in the united states district court for the district of ... · susan faltinson 16455 red rock lane...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB

MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S MARCH 28, 2012 DISCOVERY ______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant the City and County of Denver (“Denver”), by and through its attorney,

Joseph Rivera, Assistant City Attorney with the Denver City Attorney’s Office, submits the

following Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Discovery as follows:

INTERROGATORIES

1. Identify all occasions on which Plaintiff Scott has been arrested or detained by the

City or held in any Detention Facility.

Response: DSD detained Plaintiff at a DSD facility on the following dates:

a. October 7, 2011 – October 10, 2011, See Bates Nos. Denver 000006, 80-58, 87-

105, 124-126, 183, 542-551

b. May 18, 2011 – July 28, 2011, See Bates Nos. Denver 000054, 56-57, 59-69, 71-77,

110-114, 127-136, 184-185, 535-547

c. October 21, 2010 – May 9, 2011, See Bates Nos. Denver 000013-20, 22, 24-33, 35-

51, 58, 115, 117, 137-147, 157, 186, 187, 448-453, 527, 534

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 150-2 Filed 10/04/13 USDC Colorado of 79

canderson

Rectangular Exhibit Stamp

2

d. January 11, 2010 – January 28, 2010, See Bates Nos. Denver 000007-11, 107,

118-119, 148-149, 151-156, 158-160, 188, 517-526

e. February 27, 2007 – May 25, 2007, See Bates Nos. Denver 000120-121, 162-175,

177-179, 189-190, 400-405

f. July 8, 2006 – July 18, 2006, See Bates Nos. Denver 000108, 122, 123, 150, 180-

182, 392-399

DPD arrested Plaintiff on the following dates:

a. October 7, 2011, see Bates Nos. Denver 000610-612

b. May 18, 2011, see Bates Nos. Denver 000606-609

c. October 20, 2010, see Bates Nos. Denver 000603-605

d. January 11, 2010, see Bates Nos. Denver 000599-602

e. February 27, 2007, see Bates Nos. Denver 000596-598

2. Identify all Accommodations the City has provided to Plaintiff Scott from 2005 to

the present, in any location or context, including but not limited to sign language interpreters and

for each, identify the circumstances in which such Accommodation was provided, all individuals

with information relating to such Accommodation, and all documents relating to such

Accommodation.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory #2 as overbroad, vague, and overly

burdensome.

First, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that only the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD)

and the Denver Police Department (DPD) failed to provide Plaintiff with the auxiliary aids


3

and services he required to effectively communicate. However, Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #2

is not limited to DPD and DSD but extends to all of Defendant’s agencies.

Second, federal regulations provide a non-exhaustive list of fourteen (14) different

auxiliary aids and services available to ensure effective communication with deaf/hard of

hearing persons. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.160(a). The list of appropriate auxiliary aids

also includes any “other effective methods of making aurally delivered information

available to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. The

expansiveness of any list of possible auxiliary aids is increased by the federal rule

indicating that the appropriateness of any of the auxiliary aids is dependent upon the

length, complexity and nature of the subject matter, method of communication, and

context. 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2).

Without waiving these stated objections, Defendant’s Sign Language Services

program provided Plaintiff an auxiliary aid in the form of a qualified interpreter on the

following dates to help Plaintiff to communicate with the following agencies/entities:

Major Scott Records, 2009-2011

2009

3/12 Court Susan Faltinson

4/10 Court Lorrie Kosinski/Rachel

Naiman

4/27 Court Lorrie Kosinski/Rachel

Naiman

5/19

Court Lorrie Kosinski/Rachel

Naiman


4

2010

1/13 Denver Sheriffs Dept. Lorrie Kosinski

2/8 Denver Human

Services/East Side Food

Stamp Office

Ann Topliff

2/18 Denver Human Services

/East Side Food Stamp

Office

Beth Topliff

3/2 Denver Workforce

Development

Lorrie Kosinski

3/8 Denver Human Services Lorrie Kosinski

9/16 Court Lorrie Kosinski

2011

1/4 Human Rights &

Community Relations

Lorrie Kosinski

1/14 Court Lorrie Kosinski

5/20 Court/Denver Sheriffs Dept. Lorrie Kosinski/Amanda

Turner


Turner


Turner

12/19 Denver Human Services

/East Side Food Stamp

Office

Lorrie Kosinski


5

Plaintiff used the videophone at Denver County Jail, Building 20 on the following dates:

11/22/11, 2/7/11, 6/22/11, 7/20/11, 7/27/11, 7/28/11, see Bates No. Denver 000625.

Defendant in no way represents that the above list of qualified interpreters or the

listing of the Plaintiff’s use of videophone at Denver County Jail , Building 20 constitutes

an exhaustive or complete list of the auxiliary aids provided to Plaintiff while he was

arrested or detained by DPD or DSD.

3. Identify any and all attempts to provide Plaintiff Scott with Effective

Communication, identify the circumstances in which each such attempt was made, all individuals

with information relating to such attempt, and all documents relating to such attempt.

Response: See the Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #2.

4. Identify all individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing who have been arrested or

detained by the City from 2005 to the present and for each, identify any Accommodations he or

she requested and/or received, identify the circumstances in which any Accommodation was

provided, all individuals with information relating to such Accommodation, and all documents

relating to such Accommodation.

Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory #4 as overbroad, vague, overly burdensome,

and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information regarding allegations

that Defendant failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids to Plaintiff.

Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #4 on the grounds that the

information sought is oppressive and overbroad, and not discoverable under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b). The information sought is not relevant to any claim or defense, nor is it


6

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the sought

after information is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid 402, 403, and 404.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant states that neither DSD’s nor DPD’s

computer systems are designed to track encounters with deaf or hard of hearing arrestees

or inmates. As such, at this time, Defendant has not identified any reasonably efficient,

effective or accurate method to obtain the information responsive to Interrogatory #4.

5. Identify all individuals (with the exception of Lorrie Kosinski) employed,

retained, relied on, or assigned by the City’s Department of Safety who the City believes can

communicate in sign language and for each state his or her level of proficiency, the training he or

she has received, and all Detainees of which the City is aware with whom he or she has

communicated.




Without waiving these objections, Defendant states all but one interpreter relied

upon by Defendant’s Sign Language Services program to provide services as qualified

interpreters for the deaf/hard of hearing arrested by DPD or detained by DSD are certified

by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). Defendant’s Sign Language Services

program relies upon RID certification as a proxy for the required, baseline training and

proficiency evaluation. More information about RID’s certification standards are easily

obtained at the organization’s website, www.rid.org. The lone exception to the RID

certification requirement is Amanda Turner. However, Amanda Turner does meet the


http://www.rid.org/

7

standards and requirements for interpreters for the deaf/hard of hearing established

pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §13-90-201. As a native deaf interpreter, Amanda Turner

provides specialized interpreting services.

The following is a list of qualified sign language interpreters available to assist DPD

arrestees and DSD inmates and the contact information provided for those interpreters

who provided interpreting on behalf of Plaintiff:

a.) Sue Adams

b.) Kari Baker

c.) Rhonda Champion

d.) Tricia Frank

e.) Susan Faltinson

f.) Shawn Goodwin-Miller

g.) JoLinda Greenfield

h.) Mindy Hess

i.) Liz Keyser

j.) Becky Konjevod

k.) Kirk Neuroth

l.) Christine Pendley

m.) Lynda Remmel

n.) Liana Seeger

o.) Kelly Turner

p.) Ann Topliff


8

q.) Terri Tupps

r.) Claricy Weeams

s.) Rachel Naiman

t.) Amanda Turner

u.) Claudette Mondragon

v.) Pat Graves

w.) Purple Language Services

x.) 24 Hour Sign Language Service

y.) Professional Sign Language Interpreters

Interpreter Contact Info:

Susan Faltinson

16455 Red Rock Lane

Broomfield, CO 80023

Rachel Naiman

9147-D West Cedar Ave.

Lakewood, CO 80226

Ann Topliff

908 S. Pierson Court

Lakewood, CO 80226

Beth Topliff

c/o 908 S. Pierson Court

Lakewood, CO 80226

Amanda Turner

3642 S Himalaya Court

Aurora, CO 80013

Lorrie Kosinski

201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 1102

Denver, CO 80202


9

6. Identify all instances on which the City has provided Accommodations in the

form of sign language interpretation to Detainees since 2005 and for each, identify the

circumstances in which such Accommodation was provided, identify all individuals with

information relating to such Accommodation, and all documents relating to such

Accommodation.








after information is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid 402, 403, and 404.

Without waiving these objections, Defendant states that neither DSD’s nor DPD’s

computer systems are designed to track encounters with deaf or hard of hearing arrestees

or inmates. As such, at this time, Defendant has not identified any reasonably efficient,

effective or accurate method to obtain the information responsive to Interrogatory #6.

7. Identify any and all policies, practices and/or procedures in effect at any time

since January 1, 2005 relating to the provision of translation or interpreting service to Detainees

who communicate in a language other than English, including but not limited to American Sign

Language, identify any documents describing or otherwise relating to such policies, practices

and/or procedures, including the provision of services pursuant to those policies, practices and/or


10

procedures since January 1, 2005, including but not limited to policies, practices and procedures

for requesting interpreters for court while detained, and identify any individuals with information

relating to such policies, practices and/or procedures.



that Defendant failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to Plaintiff.





after information is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, and 404. Without waiving

these objections, below find a listing of DPD and DSD policies regarding the treatment of

deaf and hard of hearing arrestees and inmates:

a.) DPD Operations Manual Sections 104.49 (5)(b)(1)&(2), and 505.21. See Bates Nos.

Denver 000590-593

b.) Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center Procedural Manual See Bates Nos. Denver

000406-447

c.) DSD Inmate Handbook See Bates Nos. Denver 000457-459

d.) DSD Department Orders 4000.1A and 4515.1E. See Bates Nos. 000448-453

e.) DSD Intake and Classification Policies and Procedures See Bates Nos. Denver

000557-595

f.) Denver County Jail Procedural Manual See Bates Nos. Denver 000627-715.


11

g.) Training videos regarding the hearing impaired, See Bates No. 000626.

8. Identify all policies, practices and/or procedures in effect at any time since

January 1, 2005 related to communication, including but not limited to telephone calls and face

to face visits, for Detainees, identify all individuals with information relating to such policies,

practices, and/or procedures and all documents relating to such policies, practices and/or

procedures.



that Defendant failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to Plaintiff. Without

waiving these objections, below find a listing of the most recent DPD and DSD policies

regarding the treatment of deaf and hard of hearing inmates:

a.) DPD Operations Manual Sections 104.49 (5)(b)(1)&(2), and 505.21.

b.) Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center Procedural Manual

c.) DSD Inmate Handbook

d.) DSD Department Orders 4000.1A and 4515.1E.

e.) DSD Intake and Classification Policies and Procedures. See Bates Nos. Denver

000557-595

f.) Denver County Jail Procedural Manual See Bates Nos. Denver 000627-715.

9. Identify the location and installation date of each TTY and videophone located at

any Detention Facility, and for each, identify all policies, practices and/or procedures related to

its use, identify all records, including but not limited to communications, related to its


12

installation, use and maintenance, and identify any individuals with knowledge of such

communication, policies, practices and/or procedures.

Response:

DPD has TTY phones available at each district sub-station; however, these phones

are only available to the general public, and they are not available to arrestees awaiting

transfer to a DSD facility.

DSD has TTY and videophone available for inmates at the following locations:

a.) DDC

a. A TTY is on each floor in the floor Sergeants’ Offices on the 2nd

through

5th

floors, and one TTY in Intake Sergeants Office, and one TTY at the

Reception Desk.

b. Videophone on the first floor

b.) County Jail

a. 2 TTYs located, one located in the Sergeant’s Office 22 and the other in

Building 20 Sergeant’s Office.

b. Videophone located in the Work Release section.

10. Identify all complaints received by the City between January 1, 2000 and the

present relating to alleged discrimination against, communication with and/or the provision of

Accommodations to inmates with disabilities at any Detention Facility, identify all documents

relating to such complaints, and identify any individuals with knowledge of such complaints.


13

Response: At Bates Nos. 000586--588, find the ADA Grievance Procedure for complaints

submitted to the Denver Office of Disability Rights. Upon the entry of a protective order,

any responsive documents that may exist will be released.

11. For each Detention Facility, identify the person who is the head of that entity or

his or her designee, as those terms are used in 28 C.F.R. § 35.164.

Response: The Undersheriff is responsible for DSD. The Undersheriff is Gary Wilson.

The Chief of Police is responsible for DPD. The Chief of Police is Robert White. Both Mr.

White and Mr. Wilson are under the supervision of the Manager of Safety, Justice Alex

Martinez.

12. Identify all communications, written, oral, or signed, with Plaintiffs Scott at any

time he was detained at a Detention Facility, identify all documents relating to such

communications, and identify any individuals with knowledge of such communications.

Response: See attached documents Bates Nos. 000021, 42, 52, 58, 71, 76-77, 81-85, 109-110,

112-116, 117-120, 127, 149, 176, 278, 341-342, 381, 395, 402, 516, 519, 529, and 541.

13. Identify all individuals whom the City intends to call as witnesses at trial and for

each, state the subjects on which the City expects him or her to testify.

Response: See Defendant’s disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Please produce:

1. All documents identified in response to any interrogatory.

Response: See attached documents Bates Nos. 000001-595.

2. All documents identified in the City’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures.


14


3. All documents relating to Plaintiff Scott, including but not limited to those in the

possession of the Department of Safety, and those in possession of the Office of Sign Language

Services and Resources.


4. All documents relating to the provision of Accommodations to individuals who

are arrested or detained by the City.

Response: See the Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

5. All documents relating to the relationship between the State of Colorado and the

City relating to the provision of sign language services and other Accommodations for deaf

individuals.

Response: Defendant objects to Request for Production #5 as overbroad, vague, overly

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information regarding

allegations that DSD and DPD failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids to Plaintiff.

First, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that only DSD and DPD failed to provide Plaintiff

with the auxiliary aids and services he required to effectively communicate. However,

Request for Production #5 is not limited to DPD and DSD but extends to Defendant’s Sign

Language Services program.

Second, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Request for Production #5 on the grounds

that the information sought is oppressive and overbroad, and not discoverable under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b). The information sought is not relevant to any claim or defense, nor is it


15


after information is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, and 404.

Without waiving these stated objections, neither DSD nor DPD has any contractual

relationship with the State of Colorado regarding the provision of American Sign

Language interpreters or other auxiliary aids and services.

6. All documents relating to policies for the provision of Accommodations to

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are arrested or detained by the City.

Response: See the Response to Plaintiff’s RFP #4.

7. All documents that set forth any policy, practice or procedure relating to

compliance with the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act by the Department of Safety or any

subdivisions or employees thereof.

Response: See response to Request for Production #4.

8. All documents relating to policies and or payments from the Colorado

Commission of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing for interpreter services provided by Lorrie

Kosinski for interpreter services provided to the Denver District Court, Denver Juvenile Court

and or Denver Probate Court.

Response: Defendant objects to Request for Production #8 as overbroad, vague, overly

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information regarding

allegations that DSD and DPD failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids to Plaintiff.

First, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that only DSD and DPD failed to provide Plaintiff

with the auxiliary aids and services he required to effectively communicate. However,


16

Request for Production #8 is not limited to DPD and DSD but extends to Defendant’s Sign

Language Services program.

Second, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Request for Production #8 on the grounds

that the information sought is oppressive and overbroad, and not discoverable under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b). The information sought is not relevant to any claim or defense, nor is it


after information is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, and 404.

Without waiving these stated objections, neither DSD nor DPD has any contractual

relationship with the Colorado Commission of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing for

interpreter services provided by Lorrie Kosinski for interpreter services provided to the

Denver District Court, Denver Juvenile Court and or Denver Probate Court. .

9. All logs from any location in any City detention facility during any time period in

which Plaintiff Scott was detained there.

Response: Please see the Denver County Jail Log Books for the relevant periods located at

Bates Nos. Denver 000199-275.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of June, 2012.

JOSEPH RIVERA, #36093

Assistant City Attorney

By: s/ Joseph Rivera

Joseph Rivera, #36093

Denver City Attorney’s Office

201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 1108

Denver, CO 80202-5332

Telephone: (720) 913-3100

FAX: (720) 913-3190

E-mail: [email protected]


17

Attorney for the City and County of Denver


18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY CM/ECF

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of June, 2012, I electronically served the foregoing

DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MARCH 28,

2012 DISCOVERY to the following e-mail addresses:

Amy Farr Robinson

Fox & Robertson, P.C.

[email protected]

Carrie Ann Lucas

Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities

[email protected]

s/ Kelly O’Dea

Kelly O’Dea, Paralegal

Office of the City Attorney


September 27, 2013 By email Amy Robertson, Esq. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203

Re: Scott v. Denver, 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Dear Counsel:

While most of the cases are not likely comparable to an ADA Title II case, enclosed with this letter are cover letters reflecting the monthly amounts billed in cases in which the Litigation Claims Section of the Denver City Attorney’s Office has retained Hall & Evans as outside/conflict counsel since January of 2012. The cover letters include the monthly amount which has been billed, the billing rates for partners ($160.00), associates ($140.00) and paralegals ($95.00), and any adjustments made to the amount billed before payment is made. As previously indicated, Denver produces this information in response to open records requests for billing records of retained outside/conflict counsel.

While Denver does not agree that such information is relevant to the pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs or that Plaintiff is entitled to obtain such information through discovery or an open records request after the acceptance of an offer of judgment, we produce these documents in an effort to be as cooperative as possible.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards, s/ Joseph Rivera Joseph Rivera

cc: Carrie Lucas (by email)

DEPARTMENT OF LAW DOUGLAS J. FRIEDNASH

CITY ATTORNEY

Litigation Section

201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 1108 Denver, CO 80202-5332

p: 720-913-3100 f: 720-913-3190

f: (Claims) 720-913-3182

MICHAEL B. HANCOCK Mayor


canderson

Rectangular Exhibit Stamp

in the united states district court for the district of ... · susan faltinson 16455 red rock lane...

Documents