Santopietro v. Howell

1 Kelly H. Dove, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 10569 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone (702) 784-5200 Facsimile (702) 784-5252 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Michele Santopietro, an Individual, CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01648-JCM-EJY 12 Plaintiff, JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER v. Las Vegas Police Department Officers C.

Howell (Badge 9634), F. Lopez-Rosende (Badge 8864), and K. Crawford (Badge 10050), 17 Defendants.

18 After pretrial proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED: 19 I.

20 NATURE OF THE ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 21 This case arises out of the arrest of Plaintiff Michele Santopietro (“Santopietro”) and Lea Patrick (“Patrick”) in May 2011 by Defendants Clayborn Howell, Christine Crawford, and Francisco Lopez-Rosende (collectively, the “Officers”) for doing business without a license.

24 (ECF No. 55 at 1.)

25 Specifically, Santopietro and Patrick were in costume on the Las Vegas Strip as police characters. Like other street performers there, they were working for tips, typically given by passersby who approached them and asked to be photographed with them. The Officers were running a plainclothes operation in which they approached street performers, among others, to evaluate their conduct. In this case, Howell agreed up front to tip, indicating before posing for a picture with the performers that he understood and agreed that the performers worked for tips.

3 The Officers all agree that they were lying to the extent they promised a tip, and that lying this way is entirely proper since they are law officers. Howell got the picture he wanted and for which he agreed to pay, and walked off. After Patrick reminded Howell of his prior agreement to tip, the Officers arrested them both for doing business without a license.

7 Santopietro sued the Officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that the arrest violated the First Amendment and other rights under the United States and Nevada constitutions. (ECF No. 29.) Santopietro seeks damages for what she contends was a wrongful arrest and imprisonment, the violation of her constitutional rights, and her attorneys’ fees as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and any other applicable law.

12 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES 13 Plaintiff – Michele Santopietro 14 Defendants -- Clayborn Howell, Christine Crawford, and Francisco Lopez-Rosende 15 CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES Plaintiff’s Contentions 17 Plaintiff brought eleven causes of action: (1) Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Free Speech); (2) Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Free Speech); Violation of Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Free Speech); (4) Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Unreasonable Search and Seizure); (5) Violation of Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 (Unreasonable Search and Seizure); (6) Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Substantive Due Process); (7) Violation of Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (Substantive Due Process); (8) Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under 42 26 U.S.C. § 1983 (Procedural Due Process); (9) Violation of Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (Procedural Due Process); (10) Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (11) Violation of Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 (Equal Protection). Plaintiff abandoned her Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action.

2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (causes of action 1 and 2), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant (1) acted under color of state law; and (2) deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right.

4 See Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Police officers effecting an arrest as officers are “acting under the color of State law” for the purposes of Section 1983, even if the offending conduct was not authorized. See Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24, 30 (9th Cir. 1962). Thus, there is no dispute that the Officers here were acting under the color of state law.

9 The Ninth Circuit’s decision has significantly narrowed the issues for trial. The Ninth Circuit held that if Santopietro did not demand deletion of the photo, her “undisputed statements and actions do not even arguably evidence a business transaction.”

12 In other words, if the jury credits Santopietro’s version of events, she necessarily prevails on the merits. As the Ninth Circuit also held, even “[i]f Santopietro’s words or actions demonstrated that she was selling her performance, the sale would still likely warrant First Amendment protection.” But the “business” of selling protected expression can be “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Determining whether Clark County Code § 6.56.030 as applied to a quid-pro-quo exchange of a photograph is a reasonable “time, place, or manner” restriction “requires an inquiry into whether the restriction: (1) is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; (2) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; and (3) leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” If the jury determines that Santopietro sold her performance by demanding tips, the Court must determine whether the licensing ordinance as applied to sales by, rather than voluntary tips to, a street artist is a valid time, place, or manner restriction.

25 Finally, Santopietro contends that she suffered damages as a result of her arrest and detention.

27 Defendant’s Contentions 28 Defendants contend that the Plaintiff was properly arrested for violating Clark County business without first having procured a license for the business. “Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.” U.S. v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that probable cause also exists “when ‘under the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that [the defendant] had committed a crime.’” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1986). Conclusive evidence of guilt is not required to establish probable cause, though “mere suspicion” is insufficient. Id. (citing McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the absence of probable cause. Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853, 864 (9th Cir. 2008).

12 Defendants maintain probable cause was established to arrest Plaintiff and Patrick.

13 Defendants maintain Plaintiff demanded that the photograph that was taken with Howell by Crawford be deleted after Howell refused to tip the women. Plaintiff admitted she was aware it was illegal to demand a tip for a picture and also admitted that Howell had started to walking away from the women when the demands for the tip were made.

17 The Plaintiff was subject to the Code and, based upon the evidence presented, the officers had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff and Patrick for violation of Clark County Code 6.56.030.

19 The Defendants cannot be held liable for the arrest from a constitutional standpoint, as it has long been held that law enforcement officers can make an arrest for a misdemeanor crime. See Caroll v. 21 U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 156 (1925). “If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor offence in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (petitioner arrested for failure to wear seatbelt and failure to ensure child passengers’ seatbelts were fastened). Because probable cause existed to arrest the Plaintiff and Patrick, the Defendants had a legal right to conduct a search of the women after their arrest (seizure). See U.S. v. Robinson, 414 27 U.S. 218, 224 (1973).

1 The Defendants contend that they did not violate the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights as alleged. A municipality may issue reasonable regulations governing the time, place or manner of speech. Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2001). To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content neutral; (2) it must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest”; and (3) it must “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Id. at 1036. In order to establish a claim for a violation of a First Amendment right, a plaintiff must prove the defendant “deterred or chilled” the plaintiff’s speech and that “such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the defendant’s] conduct.” Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1155 (9th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court holds that even protected activities like solicitation “are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” Village of Shaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632 (1980). Defendants contend that the Code was content neutral, served a significant governmental interest and was narrowly tailored to serve that interest(s). Further, alternative channels of expressing First Amendment-protected speech were available.

16 II.

17 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 18 Jurisdiction in this case is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331. Jurisdiction is not disputed.

19 III.

20 THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND REQUIRE NO PROOF 1. In 2009, other street performers sued Metro, some of its senior personnel, and other parties, seeking to prevent arrests of street performers in violation of the First Amendment.

The parties in that case entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter called “the MOU”).

2. The MOU – to which Metro agreed as a signatory by the same counsel who defends the Officers in this case and represents Metro as a third party in this case – provides, in relevant part, that “the parties agree that”: 1 1. The sidewalks and pedestrian bridges along Las Vegas Boulevard (“the Strip”) constitute a traditional public forum for First Amendment purposes. See Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas, 257 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2001).

4 3. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that street performing is expressive speech or expressive conduct protected under 5 the First Amendment. See Berger v. City of Seattle et al., 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009).

7 4. Street performing, including the acceptance of unsolicited tips and the non-coercive solicitation of tips, is not a per se violation of any of the 8 codes or statutes being challenged in this action.

9 6. The entirety of Chapter 6 of the Clark County Code, the business licensing codes, as written, is inapplicable to the act of street performing.

12 3. On May 28, 2011, the Officers were working as a three-person team patrolling the Strip together.

14 4. The Officers engaged a variety of street performers that day, generally asking to take a picture with the performers.

16 5. All three Officers were in plain clothes.

17 6. Santopietro and Patrick were both arrested and detained.

18 7. Plaintiff’s misdemeanor charge was dismissed by the court.

19 IV.

THE FOLLOWING FACTS, ALTHOUGH NOT ADMITTED, WILL NOT BE CONTESTED AT TRIAL BY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY 1. On May 27, 2011, Santopietro traveled to Las Vegas to meet her friend, Lea Patrick, so that the two could perform as characters on the Las Vegas Strip.

2. The two traveled together to Las Vegas three times before May 27, 2011, and they had engaged in street performances during those trips. During their street performances together, Michele and Lea performed in police officer costumes.

3. Michele and Lea’s trip on the weekend of May 28, 2011 was the fourth time they acted as street performers together in Las Vegas, and, up until that trip, Santopietro had never encountered any problems with law enforcement in Las Vegas or Los Angeles.

2 4. On May 28, 2011, Ms. Santopietro had been on the Strip as her sexy cop character with Ms. Patrick for about forty minutes before the Officers approached them.

4 5. After the exchange about the photo and lack of a tip, one of the Officers handcuffed Patrick and subsequently, one of the Officers handcuffed Santopietro. 6 V. 7 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL 1. Whether Santopietro (as opposed to Patrick) made the statement regarding the deletion of the photo, i.e., asking Crawford to delete the photograph if Howell did not like it, or demanding that she do so if the Officers refused to provide a tip.

2. If Santopietro did make the statement regarding the deletion of the photo, the factfinder must determine whether the nature of her statement and her actions demonstrated a quid-pro-quo offer for services.

3. The amount of damages, if any, resulting from the actions of the Officers.

VI.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES 17 OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL 18 1. If the jury finds that Santopietro did not make any statement regarding the deletion of the photo, no further legal analysis is necessary.

20 2. If the jury finds that Santopietro made the statement regarding the deletion of the photo and determines that the nature of her statement and her actions demonstrated a quid-pro- quo offer for services the Court must determine whether the licensing requirement under Clark County Code § 6.56.030 is a valid time, place, or manner restriction as applied to the facts as determined.

25 VII.

26 (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by the clerk: 1 (b) As to the following additional exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objects to their admission on the grounds stated: 3 (1)Set forth the plaintiff’s exhibits and objections to them.

Email from M.

Santopietro to 5 Detective Reinink of LVMPD clarifying 6 statements made in regards to the SAN000006 SAN000006 6/6/2011 complaint Email from M.

Santopietro to the 9 Clark County District Attorney’s Office re 10 copy of Statement of SAN000007 SAN000007 6/6/2011 Complaint 11 Email from T. Driver of the Clark County District Attorney’s 13 Office to M.

Santopietro 14 acknowledging receipt of statement SAN000008 SAN000008 6/6/2011 of complaint 16 Email from T. Driver to M. Santopietro re 17 complaints versus SAN000009 SAN000011 6/7/2011 charges 18 Email from C.

Reinink to M.

Santopietro re 20 department telephone numbers and filing a 21 report for criminal SAN000012 SAN000013 6/7/2011 charges 22 Email from M.

Santopietro to C.

Reinink re 24 department telephone numbers and filing a 25 report for criminal SAN000014 SAN000015 6/8/2011 charges Email from M.

27 Santopietro to T.

Driver re filing 28 SAN000016 SAN000018 6/8/2011 charges against 1 police officers 2 Email from M.

Santopietro to C.

Reinink re business SAN000019 SAN000021 7/6/2011 license codes Summary of Incident Objection: Hearsay SAN000022 SAN000028 by M. Santopietro Criminal Complaint filed with Justice 7 Court, Las Vegas SAN000029 SAN000029 6/14/2011 Township 8 Declaration of Arrest SAN000030 SAN000031 5/28/2011 of M. Santopietro 9 Declaration of Arrest SAN000032 SAN000033 5/28/2011 of L. Patrick Interim Stipulated 11 Memorandum of Understanding filed 12 in the Banasik v. Clark County, 13 Nevada, et al. federal SAN000034 SAN000039 2/4/2010 case First Amended 15 Complaint filed in the Banasik v. Clark 16 County, Nevada, et SAN000040 SAN000074 7/21/2009 al. federal case Article from Objection: Hearsay; 18 ReviewJournal.com Relevance entitled “Buskers Sue 19 to Keep Space on SAN000075 SAN000078 7/10/2009 Strip” 20 Article from Objection: Hearsay; ReviewJournal.com Relevance entitled “Push to 22 Clean Up Strip Ensnares Disabled 23 SAN000079 SAN000081 7/7/2012 Man” SEE PRIVILEGE 24 SAN000082 SAN000105 LOG 25 Objection: Impermissible 26 Summary of Injuries Expert prepared by Michele Evidence/Testimony; 27 SAN000106 SAN000108 Santopietro Hearsay Pictures of handcuff Objection: 1 Transportation Receipts from SAN000113 SAN000117 Michele Santopietro 3 Objection: Authentication; 4 Hearsay; Colonoscopy Results Impermissible 5 showing presence of Expert SAN000118 SAN000118 4/11/2011 diverticulum Evidence/Testimony Objection; 7 Authentication; Hearsay; 8 Impermissible Expert SAN000119 SAN000119 IBS Symptoms Evidence/Testimony Letter from D. Objection: Hearsay; Campbell, Lieutenant Authentication; 11 Commander Relevance Detectives, NYPD 12 SAN000120 SAN000120 6/15/2011 (ret.)

Letter from L. Patrick Objection: Hearsay; re Business card, Authentication 14 email address and SAN000121 SAN000121 7/22/2011 Facebook page 15 Clark County Municipal Code 16 6.56.010 and SAN000122 SAN000122 6/3/2011 6.56.030 LVMPD Defendants’ 18 Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 19 in Banasik v. Clark County, Nevada, et 20 SAN000123 SAN000128 8/25/2009 al.

Masto’s (Attorney General) Answer to 22 First Amended Complaint in Banasik 23 v.Clark County, SAN000129 SAN000148 9/14/2009 Nevada, et al.

Email Objection: Hearsay; 25 correspondence Relevance between Nick Crosby 26 and LVMPD 30(b)(6) witnesses, sent from 27 Jessica Austin to Andrew Jacobs on 1 Attachments to email Objection: Hearsay; correspondence Relevance between Nick Crosby 3 and LVMPD 30(b)(6) witnesses, sent from 4 Jessica Austin to Andrew Jacobs on SAN000224 SAN000258 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 Objection: Hearsay; Authentication; 7 Medical records from Impermissible Media District Expert SAN000259 SAN000265 5/3/2013 Chiropractic Evidence/Testimony Objection: Hearsay; 9 Medical records from Authentication; West Impermissible Gastroenterology Expert 11 SAN000266 SAN000295 5/21/2013 Medical Group Evidence/Testimony Answer to Plaintiff’s 12 Second Amended Complaint LVMPD 00001 Audio CD 14 Officer’s Report LVMPD 0002 LVMPD 0003 (Incident Recall) 15 Officer’s Report LVMPD 0004 LVMPD 0005 (Patrick) LVMPD 0006 LVMPD 0006 Property Report LVMPD 0007 LVMPD 0008 Arrest Report Arrest Report LVMPD 0009 LVMPD 0010 (Santopietro) Detention Services 19 Booking Voucher LVMPD 0011 (Patrick) Detention Services 21 Booking Voucher LVMPD 0012 (Santopietro) 22 Declaration of Arrest LVMPD 0013 LVMPD 0014 (Patrick) 23 Declaration of Arrest LVMPD 0015 LVMPD 0016 (Santopietro) LVMPD 0017 LVMPD 0018 Disposition Notices 25 Temporary Custody LVMPD 0019 Record 26 Temporary Custody LVMPD 0020 Record (Santopietro) LVMPD 0021 Photograph LVMPD 0022 LVMPD 0027 Interim Stipulated 1 MOU LVMPD Citizen Review Board 3 Screening Panel LVMPD 0028 Findings Howell’s Response to 5 Plaintiff’s First RFP Howell’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 7 RFP Howell’s Response to 8 Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories Howell’s Response to 10 Plaintiff’s Second Interrogatories 11 Howell’s Response to Plaintiff’s Third 12 Interrogatories Howell’s Response to Plaintiff’s First 14 Requests for Admission 15 Howell’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for 17 Admission Howell’s Response to 18 Plaintiff’s Third Requests for 19 Admission Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s First 21 RFP Crawford’s Response 22 to Plaintiff’s Second RFP 23 Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories 25 Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 26 Interrogatories Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s Third 28 Interrogatories 1 to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admission 3 Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second 4 Requests for Admission 5 Crawford’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for 7 Admission Lopez-Rosende’s 8 Response to Plaintiff’s First RFP Lopez-Rosende’s 10 Response to Plaintiff’s Second 11 RFP Lopez-Rosende’s 12 Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories Lopez-Rosende’s 14 Response to Plaintiff’s Second 15 Interrogatories Lopez-Rosende’s 16 Response to Plaintiff’s Third Interrogatories 18 Lopez-Rosende’s Response to 19 Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admission 21 Lopez-Rosende’s Response to 22 Plaintiff’s Second Requests for 23 Admission Lopez-Rosende’s Response to 25 Plaintiff’s Third Requests for 26 Admission Any exhibit listed by Defendants.

1 (2)Set forth the defendant’s exhibits and objections to them.1 Bates Bates Description 2 Pls.

3 Objection LVMPD LVMPD Audio CD – Phone and Radio 4 Hearsay (Santopietro) 1 (Santopietro) 1 LVMPD LVMPD Incident Recall, 9/24/12 (Santopietro) 2 (Santopietro) 3 LVMPD LVMPD Officer’s Report – Patrick (Santopietro) 4 (Santopietro) 5 LVMPD LVMPD Property Report (Santopietro) 6 (Santopietro) 6 LVMPD LVMPD Arrest Report (Patrick) -- (Santopietro) 7 (Santopietro) 8 LVMPD LVMPD Arrest Report - Santopietro (Santopietro) 9 (Santopietro) 10 -- LVMPD LVMPD DSD Booking Voucher 11 -- (Santopietro) 11 (Santopietro) 11 (Patrick) LVMPD LVMPD DSD Booking Voucher -- (Santopietro) 12 (Santopietro) 12 (Santopietro) LVMPD LVMPD Dec. of Arrest (Patrick) -- (Santopietro) 13 (Santopietro) 14 LVMPD LVMPD Dec. of Arrest (Santopietro) -- (Santopietro) 15 (Santopietro) 16 LVMPD LVMPD Disposition Notices for Relevance (Santopietro) 17 (Santopietro) 18 SCOPE Data Entries LVMPD LVMPD Temporary Custody Record (Santopietro) 19 (Santopietro) 19 (Patrick) LVMPD LVMPD Temporary Custody Record (Santopietro) 20 (Santopietro) 20 (Santopietro) LVMPD LVMPD Photograph (Santopietro) 21 (Santopietro) 21 LVMPD LVMPD MOU, Docket No. 45, Case (Santopietro) 22 (Santopietro) 27 No. 2:09-cv-01242-LDG- GWF LVMPD LVMPD Citizens Review Board -- (Santopietro) 28 (Santopietro) 28 Screening Panel Findings LVMPD LVMPD Memo from Citizens Review (Santopietro) 29 (Santopietro) 29 Board LVMPD LVMPD Letters from CRB to Howell, (Santopietro) 30 (Santopietro) 32 Crawford and Roberts LVMPD LVMPD Letter from CRB to (Santopietro) 33 (Santopietro) 33 Santopietro LVMPD LVMPD June 21, 2011 email to CRB (Santopietro) 34 (Santopietro) 38 1 Plaintiff reserves all rights to assert all applicable objections to Defendants’ exhibits, in addition LVMPD LVMPD CRB Request (Santopietro) 39 (Santopietro) 42 LVMPD LVMPD June 16 Letter from Gillespie Hearsay (Santopietro) 43 (Santopietro) 43 to Santopietro LVMPD LVMPD Statement of Complaint (Santopietro) 44 (Santopietro) 49 LVMPD LVMPD June 1, 2011 Email from (Santopietro) 50 (Santopietro) 53 [email protected]. Hearsay com LVMPD LVMPD Incident Recall (Santopietro) 54 (Santopietro) 55 LVMPD LVMPD Arrest Report (Patrick) (Santopietro) 56 (Santopietro) 57 Hearsay LVMPD LVMPD DSD Booking Voucher (Santopietro) 58 (Santopietro) 58 (Patrick) LVMPD LVMPD Photograph with Charges (Santopietro) 59 (Santopietro) 59 Sheet LVMPD LVMPD Dec. of Arrest (Patrick) (Santopietro) 60 (Santopietro) 61 LVMPD LVMPD TCR (Patrick) (Santopietro) 62 (Santopietro) 62 LVMPD LVMPD Photograph (Santopietro) 63 (Santopietro) 63 LVMPD LVMPD DSD Voucher (Santopietro) (Santopietro) 64 (Santopietro) 65 LVMPD LVMPD Arrest Report (Santopietro) (Santopietro) 66 (Santopietro) 67 LVMPD LVMPD Photo with Charges Sheet (Santopietro) 68 (Santopietro) 68 LVMPD LVMPD Dec. of Arrest (Santopietro) (Santopietro) 69 (Santopietro) 70 LVMPD LVMPD TCR (Santopietro) (Santopietro) 71 (Santopietro) 71 LVMPD LVMPD DSD Booking Voucher (Santopietro) 72 (Santopietro) 72 LVMPD LVMPD Unit Log by Incident (Santopietro) 73 (Santopietro) 73 LVMPD LVMPD Municode 6.56.010 (Santopietro) 75 (Santopietro) 75 Definitions LVMPD LVMPD June 7, 2011 Email from (Santopietro) 76 (Santopietro) 76 Reinink to Santopietro LVMPD LVMPD TCR (Santopietro) (Santopietro) 77 (Santopietro) 77 LVMPD LVMPD DSD Booking Voucher (Santopietro) 78 (Santopietro) 78 LVMPD LVMPD CCDC Property Transaction (Santopietro) 79 (Santopietro) 80 Report LVMPD LVMPD OR Release Form (Santopietro) 81 (Santopietro) 81 LVMPD LVMPD Locator Identifier Card (Santopietro) 82 (Santopietro) 82 LVMPD LVMPD Screening Checklist (Santopietro) 83 (Santopietro) 84 LVMPD LVMPD Information Sheet (Santopietro) 85 (Santopietro) 85 LVMPD LVMPD Charge Information (Santopietro) 87 (Santopietro) 87 (Santopietro) LVMPD LVMPD NaphCare Documents (Santopietro) 88 (Santopietro) 98 LVMPD LVMPD LVMPD Institutional Trust Hearsay; (Santopietro) 99 (Santopietro) 99 Account relevance LVMPD LVMPD CCDC Release Statement (Santopietro) 100 (Santopietro) LVMPD LVMPD Inmate Assessment (Santopietro) 101 (Santopietro) 13 101 LVMPD LVMPD CCAC Employee Roster (Santopietro) 141 (Santopietro) LVMPD LVMPD October 2, 2012 Email Hearsay; (Santopietro) 169 (Santopietro) Correspondence with CC relevance 171 Business License LVMPD LVMPD November 19, 2012 email Hearsay; (Santopietro) 172 (Santopietro) Correspondence with CC relevance 173 Ordinance Sheet LVMPD LVMPD October 31, 2012 Email with Hearsay; (Santopietro) 174 (Santopietro) CC Ordinance relevance 20 176 LVMPD LVMPD October 23, 2012 Email Hearsay; (Santopietro) 177 (Santopietro) Correspondence with relevance 182 Proposed Ordinance LVMPD LVMPD August 14, 2012 Email Hearsay; (Santopietro) 184 (Santopietro) Correspondence regarding 187 Promoters with CC Business relevance 24 Licenses LVMPD LVMPD CC Ordinances regarding (Santopietro) 188 (Santopietro) Animals, Business Licenses 26 188 and Dangerous Items LVMPD LVMPD Strip Corridor Pedestrian (Santopietro) 189 (Santopietro) Conduct PowerPoint LVMPD LVMPD Safe Strip Briefing 2011 (Santopietro) 208 (Santopietro) PowerPoint LVMPD LVMPD 5/202.04 – Misdemeanor (Santopietro) 324 (Santopietro) Citation and/or Arrest Policy 4 327 Plaintiff’s Responses to 5 Howell’s First Request for the Production of Documents Plaintiff’s Responses to 7 Howell’s Second Request for the Production of Documents 8 Plaintiff’s Answers to Howell’s First Set of Interrogatories 10 Plaintiff’s Answers to Howell’s Second Set of 11 Interrogatories 15 (c)Electronic evidence: 16 The parties do not intend to present electronic evidence for purposes of jury deliberations.

18 (d)Depositions: 19 (1) Plaintiff will offer the following depositions (except for impeachment purposes): (a) Lea Patrick If Ms. Patrick does not appear in person, Plaintiff intends to offer the following portions of her deposition transcript against all three Defendants: 6:15-7:12; 7:1-9; 9:4-17; 9:20-10:23; 11:4-10; 11: 21-22; 13:3-17:3; 17:5; 17:7-18:6; 18:17-20:16; 20:18-21:13: 22:4-26:7; 26:11-29:2; 29:10- 21; 29:24-33:21; 33:23-34:20; 36:23-37:2; 37:4-5; 37:7-38:21; 42:2-7; 48:22-53:8; 53:17; 53:22- 25; 57:14-58:16; 58:19-60:1; 60:7-19; 60:22; 60:24-65:24; 66:5-72:4; 72:8-74:18; 77:2-14.

27 (b) Clayborn Howell Plaintiff understands that Defendant Howell will be present in person and only intends to use his deposition as appropriate for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff will supplement if notified that Defendant Howell will not appear at trial.

3 (c) Kristine Crawford Plaintiff understands that Defendant Crawford will be present in person and only intends to use her deposition as appropriate for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff will supplement if notified that Defendant Crawford will not appear at trial.

7 (d) Francisco Lopez-Resende Plaintiff understands that Defendant Lopez-Resende will be present in person and only intends to use his deposition as appropriate for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff will supplement if notified that Defendant Lopez-Resende will not appear at trial.

11 (e) Todd Fasulo: 5:5-190:7 (exclusive of objections) (f) Dennis Flynn: 4:10-33:2 (g) Michael Game 4:13-30:10 (h) Charles Hank: 4:16-116:7 (j) Chance McClish: 4:10-14:22 (l) Mark Reddon: 4:11-24:19 (m) Michael Yu: 4:10-36:21 19 (2) Defendant will offer the following depositions (except for impeachment purposes): (a) Michael Game: pp. 12:4-25 – 25:1-4 (b) Michael Bland: pp. 8:24-25 – 27:1-19, 34:23-25 – 38:1-15 (c) Evans: pp. 16:20-25 – 22:1-2 (d) Charles Hank: pp. 10:15-25 – 14:1; 51:13-25 – 54:1-12; 55:23-25 – 58:1; 80:9-25 – 90:1-22 (e) Todd Fasulo: pp. 29:20-25 – 32:1-4; 52:19-25 – 60:1-11; 99:12-25 -- 107:1; 151:12-25 – 152:1-11; 190:14-25 – 191:1-9 1 (1)Defendant objects to plaintiff’s depositions as follows: 2 Defendants object to the use of depositions for witnesses who testify during the trial, except for impeachment purposes.

4 (2)Plaintiff object to defendant’s depositions as follows: 5 Plaintiff objects to the use of depositions for witnesses who testify during the trial, except for impeachment purposes.

7 VIII.

8 The following witnesses may be called by the parties at trial: 9 (a) Plaintiff’s witnesses: (a) Michele Santopietro c/o Kelly Dove Snell & Wilmer 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy.

13 Ste. 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (b) Officer Clayborn Howell c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 (c) Officer Kristine Crawford2 c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 (d) Francisco Lopez-Resende Retired. c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 2 Plaintiff anticipates that Defendants will be present in person and only intends to use the (e) Michael Bland Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

Last Known Phone: (702) 332-8557 (f) Donald Evans Retired.

6 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

Last Known Phone: (253) 358-3576 (g) Todd Fasulo Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: 702-770-7000 (h) Dennis Flynn Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 324-4423 (i) Michael Game Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

Last Known Phone: (702) 648-9809 (j) Charles Hank Retired.

18 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: 702-523-3228 (k) Chance McClish Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 493-7677 (l) Lea Patrick c/o Kelly Dove Snell & Wilmer 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy.

Ste. 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (m) Mark Reddon Retired.

28 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

1 (n) Michael Yu Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 321-3612 (o)Person Most Knowledgeable – Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 (p)Any witnesses listed by Defendants (b) Defendants’ witnesses (a) Michele Santopietro c/o Snell & Wilmer, LLP 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy.

Ste. 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (b) Mark Reddon Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

Last Known Phone: (702)658-5114 (c) Michael Game Retired.

18 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

Last Known Phone: (702) 648-9809 (d) Michael Bland Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

22 Last Known Phone: (702) 332-8557 (e) Donald Evans Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025).

25 Last Known Phone: (253) 358-3576 (f) Officer Francisco Lopez-Rosende Retired.

28 c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 (g) Officer Clayborn Howell c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 (h) Chance McClish Retired.

9 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 493-7677 (i) Michael Yu Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 321-3612 (j) Dennis Flynn Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: (702) 324-4423 (k) Steve Junge [None provided] (l) Charles Hank Retired.

19 Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: 702-523-3228 (m) Todd Fasulo Retired.

Home Address confidential (NRS 289.025) Last Known Phone: 702-770-7000 (n) Lea Patrick c/o Snell & Wilmer 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy.

25 Ste. 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (o) Officer Kristine Crawford c/o Nick Crosby Marquis Aurbach Coffing Las Vegas, NV 89145 (p) Any witness named by Plaintiff 4 IX.

5 The attorneys or parties have met and jointly offer these three trial dates: Weeks of: September 3 September 23 November 183 December 9 11 It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the court will set the trial of this matter on one of the agreed-upon dates if possible; if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the court’s calendar.

14 X.

15 It is estimated that the trial will take a total of five days.

DATED: May 20, 2024.

17 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. MARQUIS AURBACH s/ Kelly H. Dove____________________ _s/.

20 Kelly H. Dove, Esq. Nick D. Crosby, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 10569 Nevada Bar No. 8996 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone (702) 784-5200 Telephone (702) 382-0711 Facsimile (702) 784-5252 Facsimile (702) 382-5816 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants XI.

ACTION BY THE COURT 3 Defendants’ counsel is on a five-week stack for a potential trial in state court that could interfere 1 This case is set for jury trial on the stacked calendar on September 23 2 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Calendar call will be held on September 18, 2024, at 1:30 p.m..

6 DATED: May 28, 2024.

Pitus © Atalia, A i 5 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 2 «12 xs 13

Onze mwa 2865 15 25 16

3 17 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on May 20, 2024, I electronically transmitted the foregoing JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel in this matter, all counsel being registered to receive Electronic Filing.

7 /s/ Kelly H. Dove 8 An employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. 4893-2191-4299.1