VIA FACSIMILE VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Tavel, et al. v. Williams, et al.; United States

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a draft of a Case Management Plan in the above-referenced cause, which the Court has asked that we jointly file by September 6, 1994. The Plan incorporates the elements of the Plaintiffs' Case Management Plan, filed with the court on July 29, 1994, and the Case Management Plan which this office filed on behalf of the Defendants on August 1, 1994.

Please review the enclosed draft at your earliest convenience and contact me with any comments so that we will be in a position to sign and file the Plan by the end of next week. Thank you.

McHALE, COOK & WELCH, p.c.

By

William M. Braman

WMB/bb

Enclosure

cc: Phillip A. Terry, Esq. (w/encl.)

RONALD JOSEPH TAVEL, et at, Plaintiffs,

v. CAUSE NO. IP94-499-C

KEITH R. WILLIAMS, et. al., Defendants.

Pursuant to the provisions of the civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 and the rules of this court, the undersigned counsel for the parties hereby submit their proposed Case Management Plan.

1. Parties and Representatives: Counsel for the Plaintiff, Ronald J. Tavel, John A. Newton and Jeffrey A. Newton is R.J Tavel, Esq., 4000 North Meridian Street, suite #5E, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208. Counsel for the Defendants, Keith R. Williams, David Butler, Jay Travis, Tony Fennel and the City of Indianapolis is Phillip A. Terry, Esq. and William M. Braman, Esq., McHALE, COOK & WELCH, p.c., 1100 Chamber of Commerce Bldg., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. John C. Ruckelshaus, Esq., RUCKELSHAUS, ROLAND, HASBROOK & O'CONNOR, 129 East Market Street, Suite 1100, Indianapolis,Indiana 46204 is counsel for Defendants Keith Williams and Tony Fennel only.

A. Plaintiff's Factual Synopsis

Plaintiffs are adult male citizens of the City of Indianapolis, State of Indiana. On March 15, 1992, the Defendants;

1. came to Babes, located on Pendleton Pike in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the (911) request of William Newton after an unprovoked assault by unknown patrons therein;

2. refused to follow proper police procedure in response thereto;

3. physically and verbally assaulted the Plaintiffs;

4. unlawfully detained Plaintiffs;

5. Defendants Williams and Butler assaulted and abused the Plaintiff Tavel, and the other Defendants took no action to intervene;

6. unlawfully and illegally threatened and intimidated the Plaintiffs;

7. falsely arrested Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant and without probable cause;

8. after arresting Plaintiffs Newtons, failed to file written affidavits and no charges were lodged;

9. after arresting Plaintiff Tavel for alleged public intoxication, falsely swore and affirmed that Tavel resisted arrest and was disorderly;

10. actions were reckless and taken in deliberate and callous indifference to Plaintiff's rights;

11. that the City of Indianapolis consistently fails to adequately train and supervise and to discipline officers upon reports of use of excessive force;

12. based on Defendants' actions, Tavel was prosecuted on criminal charges and his license to practice law was threatened;

13. based on Defendants' actions, Tavel was forced to defend himself against the criminal charges;

14. the charges against Tavel were dismissed by the prosecutor prior to trial but approximately eleven months after they were filed;

15. Tavel has bean financially and emotionally harmed by the Defendants' actions and his reputation has been damaged; and

16. Tavel has been physically damaged as a result of the brutal beating by Williams.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' rights have been violated and Plaintiffs have been damaged. Both compensatory and punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendants as is appropriate, and as is consistent with the rulings of this Court.

B. Defendants, Factual Synopsis.

Defendants deny the material allegation& contained in the Plaintiffs' Factual Synopsis. The Defendants also assert that Defendants Keith R. Williams, David Butler, Jay Travis and Tony Fennel enjoy qualified immunity and acted in self defense in their altercation with the Plaintiffs at Babes on March 15, 1992.

A. Plaintiffs' Theories.

The Plaintiffs state that Defendants violated their rights secured to then under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to be free from having unreasonable and excessive force inflicted upon them in the course of an arrest.

The Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights secured to them under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving Plaintiffs of both liberty and property without due process of law.

Defendants' actions violated Plaintiffs, rights to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment under the common law of Indiana.

Defendants' actions constituted malicious prosecution in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United states Constitution.

The Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights secured to them under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, making it unlawful to engage in conspiracies against citizens.

Plaintiffs have a right to bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, as the Defendants herein violated Plaintiff's rights while acting under color of law.

Also, the Defendants engaged in unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiffs. Defendants Williams and Butler unlawfully assaulted the Plaintiff Tavel in violation of Indiana State law, and unlawfully intimidated the Plaintiffs.

With reference to Plaintiffs, state law claims, Plaintiffs state and contend that Plaintiffs served legal and lawful Notice of Tort Claims on the Defendants.

Jurisdiction in the District Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 to hear Plaintiffs' claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs, state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

B. Defendants' Legal Theories.

The Defendants deny they violated the Plaintiffs, civil rights or engaged in any wrongful conduct.

Defendants Keith R. Williams, David Butler, Jay Travis and Tony Fennel enjoy qualified immunity.

Defendants Keith R. Williams, David Butler, Jay Travis and Tony Fennel acted in self defense.

The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for punitive damages as against the Defendant, City of Indianapolis.

IV. Discovery Schedule:

A. Discovery shall be completed by March 31, 1995.

B. No further interrogatories shall be served after February 28, 1995 without leave of Court.

C. Preliminary witness lists shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995 and shall be supplemented by letter to counsel upon the discovery of any additional witnesses. Final (trial) lists due date shall be determined at the final pre-trial conference.

D. Preliminary exhibit lists shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995 and shall be supplemented from time to time during the discovery period as determined at the final pre-trial conference.

E. Plaintiffs shall file their contentions on or before January 10, 1995.

F. Defendants shall filed their preliminary contentions on or before January 25, 1995.

G. The parties shall file final contentions two weeks before the trial date.

H. Plaintiffs shall prepare a statement of special damages, if any, on or before February 7, 1995, and make a settlement demand on said date.

I. Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' Statement of Special Damages and Settlement Demand within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the demand.

J. Depositions of fact witnesses may be taken at any time up to the close of discovery. Expert witnesses shall be deposed no later than one week prior to trial.

K. The parties shall disclose the name, address and of all expert witnesses, together with the disclosure of expert testimony as required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on or before January 10, 1995.

L. Stipulations of facts and documents shall be filed 21 days prior to trial.

X. Discovery disputes, motions to enlarge time or relief or other procedural matters concerning this plan shall be resolved by motion after compliance with the provisions of Local

Rule 37.1.

A. All motions for leave to amend the pleadings and/or to join additional parties shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995.

B. Counsel shall file the brief required by Local Rule 7.1 on affirmative defenses which could have been asserted as motions under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if any, on or before January 3, 1995.

C. Motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed as soon as practicable but no later than January 3, 1995; motions addressed to all issues shall be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the close of discovery.

Alternative dispute resolution and referral to magistrate Judge appear to be practical at this point.

A. Trial of this action by Jury shall require three (3) days. The parties request a trial date at this Court's convenience, not later than September 14, 1995.

B. Two weeks prior to the trial date, all trial briefs, motions in limine and proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions and areas of inquiry shall be exchanged and submitted to the Court.

C. One week prior to the trial date the parties shall file objections to any motions in limine, proposed jury instructions and voir dire questions submitted by the opposing party.

Respectfully Submitted,

R.J. Tavel, Esq. 4000 North Meridian, Suite 6D Indianapolis, IN 46208 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 923-3399

McHALE, COOK & WELCH, p.c. 1100 Chamber of Commerce Bldg. 129 East Market, #1100 (317) 634-7588

RUCKELSHAUS, ROLAND, HASBROOK & O'CONNOR 320 North Meridian street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317)
R.J. Tavel (810-49) Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Tavel, et al

By: WIlliam M. Braman (15124-47) Attorneys for the Defendants,

Phillip A. Terry John C. Ruckelshaus (6148-49)Attorneys for Defendants Keith Williams and Tony Fennel David Butler and Jay Travis

RONALD J. TAVEL et.al., Plaintiffs,

v. CAUSE NO. IP 94-C-499

KEITH R. WILLIAMS et. al., Defendants.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 and the Rules of this Court, the Undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs hereby submits their proposed case management plan.

I. Parties and Representatives:

Plaintiffs Ronald J. Tavel, John A. Newton, Jeffrey A. Newton.

Counsel for Plaintiffs is R. J. Tavel, J.D., 4000 N. Meridian Street, Suite #5E, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208.

Defendants Keith R. Williams, David Butler, and the City of Indianapolis. Counsel for Defendants is Phillip Terry, McHale, Cook, & Welch, 1122 Chamber of Commerce Bldg, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (634-7588) and, for Jay Travis, Tony Fennel, and the City of Indianapolis, John C. Ruckelshaus, Ruckelshaus Roland Hasbrook & O'Connor, 129 E. Market Street, Suite 1100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (634-4356).

Factual Synopsis:

Plaintiffs are adult male citizens of the City of Indianapolis, State of Indiana. On

March 15, 1992, the Defendants:

1. came to Babes, located on Pendleton Pike in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the (911) request of William Newton after an unprovoked assault by unknown patrons therein;

2. refused to follow proper police procedure in response thereto;

3. physically and verbally assaulted the Plaintiffs;

4. unlawfully detained Plaintiffs;

5. Defendants Williams and Butler assaulted and abused the Plaintiff Tavel, and the other Defendants took no action to intervene;

6. unlawfully and illegally threatened and intimidated the Plaintiffs;

7. falsely arrested Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant and without probable cause;

8. after arresting Plaintiffs Newtons, failed to file written affidavits and no charges were lodged;

9. after arresting Plaintiff Tavel for alleged public intoxication, falsely swore and affirmed that Tavel resisted arrest and was disorderly;

10. actions were reckless and taken in deliberate and callous indifference to

Plaintiffs' rights.

11. That the City of Indianapolis consistently fails to adequately train and supervise and to discipline officers upon reports of use of excessive force.

12. Based on Defendants' actions, Tavel was prosecuted on criminal charges and his license to practice law was threatened;

13. Based on Defendants' actions, Tavel was forced to defend himself against the criminal charges.

14. The charges against Tavel were dismissed by the prosecutor prior to trial but approximately eleven months after they were filed.

15. Tavel has been financially and emotionally harmed by the Defendants' actions and his reputation has been damaged.

16. Tavel has been physically damaged as a result of the brutal beating by Williams.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' rights have been violated and Plaintiffs have been damaged. Both compensatory and punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendants as is appropriate, and as is consistant with the rulings of this Court.

II.

Legal Theories of Plaintiff:

The Plaintiffs state that Defendants violated their rights secured to them under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to be free from having unreasonable and excessive force inflicted upon them in the course of an arrest.

The Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights secured to them under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving Plaintiffs of both liberty and property without due process of law.

Defendants' actions violated Plaintiffs' rights to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment under the common law of Indiana.

Defendants' actions constituted malicious prosecution in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights secured to them under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, 1985, 1986, making it unlawful to engage in conspiracies against citizens.

Plaintiffs have a right to bring this action under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, as the Defendants herein violated Plaintiffs' rights while acting under color of law.

Also, the Defendants engaged in unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiffs. Defendants Williams and Butler unlawfully assaulted the Plaintiff Tavel in violation of Indiana State law, and unlawfully intimidated the Plaintiffs.

With reference to Plaintiffs' State law claims, Plaintiffs state and contend that Plaintiffs served legal and lawful Notice of Tort Claims on the Defendants.

Jurisdiction in the District Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. secs. 1331 and 1343 to hear Plaintiffs' claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985, 1986. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367.

V. Discovery Schedule:
i. Discovery shall be completed by March 31, 1995.

ii. No further interrogatories shall be served after February 28, 1995 without leave of Court.

iii. Preliminary witness list shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995 and shall be supplemented by letter to counsel upon the discovery of any additional witnesses. Final (trial) lists due date shall be determined at the final pre-trial conference.

iv. Preliminary exhibit lists shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995 and shall be supplemented from time to time during the discovery period as determined at the final pre-trial conference.

v. Plaintiffs shall file their contentions on or before January 10, 1995.

vi. Plaintiffs shall prepare a statement of special damages, if any, on or

before February 7, 1995, and make a settlement demand on said date.

vii. Depositions of fact witnesses may be taken at any time up to the close of

discovery. Expert witnesses shall be deposed one week prior to trial.

viii. Stipulations of facts and documents shall be filed 21 days prior to trial.

ix. Discovery disputes, motions to enlarge time or relief or other procedural matters concerning this plan shall be resolved by motion after compliance

with the provisions of LR37.1.

VI. Motion Practice:

i. All motions for leave to amend the pleadings and/or to join additional parties shall be filed on or before January 10, 1995.

ii. Counsel shall file the brief required by Rule LR7.1 on affirmative defenses which could have been asserted as motions under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., if any, on or before January 3, 1995.

iii. Motions for partial summary judgment shall be filed as soon as practicable but no later than January 3, 1995; motions addressed to all issues shall be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the close of discovery.

VII. Alternative Dispute Resolution or Referral to Magistrate Judge - Bifurcation:

Alternative dispute resolution, and referral to Magistrate Judge appear to be practical at this point.

VIII. Other Matters:

i. Trial of this action by Jury shall require three (3) days. The parties request a trial date at this Courts convenience not later than September 14, 1995.

ii. Two weeks prior to the trial date, all trial briefs, motions in limine, and proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions and areas of inquiry shall be exchanged and submitted to the court.

____________________________________________

R. J. Tavel, J.D., Counsel for Plaintiffs

4000 North Meridian Street, Suite #5E

Indianapolis, Indiana 46208

317/923-3399 (FAX 925-5525)

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on opposing counsel at their office by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 29th day of July, 1994.

____________________________________________

R. J. Tavel, J.D., Certified Mediator

Rucklehaus

Terry