2004, Plaintiff testified that in

answering Defendants' Request for Admission, she never listened to the audiotapes and

compared them to the written transcript. Thus, no good faith effort was made to answer

the Request for Admission.

As a result of Plaintiffs refusal to admit that the 911 and police interview

transcripts were accurate transcriptions, Defendants will be forced to call the custodian of

records for each tape taking additional time at trial to lay the appropriate foundation.

O. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

The parties estimate that it will take approximately six days to try this matter.

P. TRIAL DATE

Trial is scheduled to begin on January 9, 2007.

FOR A JURY TRIAL

Q-2. STIPULATED PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE, JURY

INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS, JUROR QUESTION-NAIRES, IF

ANY, FORMS OF VERDICT AND TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW SHALL

BE FILED WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S RULE 16 SCHEDULING

ORDER.[685005.1 - 51 -Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

R. MISCELLANEOUS

The parties submit the following deposition designations:

PLAINTIFF:

1. Deposition of Dr. Seligson

Designations:

Page

4

7

8

9

Line

8-20

2-11

19-25

1

Defendants' Obiections

No Objection, howeverDefendants request throughline 21

Prejudice, relevance

Prejudice, relevance,speculation

Prejudice, speculation,foundation

10 14-25

11 1-25

12 1-25

13 1-10

20 7-16

28 7-25

29 1

30 10-25

31 1-25

Foundation, relevance

Foundation, relevance

Relevance, speculation

Relevance. speculation

No objection

Relevance, prejudice

Relevance, prejudicePrejudice, speculation,foundation

Foundation, speculation,relevance

32

33

1-25

1-25

Foundation, speculation,relevance

Foundation, speculation,prejudice

1685005.1 - 52-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

34

36

37

38

38

1-25

1-25

1-25

1-11

19-22

Foundation, speculation,prejudice

Foundation, prejudice

Foundation, prejudice

No objection, provided thatthe entire affidavit issubmitted

No objection, provided thatthe entire affidavit issubmitted

DEFENDANTS:

1. Deposition of Dr. Seligson

Page Line Plaintiffs Objections

4 8-21 None

7 2-25 Obj. 12-25; relevance;prejudice




11 1-25 None

12 1-7 None

13 11-25 Obj. 11-25; rei; prej; nofoundation

14 1-7 Obj. 1-7; rei; prej; nofoundation

15 9-25 Obj. 9-25; reI; prej; nofoundation

16 1-25 Obj. 1-8; rel; prej; nofoundation 9-25; rei;

17 1-25 Obj 1-25; reI.

18 1-4 Obj. 1-4; reI. 5-13; rei.

18 14-25 Obj. rei. prej; no fdation;specultion

19 1-25 Obj. rei; prej; no

]685005.1 - 53-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

[ndation;speculation

20 1-25 Obj. 1-6; rei; prcj; nofndation; spec.

21 1-25 Obj. 6-25; reI; prej; nofndation; spec.

22 1-25 Obj.l-25; reI; no foundation;specltion

23 16-25 Obj.re1.

24 1 Obj.rel.25 1-25 Obj. rel. no foundation.38 1-25

2. Deposition of Plaintiff

1685005.1

Designation

4:8 - 5:2

12:2- 2216:9 - 1317:4-20:420:14-23:423:13-24:2031:2-34:1535:12-43:1144:17 -46:760:11 - 62:2470:25 - 92:2594:16 - 95:1096:23 - 99:25118:7 -9119:11-120:24121:21-125:19126:20-134:12134:19-136:12150:18-162:1

Plaintiffs Objections

All as not best evidence.


169:1 -173:3173:10-15178:23 -180:4181:23-183:25189:18 -190:6

Defendants reserve the right to show the entire deposition of Plaintiff to the jury

pursuant to Rule 32, FED.R.Civ.P.

S. MODIFICATION OF ORDER

The court may. in order to prevent manifest injustice or for good cause shown, at

the trial of the action or prior thereto upon application of counsel for either party, made in

good faith, or upon the motion of the court, modify the Final Pretrial Order upon such

conditions as the court may deem just and proper.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

s/Danicl B. Treon -perauthorizationDaniel B. TreonStephen E. SilvcImanTREON & SHOOK, PLLC2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000Phoenix, AZ 85004Telephone: (602) 265-7100Faesinllle: (602) [email protected]@treonshook.comAttorneys for Plaintiff, Teresa August

s/KatWeen L. WienekeKathleen L. WienekeJennifer L. HoismanJONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, AZ 85012Telephone: (602) 263-1700Faesimile: (602) [email protected]@ishfinn.comAttorney for Defendants, City of Phoenix,Griffin, Lynde, Dunn and Monson

THIS JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER IS HEREBY APPROVED ON THIS DAY

OF NOVEMBER, 2006.

Roslyn O. SilverUnited States District Judge

1685005,] - 55-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

mailto:[email protected]



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted theattached document to the Clerk of the United States District Court using theCMIECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to thefollowing CMlECF registrants:

Daniel B. Treon:

Kathleen Wieneke:

Jennifer L. Holsman:

Randall H. Warner:

By: sNicki Wells

dbt@,treonshook.com; [email protected]

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

[email protected]; [email protected]

[email protected];[email protected]

1685005.1 _ 56-Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 170-4 Filed 11/17/2006 of 17

mailto:dbt@,treonshook.com;


mailto:[email protected];





mailto:[email protected];[email protected]

In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine … addition, Defendants have filed a Motion...

Documents

Transcript of In addition, Defendants have filed a Motion in Limine … addition, Defendants have filed a Motion...