IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …evidence from the disappearance of the running resume...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) RAYMING CHANG, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS/JMF) ) (submitted to Judge Facciola) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

NOTICE REGARDING NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE

OF RECORDED VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM THE FALL 2002 IMF PROTESTS

The Chang Plaintiffs respectfully provide this Notice of the discovery of new evidence

potentially determinative of one of the primary issues before the Special Master – the District’s

failure to produce video footage taken over the weekend of the arrests. This new evidence also

contradicts prior statements made by the District and District witnesses.

As the Special Master is well aware, the Plaintiffs claim that, during the weekend of the

arrests, there was significant video footage recorded from manned observation posts, CCTV

cameras, roaming cameras, and helicopters. The District has repeatedly stated to the Court that

no recordings were made during that weekend other than limited footage taken by Electronic

Surveillance Unit (“ESU”) personnel. Thus, the District has emphatically asserted that there was

no destruction of videotape evidence because there were no videotapes to destroy.1 For example,

as recently as August 2011, in a filing with the Court, the District claimed the Special Master

1 In that sense, the District has distinguished the issue of the failure to produce videotape evidence from the disappearance of the running resume and the destruction of audiotape evidence.

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 876 Filed 03/11/12 of 8

2

should conclude that the District “did not record footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests through

cameras operated by IAD officers or CCTV fixed cameras.” (Dkt. No. 813 at 8.)

Now it is clear, from just produced photographs taken by a District contractor of video

displays inside the Joint Operations Command Center (“JOCC”) that there was recording of

video footage that weekend. Accordingly, the District’s absolute denial that recordings occurred

– as a matter of District policy, according to some District witnesses – is incorrect. Moreover, in

a deposition held on March 6, 2012, the individual who managed the JOCC during the

September 2002 protests confirmed not only that the JOCC would record events such as the

September 2002 protests, but that the recently produced photographs confirmed that recordings

of videotapes were actually taking place during at least some period of that weekend.

In light of this new evidence, the Chang Plaintiffs have asked the District to reconsider its

position that there was no recording of video, as asserted in its proposed counter findings filed

with the Special Master and in other formal responses to discovery requests. The Chang

Plaintiffs have urged District counsel to correct the District’s position before the Special Master

immediately, as he may be considering proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the

destruction and tampering with of audio- and videotapes. The District has not responded to

Plaintiffs’ requests nor has it taken any action to correct the record. Because the Special Master

has indicated he considers his investigation of these issues to be completed, Chang Plaintiffs are

compelled to file this Notice to provide this new evidence for the Special Master’s consideration.

BACKGROUND

During his hearings, held between October and December 2010, the Special Master heard

from a number of witnesses regarding the District’s plans and efforts regarding the use of video

equipment to monitor the September 2002 IMF/World Bank protests. There was substantial


3

evidence presented that the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) and other law enforcement

agencies utilized a number of video monitoring techniques, including manned observation posts,

fixed-position CCTV cameras, helicopters equipped with video equipment, and roaming cameras

utilized by members of the ESU. Nonetheless, during discovery, the District produced only two

distinct sets of pieces of recordings from September 27, 2002, both of which contained only ESU

footage.2

Despite a number of witnesses providing testimony that indicated that the District

recorded video footage from its fixed cameras, its manned observations posts, and from

helicopters (see Dkt. No. 777, ¶¶ 334-391), the District challenged such a notion at every turn,

even encouraging the Special Master to hear testimony that District policy prohibited recording

video footage during that weekend.3

In its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law on this topic (See Dkt. No. 813, filed on August 11, 2011), the District urged the Special

Master to conclude that the District “did not record footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests

through cameras operated by IAD officers or CCTV fixed cameras.” (Dkt. No. 813 at 8)

(emphasis added.) In addition, the District stated that “[n]o physical evidence exists to support

2 As was demonstrated to the Special Master, the footage the District produced to the Plaintiffs and the Special Master contains gaps, time-jumping, and anomalies. The District has conceded that it cannot locate any original video footage from September 27, 2002, and District witnesses conceded that the video footage that has been produced must have been edited and may not contain the entire set of recordings taken on September 27, 2002. (See Dkt. No. 777, ¶¶ 436-464.) 3 Margaret Nedelkoff, former Deputy Mayor for the District of Columbia, testified that “my recollection is that the rules or the policy that was put into place had constraints on the use of zooming and tilting, what you could focus on, the time of day, the types of circumstances under which the cameras could be activated and the recording and retention of any tapes that would have been made using the cameras.” (See Dkt. No. 777, ¶ 352.) She later conceded, however, that she had no specific knowledge of the JOCC or SOCC system and how those systems operated on September 27, 2002. (Id., ¶ 360.)


4

the theory that videotapes containing footage recorded from the manned observation post

cameras ever existed for the date of September 27, 2002.” (Id. at 10) (emphasis added.) In

this regard, in Section VI of their Proposed Findings of Fact, titled “Video Footage,” the Chang

Plaintiffs quoted testimony from numerous MPD employees to the effect that video footage was

being recorded during the IMF protests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 777, ¶¶ 371, 378-79.) In objecting

to each of these paragraphs, the District stated that “the above paragraph does not support the

conclusion that video footage was taken.” (Dkt. No. 813, pp. 11-13.)

The District took similar positions in its Responses to the Chang Plaintiffs’ Requests for

Admission, dated June 18, 2010 (which post-dated the Special Master hearings, and which are

attached hereto as Exhibit 1). (See Ex. 1, Nos. 19-22.) Among other things, the District stated

that it could neither “admit [n]or deny that individuals assigned to Observations Posts on

September 27, 2002, did record video footage on that day.” (See id. at No. 20.) In addition, the

District stated that it would not admit that the JOCC recorded video footage on September 27,

2002. (See id. at No. 22.)

Newly Produced Photographs

In February of this year, for the first time, the District produced photographs taken by

Eric Kant, an NC4 employee who was present in the JOCC on the weekend of September 27-29,

2002.4 In the 30(b)(6) deposition taken on March 7, 2012, Mr. Kant confirmed that he was

present in the JOCC during the Fall 2002 IMF protests and that he took these photographs.5

4 The District designated Mr. Kant as its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition witness on behalf of the District on issues related to the attempted deletion of data from the E Team system. On February 13, 2012, the District provided the Chang Plaintiffs with five photographs taken by Mr. Kant. On February 29, 2012, after the Chang Plaintiffs asked if other photographs had been taken, the District produced a total of thirty photographs (including copies of the original five) taken by Mr. Kant. These photographs were produced as black and white pdfs. Upon the Chang Plaintiffs’ request, the District produced these same thirty photographs as color jpegs. These photographs


5

A number of these photographs clearly show that video footage was being recorded. (See

photographs, attached as Exhibit 2.) For example, the photographs bates labeled DC 2011-

005407 (“Photograph 5407”) and DC 2011-005408 (“Photograph 5408”) indicate that footage,

apparently from manned observation posts,6 was being actively recorded. This is shown, for

example, by the top video frame on the far right hand side of Photograph 5407, where the letters

“REC” can be seen in the upper right hand corner. The counter in that same video frame

indicates that 4 hours, 52 minutes, 52 seconds, and 25 frames of footage had been recorded.

Photograph 5408 contains two video frames, both showing “REC” and both showing the counter

at “4:52:59:29,” indicating that additional frames of footage had been recorded since Photograph

5407 was taken. The photograph bates labeled DC 2011-005392 (“Photograph 5392”) also

indicates that footage had been recorded. In the video frame in the top left corner of the big

screen in Photograph 5392, a time code of 1:06:50:24 can be seen in the top right hand corner.

This indicates that approximately 1 hour and 6 minutes have already been recorded on this

camera.7

In a deposition taken on March 6, 2012, Neil Trugman, the individual who managed the

JOCC during the September 2002 protests, stated that, in his experience, the JOCC would record

were bates labeled DC 2011-005392 through DC 2011-005421. The Chang Plaintiffs have attached approximately ten of the most relevant photographs as Exhibit 2. Plaintiffs would be happy to produce copies of the other 20 photographs if the Court so requests. 5 While the Chang Plaintiffs do not yet have a copy of the transcript of Mr. Kant’s deposition testimony, a copy can be provided to the Court upon request as soon as it is available. 6 Based on the vantage point of the cameras, and other indications in the display, it appears that this camera was being operated at a manned observation post. 7 The photographs provided by Mr. Kant also show footage being streamed from helicopters. (See, e.g., photograph bates labeled DC 2011-005392 in Exhibit 2.) The photographs reveal that the cameras utilized by the MPD during the weekend of September 27-29, 2002 provided zoomed-in shots of activity as well as broad pictures of large groups. (Compare photographs bates labeled DC 2011-005396 and DC 2011-005419 in Exhibit 2.)


6

footage of events being streamed into it during large events, such as the IMF/World Bank

protests. When shown Photograph 5407 and Photograph 5408, Mr. Trugman stated that, based

on both his experience in the JOCC and the “REC” seen on the screen, the footage depicted in

the video frames was being recorded.8 A review of the manuals for the cameras that were

deployed that weekend confirms that the “REC” does, in fact, indicate that the appearance of the

term “REC” confirms that footage was being actively recorded. (See Manuals, attached as

Exhibit 3.)

Chang Plaintiffs’ Request for the District to Reconsider Its Position

The Chang Plaintiffs have twice requested that the District reconsider its position that it

did not record video footage during the Fall 2002 IMF protests. First, on February 29, 2012,

counsel for the Chang Plaintiffs e-mailed District counsel to point out that the initial five

photographs clearly contradicted the District’s previous statements regarding the failure to record

video footage. A copy of the February 29, 2012 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. After

receiving – and closely reviewing – the additional photographs provided on March 1, 2012, the

Chang Plaintiffs’ counsel e-mailed District counsel on March 2, 2012, again asking that the

District reconsider its previous statements regarding recorded footage. A copy of the March 2,

2012 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. While District counsel has not responded formally

to these requests, he has stated to Chang counsel that the District has not concluded whether it

would revise its position with regards to recorded video footage.9 In addition, Chang counsel

8 While the Chang Plaintiffs do not yet have a copy of the transcript of Mr. Trugman’s deposition testimony, a copy can be provided to the Court upon request as soon as it is available. 9 In conversations with Chang counsel, District counsel has suggested that the photographs reveal only that recording took place on Saturday, September 28, 2002, and not Friday, September 27, 2002 (the day of the arrests at issue in this litigation). The District provided no explanation why the JOCC would record footage on one day of the protests, but not the day


7

orally advised District counsel, on February 29, 2012, that it believed that this evidence should

be provided to the Special Master and that the District should reconsider its position. The

District has apparently made no such effort, necessitating this Notice. As it has on prior

occasions involving the running resume and audiotape evidence, the District has simply declined

to address evidence that suggests that its prior representations were incorrect or taken other

action to correct the record.

Conclusion

In filing this notice, the Chang Plaintiffs seek to ensure that the Special Master has a

complete and accurate record regarding the recording of video footage during the Fall 2002 IMF

protests. On a separate front, the Chang Plaintiffs are in the process of conferring with other

counsel prior to making a request to resume the Special Master Hearings in connection with

newly discovery evidence surrounding the destruction of the JOCC Running Resume and the

attempted deletion of the E Team data. Should the Special Master deem it warranted, these

hearings could also include discussion and/or testimony concerning the issue of recorded video

footage.

immediately prior to that, particularly when the bulk of activity occurred on Friday, September 27, 2002. Moreover, there has been no explanation of the conflict with earlier denials that any recording occurred during that weekend.


8

Dated: March 11, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel C. Schwartz Daniel C. Schwartz (D.C. Bar No. 017749) P.J. Meitl (D.C. Bar No. 502391) Daniel T. O’Connor (D.C. Bar No. 975165) Heather S. Goldman (D.C. Bar No. 1001566) BRYAN CAVE LLP 1155 F Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 508-6000 /s/ Jonathan Turley Jonathan Turley (D.C. Bar No. 417674) 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 (202) 994-7001 Counsel for the Chang Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 11, 2012, I filed the foregoing with the Court’s electronic filing

system, which will serve notice upon all counsel of record.

/s/ P.J. Meitl Counsel for the Chang Plaintiffs


Exhibit 1

Case 1:02-cv-02010-EGS-JMF Document 876-1 Filed 03/11/12 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ : RAYMING CHANG, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : :

v. : Civ. Action No. 02-02010 (EGS/JMF) :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., : : Defendants. : : DEFENDANT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, the District of Columbia (“the District”) hereby

submits its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The District objects to the admission of any information that is protected by the

attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, work-product doctrine, law

enforcement investigatory privilege, or any similarly-recognized privilege. Inadvertent

production of any information so privileged does not constitute a waiver of such privilege

or any other grounds for objecting to the discovery requests.

REPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Video Footage Labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU”

1. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” is not the original recording of that video footage.


RESPONSE: Admitted.

2. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” is not an identical copy of the original recording(s) of that video footage. RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the video footage labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” is not an identical copy of the original recording(s) of that video footage.

3. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang

Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” is a compilation of different video recordings. RESPONSE: The District objects to the phrase “compilation of different video recordings” as vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the video footage labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” is a “compilation of different video recordings.”

4. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU” was edited prior to being produced to the Chang Plaintiffs.

RESPONSE: The District objects to the term “edited” as vague in the context of this Request. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District denies this Request.

5. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU.”

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate the original recording(s) of the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “IMF/WTO Events September 27, 2002 MPDC ESU.” Video Footage Labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02”

6. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” is not the original recording of that video footage.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

2


7. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” is not an identical copy of the original recording(s) of that video footage.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the video footage labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” is not an identical copy of the original recording(s) of that video footage.

8. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” is a compilation of different video recordings.

RESPONSE: The District objects to the phrase “compilation of different video recordings” as vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the video footage labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” is a “compilation of different video recordings.”

9. Admit that the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02” was edited prior to being produced to the Chang Plaintiffs.

RESPONSE: The District objects to the term “edited” as vague in the context of this Request. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District denies this Request.

10. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02.”

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate the original recording(s) of the video footage produced by the District to the Chang Plaintiffs labeled “WTO/IMF 9/27/02.” Video Footage Recorded By Yates, Acevedo, Britt, and At Least One Additional Individual

11. Admit that MPD employee Donald Yates (“Yates”) recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

12. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage that Yates recorded on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate the

3


original recording(s) of the video footage that Yates recorded on September 27, 2002.

13. Admit that MPD employee Jose Acevedo (“Acevedo”) recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District admits that MPD employee Jorge Acevedo recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

14. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage that Acevedo recorded on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate the original recording(s) of the video footage that Acevedo recorded on September 27, 2002.

15. Admit that MPD employee Nathaniel Britt (“Britt”) recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

16. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage that Britt recorded on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate the original recording(s) of the video footage that Britt recorded on September 27, 2002.

17. Admit that at least one additional District or MPD employee beyond Messrs. Yates, Acevedo, and Britt recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that at least one additional MPD employee beyond Messrs. Yates, Acevedo, and Britt recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

18. Admit that the District cannot locate the original recording(s) of the video footage recorded by the additional District or MPD employee(s) beyond Messrs. Yates, Acevedo, and Britt who recorded video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District objects insofar as this Request presumes that at least one additional MPD employee beyond Messrs. Yates, Acevedo, and Britt recorded video footage on September 27, 2002. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny this Request. Video Footage Recorded At Observation Posts

4


19. Admit that the District cannot conclude that individuals assigned to

Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, did not record video footage on that day. RESPONSE: The District objects that this Request is vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied.

20. Admit that the individuals assigned to Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, did record video footage on that day.

RESPONSE: The District objects to this Request as vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, construing the Request for “the individuals” as meaning all individuals assigned to Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, the Request is denied. Construing the Request for “the individuals” to mean any individual assigned to Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the individuals assigned to Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, did record video footage on that day. Video Footage Recorded By the JOCC

21. Admit that the District cannot conclude that the JOCC did not record video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District objects to this Request as vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied.

22. Admit that the JOCC did record video footage on September 27, 2002. RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the JOCC did record video footage on September 27, 2002. Video Footage Recorded By the MPD Helicopter Falcon

23. Admit that the District cannot conclude that the MPD helicopter Falcon did not record video footage on September 27, 2002.


24. Admit that the MPD helicopter Falcon did record video footage on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the MPD helicopter Falcon did record video footage on September 27, 2002. Search For Video Footage

5


25. Admit that the District has conducted an extensive search to locate all

video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002. RESPONSE: Admitted.

26. Admit that the District has exercised its best efforts to locate all video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District objects to the term “best efforts” as vague. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District admits that it has used its “best efforts” to locate all video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

27. Admit that the District cannot locate any original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate any original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

28. Admit that the District cannot locate all original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate any original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002. Preservation of Video Footage

29. Admit that the District cannot conclude that it did not destroy original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.


30. Admit that the District destroyed original recordings of video footage recorded by District or MPD personnel on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: Denied.

31. Admit that the District did not take any specific steps to ensure that original recordings of video footage recorded on September 27, 2002, were preserved.

6


RESPONSE: Denied.

32. Admit that the District did not take sufficient steps to ensure that original recordings of video footage recorded on September 27, 2002, were preserved.

RESPONSE: The District objects to this Request as seeking communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and as protected by the work product doctrine. The District further objects that the phrase “sufficient steps” is vague. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the District denies this Request.

33. Admit that the District did not take any specific steps to ensure that original recordings of video footage recorded on September 27, 2002, were not destroyed.

RESPONSE: The District objects to this Request as seeking communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and as protected by the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the District denies this Request.

34. Admit that the District did not take sufficient steps to ensure that original recordings of video footage recorded on September 27, 2002, were not destroyed.

RESPONSE: The District objects to this Request as seeking communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and as protected by the work product doctrine. The District further objects that the phrase “sufficient steps” is vague. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the District denies this Request. MPD Media Production Unit

35. Admit that the MPD Media Production Unit created and/or used a log or other similar document to record (1) the identity of the individuals who checked out and/or returned video recording equipment on September 27, 2002, and (2) the video recording equipment that such individuals checked out and/or returned on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the MPD Media Production Unit created and/or used a log or other similar document to record (1) the identity of the individuals who checked out and/or returned video recording equipment on September 27, 2002, and (2) the video recording equipment that such individuals checked out and/or returned on September 27, 2002.

36. Admit that the District has conducted an extensive search for all logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35 above.

7


RESPONSE: The District objects that the term “extensive” is vague and insofar as the Request assumes that “logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35” actually existed. Subject to and without waiving these objections, admitted.

37. Admit that the District cannot locate any log or other similar document described in Request No. 35 above.

RESPONSE: The District objects insofar as the Request assumes that “logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35” actually existed. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request. The District, however, admits that it has not yet been able to locate any log or other similar document described in Request No. 35 above.

38. Admit that all logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35 above have been lost.

RESPONSE: The District objects insofar as the Request assumes that “logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35” actually existed. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the District is without sufficient information to admit or deny the Request.

39. Admit that all logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35 above have been destroyed.

RESPONSE: The District objects insofar as the Request assumes that “logs or other similar documents described in Request No. 35” actually existed. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied. Documents Produced by the District

40. Admit that the document produced by the District on April 30, 2010, bearing Bates label DC 2010 SUPP 000489 accurately lists the locations used as Observation Posts on September 27, 2002.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the document bearing Bates label DC 2010 SUPP 000489 accurately lists the locations used as Observation Posts on September 27, 2002.



8




43. Admit that the document produced by the District bearing Bates labels DC A 011667 through DC A 011670 accurately reflects (a) the locations used as Observation Posts on September 27, 2002, and (b) the views available from those Observation Posts.

RESPONSE: The District is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the document bearing Bates labels DC A 011667 through DC A 011670 accurately reflects (a) the locations used as Observation Posts on September 27, 2002 and/or (b) the views available from those Observation Posts if such Observation Posts were utilized.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia

GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division

/s/Monique A. Pressley__________________ MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 [email protected]

/s/ Shana L. Frost______________________ SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6534 Fax: 741-8934 [email protected]

9


10

Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia, Michael Fitzgerald, Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith and official capacity defendants Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, Mayor Fenty and Assistant Chief of Police Peter J. Newsham

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 18, 2010, a copy of the foregoing District of Columbia’s Responses To Requests For Admissions was served by electronic mail on counsel of record in this case.

/s/ Shana Frost___________ Shana Frost Assistant Attorney General


Exhibit 2


Exhibit 3


DIGITAL VIDEO CAMCORDER

Instruction Manual

CAMÉSCOPE ET LECTEUR VIDEO NUMÉRIQUES

Mode d’emploi

VIDEOCÁMARA Y GRABADORA DIGITAL

Manual de Instrucciones

ENGLISH

FRANÇAIS

ESPAÑOL

Mini DigitalVideoCassette

A (NTSC)

E

F

Es


Add

ition

alIn

form

atio

n

E

80

Screen DisplaysTo display the date and time on a connected TV,press the wireless controller’s DATA CODE buttonwhen the camera is in VCR mode with a tapeloaded.

Press the wireless controller’s ON SCREEN buttonto see the other displays on the TV screen. (Thedisplays appear white on-screen.) They will not beadded to any recordings you make with the camera.

Record pause mode (p. 23)

Recording (p. 23)

The backup battery is not properly installed, or needsreplacing (p. 63).

Shows how much battery powerremains (p. 62).

The battery pack is exhausted(p. 14, 62).

No cassette is loaded, or it is setfor erasure prevention (p. 16).

Remaining tape(Green: more than 5 mins.Yellow: less than 5 mins.Red: final few secs).

...finally, it tells you when youhave completely run out of tape.

DATA CODEON SCREEN

REC

PAUSE

E N D

5 min

E J ECTThe camera is ejecting the tape(p. 15).

The safety mechanism is activated. Unload the cassetteand turn the camera off. Turn iton again and reload the cassette.

Recording mode (p. 24)

Playback is stopped (p. 51).

Normal playback (p. 51)

Fast forward (p. 51)

Rewind (p. 51)

Fast forward playback (p. 52)

Rewind playback (p. 52)

Frame advance playback (p. 53)

Frame reverse playback (p. 53)

REW

F F

S TOP

E J ECT

S P

indicates a flashing display.


Additional

Information

E

81

F1 /1 2 0 0: AMJ AN

2 . 8

1 9 9 7

5 0 0

.. 1

LE NS

Playback pause (forward andreverse) (p. 52)

Slow playback (forward andreverse) (p.53)

×2 playback (forward andreverse) (p. 53)


Photo Search (p. 55)

Photo search is complete

Zoom display (p. 25):Optical zoom

Optical plus digital zoom

Zoom in

Zoom out

Camera menu (p. 18)

VCR menu (p. 18)

5/

5/

2

2

1

1

S[

E EL CT SE TME NU ] LOS EC

CAM . MENU

ON• • • • • • •Z EBRA

L I NE– – –

NORMAL

1 6 bi t

1 6 : 9

SENSORTA L L Y LAMP

MOV I MODEEON

ONON

•• • • • • • •

• • • • • •• •

• •

• •• •

AUD I O 1 I NAUD I O 2 I N

AUD I MODEO • •

W T

W T

TW

5

PHO TO SEA CHR

5

PHO TO SEA CHR

W T

VCR MENU S[

E EL CT SE TME NU ] LOS EC

S ENSOR•

• • • • •• • • •

• •• • •

• •• ••

• ON• ON

REC MODE SPM I X SE ECTL I XEDF

DAT E / T I MEEDA T E & T I M

•DAT A CODED / T I ME SELD / I ME SETT • AN . 1 , 1 9 9 8J

1 2 : 0 0 AM

T PMALYLLA

OUT PUT CH L R/

S OFF

The remote sensor is turned off(p. 21).

Self-timer countdown (p. 42)

Audio mode (p. 36)

Data code (p. 54)

The camcorder does not have alens attached

Photo mode (p. 29)• Setting the AF/AE mark

flashes white

• AF/AE locked mark lightsup green

• Timer

Movie mode (p. 30)

Recording programs (p. 32).

0

0

S EL F T I MER01 sec

1 2 b ti S T – 1 , 2

Av F 2 . 0

T v 2 5 0

MANUAL

S POT L I GHT

AU TO

FRAME

6sec


Add

ition

alIn

form

atio

n

E

82

The 16:9 effects: the displayflashes when the effect hasbeenselected, and appears steadilywhen it is activated (p. 41).

Digital effects: the display flashes when the function hasbeing selected and appearssteadily when it is activated (p. 40).

Slow shutter effects can not beselected at this time (p. 35)

The camcorder is being recordedto via the DV terminal (p. 58)

Gain (p. 48)

Audio output (p. 60)

Mix balance (p. 60)

Mix select has not been releasedat the menu (p. 61)

Condensation warning (p. 68)

F ADE T–

D . ZO MO

S L OW S . 03

S L OW S . 51

S L OW S . 8

Flash is chargingmark flashes white (p. 43)

or charged

mark lights up green (p. 43)

Manual exposure display (p. 45):Exposure locked

Brighter than standard exposurelevel

Darker than standard exposurelevel

Manual setting of shutter speed,F number

The iris is closed

ND Filter (p. 28)

Manual focus is selected (p. 44).

White balance is set manually(p. 49).

- Outdoor mode

- Indoor mode

E . L OCK

+–

E . L OCK

+–

S 1 / 6 0F 1 . 6

CLOS E

ND FFO

AF OFF

1 6 : 9

E . L OCK

+–

M I X

SL OW S.[ ]

DV IN

0dB

S T – 1 S T – 2

F I X DE


Additional

Information

E

83

Appears when the battery packis exhausted (p. 14, 62).

Appears when the tape hasreached the end.

Refer to page 16.

Appears when you press the 2(record) button if the DV cableis not connected properly (p. 58).

Refer to page 68.

Appears as a warning to protectthe tape and also when condensation is detected.Remove the tape as soon as possible after the camera hasdisplayed the caution.

Refer to page 59.

Refer to page 59.

SET THE DATE AND T IME

CHECK THE LENS

TER I NGEN ”PO ERW TANDBY”S

CHANGE THE BATTERY PACK

CHECK THE DV NPUTI

TAPE END

E TAPE I SERTH

ASET FOR

URS E PRE ENV T I ON

CONDENSAT I ONHAS BEEN DET CTEDE

REMOVE THE CAS ETTES

RECOPY DPROTECTCTED

R IGHTPLAYBACK I S STR IE

RECOPY DPROTECT

CTEDR IGHT

DUBB I NG STR IE

Caution phrasesThe camera displays various caution phrases —they appear for 4 seconds before disappearing.

When you start recording, the camera counts from0SEC to 10SEC. Shots which are shorter than 10seconds may be difficult to edit later. On the otherhand, if you are not planning to edit the recording,remember that a shot which does not contain actionshould generally last no longer than 10 seconds.

Time Code

0 sec

01 sec

: 10 2 : 3 4 : 2 5

This records counter information, including hour,minute, second, and frame number on a specialdata code area on the tape itself. It is resetautomatically when a new tape is loaded.

Recording reminder

Appears each time you turn thepower on, until you set the dateand time (p. 22).

Refer to pages 8-9.

Refer to page 23.


PUB. DIM-388

DIGITAL VIDEO CAMCORDER

Instruction Manual

CAMESCOPE ET LECTEUR VIDEO NUMÉRIQUES

Mode d’emploi

VIDEOCÁMARA Y GRABADORA DIGITAL

Manual de Instrucciones

ENGLISH

FRANÇAIS

ESPAÑOL

Mini DigitaligitalVideoideoCassette

A (NTSC)

E

F

Es

This instruction book explains the use of the Complete Kit (XL1S plus the color viewfinder and 16× 1S2zoom lens) and the BodyKit (XL1S alone). Please note the illustration and descriptions in this book refer to the Complete Kit.

Ce mode d’emploi vous explique comment utiliser le kit complet (XL1S plus viseur couleur et objectif zoom 16× 1S2) et le kit deboîtier (XL1S seulement). Veuillez noter que les illustrations et les descriptions de ce manuel représentent le kit complet.

Este manual de instrucciones explica el uso del Equipo Completo (XL1S más el visor en color y el objetivo zoom IS2de 16×) ydel Body Kit (sólo la XL1S). Tenga a bien tener presente que las ilustraciones y las descripciones de este manual se refieren alEquipo Completo.

PU

B.D

IM-388

The Body kit is available only in the U.S.A.

Le kit de boîtier n’est disponible qu’aux Etats-Unis.

Unicamente en el “equipo completo”


Ad

dit

ion

alIn

form

atio

n

E

114

Screen DisplaysTo display the date and time on a connected TV,press the wireless controller’s DATA CODE buttonwhen the camera is in VCR mode with a tapeloaded.

Press the wireless controller’s ON SCREEN buttonto see the other displays on the TV screen. (Thedisplays appear white on-screen.) They will not beadded to any recordings you make with the camera.

Record pause mode (p. 35)

Recording (p. 35)

The backup battery is not properly installed, or needsreplacing (p. 99).

Shows how much battery powerremains (p. 98).

The battery pack is exhausted(p. 20, 98).

No cassette is loaded, or it is setfor erasure prevention (p. 23).

Remaining tape(Green: more than 5 mins.Yellow: less than 5 mins.Red: final few secs).

...finally, it tells you when youhave completely run out of tape.

DATA CODEON SCREEN

REC

PAUSE

E N D

5 min

E J ECTThe camera is ejecting the tape(p. 22).

The safety mechanism is activated. Unload the cassetteand turn the camera off. Turn iton again and reload the cassette.

Recording mode (p. 37)

Playback is stopped (p. 76).

Normal playback (p. 76)

Fast forward (p. 76)

Rewind (p. 76)

Fast forward playback (p. 77)

Rewind playback (p. 77)

Frame advance playback (p. 78)

Frame reverse playback (p. 78)

REW

F F

S TOP

E J ECT

S P

indicates a flashing display.


Ad

ditio

nal

Info

rmatio

n

E

115

F1 /1 2 0 0: AMJ AN

2 . 8

2 0 0 1

5 0 0

,. 1

LE NS

Playback pause (forward andreverse) (p. 77)

Slow playback (forward andreverse) (p. 78)



Photo Search (p. 81)

Index Search (p. 81)

AV Insert Editing (p. 90)

Audio Dubbing (p. 93)

Zoom display (p. 38):Optical zoom

Optical plus digital zoom

Zoom in

Zoom out

5/

5/

2

2

1

1

S E L . S E T S E TMENUC L OS E

CAM. MENU

CAM. S E T UPCS TM PRE S E TVCR S E T UPD I S P. S E T UPS Y S T EMCUS TOM K E Y S

RE T URN

W T

W T

TW

5

PHO TO SEA CHR

5

PHO TO SEA CHR

W T

S E L . S E T S E TMENUC L OS E

VCR MENU

VCR S E T UPD I S P. S E T UPS Y S T EMCUS TOM K E Y S

RE T URN

0 : 0 0 : 0 0 ˜

I N T E R V A L T .

Camera menu (p. 25)

VCR menu (p. 28)

The remote sensor is turned off(p. 31).

Zero set memory (p. 82)

Interval timer recoding (p. 63)

Self-timer countdown (p. 64)

Audio mode (p. 51)

Data code (p. 79)

The camcorder does not have alens attached

Photo mode (p. 42)• Setting the AF/AE F mark

flashes white

• AF/AE locked F mark lightsup green

• Timer

PHO TO SEA CHR

5

I ND EX SEA CHR

A / V I N S E R T

A U D I O D U B .

S EL F T .01 sec

1 2 b ti S T – 1 , 2

6sec


Ad

dit

ion

alIn

form

atio

n

E

116

- Outdoor mode

- Indoor mode

Custom keys (p. 55)Camera mode

VCR mode

16:9 effect: The display flasheswhen the effect is selected;appears steadily when it isactivated (p. 59).

Digital effects and color bars:The display flashes when thefunction is selected; appearssteadily when it is activated (p.58).

The camcorder is recording viaDV terminal (p. 65).

DV control (p. 65)

Recording characters (p. 62)

C L R B A R S

D . Z O O M

F A D E – T

Movie mode (p. 44)

Recording programs (p. 47).

Flash is chargingS mark flashes white (p. 60)or charged

S mark lights up green (p. 60)

Manual exposure display (p. 67):Exposure locked

Brighter than standard exposurelevel

Darker than standard exposurelevel

Manual setting of shutter speed,F number

The iris is closed

ND Filter (p. 41)

Manual focus is selected (p. 66).

White balance is set manually(p. 74).

1

E . L OCK

+–

E . L OCK

+–

S 1 / 6 0F 1 . 6

CLOS E

ND FFO

MF

1 6 : 9

E . L OCK

+–

DV IN

C H A R . R E C

[ R E C ]

[ S T O P ]

[ – – – ]

[ D V I F ]

Av F 2 . 0

T v 2 5 0

MANUAL

S POT L I GHT

AU TO

1 : I N D E X W R I T E

1 : Z E B R A

1 : P O W E R S A V E

1 : T V S C R E E N

1 : A U D I O 1 I N

1 : A U D I O 2 I N

1 : Z O O M G R I P

1 : Z O O M H A N D L E

1 : T V S C R E E N

1 : D A T A C O D E

1 : A U D I O 1 I N

1 : A U D I O 2 I N

FRAME


Ad

ditio

nal

Info

rmatio

n

E

117

M I X / V A R I .

0dB

S T – 1 S T – 2

M I X / F I X E D

Gain (p. 73)

Audio output (p. 96)

Mix balance (p. 96)

Mix select has not been releasedat the menu (p. 97)

Condensation warning (p. 106)

When you start recording, the camera counts from0SEC to 10SEC. Shots which are shorter than 10seconds may be difficult to edit later. On the otherhand, if you are not planning to edit the recording,remember that a shot which does not contain actionshould generally last no longer than 10 seconds.

Time Code

0 sec

01 sec

: 10 2 : 3 4 : 2 5

This records counter information, including hour,minute, second, and frame number on a specialdata code area on the tape itself. It is resetautomatically when a new tape is loaded.

Recording reminder


Ad

dit

ion

alIn

form

atio

n

E

118

Refer to page 87.

Appears when you try to doaudio dubbing or AV insert on atape recorded in any mode otherthan SP mode(p. 37).

Appears when you try to doaudio dubbing on a taperecorded in 16-bit audio or 12-bit 4-channnel mode (p. 88).

Appears when the cameradetects a blank section of a tapeduring audio dubbing or AVinsert (p. 91).

Appears immediately after youstart recording, and the videoheads are badly contaminated.Make sure to clean the videoheads when this caution appears(p. 105).

SET THE TIME ZONE, DATA AND TIME

CHECK THE LENS

TER I NGEN ”PO ERW TANDBY”S

CHANGE THE BATTERY PACK

CHECK THE DV NPUTI

TAPE END

E TAPE I SERTH

ASET FOR

URS E PRE ENV T I ON

CONDENSAT I ONHAS BEEN DET CTEDE

REMOVE THE CAS ETTES

RECOPY DPROTECTCTED

R IGHTPLAYBACK I S STR IE

RECOPY DPROTECT

CTEDR IGHT

DUBB I NG STR IE

CHECK THE CASSETTE[REC MODE]

CHECK THE CASSETTE[AUDIO MODE]

CHECK THE CASSETTE[BLANK]

HEADS DIRTY, USE CLEANING CASSETTE

Caution phrasesThe camera displays various caution phrases —they appear for 4 seconds before disappearing.

Appears each time you turn thepower on, until you set the timezone, date and time (p. 32).

Refer to pages 14-15.

Refer to page 35.

Appears when the battery packis exhausted (p. 20, 98).

Appears when the tape hasreached the end.

Refer to page 23.

Appears when you press the 2(record) button if the DV cableis not connected properly (p. 65).

Refer to page 106.

Appears as a warning to protectthe tape and also when condensation is detected.Remove the tape as soon as possible after the camera hasdisplayed the caution.

Refer to page 87.


GY-DV550 INSTRUCTIONSBEDIENUNGSANLEITUNGMANUEL D’INSTRUCTIONS

* The illustration shows the GY-DV550 DV Camcorder with the optional lens viewfinder attached.

This instruction manual is made from 100% recycled paper.Thank you for purchasing this JVC product. Before operating this unit, please read the instructions carefully to ensure the best possible performance.

DV CAMCORDERDV CAMKORDERCAMESCOPE DV

INTRODUCTION

CONTROLS,INDICATORS ANDCONNECTORS

BASIC SYSTEMCONNECTIONS ANDADJUSTMENTS

POWER SUPPLY

PREPARATIONS

SETTING ANDADJUSTMENTSBEFORE SHOOTING

SHOOTINGOPERATION

PLAYBACK MODE

TIME CODEOPERATION

S.S.F. (Super SceneFinder) FUNCTION

USING EXTERNALCOMPONENTS

SETUP MENU

OTHERS

FEATURES OF THECAMERA SECTION

SC961000 (E MODEL)

E

GY-DV550DV CAMCORDER

INSTRUCTIONS

* The illustration shows the GY-DV550 DV Camcorder with the optional lens viewfinder attached.

This instruction manual is made from 100% recycled paper.For Customer Use :

Enter below the Serial No. which is located on the body.Retain this information for future reference.

Model No. GY-DV550

Serial No.

Thank you for purchasing this JVC product. Before operating this unit, please read the instructions carefully to ensure the best possible performance.

INTRODUCTION

CONTROLS,INDICATORS ANDCONNECTORS

BASIC SYSTEMCONNECTIONS ANDADJUSTMENTS

POWER SUPPLY

PREPARATIONS

SETTING ANDADJUSTMENTSBEFORE SHOOTING

SHOOTINGOPERATION

PLAYBACK MODE

TIME CODEOPERATION

S.S.F. (Super SceneFinder) FUNCTION

USING EXTERNALCOMPONENTS

SETUP MENU

OTHERS

FEATURES OF THECAMERA SECTION

SC96999 (U MODEL)

U


28

2. CONTROLS, INDICATORS AND CONNECTORS

Display Position Display Function

1 ACCU-FOCUS Blinks during the ACCU-FOCUS operation.

SKIN AREA Blinks while the skin tone detail color area is displayed.

S Displayed when the SHUTTER or V-SCAN is ON.

FAS Displayed when the Full Auto Shooting is ON.

ALC Displayed when the ALC alone is ON.

IEEE 1394 Displayed when VCR Setup menu No.126 VIDEO INPUT is set to IEEE1394.

AUX Displayed during external video signal input.

2 G Displayed in other modes than 0 dB, LOLUX and ALC.

L Displayed during LOLUX operation.

3 F Displayed when FAW alone is ON.

4 I Displayed when IRIS BACK LIGHT or IRIS SPOT LIGHT is selected.

5 SD Displayed while the Skin Detail function is in operation.

6 B Displayed when BLACK STRETCH or BLACK COMPRESSION isselected.

7 Event display See the table below.

● Status 0

2-10 Indications in Viewfinder (Cont'd)

q

w

ert

y

u

q

w

ertu

y

io !0

!3

!1!2

SCENE F I LEWH I TE BAL A

A

F I L TERSHUTTER 1 / 1 0

3 . 2K0 0

GA I N 6 dBI R I S LEVEL NORMALI R I S DETECT NORMALFUL L AUTO OFFREC T I ME < 6 0

ACCU - FOCUS

G

F

I

BSD

ACCU - FOCUS

G

F

I

F 5 . 6STBY 4V21 .< 6 0

B

CH1 - -- - - + - -CH2 - - - - - + - -

SD

M : 90 9

!5

!4

REC2EXT

Status 0 Status 1 Status 2

Switch Event Display Contents

ZEBRA ZEBRA ON, OFF

BLACK BLACK STRETCH, NORMAL, COMPRESS

GAIN GAIN –3 dB, 0 dB, 3 dB, 6 dB, 9 dB, 12 dB, 18 dB, ALC

WHT. BAL WHITE BAL A, B, PRESET, FAW

FULL AUTO FULL AUTO ON, OFF

AUTO IRIS IRIS BACK L, NORMAL, SPOT L

LOLUX LOLUX ON, OFF

FILTER knob FILTER 3.2K, 5.6K+1/8ND, 5.6K+1/64ND

VTR VTR STBY, SAVE

AUTO KNEE AUTO KNEE ON, OFF

7 Event display ... Not displayed during external video signal input or IEEE1394 input.Event is displayed in the viewfinder for only about 2 seconds when any of the following switches is operated.

Not displayedduring externalvideo signalinput (when theVCR INPUTswitch is set toAUX).

27


STATUSSHUTTER

MENU

FILTER3200k15600k+1/8ND25600k+1/64ND3

ALARM

MONITOR

OPERATENG

GAIN OUTPUT WHT.BAL

VTR

ON OFF

AUTO IRIS LOLUX

BACK L

NORMALSPOT L

STRETCH

NORMALCOMPRESS

LIGHTON

OFF

COUNTER

AUDIO SELECTMANUAL

AUTOCH-1 CH-2 CH-1 CH-2

REARFRONT

RM

AUDIO INPUT

MODE

CTLTCUB

CH-1MIX

CH-2

RESET

OPERATE/WARNING

MONITOR SELECT

CH-1 AUDIOLEVEL

CH-2

VTR

ON

OFF

INCOMMIC

INCOMMIC LEVEL

POWER

OFFRM DC IN/BATT.

CALL

CARBONDYNAMIC

FULL AUTO BLACK

STATUSbutton

BATT ALARMREC

BATT Lamp

REC/ALARM Lamp

The viewfinder has two LED indicators below the screen. These LEDslight or blink to indicate the present status of the camera or the VCR.● [BATT] battery lamp

This lights red when the battery voltage becomes too low foroperating the camera.

● REC/ALARM lampThe internal VCR status is displayed when the VTR SELECTswitch is set to INT or PARA.This lights or blinks green under the following circumstances.Steady green : During recording.Blinks green : • While the GY-DV550 switches from

record-pause to recording.• Immediately before the tape is running out

or when it has run out.• When an error occurs in the GY-DV550.

The external VCR status is displayed when VTR SELECTswitch is set to EXT.Steady green : During recording.Blinks green : • Immediately before the tape is running out.

• When an error occurs in the VCR.

2-10 Indications in Viewfinder

VIEWFINDER SCREEN DISPLAYThe following indications are displayed on the viewfinder screen.(However, this information is not displayed while the VCR sectionis playing back a tape.)� Status screens (screens for use in checking the current

camera settings)� Alarm message display� Time date display� Safety zone display� Setting screen

(screen for use in the camera and VCR setup)� Auto white balance display� Shutter speed display

� Status ScreensPress the STATUS button during normal screen display to showone of the status screens in the viewfinder. One of the threestatus screens will be displayed every time the button is pressed.(Status 0, 1, 2)The status 2 screen will not appear during external video signalinput (when the VTR INPUT switch is set to AUX).In addition, AUX will appear on the upper right of status screen0 and 1 and camera setting related display will not be made.

WARNING LED INDICATORS INSIDE THE VIEWFINDER

ACCU - FOCUS

G

F

ISDB

ACCU

M : 90 9

- FOCUS

G

F

I

F 5 . 6STBY

REC2EXT

4V21 .< 6 0

B

CH1 - -- - - + - -CH2 - - - - - + - -

WH I TE BAL ASCENE F I LE A

F I L TER 3 . 2KSHUTTER 1 / 1 0 0 0GA I N 6 dBI R I S LEVEL NORMALI R I S DETECT NORMALFUL L AUTO OFFREC T I ME < 6 0

SD

M : 90 9

Status 0 Status 1 Status 2

• VTR INPUT switch: During CAM setting

Status 0 Status 1

AUX AUX

M : 90 9STBY

I NT

4V21 .< 6 0

CH1 - -- - - + - -CH2 - - - - - + - -M : 90 9

• VTR INPUT switch: During AUX setting



30

� Alarm Message Display

The following alarm messages are displayed on the status 0 and status 1screens.Event display is not made when an alarm message is displayed in alarmmessage display 2.


ACCU - FOCUS

G

F

I

F 5 . 6STBY 4V21 .< 6 0

B

CH1 - - - - - + - -CH2 - - - - - + - -

Alarm message display 1

Alarm message display 2

Indication Contents

CLOSE CASSETTE COVER The cassette cover is not closed.VTR WARNING [HEAD] Head cloggingVTR WARNING [SERVO] Servo error

1 VTR WARNING [DEW] Condensation

VTR WARNING [HARD] Hardware errorVTR WARNING [STOP] Operation stoppedVTR WARNING [REW] Rewinding abnormality

TAPE NEAR END Remaining tape time is less than about 2 minutes in the record modeTAPE END Tape end reached

2 REC INHIBITAn unrecordable videocassette (the switch on the back of the cassette isset to SAVE) is inserted.

NO TAPE VTR trigger is pressed with no tape loaded.

� Time/Date Display

When setting DISPLAY item of the TIME DATE menu screen to ON, the timeand date will appear as shown in the diagram on the left. The time and dateare recorded on tape during recording as well.For the display formats of the time and date, � see page 84.For setting the time and date, see page 43.

ACCU - FOCUS

G

F

I

F 5 . 6STBY

REC2EXT

4V21 .> 6 0

BCH1 - - - - - + - -CH2 - - - - - + - -

2 0 0 0 / 0 6 / 1 52 0 :15:15

SD

: 21 3C

Time/date display

29


8 (Example)CH1- - - - + - -CH2- - - - + - -

9 STBYSAVESTOPRECFFREWEJECT

0 (Example)< 60(Example)12: 34: 56: 20

A (Example)12.4V

B F-number:OPEN, F2, F2.8, F4,F5.6, F8, F11, F16,CLOSEFILTER:FIL1, FIL2, FIL3

C (Example)M: 099

D EXT, INT, PARA

E REC2

Shows the input level of the audio input channel.Display ON/OFF can be selected using the VF DISPLAY menu screen.� See "AUDIO DISPLAY" on page 78.VCR in standby modeVCR in save modeVCR in stop modeVCR in record modeVCR in fast-forward modeVCR in rewind modeVCR in eject modeRemaining tape indication (displayed in 1-minute steps)

When the tape is used for a long time, the remaining tape may not beindicated accurately. At the beginning of the tape, in particular, the indicationmay show smaller value than the actual one.

Time code displayTime code display is available when the "REC TIME" item on the VF DISPLAYmenu screen is set to TIME CODE.� See "REC TIME" on page 78.Voltage indication (displayed in 0.1 V steps) The indicator flashes when thebattery is low. The indicator will not appear when the camera remote controlunit is connected.The F-number of the connected lens or the filter position of the unit is displayed.Whether to display the F-number or filter position, or no display is selected inF. NO/FILTER of the VF DISPLAY screen.• The F-number may not be displayed depending on the lens type or when

the lens is removed. � See page 78Not displayed during external video signal input or IEEE1394 input.In the Super Scene Finder (S.S.F.) mode, the number of memorized scenesis shown.M: In MARK modeC : In CUE modeNumber: Number of memorized scenesDisplays whether the main unit is used for recording or the external VCRconnected to the VTR/RM multi-pin connector.The displays will differ depending on the VTR SELECT switch setting.INT is constantly displayed during external video input or IEEE1394 input.INT is constantly displayed when the VTR/RM switch is set to RM.The display will light during external VCR recording.The display flashes when there is a warning on the external VCR.The display will not appear when the VTR/RM switch is set to RM.


● Status 1In addition to the information on the Status 0 screen, this screen displays audio indicators and information on remainingtape, voltage and lens F-number (or FILTER POSITION).

Indication Indication Contents

SCENE FILE A, B, OFF

WHITE BAL A, B, PRESET, FAW, MANUAL (When remote control unit w/manual balance is connected.)

FILTER 3.2K, 5.6K+1/8ND, 5.6K+1/64ND

SHUTTER OFF, 1/100 (U)/1/120(E), 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/60.1 (U)/1/50.1 (E) to 1/2084.6 (U)/

1/2067.8 (E) (in VARIABLE mode), EEI (in ALC mode)

GAIN -3dB, 0dB, 3dB, 6dB, 9dB, 12dB, 18dB, LOLUX, ALC

IRIS LEVEL NORMAL, BACK L, SPOT L

FULL AUTO ON, OFF

REC TIME Remaining tape time or time code.

● Status 2 ... Not displayed during external video signal input or IEEE1394 input.This screen displays the camera setup statuses.Event display is not available while this screen is displayed.

Display position FunctionDisplay

When the RS-232C cableis connected, the VCRoperation mode may notbe displayed correctly.

Note:


Exhibit 4


Meitl, P.J.

From: Meitl, P.J.Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:05 PMTo: 'Causey, William (OAG)'Cc: Schwartz, Daniel; Jonathan Turley; Goldman, Heather S.; Kramer, Jacob A.; O'Connor, DanSubject: Chang: Kant PhotographsAttachments: Dkt. No. 813.pdf; 2010.06.18 District's Responses to RFAs.pdf; DC MPD IMF _1.jpg

Page 1 of 2

3/8/2012

Bill: Thank you for arranging the meeting today at lunch. I believe it was productive. As we discussed, the Chang Plaintiffs are hereby asking the District to reconsider its position that it did not record video footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests (outside of the already produced ESU footage). As you should be aware, in its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which was submitted to the Court, the District stated:

"The District of Columbia did not record footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests through cameras operated by IAD officers or CCTV fixed cameras." (Dkt. No. 813 at 8, which is attached.)

"No physical evidence exists to support the theory that videotapes containing footage recorded from the manned observation post cameras ever existed for the date of September 27, 2002." (Dkt. No. 813 at 10.)

The District took similar positions in its Responses to the Chang Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission. (See District of Columbia's Responses to Requests for Admission, dated June 18, 2010, Nos. 19-22.) This is not an exhaustive list of the instances where the District took these positions. As we discussed, on February 13, 2012, the District provided us with photographs taken by Eric Kant in the JOCC. In studying the photograph labeled DC MPD IMF _1, which is attached here for ease of reference, we have made two important observations that, we think, call into question the District's positions. Our first observation concerns the video frame in the top left corner of the big screen. A time code of 1:06:50:24 can be seen in the top right hand corner, which indicate that that approximately 1 hour and 6 minutes have been recorded. In the middle of the screen, there is a tape symbol with a line through it indicating that the tape being used was set for erasure prevention so that it could not be taped over. Based on the vantage point in the screen and other indications in the display, it appears that this camera was being operated at a manned observation post, as opposed to a camera connected to the closed circuit television system. Given the fact that Richard Hardy testified that IAD personnel were given "a box of tapes, brand new tapes," (see Transcript of April 28, 2010 Hardy Dep. at 38:2-4), it would appear that this 1 hour and 6 minutes were recorded during on September 27th or 28th. Our second observation concerns the bottom video frame in the far left corner of the photograph. You can only see half of the frame, but what you can clearly see are the letters "REC," which indicate that whatever was being transmitted from the camera


was being recorded. While you have told us that Mr. Kant believes this photograph was taken on September 28, 2002, it does not explain the fact that the District's position has been that no video was recorded the entire weekend. Given these observations, we ask that the District reconsider its previous statements regarding recorded footage. Please let us know by COB Friday, March 2, 2012. Also, please send the additional photographs taken by Mr. Kant. I have not yet received them. P.J. Meitl

Page 2 of 2

3/8/2012


Exhibit 5


Meitl, P.J.

From: Meitl, P.J.Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:27 PMTo: 'Causey, William (OAG)'Cc: Schwartz, Daniel; 'Jonathan Turley'; Goldman, Heather S.; Kramer, Jacob A.; O'Connor, DanSubject: RE: Chang: Kant PhotographsAttachments: DC 2011-005407.JPG; DC 2011-005408.JPG; DC 2011-005419.JPG; DC 2011-005420.JPG

Page 1 of 2

3/8/2012

Bill: This email follows up on the email that I sent you on February 29, 2012, which asked that the District reconsider its position that it did not record video footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests (outside of the already produced ESU footage). We have reviewed the additional photographs produced by the District on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, and Thursday, March 1, 2012. (Wednesday in pdf format/Thursday in jpeg format). We understand that these photographs were taken by NC4 employee Eric Kant during the weekend of September 27-29, 2002. We wanted to inform you of several additional observations we have made that further call into question the District's position regarding the recording of video footage during the weekend of September 27-30, 2002.

Photo bates labeled DC 2011-005407 (attached here): The top frame in the right hand corner indicates that footage was being actively recorded from a manned observation post. The counter also indicates that 4 hours and 52 minutes of footage had been recorded.

Photo bates labeled DC 2011-005408 (attached here): This photo contains two video frames indicating that footage was being actively recorded from manned observation posts. Notably, the counter on the screen to the left indicates that an additional four seconds of footage has been recorded than that which was indicated in DC 2011-005407.

In addition, it appears that footage was being recorded on September 29, 2002. See photos bates labeled DC0211-0054919 and 2011-005420 (both of which are attached). We will certainly seek to confirm this information with Mr. Kant. Again, we ask that the District reconsider its previous statements regarding recorded footage. PJ Meitl

From: Meitl, P.J. Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:05 PM To: 'Causey, William (OAG)' Cc: Schwartz, Daniel; Jonathan Turley; Goldman, Heather S.; Kramer, Jacob A.; O'Connor, Dan Subject: Chang: Kant Photographs Bill:


Thank you for arranging the meeting today at lunch. I believe it was productive. As we discussed, the Chang Plaintiffs are hereby asking the District to reconsider its position that it did not record video footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests (outside of the already produced ESU footage). As you should be aware, in its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which was submitted to the Court, the District stated:

"The District of Columbia did not record footage of the Fall 2002 IMF protests through cameras operated by IAD officers or CCTV fixed cameras." (Dkt. No. 813 at 8, which is attached.)

"No physical evidence exists to support the theory that videotapes containing footage recorded from the manned observation post cameras ever existed for the date of September 27, 2002." (Dkt. No. 813 at 10.)

The District took similar positions in its Responses to the Chang Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission. (See District of Columbia's Responses to Requests for Admission, dated June 18, 2010, Nos. 19-22.) This is not an exhaustive list of the instances where the District took these positions. As we discussed, on February 13, 2012, the District provided us with photographs taken by Eric Kant in the JOCC. In studying the photograph labeled DC MPD IMF _1, which is attached here for ease of reference, we have made two important observations that, we think, call into question the District's positions. Our first observation concerns the video frame in the top left corner of the big screen. A time code of 1:06:50:24 can be seen in the top right hand corner, which indicate that that approximately 1 hour and 6 minutes have been recorded. In the middle of the screen, there is a tape symbol with a line through it indicating that the tape being used was set for erasure prevention so that it could not be taped over. Based on the vantage point in the screen and other indications in the display, it appears that this camera was being operated at a manned observation post, as opposed to a camera connected to the closed circuit television system. Given the fact that Richard Hardy testified that IAD personnel were given "a box of tapes, brand new tapes," (see Transcript of April 28, 2010 Hardy Dep. at 38:2-4), it would appear that this 1 hour and 6 minutes were recorded during on September 27th or 28th. Our second observation concerns the bottom video frame in the far left corner of the photograph. You can only see half of the frame, but what you can clearly see are the letters "REC," which indicate that whatever was being transmitted from the camera was being recorded. While you have told us that Mr. Kant believes this photograph was taken on September 28, 2002, it does not explain the fact that the District's position has been that no video was recorded the entire weekend. Given these observations, we ask that the District reconsider its previous statements regarding recorded footage. Please let us know by COB Friday, March 2, 2012. Also, please send the additional photographs taken by Mr. Kant. I have not yet received them. P.J. Meitl

Page 2 of 2

3/8/2012


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …evidence from the disappearance of the running resume...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …evidence from the disappearance of the running resume...