Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Heather Dennis

Carroll et al v. The Tavern Corp. et al Doc. 1 Att. 2

Exhibit 2

APPENDIX 109 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 146

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JOE BARRY CARROLL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE THE TAVERN CORP. and ) NO. 1:08-CV-2514-TWT-JFK CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT ) MANAGEMENT CO., ) ) Defendants. ) ) JOSEPH SHAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE THE TAVERN CORP. and ) NO. 1:08-CV-2554-TWT-JFK CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT ) MANAGEMENT CO., ) ) Defendants. ) )

AMENDED CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER COME NOW Plaintiffs Joe Barry Carroll and Joseph Shaw and Defendants

The Tavern Corp. and CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co., and pursuant to

Local Rule 16.4, file their Consolidated Pre-Trial Order as follows:

APPENDIX 110 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 146

There are pending motions or other matters pending for consideration by the court except as noted:

Defendants filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Rodney Odom Due to his Failure to Attend his Deposition, which is still pending. The parties also anticipate filing additional Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude no later than seven days prior to trial.

All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the court will not consider any further motions to compel discovery. (Refer to LR 37.1B).

Provided there is no resulting delay in readiness for trial, the parties shall, however, be permitted to take the depositions of any persons for the preservation of evidence and for use at trial.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to conduct a deposition for use a trial of Heather

Dennis, who was within this Court’s jurisdiction at the time of her deposition, but now resides elsewhere.

Defendants reserve the right to take the depositions of Broderick Adams,

Marcus Collier, Jay Kulkin, and Rodney Odom, outside the discovery period

APPENDIX 111 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 146

because they were not identified as potential witnesses until after the close of discovery.

Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption to this Order and the capacity in which they appear are correct and complete, and there is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or non-joinder of any parties.

There is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or non-joinder of any parties.

Unless otherwise noted, there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the court; jurisdiction is based upon the following code sections.

There are no unresolved disputes as to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter.

The following individually-named attorneys are hereby designated as lead counsel for the parties:

A. Plaintiff Carroll:

Gerald Weber Georgia Bar No. 744878 Law Offices of Gerry Weber LLC Post Office Box 5391

APPENDIX 112 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 4 of 146

Atlanta, Georgia 31107 (404) 522-0507 [email protected]

B. Plaintiff Shaw:

Stephanie D. Banks Georgia Bar No. 036378 The Law Office of Stephanie D. Banks and Company, LLC 2930 Alcove Drive Scottdale, GA 30079 (404) 296-7909 [email protected]

C. Defendants:

Ernest L. Greer Georgia Bar No. 309180 David W. Long-Daniels Georgia Bar No. 141916 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327 (678)553-2100

Normally, the plaintiff is entitled to open and close arguments to the jury.

(Refer to LF39.3(B)(2)(b)). State below the reasons, if any, why the plaintiff should not be permitted to open arguments to the jury.

Per the Court’s Minute Entry for proceedings held on June 22, 2011 [Carroll

Doc. 192; Shaw Doc. 142: Each plaintiff will be allowed 15 minutes for opening

APPENDIX 113 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 5 of 146

statements and defendants will have 30 minutes total for opening. The Court will decide about the amount for closing arguments after the trial.

The captioned case shall be tried ( X )toajuryor(_____)tothecourt without a jury, or (____) the right to trial by jury is disputed.

Plaintiffs: Additionally, injunctive relief shall be decided by the Court.

State whether the parties request that the trial to a jury be bifurcated, i.e. that the same jury consider separately issues such as liability and damages. State briefly the reasons why trial should or should not be bifurcated.

The parties do not request bifurcation and these two cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial. Plaintiffs may request a short post-jury-verdict presentation of evidence relevant to injunctive relief claims.

Attached hereto as Attachment “A” and made a part of this order by reference are the questions which the parties request that the court propound to the jurors concerning their legal qualifications to serve.

See Attachment A.

APPENDIX 114 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 6 of 146

Attached hereto as Attachment “B-1” are the general questions which

Plaintiffs wish to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination.

Attached hereto as Attachment “B-2” are the general questions which

Defendants wish to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination.

The court, shall question the prospective jurors as to their address and occupation and as to the occupation of a spouse, if any. Counsel may be permitted to ask follow-up questions on these matters. It shall not, therefore, be necessary for counsel to submit questions regarding these matters. The determination of whether the judge or counsel will propound general voir dire questions is a matter of courtroom policy which shall be established by each judge.

See Attachment B-1 and B-2.

10.

State any objections to Plaintiffs’ voir dire questions.

Defendants generally object to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Voir Dire questions to the extent that the questions are argumentative, assume facts that are not in evidence, improperly call for a legal conclusion or mischaracterize the record in this case.

APPENDIX 115 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 7 of 146

Defendants object to proposed questions 25 and 29 on the grounds that they are argumentative and would tend to predispose the jury to a particular conclusion.

Defendants object to proposed questions 12, 28, 29, and 30 on the grounds that they are irrelevant and do not address the issues to be tried in this case.

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs object to proposed questions 17, 18, 24, and 26 on the grounds that they are cumulative, in light of other proposed voir dire questions. Specifically, proposed questions 17 and 18 are cumulative in light of proposed question 5; and proposed questions 24 and 26 are cumulative in light of proposed question 3.

Defendants reserve, and do not waive, their right to raise additional objections to any of these voir dire questions based on Court rulings, new case law, or other developments between now and trial. Further, if Plaintiffs’ request to limit

Defendants’ general voir dire questions to no more than the combined questions of both Plaintiffs is granted, which it should not be, Defendants ask that each of the follow up questions in Plaintiffs’ numbered proposed general voir dire questions be counted as a separate question.

State any objections to Defendants’ voir dire questions.

APPENDIX 116 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 8 of 146

Plaintiff objects generally to the volume of voir dire questions as far exceeding the 30 minute allotted time set by the Court. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to ask balancing questions for unbalanced questions as set out below.

Question 14 Irrelevant.

Question 15 Cumulative of 14 and irrelevant – not employment case.

Question 27 Vague, irrelevant and unbalanced.

Question 28 Cumulative of 27.

Question 30 Juror privacy issue with alcohol abuse.

Question 31 Irrelevant.

Question 32 Argumentative/unbalanced. The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire question as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense.

Question 44 Irrelevant.

Question 45 Highly prejudicial, as no suggestion that Plaintiffs drank too much in this case. Question suggestive of such misbehavior, and attempts to prejudice jurors.

Question 47-64 Highly prejudicial, unbalanced and argumentative attempt to paint Plaintiffs as ungentlemanly. The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire question as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective

APPENDIX 117 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 9 of 146

jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense. Defendants are also attempting to pre-try case with a hypothetical fact pattern.

Question 75 Prejudicial, unbalanced and argumentative.

Question 77-80, 83-85 Unbalanced, and highly argumentative -- tending to instill prejudice against Plaintiffs with suggestions that, as in Question 84/85, they are seeking a “significant” and “incredibly large amount of money.” Questions also address issues of instruction by the court and/or law.

Question 90 and 91 These questions are fair if both are asked, but not if only one question is asked and Plaintiffs request the right to ask one or both questions.

Questions 92 and 93 The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire questions as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense. Defendants are also attempting to pre-try case with a hypothetical fact pattern.

Question 94 If rephrased from “Plaintiffs” to “any party,” then fair, and

Plaintiffs reserve the right to ask the question as amended.

Question 95 Argumentative and unbalanced.

Question 96 Designed to steer the jury, not elicit information. Prejudicial, and a matter of instruction to the jury.

APPENDIX 118 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 10 of 146

Question 100 Plaintiffs reserve the right to ask the reverse question of

“Plaintiffs table” if this question is asked.

Plaintiffs also interpose a general objection to Defendants’ voir dire questions to the extent that they are argumentative and recite facts that are not in evidence.

11.

All civil cases to be tried wholly or in part by jury shall be tried before a jury consisting of not less than six (6) members, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The parties must state in the space provided below the basis for any requests for additional strikes. Unless otherwise directed herein, each side as a group will be allowed the number of peremptory challenges as provided by 28

U.S.C. §1870. See Fed.R.Civ.R. 47(b).

12.

State whether there is any pending related litigation. Describe briefly, including style and civil action number.

There is no pending related litigation.

13.

Attached hereto as Attachment “C” is Plaintiffs’ outline of the case which includes a succinct factual summary of Plaintiffs’ causes of action and which shall

APPENDIX 119 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 11 of 146

be neither argumentative nor recite evidence. All relevant rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, and illustrative case law creating a specific legal duty relied upon by plaintiff shall be listed under a separate heading. In negligence cases, each and every act of negligence relied upon shall be separately listed. For each item of damage claimed, plaintiff shall separately provide the following information: (a) a brief description of the item claimed, for example, pain and suffering; (b) the dollar amount claimed; and (c) a citation to the law, rule, regulation, or any decision authorizing a recovery for that particular item of damage. Items of damage not identified in this manner shall not be recoverable.

See Attachment C.

14.

Attached hereto as Attachment “D” is Defendants’ outline of the case which includes a succinct factual summary of all general, special, and affirmative defenses relied upon and which shall be neither argumentative nor recite evidence.

All relevant rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, and illustrative case law relied upon as creating a defense shall be listed under a separate heading. For any counterclaim, the defendant shall separately provide the following information for each item of damage claimed: (a) a brief description of the item claims; (b) the dollar amount claimed; and (c) a citation to the law, rule, regulation, or any

APPENDIX 120 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 12 of 146

decision authorizing a recovery for that particular item of damage. Items of damage not identified in this manner shall not be recoverable.

See Attachment D.

15.

Attached hereto as Attachment “E” are the facts stipulated by the parties.

No further evidence will be required as to the facts contained in the stipulation, and the stipulation may be read into evidence at the beginning of the trial or at such other time as is appropriate in the trial of the case. It is the duty of counsel to cooperate fully with each other to identify all undisputed facts. A refusal to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions upon the non-cooperating counsel.

See Attachment E.

16.

The legal issues to be tried are as follows:

A. Plaintiffs:

1. Did Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. § 2000a by depriving Plaintiffs of the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations” of The Tavern at Phipps “by discrimination or segregation on the ground of race.” If so, what amount of damages are appropriate, and is an injunction warranted and in what form?

2. Did Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by depriving Plaintiffs of their rights in the “making, performance,

APPENDIX 121 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 13 of 146

modification, and[/or] termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship” with The Tavern at Phipps? If so, what amount of damages are appropriate?

3. Are the Plaintiffs entitled to punitive damages, and if so, in what amount?

4. Are Plaintiffs entitled to attorneys fees and costs as prevailing parties on their damages claims and equitable relief claims?

B. Defendants:

1. Does The Tavern have a longstanding practice of requesting gentlemen sitting at the bar to give up their seats to ladies waiting for a seat?

2. Has this practice been applied without regard to race?

3. Were Plaintiffs asked to give up their seats at the bar at The Tavern on the night of August 11, 2006 because they are black?

4. Under these circumstances involved, would informing Plaintiffs that they had to leave The Tavern be a deprivation of any their legally protected rights?

5. Were Plaintiffs informed they had to leave The Tavern on August 11, 2006 because they are black?

6. Were Plaintiffs prevented from purchasing food and drinks at The Tavern on August 11, 2006?

7. If so, was it because Plaintiffs are black?

8. If Plaintiffs were prevented from purchasing food and drinks at The Tavern because they are black, are they entitled to injunctive relief?

APPENDIX 122 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 14 of 146

9. If Plaintiffs prove that they were intentionally discriminated against by Defendants on August 11, 2006, did they suffer any damages?

10. If Plaintiffs suffered any damages, in what amount?

11. Were Defendants motivated by evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, to entitle Plaintiffs to seek punitive damages?

12. If Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, in what amount?

17.

Attached hereto as Attachment “F-1” for the Plaintiffs and Attachment “F-

2” for the Defendants is a list of all the witnesses and their addresses for each party. The list must designate the witnesses whom the party will have present at trial and those witnesses whom the party may have present at trial. Expert (any witnesses who might express an opinion under Rule 702), impeachment and rebuttal witnesses whose use as a witness can be reasonably anticipated must be included. Each party shall also attach to the list a reasonably specific summary of the expected testimony of each expert witness.

All of the other parties may rely upon a representation by a designated party that a witness will be present unless notice to the contrary is given ten (10) days prior to trial to allow the other party(s) to subpoena the witness or to obtain the witness’ testimony by other means. Witnesses who are not included on the witness list (including expert, impeachment and rebuttal witnesses whose use should have

APPENDIX 123 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 15 of 146

been reasonably anticipated) will not be permitted to testify, unless expressly authorized by court order based upon a showing that the failure to comply was justified.

See Attachments F-1 and F-2.

18.

Attached hereto as Attachment “G-1” for the Plaintiffs and “G-2” for the

Defendants are the typed lists of all documentary and physical evidence that will be tendered at trial. Learned treatises which are expected to be used at trial shall not be admitted as exhibits. Counsel are required, however, to identify all such treatises under a separate heading on the party’s exhibit list.

Each party’s exhibits shall be numbered serially, beginning with 1, and without the inclusion of any alphabetical or numerical subparts. Adequate space must be left on the left margin of each party’s exhibit list for court stamping purposes. A courtesy copy of each party’s list must be submitted for use by the judge.

Prior to trial, counsel shall mark the exhibits as numbered on the attached lists by affixing numbered yellow stickers to plaintiff’s exhibits, numbered blue stickers to defendant’s exhibits, and numbered white stickers to joint exhibits.

When there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the surname of the particular

APPENDIX 124 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 16 of 146

plaintiff or defendant shall be shown above the number on the stickers for that party’s exhibits.

Specific objections to another party’s exhibits must be typed on a separate page and must be attached to the exhibit list of the party against whom the objections are raised. Objections as to authenticity, privilege, competency, and, to the extent possible, relevancy of the exhibits shall be included. Any listed document to which an objection is not raised shall be deemed to have been stipulated as to authenticity by the parties and shall be admitted at trial without further proof of authenticity.

Unless otherwise noted, copies rather than originals of documentary evidence may be used at trial. Documentary or physical exhibits may not be submitted by counsel after filing of the pretrial order, except upon consent of all the parties or permission of the court. Exhibits so admitted must be numbered, inspected by counsel, and marked with stickers prior to trial.

Counsel shall familiarize themselves with all exhibits (and the numbering thereof) prior to trial. Counsel will not be afforded time during trial to examine exhibits that are or should have been listed.

See Attachments G-1 and G-2.

APPENDIX 125 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 17 of 146

The Plaintiffs understood the Court to require all exhibits, excepting demonstrative exhibits prepared for trial, to be listed and exchanged at the time of the pre-trial order and have done so. Plaintiffs will exchange all demonstrative exhibits no later than ten (10) days prior to trial and objections to any such additional demonstrative exhibits must be presented no later than seven (7) days prior to trial.

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ contention that demonstrative exhibits need not be exchanged until ten (10) days prior to trial. Per the local rules and the

Court’s direction at the conference on June 22, 2011, Defendants identified all exhibits that they may use at trial and provided Plaintiffs with copies of same prior to the filing of this Amended Pretrial Order. Thus, any additional exhibits identified by Plaintiffs after the filing of the Amended Pretrial Order should be stricken and Defendants intend to move to do so.

19.

The following designated portions of the testimony of the persons listed below may be introduced by deposition:

A. Plaintiffs anticipate that evidence will be introduced at trial by way of deposition if witnesses are unavailable or unable to appear. Plaintiffs further

APPENDIX 126 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 18 of 146

reserve the right to introduce evidence by deposition pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR GAVIN ANGULO (08/03/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 8:5 8:24 14:4 19:22 21:5 22:21 30:1 35:21 32:6 32:23 33:9 35:21 36:7 36:15 37:11 43:8 44:6 44:19 49:17 50:11 52:16 54:21

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR RAMON AROCHA (07/20/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 5:1 5:5 10:21 11:16 14:25 15:7 17:3 17:5 20:6 20:7 22:5 24:16 25:5 25:14 29:19 30:1 35:10 36:14 38:22 38:25 40:3 40:5

APPENDIX 127 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 19 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 51:3 51:25 52:11 52:21 54:24 55:3 61:1 61:6 70:4 70:12 86:10 88:11

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR HEATHER DENNIS (05/26/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 6:1 6:4 11:2 11:17 12:3 12:8 12:12 16:11 19:19 19:25 27:6 27:24 28:10 28:24 30:4 30:8 46:8 46:22 47:4 47:17 49:3 49:5 49:12 49:23 52:5 52:23 54:13 55:1 56:11 56:15 58:2 58:4 58:16 59:1 60:8 60:15 60:18 60:23 61:16 61:19 119:1 119:25 127:16 129:22 130:2 133:1

APPENDIX 128 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 20 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 134:14 135:14 136:3 136:19 138:2 138:24 147:1 147:9 151:17 156:3 156:16 157:3 161:10 161:15 161:24 164:6 165:2 166:5 167:19 169:22 172:9 173:11 175:20 176:15 178:25 180:6 184:11 184:25 185:9 185:25 192:10 193:10 193:14 193:24 194:1 194:15 194:19 194:22 195:2 195:25 206:19 207:8 207:16 208:10 216:4 216:16 216:24 217:1 217:11 219:15 219:21 221:3 224:17 227:1 230:2 230:22 231:3 231:25 232:19 238:14 239:17 241:7 244:8 244:16 247:22 248:23 260:19 262:9

APPENDIX 129 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 21 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 268:13 268:23 269:3 269:21 284:17 284:22 287:12 288:2 288:5 289:4 293:3 293:8 293:17 294:1

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR SHEENA YVONNE TENNESHA NORRIS (07/20/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 6:20 6:21 7:19 8:7 19:5 19:12 27:21 27:24 29:19 30:14 32:12 32:22 33:11 34:4 34:20 35:21 36:3 36:8 39:14 50:15 51:22 55:22 56:21 59:1 71:3 71:15 72:21 79:1 125:13 126:21 126:24 129:17 130:5 130:11 145:2 145:15 146:19 147:9 150:14 151:10 159:10 161:7 162:3 162:23

APPENDIX 130 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 22 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 164:25 166:10 166:15 167:14 171:15 173:19 174:8 174:15 175:17 176:19 179:10 180:6 180:11 180:18

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR CHRIS PAPPAS (11/23/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 7:3 7:15 10:23 11:2 27:10 27:18 35:15 35:23 58:10 58:17 61:13 62:22 65:21 67:9 71:24 72:4 76:7 76:11 79:12 81:20 84:16 92:9 92:10 96:8 96:9 96:15 96:16 98:21 105:13 105:17 105:24 106:23 110:23 111:20 112:2 114:12 114:13 116:17 118:12 119:3 121:5 121:17 137:7 139:7

APPENDIX 131 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 23 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 166:11 167:2 167:23 168:11 169:17 169:23 173:8 173:15 173:21 181:10 182:12 193:23 194:13 195:24 197:19 203:22 204:4 205:9 206:8 211:6 214:15 215:2 217:3 218:8 226:24 229:6 232:9 232:24

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR RICHARD JAMES RUSSELL (12/02/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 5:21 5:24 11:16 12:7 12:16 13:7 16:4 17:6 18:12 21:17 22:2 22:15 24:8 26:23 31:18 36:23 37:13 38:2 42:18 43:7 43:15 45:22 49:7 50:5 51:14 52:1 52:5 55:15 56:12 56:21

APPENDIX 132 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 24 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 60:17 61:16 64:7 64:24 67:3 67:11

Plaintiffs may also introduce deposition testimony identified by Defendants herein as well.

B. Defendants anticipate that evidence may be introduced at trial by way of the depositions from witnesses who may be unavailable or unable to appear.

Plaintiffs further reserve the right to introduce evidence by deposition if additional witnesses are unavailable or unable to appear.

Defendants may introduce testimony identified by Plaintiffs above, in addition to the following designated testimony by deposition1:

DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR HEATHER DENNIS (05/26/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 16:12 16:24 17:20 18:18

1 By designating deposition testimony, Defendants do not waive, and hereby expressly reserve, their right to object to the admissibility of any of this designated deposition testimony, including particularly deposition testimony that Defendants have counter-designated in response to deposition testimony designated by Plaintiffs as to which Defendants will be filing Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude.

APPENDIX 133 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 25 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 19:6 19:18 20:1 22:7 22:23 24:25 25:15 27:5 27:25 28:9 28:25 30:3 30:9 32:16 32:21 33:1 33:6 33:15 33:18 33:22 34:2 34:4 34:11 35:4 36:1 37:7 38:12 38:17 38:22 38:25 39:20 40:2 40:16 40:19 41:3 41:5 42:5 42:12 45:25 46:7 46:23 47:3 47:18 48:21 50:6 50:14 51:10 51:17 52:24 53:10 54:8 54:12 55:2 55:7 55:11 55:18 56:2 56:10 56:16 57:4 57:24 58:1 58:5 58:15 64:25 65:25 66:22 66:25

APPENDIX 134 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 26 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 71:13 72:2 78:23 79:10 87:21 102:12 102:19 103:9 105:24 106:9 107:1 107:15 110:13 112:4 115:2 116:22 121:24 122:7 122:11 123:3 123:22 124:5 124:13 124:23 125:11 125:18 131:4 131:5 140:10 140:15 150:5 150:19 160:4 160:8 160:13 160:17 161:16 161:19 164:7 164:8 164:14 165:1 165:22 166:14 166:20 166:25 170:25 (starting with 171:5 “you all”) 174:16 (starting with 174:20 “the practice”) 175:3 175:11 178:19 178:24 180:7 180:8 185:1 185:8 189:18 189:22 192:3 192:9 193:11 193:13

APPENDIX 135 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 27 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 196:18 196:25 197:8 (starting with 197:14 “But you”) 198:1 (starting with 198:14 “But that”) 199:3 199:9 199:16 200:12 201:22 201:25 209:2 210:11 216:18 216:23 217:5 217:10 219:16 219:17 249:1 (starting with 250:11 “Were you”) 257:3 257:12 257:21 257:24 259:9 260:18 267:2 267:15 268:24 269:2 271:3 272:19 273:21 (starting with 274:23 “Ms. Norris) 275:8 275:19 276:3 277:13 277:18 278:12 279:7 280:5 280:17 282:10 284:23 285:4

DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR SHEENA YVONNE TENNESHA NORRIS (07/20/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 15:2 16:21

APPENDIX 136 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 28 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 27:25 28:18 32:8 32:11 32:23 33:8 35:22 36:2 36:9 37:14 50:16 50:18 59:2 59:11 (ending with “mouth.”) 60:12 60:14 (ending with “Yes.”) 62:15 63:14 67:14 68:13 70:21 71:2 99:2 100:14 100:19 102:23 104:13 106:18 108:1 108:13 112:10 114:16 114:22 115:15 117:15 119:20 126:22 126:23 129:18 130:4 130:12 130:20 130:25 133:4 133:22 134:19 138:22 141:21 141:25 142:4 145:16 145:22 148:16 (starting with 150:13 “you say”) 151:11 (starting with 154:20 “Did you go”) 155:11 155:14 155:24 156:3 (ending with “Not racial.”)

APPENDIX 137 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 29 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 156:6 156:22 158:20 159:3 166:11 166:14 176:20 177:5 181:10 181:18

DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR CHRIS PAPPAS (11/23/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 15:13 16:22 17:1 18:9 18:17 19:25 21:3 21:12 21:18 21:20 (ending with “Absolutely.”) 22:3 22:5 24:6 24:24 26:13 26:15 28:18 30:5 30:14 32:3 34:5 34:7 34:21 35:14 35:24 36:16 40:1 (starting with 40:11 “Have”) 40:18 40:23 41:20 50:22 59:1 59:24 62:25 63:25 64:24 65:20 67:10 69:20 70:12 70:25 71:7 71:12

APPENDIX 138 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 30 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 71:15 71:23 72:5 72:10 72:23 73:9 75:13 75:20 76:12 77:5 77:11 78:14 79:8 79:11 81:21 82:7 82:12 82:21 83:16 83:19 84:4 84:7 84:12 84:15 98:22 98:24 99:3 99:6 99:20 100:16 101:24 102:12 102:24 103:4 103:15 103:17 104:3 104:5 104:8 105:3 105:18 108:23 106:24 106:25 107:13 110:22 111:21 111:25 116:18 118:11 119:5 120:4 120:23 121:1 122:23 125:19 127:22 128:11 135:7 135:13 135:22 137:6 139:14 139:16 139:22 141:12 144:10 147:3

APPENDIX 139 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 31 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 148:21 154:14 155:19 159:15 162:11 162:16 163:16 164:14 167:18 167:22 168:17 168:19 172:15 (starting with 173:7 “did you”) 181:11 182:4 193:24 194:12 196:24 197:13 203:23 204:3 205:10 206:7 218:9 218:14 218:23 219:15 221:6 221:9 222:17 (starting with 224:8 “you testified”) 225:15 226:12 229:7 229:16 229:23 232:8

DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR RICHARD JAMES RUSSELL (12/02/2009)

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 28:8 29:15 30:21 (starting with “I 31:17 want”) 38:20 38:24 (ending with “Right”) 41:4 41:23 45:23 46:15 48:23 49:6

APPENDIX 140 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 32 of 146

BEGIN END PAGE:LINE PAGE:LINE 50:6 51:13 52:2 52:4 63:8 63:11 65:10 67:2 67:12 67:23

Any objections to the depositions of the foregoing persons or to any questions or answers in the depositions shall be filed in writing no later than the day the case is first scheduled for trial. Objections not perfected in this manner will be deemed waived or abandoned. All depositions shall be reviewed by counsel and all extraneous and unnecessary matters, including non-essential colloquy of counsel, shall be deleted. Depositions, whether preserved by stenographic means or videotape, shall not go out with the jury.

20.

Attached hereto as Attachments “H-1” for the Plaintiffs, “H-2” for the

Defendants, and “H-3”, etc. for other parties, are any trial briefs which counsel may wish to file containing citations to legal authority concerning evidentiary questions and any other legal issues which counsel anticipate will arise during the trial of the case. Limitations, if any, regarding the format and length of trial briefs is a matter of individual practice which shall be established by each judge:

APPENDIX 141 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 33 of 146

A. Plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs will file trial briefs, if any, under separate cover and within twenty

(20) days prior to trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to submit briefs on issues which may or may not be raised at least ten days prior to trial. Plaintiffs further reserve the right to file motions in limine, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and other appropriate trial related papers in a timely manner.

B. Defendants:

Defendants refer the Court to their summary judgment briefs, including response to the Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations. Defendants further reserve the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and other appropriate trial related papers in a timely manner.

21.

In the event this is a case designated for trial to the court with a jury, requests for charge must be submitted no later than 9:30 a.m. on the date on which the case is calendared (or specially set) for trial. Requests which are not timely filed and which are not otherwise in compliance with LR 51.1, will not be considered. In addition, each party should attach to the requests to charge a short

(not more than one (1) page) statement of that party’s contentions, covering both claims and defenses, which the court may use in its charge to the jury.

APPENDIX 142 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 34 of 146

Counsel are directed to refer to the latest edition of the Eleventh Circuit

District Judges Association’s Pattern Jury Instructions and Devitt and Blackmar’s

Federal Jury Practice and Instructions in preparing the requests to charge. For those issues not covered by the Pattern Instructions or Devitt and Blackmar, counsel are directed to extract the applicable legal principle (with minimum verbiage) from each cited authority.

22.

If counsel desire for the case to be submitted to the jury in a manner other than upon a general verdict, the form of submission agreed to by all counsel shall be shown in Attachment “I” to this Pretrial Order. If counsel cannot agree on a special form of submission, parties will propose their separate forms for the consideration of the court.

See Attachments I-1 and I-2.

23.

Unless otherwise authorized by the court, arguments in all jury cases shall be limited to one-half hour for each side. Should any party desire any additional time for argument, the request should be noted (and explained) herein.

APPENDIX 143 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 35 of 146

A. Plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs request closing argument to the jury shall be limited to 90 (ninety) minutes for each side.

B. Defendants:

Defendants request sixty (60) minutes per side for closing arguments.

24.

If the case is designated for trial to the court without a jury, counsel are directed to submit proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law not later than the opening of trial.

The parties will submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, upon request, for matters of injunctive relief.

25.

Pursuant to LR 16.3, lead counsel and persons possessing settlement authority to bind the parties met in person on June 8, 2011, to discuss in good faith the possibility of settlement of this case. The court (_____) has or ( X )hasnot discussed settlement of this case with counsel. It appears at this time that there is:

(_____) A good possibility of settlement.

(_____) Some possibility of settlement.

(__X__) Little possibility of settlement.

APPENDIX 144 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 36 of 146

(_____) No possibility of settlement.

26.

Unless otherwise noted, the court will not consider this case for a special setting, and it will be scheduled by the clerk in accordance with the normal practice of the court.

27.

The Plaintiffs estimate that it will require five (5) days total to present their evidence. The Defendants estimate that it will require five (5) days to present their evidence. There are no other parties in this case. It is estimated that the total trial time is ten (10) to twelve (12) days.

28.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above constitutes the pretrial order for the above captioned cases ( X ) submitted by stipulation of the parties or (___) approved by the court after conference with the parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the foregoing, including the attachments thereto, constitutes the pretrial order in the above case and that it supersedes the pleadings which are hereby amended to conform hereto and that this pretrial order shall not be amended except by Order of the court to prevent manifest injustice.

Any attempt to reserve a right to amend or add to any part of the pretrial order after

APPENDIX 145 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 37 of 146

the pretrial order has been filed shall be invalid and of no effect and shall not be binding upon any party or the court, unless specifically authorized in writing by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of ______, 2011.

______Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Each of the undersigned counsel for the parties hereby consents to entry of the foregoing pretrial order, which has been prepared in accordance with the form pretrial order adopted by this court.

[SEE FOLLOWING PAGE]

APPENDIX 146 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 38 of 146

/s/Gerald Weber, Jr. /s/Ernest L. Greer Gerald Weber, Jr. Ernest L. Greer Georgia Bar No. 744878 Georgia Bar No. 309180 LAW OFFICE OF GERALD WEBER David W. Long-Daniels P.O. Box 5391 Georgia Bar No. 141916 Atlanta, Georgia 31107-0391 Stephanie L. Oginsky T: 404.522.0507 Georgia Bar No. 141312 [email protected] GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP The Forum, Suite 400 Hollie Manheimer 3290 Northside Parkway Georgia Bar No. 468880 Atlanta, 303327 STUCKEY & MANHEIMER, INC. T: 678.553.2100 150 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 230 F: 678.553.2212 Decatur, Georgia 30030 [email protected] T:404.377.0485 [email protected] [email protected] Michael Eric Ross Jeffrey O. Bramlett Georgia Bar No. 615190 Georgia Bar No. 075780 TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP Von A. DuBose 1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400 Georgia Bar No. 231451 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP T:770.434.6868 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW F: 770.434.7376 3900 One Atlantic Center [email protected] Atlanta, GA 30309 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants [email protected] (404) 881-4113

Counsel for Plaintiff Joe Barry Carroll

[SIGNATURE BLOCK CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

APPENDIX 147 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 39 of 146

/s/Stephanie D. Banks Stephanie D. Banks Georgia Bar No. 036378 THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE D. BANKS AND COMPANY, LLC 2930 Alcove Drive Scottdale, GA 30079 (404) 296-7909 [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Shaw

APPENDIX 148 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 40 of 146

ATTACHMENT “A” – JURORS’ LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Is there anyone here who is not a citizen of the United States?

2. Is there anyone here who is under eighteen years of age?

3. Is there anyone here who has lived within the judicial district for less than one year?

4. Are you sufficiently proficient in reading, writing, and understanding the English language such that you can complete the juror qualification form?

5. Do you suffer from a mental or physical infirmity that would prevent you from serving on jury duty?

6. Does anyone have a medical reason or personal hardship that would make it difficult to serve as a juror in this case?

7. Do you currently have a criminal charge either in State or Federal court pending against you that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year?

8. Have you ever been convicted for a crime either in State or Federal court that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year?

9. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to any of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Gerry Weber, Hollie Manheimer or Stephanie Banks?

A-1

APPENDIX 149 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 41 of 146

10. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to Plaintiff Joe Barry

Carroll?

11. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to Plaintiff Joseph Shaw?

12. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by the Law Office of Gerald Weber?

13. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by the law firm of Stuckey & Manheimer, Inc.?

14. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by the Law Office of Stephanie D. Banks?

15. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by

The Tavern at Phipps or CentraArchy Management Company?

16. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to any of the attorneys for the Defendants Ernest Greer, David Long-Daniels, Michael Eric Ross, or

Stephanie L. Oginsky?

17. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by the law firm of Greenberg Traurig?

18. Are any of you related by blood or marriage to anyone employed by the law firm of Taylor English Duma?

19. Have you ever been employed by the Law Office of Gerald Weber?

A-2

APPENDIX 150 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 42 of 146

20. Have you ever been employed by the law firm of Stuckey &

Manheimer, Inc.?

21. Have you ever been employed by the Law Office of Stephanie L.

Banks?

22. Have you ever been employed by the law firm of Greenberg Traurig?

23. Have you ever been employed by the law firm of Taylor English

Duma?

24. Have you ever been employed by The Tavern at Phipps or

CentraArchy Management Company?

25. Does anyone know of any reason he or she may be prejudiced for or against the plaintiffs or defendants for any reason?

26. Does anyone here, because of the nature of your employment, feel that you may not be able to judge this case impartially?

27. Have you read in the newspapers, read on the internet, seen on television or heard on the radio anything about this case, or do you have any knowledge of the facts or events of this case?

28. Do you know of any reason that you cannot sit in this case with complete fairness and impartiality and decide the case based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as given at the conclusion of the trial?

A-3

APPENDIX 151 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 43 of 146

ATTACHMENT “B-1”- PLAINTIFFS’ VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with either of the Plaintiffs in this case? Have you heard anything about their lawsuit against The Tavern at Phipps for race discrimination? Explain.

2. Have you ever been to The Tavern at Phipps? How often? Please identify whether your experiences with the Tavern would hinder or affect y our ability to give a fair trial to all parties in this case.

3. Do you have any views about race discrimination lawsuits? Explain.

4. Would the fact that the plaintiffs are claiming race discrimination present any problems for you in rendering a fair verdict?

5. Do you belong to any social, civic, religious or professional organizations? If so, please state which groups and how often you attend meetings or functions.

6. Do you read the newspaper? Which newspaper do you read? Do you watch the news on television or radio regularly? What network?

7. Do you follow college or professional basketball? If so, do you have any recollection of Plaintiff Joe Barry Carroll’s college or NBA career?

8. Have you been to college? If so, what did you study?

9. Have you taken any legal courses? Explain?

B1-1

APPENDIX 152 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 44 of 146

10. Are you married? What does your husband/wife do?

11. Have you served in the law enforcement or the military? When and how long?

12. Have you ever been unjustly stopped by the police? Explain the circumstances.

13. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been asked to or required to leave a restaurant involuntarily? Explain the circumstances.

14. Have you or anyone close to you ever been a victim of race, gender, religious or other discrimination? If so, please explain [outside of jury pool if necessary].

15. Have you ever been a witness in court? If so, please explain?

16. Do you know any of the following persons [list of parties, counsel and witnesses]. If so, how? Would you relationship affect your ability to be impartial in deciding this case?

17. Please tell us about any groups or organizations of which you are a member. This includes church/religious organizations, school groups, social, fraternal, service, professional, business, sporting, union, political or community groups.

18. Do you have any bumper stickers on your vehicles? Describe?

B1-2

APPENDIX 153 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 45 of 146

19. Would service as a juror in this matter impose any special hardship or inconvenience upon you?

20. Do you believe that as a general rule, individuals should be held accountable for their actions?

21. Do you think all people deserve to be treated equally regardless of their race?

22. If, after hearing all the evidence, you found that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, would you feel uncomfortable holding the defendants liable for damages?

23. Have you or has anyone close to you ever worked in a full-service, dine-in restaurant with a bar before? If so, then have you ever been instructed by restaurant management to ask or require that patrons in the restaurant or bar give up their seats for some one else? If so, explain what happened.

24. How do you feel about lawsuits of this type?

25. Do you believe that people are still discriminated against based upon their race in public places such as restaurants? Why or why not?

26. How do you feel about race discrimination in general?

27. How do you feel about awarding damages/compensating a plaintiff for emotional distress even if there has not been a physical injury.

B1-3

APPENDIX 154 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 46 of 146

28. How do you feel about the existence and/or enactment of laws that are created for the purpose of protecting the Civil Rights of individuals, regardless of their size, stature or economic status.

29. How do you feel about being asked to look and all of the evidence presented in this case, whether direct or circumstantial, and determine whether or not someone intentionally treated someone less favorably than another person because of their race.

30. Explain how the burden of proof in a Civil case differs from that of a criminal case and inquire as to whether they understand the difference.

31. Has anyone here served as a juror either in a criminal or civil case? If yes, has your previous experience as a juror affected your ability to be fair to all sides in this case?

32. If you are selected as a juror, do you pledge that you will base your decision of the facts as presented in this trial and not on any past experience or prior opinions you might have about the subject matter of this case.

33. Have you or a close family member sued or been sued by someone?

If so, what was the nature of the lawsuit? Does that experience affect your ability to be fair to all parties in deciding this case?

B1-4

APPENDIX 155 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 47 of 146

ATTACHMENT “B-2” – DEFENDANTS’ VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS2 1. Do any of you know, or have any of you ever heard of, Joe Barry

Carroll or Joseph Shaw before today?

2. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever been employed by or had business dealings with either of Defendants, The Tavern

Corporation or CentraArchy Restaurant Management Company?

3. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever worked at or had a bad experience at The Tavern at Phipps or any of the other restaurants owned or operated by CentraArchy: Burro Loco, California Dreaming,

Carolina Roadhouse, Chophouse ‘47, Gulfstream Café, Joey D’s, Lenox Square

Grill, New York Prime, Rare, San Antonio’s.

4. Have any of you never been to Phipps Plaza?

5. Have any of you ever been to The Tavern at Phipps?

6. Have any of you ever heard anything negative about The Tavern at

Phipps before today?

! Defendants reserve the right to modify these proposed voir dire questions in light of subsequent developments in the law or in this case, including rulings by the Court. In addition, Defendants request the opportunity to conduct individual examinations of the panel to the fullest extent authorized by law"

B2-1

APPENDIX 156 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 48 of 146

7. Do any of you, or does anyone in your family, know any of the attorneys for Plaintiffs,______, or anyone who is or has been employed or represented by the firms of ______?

8. Have any of you ever heard of [Plaintiffs’ lawyers]?

9. Do any of you, or does anyone in your family, know any of the attorneys for Defendants, ______, or anyone who is or has been employed or represented by the firms of Greenberg Traurig or Taylor English

Duma?

10. Have any of you ever heard of Mr. Greer or Mr. Long-Daniels?

11. Do any of you, or does anyone in your family, know any of the following individuals, who may be witnesses in this case: [list].

12. Do any of you know anyone else on the jury panel?

13. Have any of you heard anything about this case before today?

14. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever belonged to a labor union?

15. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever belonged to a union that represents employees or businesses such as restaurants?

16. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family, ever worked for the government, whether federal, state, or local?

B2-2

APPENDIX 157 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 49 of 146

17. Are any of you, or is anyone in your family, a lawyer?

18. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family, ever gone to law school or been employed by a law firm?

19. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family, ever been a plaintiff, a defendant, or a witness in a lawsuit?

20. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family, ever served on a jury?

21. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever played professional sports?

22. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family, ever played basketball at the high school or college level?

23. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever worked in law enforcement?

24. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever worked as a security guard or in the security business?

25. How many of you have served in the military?

26. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever tried to make a living as an actor, musician, dancer, or other kind of performer or artist?

27. Are any of you the kind of person who makes decisions fairly easily?

B2-3

APPENDIX 158 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 50 of 146

28. Do any of you feel that you tend to over think or over analyze matters?

29. Are any of you the disciplinarian in your household?

30. Have you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever received treatment or counseling for alcohol abuse?

31. Have you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever been in an automobile accident caused by a drunken driver?

32. Do any of you think that you are ever too quick to blame others if things do not go like you want?

33. How many of you are pessimistic about the future of the country?

34. Have any of you ever felt that you had lost control over your life?

35. Have any of you ever worked in a sales or service job that required you to deal directly with customers?

36. Do any of you feel that the customer is always right regardless of the circumstances?

37. Is there anyone here who has never been in a bar or lounge that primarily served alcoholic beverages?

38. Do any of you think that bars are inherently bad?

B2-4

APPENDIX 159 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 51 of 146

39. Will the fact that this Incident happened at the bar of a restaurant affect your ability to find in favor of Defendants?

40. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever worked in a bar or restaurant where alcoholic beverages were served?

41. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever been employed in a position that involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages?

42. Do any of you normally have less than five alcoholic beverages a month?

43. Do any of you feel that there is anything wrong with the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages by adults?

44. Are any of you uncomfortable with allowing grocery stores, liquor stores or restaurants to sell wine and beer on Sundays?

45. Do any of you feel that bars and restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages ought to do more to make sure that customers do not drive drunk when they leave?

46. Do any of you think it is wrong to have an establishment where singles are encouraged to meet other singles?

B2-5

APPENDIX 160 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 52 of 146

47. Are any of you offended when a gentleman opens a door for a woman?

48. Do any of you take offense in any way if a gentleman opens a car door for a woman?

49. Does it bother any of you if a gentleman waits for a woman to get on or off an elevator?

50. Are any of you troubled if a gentleman offers to give up his seat for a woman?

51. Do any of you get upset in any way if a gentleman pulls out a chair for a woman?

52. How many of you think that children should say “sir” or “ma’am” when talking to adults?

53. Are any of you offended when the rules of an establishment require that you provide preferential treatment to women?

54. Do any of you feel that it is patronizing or demeaning to a woman for a man to provide assistance to a woman?

55. Do any of you think that it is unfair or improper to offer “Ladies

Night” discounts to women at bars or restaurants, sporting events, or other entertainment venues?

B2-6

APPENDIX 161 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 53 of 146

56. Do any of you have a problem with a woman asking a man for a date?

57. Do any of you feel that the woman should never be the one to propose marriage?

58. Does it bother any of you that some establishments like Hooters require its waitresses to wear provocative outfits?

59. Do any of you feel that it demeans or exploits waitresses at Hooters to have to wear provocative outfits?

60. Are any of you troubled by commercials or other advertising that rely on female beauty or physique to try to appeal to men?

61. Does it disturb any of you that a bar or restaurant would cater to women, for example by providing complimentary drinks, based upon the thought that men would be more likely to go to a place that attracts female clientele?

62. How many of you feel that we have become too concerned with doing the politically correct thing regardless of the consequences?

63. Are any of you offended in any way by Gone With the Wind?

64. Do any of you equate Southern chivalry and hospitality with racism?

65. Do any of you, or does anyone in your family, wear a hat pretty much all of the time?

B2-7

APPENDIX 162 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 54 of 146

66. Would it trouble any of you if a bar or restaurant prohibited its customers from wearing hats after 5:00 pm?

67. Have any of you ever worked for a female boss or supervisor?

68. Have any of you ever managed or supervised other employees?

69. Do you believe a company needs to be able to trust the judgment of its management?

70. How many of you have ever been accused of wrongdoing by an employee you managed or supervised?

71. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever filed a charge or complaint of discrimination with any governmental agency?

72. Have any of you, or has anyone in your family or any friend, ever filed or made any kind of complaint of discrimination, whether formal or informal, with any employer?

73. Do any of you feel that you have ever been the victim of discrimination?

74. Are any of you aware of any instance in which you thought that a co- worker or friend was playing the race card to attempt to take advantage of a situation where it was not warranted?

B2-8

APPENDIX 163 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 55 of 146

75. Do any of you believe race discrimination is worse than religious, sex, age, or national origin discrimination?

76. How many of you tend to notice the racial composition of the audience at a movie, concert, sporting event, or other entertainment venue?

77. Do any of you feel that someone must have a good claim to bring a lawsuit?

78. Do any of you feel that just because a lawsuit has been brought that one or both of Defendants must have done something wrong or probably did something wrong?

79. Do any of you feel that the mere fact that someone brings a lawsuit means that they are entitled to money?

80. Do any of you think that Plaintiffs deserve any money simply to cover the costs of the lawsuit that they brought?

81. There are two Plaintiffs. Does this indicate to any of you that the case is more important than if there were only one Plaintiff?

82. Do any of you feel that Plaintiffs’ allegations are more likely to be true because they have joined together?

83. If you were a juror in this case, would you be willing to render a verdict of no damages if you find that the Defendants are not liable? Even though

B2-9

APPENDIX 164 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 56 of 146

Plaintiffs are claiming they should be awarded a significant amount of money, including punitive damages?

84. Does the fact that Plaintiffs claim they should be paid a significant amount of money make you think Plaintiffs are entitled to at least some award?

85. Do you understand that just because they are seeking an incredibly large amount of money does not mean that they should be awarded anything?

86. Do any of you feel that corporations should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than individuals?

87. Do you feel that, generally speaking, corporations get away with too much because of their power or money?

88. Do you believe that a corporation has the responsibility to ensure their employees are following their standards and policies?

89. Do you believe that a company that makes policies should take all the steps necessary to ensure that people are following the policies?

90. How many of you believe that lawsuits are necessary to stop companies from taking unfair advantage of people?

91. How many of you agree that relatively few people who have valid claims against companies actually bring lawsuits?

B2-10

APPENDIX 165 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 57 of 146

92. Do any of you feel that it would be easier for you to award damages against a company than against an individual?

93. Do any of you think that it takes less evidence to render a verdict against a company than against a person?

94. As you sit here today, do any of you feel that Plaintiffs start out ahead of Defendants, even a little bit?

95. Based on what you have heard so far, is there anyone who feels that they would have so much sympathy for Plaintiffs that they doubt their ability to get beyond sympathy and be an objective and impartial juror?

96. Plaintiffs are allowed to present all of their evidence first, before

Defendants are permitted to present their evidence. Is there anyone who feels that they would have a hard time reserving judgment until all the evidenced is in, including the witnesses to be called and the documents presented by Defendants?

97. Does anybody have anything going on in their life—good or bad— that might interfere with their ability to pay attention to the evidence and the

Court’s instructions in this case and fulfill their responsibilities as a juror?

98. Do any of you have any medical problems that would prevent or make it difficult for you to sit as a juror in this case?

B2-11

APPENDIX 166 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 58 of 146

99. Does anyone have any moral or ethical beliefs that would make it difficult for you to decide this case in favor of either side?

100. If you were sitting at the Defense table, would any of you not want yourself as a juror in this case?

101. Do any of you know of any reason that I have not asked you about which might prevent you from fairly trying the issues in this case?

B2-12

APPENDIX 167 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 59 of 146

ATTACHMENT “C” – PLAINTIFFS’ OUTLINE OF THE CASE The Tavern at Phipps has a markedly Caucasian clientele.3 But unlike most businesses that happen to have largely Caucasian clientele, here, this was an explicit goal birthed from the President of both defendant corporations, Greg

Greenbaum.

Operating Partner Chris Pappas, who had worked with Greenbaum for nearly a decade, described Greg’s views on his desire to have white clientele:

“Greg is convinced that blacks in the bar area will ruin his business.... Greg has the ability to determine the differences of his white guests, but to him all Blacks in the bar are bad for business”4 Heather Dennis, another Operating Partner, would, sometimes reluctantly, “channel” Greenbaum’s views5 to the staff.

! !"##"$ %&#' ()* +*,- ./01&23 45660$ %&#' (78 +9,- ./01&23 :;<"=& %&#' )>'

" !"##"$ %&#' ((9? (>(? *)@*A? **? ((7? (()? ()9 +5BB0;&$ .&6& C) B&&1 "#"61D $5 E6&FG$ ;5HI&6$"105H$ "=5J1 K&$06& 15 L0M01 =L";N ;L0&H1&L& B6&OJ&H12? (AP +CH5 K5J=1D 1/"1 F5"L ."$ 15 K&1&6 =L";N ;L0&H1&L&2' :;<"=& %&#' >*? 8*? (*,? >99 +%06&;156 5B Q#&6"105H$R E6&&H="JMG$ CM0HK$&1D 15 CK0$;5J6"F& =L";N M"L&$D B65M &H1&60HF &$1"=L0$/M&H123 :J6#/S %&# (>, +E6&&H="JM C#6&TJK0;&KD "F"0H$1 =L";N #&5#L&2'

# 45660$ %&#' (>8? (>) +? (AP +C:"H"F&M&H1 ."H1&K M56& ./01& #"165H$ 1/"H =L";N #"165H$ 0H 1/& ="6 #"105 "6&"'D23 %&HH0$ %&#' (7A' UI&H ;J$15M&6$ ;"LL&K 1/& ="6 " C6";0$1 56F"H0V"105H'D !"##"$ %&#' )>3 97 +CE6&F "HK W/& W"I&6HG$

APPENDIX 168 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 60 of 146

The practices developed to effectuate the goal of a more white clientele had a name – “Southern Hospitality.” Managers and employees alike note its common usage and its origin from Greenbaum himself.6 “Southern Hospitality” includes targeting black men to exit the bar area.7 Greenbaum, post-litigation, told a partner that he would keep some version of the seating policy (maybe now racially neutral) and “didn’t care if every white man in Buckhead is mad at me for getting kicked out of their seats.”8

Greg Greenbaum held a high level of control over his staff, including enforcing his “Southern Hospitality” policies and the goal of reducing black

!"#$%&' ("$! &)*")+ ,&-./0"*-123 4-#,"$- !"# %(5 6)5)7- ,)&$5-&# )50 -6,+%'--#9 $-#$"6%5': ;&--5<)/6 0-5"-# -=-& 6)>"57 #$)$-6-5$# )<%/$ 0-#"&-0 (!"$- *+"-5$-+-1 ;&--5<)/6 4-,1 ?@A BCD-=-&238 ?EF1

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

" D%&&"# 4-,1 L@8 FL? BC6)5)7-6-5$ )50 #$)RR 0-#*&"<-0 ,&)*$"*- %R &-6%="57 <+)*> 6-5 R&%6 <)& )&-) )# WO%/$!-&5 U%#,"$)+"$'9238 FHE8 FHN8 FES B*%5*-,$ "5*+/0-# R%&*"57 <+)*> 6-5 $% 7"=- /, #-)$# R%& (!"$-#31

# I*J)<- 4-, FFS8 PPE8 PPN1

C-2

APPENDIX 169 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 61 of 146

clientele. When Greenbaum would enter, “people [would] say, Greg’s in the building, Greg’s in the building.”9 His office is in the Tavern, and he would frequently call-out staff when he believed that they had done something that was not “Greg’s way.”10

When asked if Greg would do what he wants “even if it’s race discrimination,” Director of Operations McCabe responded “I have to let the

President be President.”11 If a black person was discriminated against, McCabe believes that Greenbaum was so powerful that “there wasn’t anybody in the corporate structure that ... would do anything about it.”12 Several aspects of the

“Southern Hospitality” practice, including the seating policy, share a common rope

! !"##"$ %&#' ()*+ ,-&&./"01 %&#' 23 45671 &89-&1&:; <=>>=?0:9 9@ A@-B >@-CDE (F3 45G"#9"=. @> 9H& $H=#CD' ,-&&./"01 "$ !-&$=<&.9 @> /@9H <&>&.<".9$E H"$ 50:9=1"9& "09H@-=9;C @I&- 9H& $9">>' J?G"/& %&#' K2+ ,-&&./"01 %&#' 2)LM('

"# J?G"/& %&#' 2ME 2*E F2N+ ,-&&./01 %&# 2) 4A@0:< ?-=9=?=O& $9">> 5&I&-; <";CDE MN 4A"$ 5?-=9=?":C <0-=.P A":BL9H-@0PH$D+ J0-#H; %&#' F*E (MQ!

"" J?G"/& %&#' (3*E F2Q 4&I&. => I=@:"9&$ 5#@:=?;CDE FM) 4,-&P 5>@-P@9 "/@09 AH"9 /@0.<"-=&$ &8=$9&&"-CDE K(M'

"$ J?G"/& %&#' F3M' R"-9&.<&- J0-#H; $011&< =9 0#S 5TH"9&I&- ,-&P A".9$E ,-&P P&9$'C J0-#H; %&#' (M3E U@--=$ %&#' (F) 45".;9H=.P -&:"9&< 9@ 9H& /"- V"-&"W A"$ B=.< @> :=B& ,-&P7$ /"/;CD+ !"##"$ %&#' (Q*'

C-3

APPENDIX 170 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 62 of 146

of reducing black clientele for fear they will dissuade white clientele.13 Both

President Greenbaum and Operating Partner Heather Dennis had roles in the practices described below, and both were directly involved on the days of the incident involved in this lawsuit in either demanding the Plaintiffs move or calling security on them, or both.

Hostesses: By order of Greenbaum, only one black female was allowed to work at the hostess stand at any given time. After Greenbaum saw two black hostesses working together, Operating Partner Pappas was reprimanded by

CentraArchy’s Vice President for having two black hostesses on a night shift because “if we have two black hostesses here then we’re going to have black thugs.”14

!" !"##$% &'() *+, -./"012'#3 4"%($156$178 $3960:'% "#:'#$3; <659= >'3 1" 6'5?' %'51%@)

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

C-4

APPENDIX 171 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 63 of 146

Cocktail Waitresses: Managers were instructed not to hire “black cocktail waitresses.”15 McCabe confirms that Greenbaum demanded that the number of black cocktail waitresses and servers generally be limited:

Q: Mr. Greenbaum, ma'am, had the mindset that if he had black hostesses standing there waiting on customers, no matter how beautiful they were or how meticulous they were dressed, no matter how polite they were or how professional they were, that it would not be in keeping with what he wanted to build for The Tavern?

A: That's likely to be true, yes.”16

!"#"$ %&'()&% *%+,-+ ." /0"1*2*13445 6"!*"/ /%3%"7"!%/ 38'(% 84319 &'/%"//"/+ :$""!83(7 ;"0+ <=< >?@&3% */ !'% %&" %$(%&+,-A BCD >13!E% 8"4*"#" &*/ 73!3)"$/ /35 %&3% &" 736" 1'77"!%/ 38'(% 84319 &'/%"//"/-+ ." 34/' 6"!*"/ "#"$ 739*!) /%3%"7"!%/ 38'(% &'F 1"$%3*! "704'5""/ ?8$'()&% *! %&" F$'!) 1$'F6+, :$""!83(7 ;"0+ GH+

!" I'!" F"$" 344'F"6 %' 739" *% %&$'()& %&" 2*$/% *!%"$#*"F+ J3003/ ;"0+ ?/&" F3/ 8$*!)*!) *! O2$*13!MO7"$*13! 14*"!%"4",-+

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

C-5

APPENDIX 172 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 64 of 146

Bartenders: With one exception a decade prior, there were no black bartenders until Devon Frett.17 Even after his hiring, he was not allowed to work peak weekend times because it might encourage black clientele.18

Theme Changes: On the weekend of the NBA All-Star game, “we knew we were going to have a huge influx of black patrons.”19 Although there had never been any interest in rodeo at The Tavern at Phipps, and The Tavern had never done a theme-change before, Greenbaum ordered the entire theme of the establishment to be changed to rodeo for the NBA All-Star weekend.20 Pappas concluded, based

!"#$ !"%& '())*+,-. ,/,0* 1)*0)2 3402 1025(0.0*,36(7 8(,5305) )*30()97& '())*+,-. :)8& %;$ ;<&

!" =5>,+) :)8& ?@A B()33 :)8& #@&

!# =-(847 :)8& CCDECC# FG'()/H2 8()I-105)2 36J,(1 +9,5K 8)689)&LM$ C!D& N,(3)*1)(2 J)() 3691 +7 .,*,/).)*3 F:)**02 6( O(654,M 34,3 B()33 56-91 *63 2-+ P6( 34). 6* 8),K 30.)2 G+)5,-2) 4) J,2 +9,5K&L =-(847 :)8& CCCECC< FGQ J,2 3691 +)5,-2) 4) J,2 +9,5K&LM& O*7 J403) +,(3)*1)( J,2 ,996J)1 36 2-+ 6* J))K)*12$ )R5)83 B()33& =-(847 :)8& CC

!$ T,88,2 :)8& "C$ "!&

%& T,88,2 J,2 6(1)()1 36 10289,7 3J6 9,(/) +,**)(2 23,30*/LU)956.) V61)6 B,*2$L 34) .-2050,* J,2 0*23(-53)1 36 89,7 56-*3(7 .-205 34) 23,PP J6() 56J+67 ,330()$ ,*1 W)0*)K)* ,*1 W)**)227 1(0*K2 J)() ().6X)1 P(6. 34) +,(& '())*+,-. 3691 40. 34,3 0P 4) 6*97 K*)J 3J6 56-*3(7 26*/2$ 36 89,7 34). 6X)( ,*1 6X)( ,99 *0/43& T,88,2 :)8& <%E<<$ C"

C-6

APPENDIX 173 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 65 of 146

on the context and his knowledge and interactions with Greenbaum, that this was done to deter “black NBA fans” coming for the NBA All-Star weekend.21

Drinks Eliminated: Operating Partner Pappas was instructed at one point to remove Heineken and Hennessy because they were “extremely popular in youthful

Black culture.” Greenbaum also “disliked black patrons so much” that he stopped serving Red Stripe. One night, Greenbaum entered the restaurant and saw a group of African American patrons drinking blender drinks. Bartenders were then told by management “that Greg came in one night and noticed a bunch of black customers were drinking frozen beverages and he no longer want[s] that in the restaurant.”22

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

!! !"##"$ %&#' ()*+/1 289":& %&#' -//' X5& :"4=&?M&4$ F&"4?&M >W =5D$ <=54>3E5 =5& 85"D? >W 8>AA"?M'G 234#56 %&#' +(, -)R1 K4>85" %&#' 7R, OO' 234#56 %&#' -./, -.-' T4&&?:"3A "MAD=$ #3FFD?E 8&4="D? :&V&4"E&$, D?8F3MD?E

C-7

APPENDIX 174 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 66 of 146

Delaying Service to Blacks: Bartenders were instructed by Operating

Partner Dennis in pre-shift meetings in 2005 and 2006 to “slow serve” black clientele in the bar area in the hope that they would give up and leave. They acted on these instructions.23

Seating Policy: The bar seating policy involved stages: (1) bartender asks the male customer(s) to move for female customer(s); (2) bartender offers customer drinks to move; (3) if customer(s) still refuse, bartender contacts management; (4) management then attempts to get customer(s) to move, (5) management and staff refuse service. These stages in the process are fairly

!"#$%"#& '() *+","-"#)./ 0$1234""5167 8$), ,$1 "-9.:/""1 8,: 12/ $) 821 ): 0")"4 '.2;% ;.$"#)"."< =4""#'2(- >"9< ?@AB?@C& ?DEB?DF<

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

C-8

APPENDIX 175 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 67 of 146

uniform in witness testimony.24 In addition the policy addressed the following questions: (1) Which customers are asked to move? (2) What happens if a customer refuses to move?

First, it was normal practice to not ask any customer to move at all if there were already open seats.25 Second, it was normal practice to not ask a customer to move if they were mid-service – still eating, still drinking, or indicated they were ordering more food.26 However, staff were instructed that despite this normal practice of not asking men to move if they were mid-service, an exception existed for African American men.27 Third, the pervasive discriminatory practices at The

Tavern sent a clear message to the staff – make the place unwelcome for African

Americans and treat them poorly. Partners, managers and staff understood Greg

Greenbaum’s desire and marching orders to be to limit black clientele for fear they

!" !"##$ %"&' ()* +,-++* .+/ 01""23456 %"&' 78* 79-(,* .9-.:/ ;1"<< %"&' (7-(./ %"22=> %"&' ,,8-,,+* 8?:/ @1ABC4 %"&' 87* 8.-77/ D51&C$ %"&' +9* .9-.:/ ),-)8/ )+/ DBE43" %"&' +.* +9* 8.:-8),/ F4&&4> %"&' .+-..* )+-9?/ G42H"1> %"&' .9-.:'

!# !"##$ %"&' .(-.9'

!$ 01""23456 %"&' .,/ DBE43" %"&' 8)+/ D51&C$ %"&' ,7./ F4&&4> %"&' )+* 9,/ !"##$ %"&' .7'

!% IA11=> %"&' 7+* (?* (.-(9 JKL@M &1A3#"6 N4> C"H* 42H 3"B45>" 42 @O1=B42-@6"1=B42 >=<<=2P A2 S O=1><'TU* )7 J6AV" @O1=B42 @6"1=B42 6"2 "V"1 =O 2A< O=2=>C"HU'

C-9

APPENDIX 176 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 68 of 146

would deter his desired customer base of white businessmen and “big breasted” women.28 Fourth, management (including Heather Dennis, who ordered Carroll and Shaw to leave) specifically instructed staff to target black men to be asked first under the bar seating policy. “Management instructed me that if the bar seating was filled with men and African-American men were seated at the bar, we should ask the African-American men to move from the bar area first if white businessmen or women sought bar seating.”29 Managers instructed:

If it was mixed, if it was African-Americans and it was Caucasians, you would -- per Heather Dennis -- you would have to ask the African-Americans to move..... [T]he [management] stated as well that it’s the African-Americans that you move first. ... [Dennis] said that's the clientele, it is for white men, so ... it would behoove me to do what I was told and move the black men first. That's how she put it. She said the clientele is for white men and for white women. Norris Dep. 51-59, 160.

The order came from Greenbaum “because that wasn’t the clientele that

Greg Greenbaum wanted inside the building.” “The bar was often full especially on Fridays and Saturdays, and on these days, African-American men were moved sometimes up to once or twice a night. I was verbally admonished by

!" !"#$%&'($ )*"+, -%( &. -./% 0#.- &1%'# 2%"&2 3"2 2. 3%** ,(.3( "-.($2& &1% 2&"00 &1"& )"#&%(4%#2 3.5*4 6.,% ").5& '&7 8.##'2 9%:7 ;<<= ;<> ?@A 4.(B& (%+%22"#'*C &1'(, &1%C &1.5$1& &1"& -./'($ )*"+, :%.:*% 3"2 05((C7DE7

!# 8.##'2 9%+* FF GH>I 8.##'2 9%:7 "& GJ= KLHK;I K

C-10

APPENDIX 177 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 69 of 146

management, Heather Dennis, for not moving African-American men ....”30 Fifth, when Greenbaum was in the restaurant, and instructed staff to target someone, they would. Greenbaum, whose office was in the Tavern, would frequently call-out staff when he believed that they had done something that was not “Greg’s way.”31

This would sometimes happen directly, or through Heather Dennis.32 Finally,

!" !"##$% &'() ** +,- .'/012%$% 233'345 !"##$% &'06 +78 9:8 798 ;998 ;9<,;775 !"##$% &'06 9=,9<8 =+,=< .$3'>?$@A$>B (2%' C1'#' ?")3 DA &'>>$% ?" /"E' ?C" F@#$(2> F/'#$(2> /'> @$#%?8 ?1"GB1 ?1'A C'#' >"? @$>$%1'3 '2?$>B "# 3#$>H$>B8 2>3 ?1'> "#3'#$>B ?1'/ ?" )'2E' I %0'($@$(2))A D'(2G%' ?1'A C'#' D)2(H46 J#''>D2G/ 3'>$'% 'E'# G%$>B #2(' 2% 2 (#$?'#$2 @"# %'2? %')'(?$">6 J#''>D2G/ &'06 ;;K .LM' 3">N? 'E'# 12E' 3$%(G%%$">% #'B2#3$>B #2('6O48 ;;+8 K<-6

!# P(Q2D' &'06 978 9=8 K9R5 J#''>2DG/ &'0 9<8 7R6 S' C"G)3 %$B>2) "# $>3$(2?' ?1' >''3 ?" /"E' /'> $> 2(("#32>(' C$?1 ?1' %'2?$>B 0")$(A6 J#''>D2G/ &'06 ;7R,;7; .D2#?'>3'#% C"G)3 #'2(? ?" J#''>D2G/N% 0#'%'>(' 'E'> D'@"#' D'$>B $>%?#G(?'3 2D"G? %'2?$>B 0")$(A48 T'))A &'06 =:,D2G/ 3'>$'% 'E'# $>%?#G(?$>B D2#?'>3'#% 2D"G? ?1' %'2?$>B 0")$(A6 J#''>D2G/ &'06 +;6

!$ J#''>D2G/ &'06 7;5 !"##$% &'06 ;:98 ;=+5 P(Q2D' &'06 <+,<98 ;;K 8 ;7-6 U2#?'>3'# T'))A %0"H' "@ ?1' L0#'%%G#'O ?" /''? J#''>D2G/N% 'V0'(?2?$">% C1'> J#''>D2G/ C2% 0#'%'>? $> ?1' D2#6 T'))A &'06 ;R<,;R-5 J#''>D2G/ &'06 7;,7+ .C1'> 1' C2)H'3 ?1#"GB18 ?1' %?2@@ H>'C L?1'A $//'3$2?')A >''3'3 ?" /2H' %"/'?1$>B 1200'>O48 ;97 .$@ ?1'#' C2% 2 L0#"D)'/ WC$?1 %'2?$>B 0")$(AX 0#'%'>?8 Y C"G)3 12E' 233#'%%'3 $?O46

C-11

APPENDIX 178 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 70 of 146

with one exception, police were never previously called in except when black men refused to leave.33

Carroll and Shaw Targeted to Be Asked to Move, Denied Service and Escorted Out of Establishment, Because of Their Race

On August 11, 2006, Carroll along with his friend attorney Shaw, visited

The Tavern at Phipps at approximately 6:00 P.M. Carroll arrived first, took at seat at the bar, and Shaw joined him shortly thereafter.34 Throughout the incident,

Carroll and Shaw were the only African-Americans sitting at the bar. The two men ordered drinks and appetizers. Carroll and Shaw then received their meals and began eating.35

Swiftly thereafter, the Tavern’s bartender, Patrick Kelly, approached Carroll and Shaw and asked that they relinquish their seats to two Caucasian women. The two men politely declined. At the time, they were not finished with their food and drinks and they had plates in front of them. Moreover, even before Carroll and

!! !"#$%& '()* ++, -#""./ '()* 01203 45#67 89 '(::./ 5# 7# /# ;#" !;".$&: !<(".$&:/= > ?@> A+B, '(::./ '()* 0120C 4:(D(" $&66(7 E&:7("/ 8(;#"( "( /(&5 )#6.$9=, E&:7("/ '()* C+> AFCC 4:(D(" 8(;#"( $&66(7 5# $#:;"#:5G(/$#"5 <(: #H5 H:7(" /(&5 )#6.$9=*

!" I&""#66 '()* 0A> 00> 0?, E%&J '()* 0?> @F*

!# !"#$%& '()* 0B, I&""#66 '()* ?@, E%&J '()* @B> 30* K(669 '()* ?0*

C-12

APPENDIX 179 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 71 of 146

Shaw were asked to give up their seats, bartender Kelly had poured another rounds of drinks for the men – even before they had finished their first drinks.36

Kelly indicated it was the custom and practice for men to give up their seats to women at the Tavern’s bar and asked the men a second time to give up their seats. When Carroll and Shaw declined to give up their seats, Kelly left rolling his eyes and looking annoyed. After their polite decline to vacate their seats, Carroll and Shaw continued with their meals and conversation.37 At time the seat request came, there was a white male seated at the bar, and there were some empty seats.

The white males were not subject to a similar request.38

At the time Kelly asked Carroll and Shaw to vacate their seats, the Tavern’s owner Greg Greenbaum was sitting in a booth behind the bar. Another bartender on duty, Devon Frett, indicated that Greenbaum was staring at the bartenders.

After Carroll and Shaw declined to vacate their seats, almost “immediately,”

Greenbaum was standing there and Kelly explained to him that Carroll and Shaw had declined to give up their seats. Kelly felt “pressure” to make sure he was

!" !"##$ %"&' ()* +,-. %"&' /0* 1-223## %"&' /04 /54 /64 75* +,-. %"&' ()* %"889: %"&' 5;' 1-223## %"&' /54 /6'

!# !"##$ %"&' ()* 1-223## %"&' )04 )<* +,-. %"&' );4 7/4 ()4 (('

!$ 1-223## %"&' (/4 ()* +,-. %"&' 754 7=* >?@1 A":B9C38$ >23D,- 704 <5/ E3B,"2 C"8 :"-B"F -B G-24 -:H"F B3 I9J" K& :"-B: L-MB"2N &#-98B9MM:O'

C-13

APPENDIX 180 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 72 of 146

acting the way Greenbaum would want. Greenbaum demanded Carroll and Shaw vacate: “[Greenbaum] came over and said ‘Are you going to get these girls in these seats?’”39 Kelly then advised Operating Partner Heather Dennis, what had happened. Kelly explained to Dennis that Greenbaum pointed at some ladies, and then Kelly responded to Greenbaum that Carroll and Shaw declined to give up their seats.40

Next, Dennis and Manager Rick Russell confronted Carroll and Shaw.

Carroll Dep. 68. Russell had also already told Dennis that both Kelly and he had asked Carroll and Shaw to vacate their seats. Dennis identified herself as the operating partner. Both Dennis and Russell stated that it was the practice at the

Tavern for male customers to relinquish their seats to female customers. Dennis then demanded, once again, that they vacate their seats.41 They again politely declined, and responded to Dennis that they were not ready to leave and that they had not finished their meals. None of the white males sitting at the bar were subject to either a first or second request to relinquish their seats to white females.

!" !"##$ %"&' ()*(+, -./*-.+0 %"1123 %"&' -+0 45"66 %"&' 7., 7-'

#$ !"##$ %"&' /80 95:;<= %"&' >+'

#% %"1123 %"&' -7, 8., 8-0 ?@33"## %"&' A>'

C-14

APPENDIX 181 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 73 of 146

Moreover, there were empty seats at the bar. Shaw asked Dennis and Russell why not give the women the empty seats?42

During the incident, Shaw explained to Russell that since Carroll and he were the only African-Americans at the bar, it did not look good to ask them to leave the premises. Shaw also asked Russell why he was harassing them, and noted the country’s racial history. Carroll and Shaw also informed Dennis and

Russell that there were two empty seats at the other end of the bar.43

Around this point, another bartender unsolicitedly approached Carroll and

Shaw and claimed “it’s not a racial thing.” This bartender stated he felt it was necessary to make a racial reference because “Just me going out, I would probably feel, hey, somebody’s trying to get over on me.” The bartender also concedes that something “just didn’t look right.”44

While the incident was occurring, Dennis became increasingly more agitated and loud. Dennis admits that she was not “sympathetic” and that she was irritated.

In contrast, during the entire incident, Carroll and Shaw were calm and polite.

!" !"##$% !"&' ()* +,--.// !"&' )01 ))* 23,4 !"&' )01 )51 5(1 561 5)* 78%%"// !"&' 9:;96'

!# 23,4 !"&' 5<1 <=1 ===1 ==(* +,--.// !"&' ):1 )91 )0'

!! >-"?? !"&' 6(;6)* +,--.// !"&' =6@1 =6=1 =6(1 =69'

C-15

APPENDIX 182 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 74 of 146

Dennis indicated repeatedly that if the two men did not relinquish their seats, they would be “removed.” Dennis then told them that if they did not leave, she was going to call the police. Dennis also told Carroll and Shaw not to pay the bill, despite the fact that Carroll stated that he expected to pay and had wanted further service.45

They asked Dennis for a card, and she walked to hostess stand to pick up her card, and Greenbaum’s card. As she was picking up the business cards for Carroll and Shaw, Dennis passed owner Greenbaum who was hovering about.46

Dennis’ stated purpose in walking over to Carroll and Shaw the second time was to give them the requested business cards. She then left Carroll and Shaw and returned to her office. She telephoned Atlanta City police officer Nehemiah

Sanders and stated that they had a problem, and asked him to come in early to deal with it. Dennis was agitated during her call to Officer Sanders. She had never called Officer Sanders before in connection with patrons not being willing to give up their seats.47

!" !"##$% !"&' ()* (+* ,(-* (+.* (+/* (,)0 1233455 !"&' 6,* 6(* ,(+0 7829 !"&' ,-6* ,(-' 0 :;%%"55 !"&' ./* /,* "3"> ?52$#@$AA% @4 B5"2C"DE'

!# !"##$% !"&' FF* F.* F)'

!$ !"##$% !"&' .,* .(* .<* .)* .60 72#>"3% !"&' 6F'

C-16

APPENDIX 183 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 75 of 146

Officer Sanders arrived in about fifteen minutes. He never before had been called to the Defendants’ establishment, despite eight years of service there, in connection with gentlemen being asked to vacate their seats at the bar. Officer

Sanders had on his uniform, badge, and gun.48

Officer Sanders placed his hands on the shoulders of Carroll and Shaw and stated to them that it was the custom of the Tavern to do business this way. Carroll and Shaw were not disorderly or disruptive in any way, and were polite at all times. They decided to thank Officer Sanders for talking with them, fearing arrest.49 Carroll and Shaw were then escorted out of the Tavern by Officer Sanders without being able to complete their meal, or have further service. At the time

Carroll and Shaw were escorted out of the Tavern by Officer Sanders, there were still empty seats as well as a white man seated at the bar.50 All of the attention turned on Carroll and Shaw during this incident, and the spectacle was attracting a

!" !"##$% !"& '() *+#,"-% !"&. /001/021 /031 //0.

!# *+#,"-% !"&. 341 /0/) !"##$% !"&1 '5) 6+--788 !"&. //4) *9+: !"&. /021 /0(1 /0'.

$% 6+--788 !"&. //51 //3) *9+: !"&. /;<) =>%%"88 !"&. '2?'(.

C-17

APPENDIX 184 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 76 of 146

lot of attention from the bar. Carroll and Shaw were shocked, humiliated, and outraged.51

LEGAL CLAIMS

“Congress intended to prohibit ‘all racial discrimination, private and public, in ... the making and enforcement of contracts.’” Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S.

160, 170 (1976). The aim of these statutes is “to remove the impediment of discrimination from a minority citizens ability to fully and equally participate in the marketplace.” Brown v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 939 F.2d 946, 949

(11th Cir. 1991); see also Anderson v. Parrish Christian Isles Golf Club, Inc.,488

F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. 1974) (Civil rights legislation “is not an enactment on parchment to be placed under glass and venerated but not observed”). “[I]n light of the clear illegality of outright refusal to serve, a restaurant which wishes to discourage minority customers must often resort to more subtle efforts to dissuade.” Solomon v. Waffle House, Inc., 365 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1324 (N.D. Ga.

2004). All but one recent public accommodations’ case involving restaurants from within the Eleventh Circuit has left to the jury most claims of race discrimination

!" !"##$%% &'() **+, *-*, *-., *.-/ 01"2 &'() +3, +4, *5., *5., *55)

C-18

APPENDIX 185 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 77 of 146

claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.52 The Magistrate’s order sets forth the applicable tests:

First, Section 1981 provides:

(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) . . . For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) . . . The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by non-governmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

!" !""# "$%$# &'(')* ($ +,-. /0 1.# /)2$# "$$% &' ($)%*"" +,-.- /01- "$$%2 +34567 89:102; 3'(')* ($ +-445" 678*"# /)2$# "$$< &' "**%*$ +=-.->1- "$$<2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; &,779* ($ :755')* ;77<# /)2$# (1- "$$<2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; &7=< ($ +-55%,"") :7$# "$$< &' ""(G*G" +H-.- I01- "$$<2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; >-29*7) ($ +-445" 678*"# /)2$# )*( /-,@FF- *((J +=-.- >1- "$$<2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; ?7@')*7) ($ A-,-%7) ;77<# /)2$# "$$< &' "<<***$# K% +=-.- >1- "$$<2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; B7C'", ($ +-445" 678*"# /)2$# "$$< L-,- .:?8- 'MNO, !JJ$ +=-.- >1- "$$<2 +34567 89:102; !7528D@ ($ +-445" 678*"# /)2$# (1- "$$!2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; !757D7) ($ +-445" 678*"# /)2$# (1- "$$)2 +?@AA19B C@DEA458 D45:4D2; E-?72F" ($ B"))=G* /)2$# <" /-,@FF-"D *(%! +,-.- /01- *GGG2 +34567 89:102; @80 *"" +77547,< ($ ?"*0-8,-)0 :7)2".0*# /)2$# "$$J &' "*%$J% +?@AA19B C@DEA458 E91584D :5 P@002-

C-19

APPENDIX 186 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 78 of 146

42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff bringing a claim based on § 1981 must establish “that the defendant failed to perform a contractual obligation as a result of intentional discrimination on the basis of race.” Slocumb v. Waffle House, Inc., 365 F. Supp.

1332, 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (citing General Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v.Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391, 102 S. Ct. 3141, 3150, 73 L. Ed. 2d 835

(1982)).

Second, Title II provides:

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.

Both § 1981 and Title II require a plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination on the basis of race. “The inquiry for a § 2000a claim, therefore, is essentially the same for a § 1981 claim.” Solomon, 365 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.

“The traditional burden-shifting framework made applicable to Title VII claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L.

Ed. 2d 668 (1973), also applies to Plaintiffs’ claims under § 1981 and Title II.”

Afkhami v. Carnival Corp., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2004); accord

Jackson, 413 F. Supp. 2d at 1355-56 (applying the McDonnell Douglas burden

C-20

APPENDIX 187 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 79 of 146

shifting scheme to claims brought pursuant to both § 1981 and Title II); Solomon,

365 F. Supp. 2d at 1321-22 (same).

“In order to prove a prima facie case of ‘disparate treatment’ discrimination, a plaintiff may prove his or her case through (1) direct evidence of discrimination,

(2) pattern and practice evidence of discrimination, or (3) circumstantial evidence of discrimination.” Afkhami, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1320 (citing Aurel v. School Bd. of

Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 261 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2003)).

Direct evidence is defined as “‘evidence, which if believed, proves [the] existence of [the] fact in issue without inference or presumption. Evidence that only suggests discrimination or that is subject to more than one interpretation does not constitute direct evidence.’” Taylor v. Runyon, 175 F.3d 861, 867 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting

Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 1997)). “Under the pattern and practice theory of discrimination, a plaintiff must provide evidence sufficient to establish that impermissible discrimination was the defendant’s standard operating procedure through a combination of historical, anecdotal, or statistical evidence.” Afkhami, 305 F. Supp. 2d at 1320-21. Circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination is that which “suggests, but does not prove, a discriminatory motive.. . .” Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1086

(11th Cir. 2004).

C-21

APPENDIX 188 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 80 of 146

For disparate treatment claims based on circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating that the defendant has unlawfully discriminated against him. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine,450

U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981). The allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof are as follows: (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence;

(2) if the plaintiff proves the prima facie case, the court will presume discriminatory intent, and the burden (of production) then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action taken against the employee; and (3) if the defendant carries this burden, the presumption of discrimination is eliminated, and the plaintiff has an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reason offered by the defendant was a pretext for discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04, 93

S. Ct. at 1824-25; Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635,

642-43 (11th Cir. 1998).

In order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under §

1981, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) the allegedly discriminatory conduct concerned one or more of the activities enumerated in §1981, i.e., the making, performance, modification, or termination

C-22

APPENDIX 189 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 81 of 146

of contracts, or the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship; and (3) that the defendant treated the plaintiffs less favorably with regard to the allegedly discriminatory act than the defendant treated other similarly situated persons who were outside plaintiffs’ protected class.

Benton, 230 F. Supp. 2d at 1370.

A similar prima facie formulation for Title II claims requires plaintiffs to show that they: (1) are members of a protected class; (2) attempted to contract for services and afford themselves the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation; (3) were denied the full benefit or enjoyment of a public accommodation; and (4) such services were available to similarly situated persons outside plaintiffs’ protected class who received full benefits or who were treated better than plaintiffs. Solomon, 365 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.

Plaintiffs are entitled to nominal, presumed and actual damages for their individual loss of rights by being discriminated against in an amount determined by the jury. Memphis Community Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986);

Spence v. Board of Educ., 806 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1986); Parrish v. Johnson,800

F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1986); Sykes v. McDowell, 786 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1986). M.

Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Remedies, ¶ 16.07(D). Damages are available for pain and suffering, emotional distress, stigmatization, interference

C-23

APPENDIX 190 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 82 of 146

with association, embarrassment, nervousness, humiliation, anxiety, etc. M.

Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Remedies, ¶ 16.07(G); Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994); Slicker v. Jackson,215F.3d1225(11th Cir.

2000); Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2000); Borunda v. Richmond,

885 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1998); Young v. Little Rock, 249 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2001).

Circuits have also held that presumed damages are an appropriate means of compensating violations and may provide an appropriate substitute for ordinary compensatory damages in cases in which injury is likely but the harm difficult to establish. Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1986); City of Watseka v.

Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547, 1558-59 (7th Cir. 1986), summarily aff'd, 479 U.S. 1048 (1987); Walje v. City of Winchester, 827 F.2d 10, 11-13 (6th

Cir. 1987); Bell v. Little Axa Indep. Sch. Dist, 766 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1985); BCR

Transp. Co. v. Fontaine, 727 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1984).

Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. Bogle v. McClure,. 332 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2003); see generally Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d. 1261 (11th Cir. 2006).

Injunctive relief preventing further discrimination is available, and additional equitable relief may be permitted in the Court’s discretion. See City of

Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983); Jackson v. Waffle House, Inc.,413

C-24

APPENDIX 191 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 83 of 146

F.Supp. 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2006); Solomon v. Waffle House, Inc., 365 F.Supp.2d 1312

(N.D.Ga. 2004); Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, 231 F. Supp. 396 (N.D. Ga. 1964).

Attorneys' fees and costs are appropriate where the plaintiffs vindicate federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988).

C-25

APPENDIX 192 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 84 of 146

ATTACHMENT “D” – DEFENDANTS’ OUTLINE OF THE CASE

Factual Summary of Defendants’ Defenses

On Friday, August 11, 2006, Plaintiffs Joseph Shaw (“Shaw”) and Joe Barry

Carroll (“Carroll”) were asked to give up their seats to ladies (the “Incident”) at

The Tavern at Phipps (“The Tavern”), which is owned and operated by Defendants

The Tavern Corp. and CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co. (“CentraArchy”)

(collectively “Defendants”).

The Tavern, located in Phipps Plaza, tries to attract the mall clientele, which is largely female, by providing a courteous and chivalrous atmosphere, especially in the bar area, for the ladies shopping. Pursuant to this objective, when the seats at the bar are full, it is the practice to request gentlemen sitting at the bar who are not eating to give up their seats to ladies waiting for a seat (the “Practice”). This

Practice is, and always has been, applied without regard to the race of either the gentlemen or the ladies.

When requested to give up their seats at the bar for ladies pursuant to the

Practice, the overwhelming majority of gentlemen readily do so. On the relatively rare occasions in which men balk at this courtesy, the bartender will typically notify a manager so that the manager can speak with the customer. Usually that ends the matter. There have been a couple of times, however, when security was

D-1

APPENDIX 193 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 85 of 146

called to assist with the situation. It happened in the Incident, as discussed below, and on at least one other occasion in April 2008 when a man (who is white) likewise adamantly refused to give up his seat at the bar for a lady and the manager on duty had to summon mall security to help remove the man from The Tavern.

On Friday, August 11, 2006, Plaintiffs arranged to get together at The

Tavern. Carroll arrived around 6:00 p.m. and sat at the bar, and Shaw joined him approximately ten minutes later. The bar area takes up around half of The Tavern.

It consists of an L-shaped bar that had 15 to 20 seats at the time of the Incident, an open area for people to stand that may be up to five people deep on busy nights, and several booths and tables outside the open area. There were four bartenders working that evening: Patrick Kelly and Craig Cohen who are both white, Devin

Frett who is black, and Ramon Arocha who is Hispanic. Mr. Arocha, the lead bartender, has been at The Tavern since 1993 and personally trained many of the bartenders, including the three he was working with that night. As is often the case on a Friday evening, the bar area was crowded and noisy. Plaintiffs sat next to each other at the end of the bar near the patio entrance and ordered drinks and appetizers.

At some point after Plaintiffs finished their appetizers, two white women walked up behind them and were waiting for seats at the bar. Kelly asked whether

D-2

APPENDIX 194 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 86 of 146

Plaintiffs would be willing to give up their seats to these ladies in exchange for a free round of drinks. Plaintiffs declined this request. Plaintiffs admit that they had not ordered any more food and that, other than Carroll allegedly later saying to

Dennis “we’re not done,” Plaintiffs never indicated to anyone associated with The

Tavern that they intended to continue eating.

Dennis, the Operating Partner at The Tavern, and Russell, one of the

Managers who reported to her, ultimately spoke with Plaintiffs about the Practice.

In a further effort to persuade Plaintiffs to vacate their seats at the bar for female customers, Defendants offered to move them to a table right next to the bar area and to pay their tab. Plaintiffs continued to refuse to go along with the Practice even after Devin Frett, a black bartender, expressly assured Plaintiffs that asking them to give up their seats at the bar for women “was not a racial thing.” Instead,

Shaw tried to give Russell a history lesson on race relations and told him that he was an attorney and Carroll “is an NBA great,” and Carroll warned that Plaintiffs were “gonna pursue this.”

At this time, there were no other men seated at the bar except for a white man and an Indian man at the other end of the bar, who were both also asked to give up their seats for ladies by lead bartender Arocha. Whereas Plaintiffs were in two adjacent seats at the bar, these two other men were not sitting together. Also

D-3

APPENDIX 195 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 87 of 146

unlike Plaintiffs, they had no problem in giving their seats up for the ladies who were waiting to be seated in the bar area.

When Plaintiffs persisted in refusing to cooperate by giving up their seats at the bar even after they had been offered free drinks, to comp their tab, and to move to a table a few feet away from the bar area, Dennis became irritated and told

Plaintiffs that they would have to leave the restaurant. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs still would not budge and essentially invited Dennis to call the police: “Finally she said she was gonna call the police and I said to her, I want you to call the police because I want to pursue this…” As a result, Dennis called Nehemiah Sanders, a black City of Atlanta police officer who provides off-duty security for The Tavern and was already scheduled to work that night at 8:00 p.m., to come in early.

Officer Sanders testified that when he arrived at The Tavern, there were no other men seated at the bar besides Plaintiffs. He walked over to Plaintiffs and politely explained the Practice to them. Shortly after this conversation, Plaintiffs got up and left without paying their tab. The whole Incident lasted no more than

20 to 30 minutes. Plaintiffs immediately went to the bar at the Ritz-Carlton in

Buckhead after leaving The Tavern that evening, spent a couple of hours there, but did not order any food. Carroll and Shaw have not been back to The Tavern since the Incident.

D-4

APPENDIX 196 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 88 of 146

Plaintiffs contend that the Practice was applied to them on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (the “Federal Claims”).

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs were asked to give up their seats solely because they are men, not because they are black.53

Even if Plaintiffs were to prevail on their § 1981 claim, they are not entitled to recover compensatory damages without providing that they sustained some noneconomic injury, such as emotional distress, pain and suffering, or harm to reputation, because of Defendants’ alleged intentional discrimination. See, e.g.,

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67 (1978) (plaintiffs are limited to nominal damages absent proof that they suffered actual harm when plaintiffs were unlawfully suspended from school without procedural due process); Salinas v.

O’Neill, 286 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2002) (“any award for emotional injury . . . must be supported by evidence of the character and severity of the injury to the plaintiff’s emotional well-being”). As the Eleventh Circuit has therefore cautioned,

“compensatory damages under § 1983 may be awarded only based on actual injuries caused by the defendant and cannot be presumed or based on the abstract value of the . . . rights that the defendant has violated.” Hicks v. Ferrero, 285 Fed.

53 Defendants further incorporate by reference all Answers filed in both the Carroll and Shaw matters.

D-5

APPENDIX 197 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 89 of 146

App’x 585, 587 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1229

(11th Cir. 2000) (editing and emphasis by court and added); accord, e.g., Memphis

Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 310, 312-13 (1986); Gunby v.

Pennsylvania Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1988). “In a § 1983 action damages must be proved, rather than presumed.” Williams v. Bd. of Regents,629

F.2d 993, 1005 (5th Cir. 1980) (binding in Eleventh Circuit under Bonner).

Moreover, Plaintiffs are only entitled to recover punitive damages if they prevail on their § 1981 claim and prove Defendants were motivated by evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of

Plaintiffs.

Relevant rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, and illustrative case law

42 U.S.C. § 1981;

42 U.S.C. § 1988;

42 U.S.C. § 2000a;

Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375 (1982);

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973);

Brown v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 939 F.2d 946, 949 (11th Cir. 1991);

Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 1997);

Johnson v. Legal Serv. of Ark., Inc., 813 F.2d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 1997);

D-6

APPENDIX 198 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 90 of 146

Lizardo v. Denny’s, Inc., 270 F.3d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 2001);

Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999);

Afkhami v. Carnival Corp., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2004);

Brooks v. Collis Foods, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1352-53 (N.D. Ga.

2005);

Dozier v. Waffle House, No. 1:03-CV-3093-ODE, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS,

5880 at *6-7 (N.D. Ga. May 4, 2005);

Givens v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-3367, 2006 WL 211710 (N.D.

Ga. 2006);

Jackson v. Waffle House, Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2006);

Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 78, 80-81 (E.D. La. 1994);

Slocumb v. Waffle House, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1342 (N.D. Ga.

2005);

Solomon v. Waffle House, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1323 (N.D. Ga.

2004); and

Woolford v. Rest. Concepts, II, LLC, No. 407CV011, 2008 WL 217087, at

*7 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2008).

D-7

APPENDIX 199 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 91 of 146

ATTACHMENT “E” – STIPULATED FACTS 1. The Tavern at Phipps is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000a.

E-1

APPENDIX 200 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 92 of 146

ATTACHMENT “F-1” – PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST Plaintiffs will have at trial:

1. Joe Barry Carroll WILL CALL c/o Gerry Weber, Esq. P.O. Box 5391 Atlanta, Georgia 31107-0391

2. Joseph Shaw WILL CALL c/o Stephanie Banks, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE D. BANKS & CO. 2930 Alcove Drive Scottdale, Georgia 30079

Plaintiffs may have at trial:

1. Ramon Arocha MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

2. Kathleen Neal Cleaver MAY CALL Emory University School of Law 1301 Clifton Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30322

3. Kimberly Davis MAY Call City of Atlanta Mayor’s Office of Constituent Services 55 Trinity Avenue, SW Suite 1920 Atlanta, GA 30303

4. Heather Dennis MAY CALL 5924 Broadmoor Dr. Dallas, Texas 75093

F1-1

APPENDIX 201 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 93 of 146

5. Devin Frett MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

6. Greg Greenbaum MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

7. Dorothy Hurst MAY CALL Chair, Atlanta Human Relations Commission 55 Trinity Avenue, SW Suite 1920 Atlanta, GA 30303

8. Patrick Kelly MAY CALL 6209 Alexander Circle, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30326

9. Meredith McCabe MAY CALL 125 Independence Way Building 4 Roswell, Georgia 30075

10. Michael Murphy MAY CALL 2685 Meadowlawn Drive Marietta, Georgia 30067

11. Sheena Norris MAY CALL 4219 Glenridge-Stratford Drive, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30342

12. Chris Pappas MAY CALL 1116 Arbor Gates Drive, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30324

F1-2

APPENDIX 202 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 94 of 146

13. K.P. Reddy, Esq. MAY CALL 1325 Satellite Boulevard Suite 1506 Suwannee, GA 30024

14. Nehemiah Sanders MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

15. Alexis Scott MAY CALL 145 Auburn Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30302

16. C.T. Vivian MAY CALL P.O. Box 50469 Atlanta, Georgia 30302

17. Trevair Adair MAY CALL c/o Ryan L. Beasley, Esq. Price, Ashmore & Beasley, PA 644 East Washington Street Greenville, SC 39601

18. Broderick Adams MAY CALL [email protected] Address to be provided

19. Dan Angell MAY CALL 2012 Wynfield Court Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577

20. Gavin Angulo MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400

F1-3

APPENDIX 203 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 95 of 146

Atlanta, Georgia 30327

21. Marcus Collier MAY CALL [email protected] Address to be provided

22. Craig Cohen MAY CALL 16929 Birkdale Commons Parkway Huntersville, North Carolina 20578

23. Jeffrey Greenbaum MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

24. Jerry Greenbaum MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

25. Walt Henderson MAY CALL

26. Jay Kulkin, MD MAY CALL 975 Johnson Ferry Road Suite 46 Atlanta, Georgia 30342

27. Frederick McCall MAY CALL Address to be provided 404-964-9400 [email protected]

28. Gregory McCollough MAY CALL 4580 Lakeview Lane Atlanta, Georgia

F1-4

APPENDIX 204 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 96 of 146

29. Vashon Moore MAY CALL 3200 Lenox Road NE C200 Atlanta, GA 30324

30. Rodney Odom MAY CALL 238 Walker Street Atlanta, Georgia 30313

31. Richard Russell MAY CALL 411 Chanterelle Drive Pensacola, Florida 32506

32. Julie Smith MAY CALL 236 Albemarle Road Charleston, SC 29407

33. Alex Zengotita MAY CALL c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

Any witnesses or additional witnesses listed on Defendants’ witness list.

All witnesses needed for rebuttal.

F1-5

APPENDIX 205 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 97 of 146

ATTACHMENT “F-2” – DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS LIST Defendants will have at trial:

1. Gregory Greenbaum c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

Defendants may have at trial:

1. Ed Acosta 424 Lindbergh Dr. #104 Atlanta, GA 30305

2. Gavin Angulo c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

3. Ramon Arocha c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

4. Heather Dennis 5924 Broadmoor Dr. Dallas, Texas 75093

5. Craig Cohen 16929 Birkdale Commons Parkway Huntersville, North Carolina 20578

F2-1

APPENDIX 206 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 98 of 146

6. Tonya Favello 329 Summer Place Norcross, Georgia 30071

7. Devin Frett c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

8. Mark Hefner 55 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308

9. Walt Henderson Address to be provided

10. Patrick Kelly 6209 Alexander Circle, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30326

11. Jill Milbry Louis Vuitton 3393 Peachtree Road Atlanta, Georgia 30326

12. Meredith McCabe 125 Independence Way Building 4 Roswell, Georgia 30075

13. Terry Mitchell 3475 Oak Valley Road, NE Unit 0950-095 Atlanta, Georgia 30326

14. Ralph Richardson Address to be provided

F2-2

APPENDIX 207 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 99 of 146

15. Richard Russell 411 Chanterelle Drive Pensacola, Florida 32506

16. Nehemiah Sanders c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

17. Rajesh Shah 4751 Mystic Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30342

18. Julie Smith 236 Albemarle Road Charleston, South Carolina 29407

19. Dawson West 147 26th Street, NW Apt. 2311 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

20. Danny Wright 202 Watts Circle #202 Nashville, Tennessee 37209

21. Alex Zengotita c/o Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327

22. All witnesses on Plaintiffs’ witness list

23. All witnesses necessary for impeachment or rebuttal that cannot be reasonably be foreseen at this time

F2-3

APPENDIX 208 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 100 of 146

ATTACHMENT “G-1” – PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT LIST

See following pages, which includes Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List and Defendants’

Objections.

G1-1

APPENDIX 209 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 101 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. BEGDOC ENDDOC DATE DESCRIPTION 1 6/24/1905 Resume of Heather Queen Dennis 2 12/10/2002 Application of Heather Dennis Memorandum from Meredith McCabe to All CentraArchy Associates Re: Chris

3 12/20/2002 Pappas APPENDIX 210 4 TAVERN 00195 TAVERN 00195 7/15/2004 CentraArchy - Guest Incident Report 5 Exhibit Not Used 6 83 83 2005 W2's of Joseph E. Carroll 7 3/22/2005 CentraArchy Employment Application of Sheena Norris 8 2006 Business license for the Tavern at Phipps 9 2006 Business license for CentraArchy Restaurant Management Company 10 84 84 2006 W2's of Joseph E. Carroll 11 Exhibit Not Used 12 Exhibit Not Used 13 Exhibit Not Used 14 Exhibit Not Used 15 Exhibit Not Used 16 Exhibit Not Used CentraArchy Handling Guest Complaints instructions from the Bartending 17 TAVERN 00305 TAVERN 00306 7/26/2006 Training Manual 18 TAVERN 00329 TAVERN 00329 7/26/2006 CentraArchy - Bartender Training Manual - COMPS - VS - VOIDS 19 TAVERN 00330 TAVERN 00330 7/26/2006 CentraArchy - Bartender Training Manual - COMP STAMPS 20 TAVERN 00296 TAVERN 00332 7/26/2006 CentraArchy Bartender Training Manual 21 TAVERN 00384 TAVERN 00442 7/26/2006 CentraArchy Server Training Manual 22 TAVERN 00134 TAVERN 00134 7/26/2006 CentraArchy : Handling Guest Complaint from Host Training Manual 23 TAVERN 00149 TAVERN 00149 7/26/2006 CentraArchy : Manager Support from Host Training Manual 24 TAVERN 00122 TAVERN 00122 8/11/2006 Tavern at Phipps, Check #378, Table 981 Amount $42.25 25 Exhibit Not Used 26 Exhibit Not Used Complaint in the Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta; Joseph 27 7 15 9/22/2006 Carroll, Joseph Shaw v. The Tavern at Phipps, Heather Dennis Letter from Kimberly A. Davis to Joseph Shaw re: HRC File # 2006-10-01 and 28 TAVERN 00554 TAVERN 00554 10/5/2006 complaint received

1 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 102 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. BEGDOC ENDDOC DATE DESCRIPTION Letter from Kimberly A. Davis to Joseph Carroll re: HRC File #2006-10-01 and 29 TAVERN 00591 TAVERN 00591 10/5/2006 attached Atlanta Human Relations Commission Bylaws 30 TAVERN 00194 TAVERN 00195 11/7/2006 CentraArchy - Guest Incident Procedures from

31 TAVERN 00468 TAVERN 00470 2007 Affidavit of James Devin Frett APPENDIX 211 32 TAVERN 00471 TAVERN 00474 2007 Affidavit of Rick Russell 33 TAVERN 00475 TAVERN 00477 2007 Affidavit of Heather Dennis 34 TAVERN 00478 TAVERN 00480 2007 Affidavit of Nehemiah Sanders 35 85 85 2007 W2's of Joseph E. Carroll Letter from Bradley T. Adler to Kimberly Davis West responding to 36 TAVERN 00483 TAVERN 00485 1/15/2007 correspondence of January 8, 2007 Email from Kelly McNabb to [email protected] re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. 37 TAVERN 00487 TAVERN 00487 1/15/2007 The Tavern at Phipps, et al. Facsimile from Kimberly West to Bradley Adler enclosing letter to Heather 38 TAVERN 00481 TAVERN 00482 1/16/2007 Dennis from Kimberly Davis West re investigation initiated Email from Kelly McNabb to [email protected] re Joseph Carroll, et al. 39 TAVERN 00488 TAVERN 00488 1/16/2007 v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. Respondents' Letter from Bradley Adler to Kimberly Davis West re Answer in 40 TAVERN 00461 TAVERN 00465 1/30/2007 The Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta, Case No. 2006 10 01 Letter from Bradley T. Adler to Kimberly Davis West enclosing original plus one of Respondents' Answer and Position Statement in Carroll, et al. v. The 41 TAVERN 00460 TAVERN 00460 1/30/2007 Tavern at Phipps, et al. 42 TAVERN 00466 TAVERN 00467 1/30/2007 Affidavit of Ramon Arocha Respondents' Answer in the Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta; 43 16 22 1/30/2007 Joseph Carroll, Joseph Shaw v. The Tavern at Phipps and Heather Dennis; Notice of Hearing from Dorthey Hurst, the Human Relations Commission on 44 TAVERN 00559 TAVERN 00560 2/13/2007 March 14, 2007, to Joseph Carroll; Joseph Shaw, Brad Adler Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Joseph Shaw; Joseph Carroll; Bradley Adler re 45 TAVERN 00558 TAVERN 00558 3/1/2007 Case # 2006-10-01 and a preliminary investigation prior to hearing Letter from K. Prabhaker Reddy to Bradley Adler re Tavern and Dennis were 46 TAVERN 00459 TAVERN 00459 3/19/2007 found in violation of City Code

47 TAVERN 00458 TAVERN 00458 4/20/2007 Email from Brad Adler to KP Reddy re Tavern/Carroll and witness interviews

2 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 103 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. BEGDOC ENDDOC DATE DESCRIPTION 48 TAVERN 00457 TAVERN 00457 5/16/2007 Email from Brad Adler to KP Reddy re RE: Shaw v. The Tavern Letter from Bradley Adler of Respondents to KP Reddy in Support of 49 TAVERN 00450 TAVERN 00453 5/23/2007 Respondents' Statement of Position

Email from Sandy Almeida to [email protected]; [email protected]; APPENDIX 212 [email protected] re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. 50 TAVERN 00455 TAVERN 00455 5/23/2007 (The Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta Case No. 206 10 01) Email from Sandy Almeida to Greg Greenbaum re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. (The Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta 51 TAVERN 00456 TAVERN 00456 5/23/2007 Case No. 206 10 01) Memorandum from Dorthey Hurst to Joseph Carroll; Joseph Shaw, et al. re 52 7/17/2007 Case #2006-10-01 53 29 82 9/19/2007 Human Relations Commission Hearing Transcript 54 TAVERN 00603 TAVERN 00604 10/10/2007 Order in the Joseph B. Carroll & Joseph Shaw v. The Tavern at Phipps Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Joseph Carroll; Joseph Shaw; Bradley Adler re: Human Relations Commission Case # 2006-10-01, J. Carroll/J. Shaw vs. 55 4 6 10/10/2007 Tavern at Phipps; determination letter Avril Liburd Court Reporting Invoice No. 02342 : Joseph Shaw/Joseph Carroll 56 10/29/2007 v. The Tavern at Phipps

Letter from Joseph S. Shaw to CentraArchy re: Human Relations Commission 57 11/6/2007 Case #2006-10-01, Tavern and Heather Dennis found in violation of City Code 58 TAVERN 00352 TAVERN 00356 11/21/2007 CentraArchy : Guidelines For Discipline and Discharge 59 TAVERN 00345 TAVERN 00346 11/21/2007 CentraArchy : Policy Violation Reporting Procedure Letter from Gerry Weber; Hollie Manheimer to Tavern at Phipps re Racial and Gender Profiling Incident; The Tavern at Phipps - August 11, 2006 attaching 60 1 6 6/9/2008 Human Relations Commission Order 61 88 89 8/6/2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution "Former NBA all-star suing Tavern at Phipps" Email from Ken Kurtz to Lindsay McConnell re If there is any truth to the story 62 TAVERN 00427 TAVERN 00427 8/7/2008 in the AJC today … TTAP is toast 63 8/7/2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Ex NBA star files discrimination suit" ABA Journal "Suit : Ex-NBA All-Star Asked to Give Up Seat for White 64 90 90 8/7/2008 Woman"

3 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 104 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. BEGDOC ENDDOC DATE DESCRIPTION Plaintiff's Press Release "Former NBA Star Sues Atlanta Restaurant for Race 65 86 87 8/8/2008 Discrimination" Email string from Chris Pappas to Joseph Shaw Re: Former NBA all-star suing

66 8/13/2008 Tavern at Phipps APPENDIX 213 Email string from Joseph Shaw to Chris Pappas re: Tavern at Phipps Plaza and 67 9/8/2008 Heather Dennis 68 TAVERN 00125 TAVERN 00125 9/10/2008 Email string from Michael Murphy to Joseph Shaw re: The Tavern at Phipps

69 9/10/2008 Email from Michael Murphy to Joseph Shaw re The Tavern at Phipps - Gmail Email from Michael Murphy to Joseph Shaw re The Tavern at Phipps - Yahoo 70 9/10/2008 full version Letter from Gerry Weber, Hollie Manheimer to Dorthey Hurst re results of post- 71 TAVERN 00592 TAVERN 00594 10/9/2008 hearing compliance investigation Letter from Joe Barry Carroll re: the findings of the Human Relations 72 91 92 11/3/2008 Commission for the City of Atlanta 73 TAVERN 00489 TAVERN 00491 2/17/2009 Letter from Atlanta Human Relations Commission to Bradley Adler re: Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Bradley Adler Re: Human Relations Commission 74 TAVERN 00595 TAVERN 00595 2/17/2009 Case #2006-10-01, J. Carroll/J. Shaw vs. Tavern at Phipps Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Bradley Adler attaching determination rendered 75 TAVERN 00489 TAVERN 00491 2/17/2009 by the Human Relations Commission 76 TAVERN 00123 TAVERN 00124 2/19/2009 Manager Activity Report 77 TAVERN 00492 TAVERN 00492 2/27/2009 Letter from Bradley Adler to Atlanta Human Relations Commission re: Letter from Bradley Adler to Dorthey Hurst Re: Human Relations Case No. 78 TAVERN 00562 TAVERN 00562 2/27/2009 2009-1001, J. Carroll/J. Shaw v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. Letter from Bradley Adler to Dorthey Hurst re response to February 17, 2009 79 TAVERN 00492 TAVERN 00492 2/27/2009 correspondence 80 5/6/2009 Diagram executed by Joseph Shaw during his deposition 81 6/26/2009 Declaration of Michael Murphy with exhibits 82 2/20/2010 Declaration of Joe Barry Carroll Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Ex-NBA star, lawyer accuse restaurant of 83 4/15/2010 discrimination"

4 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 105 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. BEGDOC ENDDOC DATE DESCRIPTION ABA Journal "Judge Weighs Why Restaurant Asked Lawyer, Ex-NBA Star to 84 4/15/2010 Give Up Seats; Defense Cites "Gentility" 85 4/16/2010 Email from Gregory McCollough to Gerry Weber re: Web FormMail

Email from Broderick Adams to Gerry Weber re: Tavern at Phipps Joe Barry APPENDIX 214 86 4/16/2010 Carroll Case 87 4/19/2010 Email from Vashon Moore to Gerry Weber re: Web FormMail 88 4/21/2010 Declaration of Frederick McCall with exhibits 89 5/2/2010 Email from Jay M. Kulkin, MD to Gerry Weber re:Tavern Lawsuit 90 5/24/2010 Declaration of Marcus Collier Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Judge Recommends Race Discrimination 91 6/1/2010 Suite Against Tavern to proceed" 92 6/15/2010 Declaration of Rodney Odom with exhibits 93 2011 Business license for the Tavern at Phipps 94 2011 Business license for CentraArchy Restaurant Management Company 95 TAVERN 00446 TAVERN 00446 Tavern Rules 96 TAVERN 00449 TAVERN 00449 Women Who Are Offended 97 TAVERN 00430 TAVERN 00433 Handwritten notes of Trevor Adair - guest at Tavern 98 TAVERN 00447 TAVERN 00447 Dress Code Enforced After 5pm For Men: with handwritten notes 99 Diagram of the Bar, Frett Deposition Exhibit 1, Kelly Deposition Exhibit 1 100 Reprint of WSB-TV interview, Carroll Dep.Ex. 7 101 Declaration of Sheena Norris (undated) Chart reflecting summary of Joseph Carroll & Joseph Shaw v. The Tavern at 102 TAVERN 00598 TAVERN 00598 Phipps Handwritten note of Heather Dennis re Direction Given Regarding Cocktail 103 TAVERN 00698 TAVERN 00698 Waitress Incident 104 TAVERN 00493 TAVERN 00551 Defendant Tavern at Phipp's Privileged Documents 105 Demonstrative Evidence for Use at Trial The plaintiff reserves the right to introduce at trial any documents listed by the defendants.

The plaintiff reserves the right to use additional documents for impeachment or rebuttal, the need for which cannot be reasonably foreseen at this time. The plaintiff reserves the right to amend their exhibit list to include documents produced after the filing of the joint proposed pre-trial order.

5 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 106 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Defendants note that date is incorrect; Relevance, Unduly APPENDIX 215 1 6/24/1905 Resume of Heather Queen Dennis Prejudicial, Hearsay Relevance, Unduly 2 12/10/2002 Application of Heather Dennis Prejudicial, Hearsay Memorandum from Meredith McCabe to All CentraArchy 3 12/20/2002 Associates Re: Chris Pappas Relevance, Hearsay Relevance, Unduly 4 7/15/2004 CentraArchy - Guest Incident Report TAVERN 00195 TAVERN 00195 Prejudicial 5 Exhibit Not Used 6 2005 W2's of Joseph B. Carroll 83 83 Relevance CentraArchy Employment 7 3/22/2005 Application of Sheena Norris Relevance, Hearsay Business license for the Tavern at No copy provided by 8 2006 Phipps Plaintiffs for review Business license for CentraArchy No copy provided by 9 2006 Restaurant Management Company Plaintiffs for review 10 2006 W2's of Joseph B. Carroll 84 84 Relevance 11 Exhibit Not Used 12 Exhibit Not Used 13 Exhibit Not Used 14 Exhibit Not Used 15 Exhibit Not Used 16 Exhibit Not Used CentraArchy Handling Guest Complaints instructions from the 17 7/26/2006 Bartending Training Manual TAVERN 00305 TAVERN 00306 Relevance

1 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 107 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION CentraArchy - Bartender Training 18 7/26/2006 Manual - COMPS - VS - VOIDS TAVERN 00329 TAVERN 00329 CentraArchy - Bartender Training

19 7/26/2006 Manual - COMP STAMPS TAVERN 00330 TAVERN 00330 APPENDIX 216 CentraArchy Bartender Training 20 7/26/2006 Manual TAVERN 00296 TAVERN 00332 Relevance Document described is TAVERN 00384-422 and should not include TAVERN 00423-442; Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Waste of 21 7/26/2006 CentraArchy Server Training Manual TAVERN 00384 TAVERN 00442 Time CentraArchy : Handling Guest Relevance, Unduly Complaint from Host Training Prejudicial, Waste of 22 7/26/2006 Manual TAVERN 00134 TAVERN 00134 Time Relevance, Unduly CentraArchy : Manager Support Prejudicial, Waste of 23 7/26/2006 from Host Training Manual TAVERN 00149 TAVERN 00149 Time Tavern at Phipps, Check #378, Table 24 8/11/2006 981 Amount $42.25 TAVERN 00122 TAVERN 00122 25 8/18/2006 Exhibit Not Used 26 8/20/2006 Exhibit Not Used Complaint in the Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta; Joseph Carroll, Joseph Shaw v. The Relevance, Unduly 27 9/22/2006 Tavern at Phipps, Heather Dennis 7 15 Prejudicial, Hearsay

2 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 108 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Letter from Kimberly A. Davis to Joseph Shaw re: HRC File # 2006-10- Relevance, Unduly 28 10/5/2006 01 and complaint received TAVERN 00554 TAVERN 00554 Prejudicial, Hearsay APPENDIX 217 Authenticity, as the copy provided by Plaintiffs includes additional pages Letter from Kimberly A. Davis to beyond TAVERN Joseph Carroll re: HRC File #2006- 00591; Relevance, 10-01 and attached Atlanta Human Unduly Prejudicial, 29 10/5/2006 Relations Commission Bylaws TAVERN 00591 TAVERN 00591 Hearsay CentraArchy - Guest Incident Relevance, Unduly 30 11/7/2006 Procedures TAVERN 00194 TAVERN 00195 Prejudicial, Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 31 2007 Affidavit of James Devin Frett TAVERN 00468 TAVERN 00470 Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 32 2007 Affidavit of Rick Russell TAVERN 00471 TAVERN 00474 Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 33 2007 Affidavit of Heather Dennis TAVERN 00475 TAVERN 00477 Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 34 2007 Affidavit of Nehemiah Sanders TAVERN 00478 TAVERN 00480 Cumulative

3 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 109 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION

Defendants note that this document includes APPENDIX 218 2006 as well; 35 2007 W2's of Joseph B. Carroll 85 85 Relevance Letter from Bradley T. Adler to Kimberly Davis West responding to Relevance, Unduly 36 1/15/2007 correspondence of January 8, 2007 TAVERN 00483 TAVERN 00485 Prejudicial, Hearsay Email from Kelly McNabb to [email protected] re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Relevance, Unduly 37 1/15/2007 Phipps, et al. TAVERN 00487 TAVERN 00487 Prejudicial, Hearsay Facsimile from Kimberly West to Bradley Adler enclosing letter to Heather Dennis from Kimberly Relevance, Unduly 38 1/16/2007 Davis West re investigation initiated TAVERN 00481 TAVERN 00482 Prejudicial, Hearsay Email from Kelly McNabb to [email protected] re Joseph Relevance, Unduly Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Prejudicial, Hearsay, 39 1/16/2007 Phipps, et al. TAVERN 00488 TAVERN 00488 Cumulative Respondents' Letter from Bradley Adler to Kimberly Davis West re Answer in The Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta, Case Relevance, Unduly 40 1/30/2007 No. 2006 10 01 TAVERN 00461 TAVERN 00465 Prejudicial, Hearsay

4 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 110 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Letter from Bradley T. Adler to Kimberly Davis West enclosing original plus one of Respondents' Answer and Position Statement in APPENDIX 219 Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Relevance, Unduly 41 1/30/2007 Phipps, et al. TAVERN 00460 TAVERN 00460 Prejudicial, Hearsay Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 42 1/30/2007 Affidavit of Ramon Arocha TAVERN 00466 TAVERN 00467 Cumulative Respondents' Answer in the Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta; Joseph Carroll, Joseph Shaw v. The Tavern at Phipps and Relevance, Unduly 43 1/30/2007 Heather Dennis; 16 22 Prejudicial, Hearsay Notice of Hearing from Dorthey Hurst, the Human Relations Commission on March 14, 2007, to Joseph Carroll; Joseph Shaw, Brad Relevance, Unduly 44 2/13/2007 Adler TAVERN 00559 TAVERN 00560 Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Joseph Shaw; Joseph Carroll; Bradley Adler re Case # 2006-10-01 and a preliminary investigation prior to Relevance, Unduly 45 3/1/2007 hearing TAVERN 00558 TAVERN 00558 Prejudicial, Hearsay

Letter from K. Prabhaker Reddy to Bradley Adler re Tavern and Dennis Relevance, Unduly 46 3/19/2007 were found in violation of City Code TAVERN 00459 TAVERN 00459 Prejudicial, Hearsay

5 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 111 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Email from Brad Adler to KP Reddy re Tavern/Carroll and witness Relevance, Unduly 47 4/20/2007 interviews TAVERN 00458 TAVERN 00458 Prejudicial, Hearsay APPENDIX 220 Email from Brad Adler to KP Reddy Relevance, Unduly 48 5/16/2007 re RE: Shaw v. The Tavern TAVERN 00457 TAVERN 00457 Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Bradley Adler of Respondents to KP Reddy in Support of Respondents' Statement of Relevance, Unduly 49 5/23/2007 Position TAVERN 00450 TAVERN 00453 Prejudicial, Hearsay

Email from Sandy Almeida to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. (The Human Relations Commission, City of Atlanta Case Relevance, Unduly 50 5/23/2007 No. 206 10 01) TAVERN 00455 TAVERN 00455 Prejudicial, Hearsay Email from Sandy Almeida to Greg Greenbaum re Joseph Carroll, et al. v. The Tavern at Phipps, et al. (The Relevance, Unduly Human Relations Commission, City Prejudicial, Hearsay, 51 5/23/2007 of Atlanta Case No. 206 10 01) TAVERN 00456 TAVERN 00456 Cumulative Memorandum from Dorthey Hurst to Joseph Carroll; Joseph Shaw, et al. Relevance, Unduly 52 7/17/2007 re Case #2006-10-01 Prejudicial, Hearsay

6 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 112 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Relevance, Unduly Human Relations Commission Prejudicial, Hearsay, 53 9/19/2007 Hearing Transcript 29 82 Cumulative APPENDIX 221 Order in the Joseph B. Carroll & Relevance, Unduly 54 10/10/2007 LetterJoseph from Shaw Dorthey v. The TavernHurst to at Joseph TAVERN 00603 TAVERN 00604 Prejudicial, Hearsay Carroll; Joseph Shaw; Bradley Adler re: Human Relations Commission Case # 2006-10-01, J. Carroll/J. Relevance, Unduly Shaw vs. Tavern at Phipps; Prejudicial, Hearsay, 55 10/10/2007 determination letter 46Cumulative Avril Liburd Court Reporting Invoice No. 02342 : Joseph Relevance, Unduly 56 10/29/2007 Shaw/Joseph Carroll v. The Tavern Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Joseph S. Shaw to CentraArchy re: Human Relations Commission Case #2006-10-01, Tavern and Heather Dennis found in Relevance, Unduly 57 11/6/2007 violation of City Code Prejudicial, Hearsay Document described is TAVERN 00352-355 and should not include TAVERN 00356; CentraArchy : Guidelines For Relevance, Unduly 58 11/21/2007 Discipline and Discharge TAVERN 00352 TAVERN 00356 Prejudicial CentraArchy : Policy Violation Relevance, Unduly 59 11/21/2007 Reporting Procedure TAVERN 00345 TAVERN 00346 Prejudicial

7 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 113 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Letter from Gerry Weber; Hollie Manheimer to Tavern at Phipps re

Racial and Gender Profiling Relevance, Unduly APPENDIX 222 Incident; The Tavern at Phipps - Prejudicial, Hearsay, August 11, 2006 attaching Human Inadmissible Offer to 60 6/9/2008 Relations Commission Order 16Compromise

Defendants note the copy provided by Plaintiffs does not have bates numbers; Relevance, Unduly Atlanta Journal-Constitution Prejudicial, Hearsay, "Former NBA all-star suing Tavern Cumulative, Waste of 61 8/6/2008 at Phipps" 88 89 Time Email from Ken Kurtz to Lindsay McConnell re If there is any truth to the story in the AJC today … TTAP Relevance, Unduly 62 8/7/2008 is toast TAVERN 00427 TAVERN 00427 Prejudicial, Hearsay Relevance, Unduly Atlanta Journal-Constitution article Prejudicial, Hearsay, "Ex NBA star files discrimination Cumulative, Waste of 63 8/7/2008 suit" Time Relevance, Unduly ABA Journal "Suit : Ex-NBA All- Prejudicial, Hearsay, Star Asked to Give Up Seat for Cumulative, Waste of 64 8/7/2008 White Woman" 90 90 Time

8 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 114 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Relevance, Unduly Plaintiff's Press Release "Former Prejudicial, Hearsay, NBA Star Sues Atlanta Restaurant Cumulative, Waste of APPENDIX 223 65 8/8/2008 for Race Discrimination" 86 87 Time Email string from Chris Pappas to Joseph Shaw Re: Former NBA all- Relevance, Unduly 66 8/13/2008 star suing Tavern at Phipps Prejudicial, Hearsay Not a true and correct copy of the original email - the email has been altered and Email string from Joseph Shaw to appears incomplete; Chris Pappas re: Tavern at Phipps Relevance, Unduly 67 9/8/2008 Plaza and Heather Dennis Prejudicial, Hearsay Not a true and correct copy of the original email - the email has been altered; Email string from Michael Murphy Relevance, Unduly to Joseph Shaw re: The Tavern at Prejudicial, Hearsay, 68 9/10/2008 Phipps TAVERN 00125 TAVERN 00125 Cumulative

9 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 115 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION

Not a true and correct copy of the original

email - the email APPENDIX 224 appears incomplete; Email from Michael Murphy to Relevance, Unduly Joseph Shaw re The Tavern at Prejudicial, Hearsay, 69 9/10/2008 Phipps - Gmail Cumulative Email from Michael Murphy to Relevance, Unduly Joseph Shaw re The Tavern at Prejudicial, Hearsay, 70 9/10/2008 Phipps - Yahoo full version Cumulative Letter from Gerry Weber, Hollie Manheimer to Dorthey Hurst re results of post-hearing compliance Relevance, Unduly 71 10/9/2008 investigation TAVERN 00592 TAVERN 00594 Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Joe Barry Carroll re: the findings of the Human Relations Relevance, Unduly 72 11/3/2008 Commission for the City of Atlanta 91 92 Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Atlanta Human Relations Relevance, Unduly 73 2/17/2009 Commission to Bradley Adler re: TAVERN 00489 TAVERN 00491 Prejudicial, Hearsay Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Bradley Adler Re: Human Relations Relevance, Unduly Commission Case #2006-10-01, J. Prejudicial, Hearsay, 74 2/17/2009 Carroll/J. Shaw vs. Tavern at Phipps TAVERN 00595 TAVERN 00595 Cumulative Letter from Dorthey Hurst to Bradley Adler attaching determination Relevance, Unduly rendered by the Human Relations Prejudicial, Hearsay, 75 2/17/2009 Commission TAVERN 00489 TAVERN 00491 Cumulative

10 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 116 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION 76 2/19/2009 Manager Activity Report TAVERN 00123 TAVERN 00124

Letter from Bradley Adler to Atlanta Relevance, Unduly 77 2/27/2009 Human Relations Commission re: TAVERN 00492 TAVERN 00492 Prejudicial, Hearsay APPENDIX 225 Letter from Bradley Adler to Dorthey Hurst Re: Human Relations Case Relevance, Unduly No. 2009-1001, J. Carroll/J. Shaw v. Prejudicial, Hearsay, 78 2/27/2009 The Tavern at Phipps, et al. TAVERN 00562 TAVERN 00562 Cumulative Letter from Bradley Adler to Dorthey Relevance, Unduly Hurst re response to February 17, Prejudicial, Hearsay, 79 2/27/2009 2009 correspondence TAVERN 00492 TAVERN 00492 Cumulative Diagram executed by Joseph Shaw 80 5/6/2009 during his deposition Relevance, Unduly Declaration of Michael Murphy with Prejudicial, Hearsay, 81 6/26/2009 exhibits Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 82 2/20/2010 Declaration of Joe Barry Carroll Cumulative Atlanta Journal-Constitution article Relevance, Unduly "Ex-NBA star, lawyer accuse Prejudicial, Hearsay, 83 4/15/2010 restaurant of discrimination" Cumulative

11 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 117 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION

Defendants note that Plaintiffs provided a copy which not only APPENDIX 226 includes the article, but also comments; ABA Journal "Judge Weighs Why Relevance, Unduly Restaurant Asked Lawyer, Ex-NBA Prejudicial, Hearsay, Star to Give Up Seats; Defense Cumulative, Waste of 84 4/15/2010 Cites "Gentility" Time Relevance, Unduly Email from Gregory McCollough to Prejudicial, Hearsay, 85 4/16/2010 Gerry Weber re: Web FormMail Cumulative Email from Broderick Adams to Relevance, Unduly Gerry Weber re: Tavern at Phipps Prejudicial, Hearsay, 86 4/16/2010 Joe Barry Carroll Case Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Email from Vashon Moore to Gerry Prejudicial, Hearsay, 87 4/19/2010 Weber re: Web FormMail Cumulative Relevance, Unduly Declaration of Frederick McCall Prejudicial, Hearsay, 88 4/21/2010 with exhibits Cumulative Defendants note that the date of email is 6/3/2010; Relevance, Email from Jay M. Kulkin, MD to Unduly Prejudicial, 89 5/2/2010 Gerry Weber re:Tavern Lawsuit Hearsay, Cumulative

12 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 118 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, 90 5/24/2010 Declaration of Marcus Collier Cumulative APPENDIX 227 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article Relevance, Unduly "Judge Recommends Race Prejudicial, Hearsay, Discrimination Suite Against Tavern Cumulative, Waste of 91 6/1/2010 to proceed" Time Relevance, Unduly Declaration of Rodney Odom with Prejudicial, Hearsay, 92 6/15/2010 exhibits Cumulative Business license for the Tavern at No copy provided by 93 2011 Phipps Plaintiffs for review Business license for CentraArchy No copy provided by 94 2011 Restaurant Management Company Plaintiffs for review Relevance, Unduly 95 Tavern Rules TAVERN 00446 TAVERN 00446 Prejudicial, Hearsay Relevance, Unduly 96 Women Who Are Offended TAVERN 00449 TAVERN 00449 Prejudicial, Hearsay Handwritten notes of Trevor Adair - Relevance, Unduly 97 guest at Tavern TAVERN 00430 TAVERN 00433 Prejudicial, Hearsay Dress Code Enforced After 5pm For Relevance, Unduly 98 Men: with handwritten notes TAVERN 00447 TAVERN 00447 Prejudicial, Hearsay Diagram of the Bar, Frett Deposition Exhibit 1, Kelly Deposition Exhibit 99 1

13 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 119 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-1" DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT LIST EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Relevance, Unduly Prejudicial, Hearsay, Reprint of WSB-TV interview, Cumulative, Waste of APPENDIX 228 100 Carroll Dep.Ex. 7 Time Relevance, Unduly Declaration of Sheena Norris Prejudicial, Hearsay, 101 (undated) Cumulative Chart reflecting summary of Joseph Carroll & Joseph Shaw v. The Relevance, Unduly 102 Tavern at Phipps TAVERN 00598 TAVERN 00598 Prejudicial, Hearsay

Handwritten note of Heather Dennis re Direction Given Regarding 103 Cocktail Waitress Incident TAVERN 00698 TAVERN 00698 Relevance, Hearsay

Privilege; Defendants properly withheld these documents on the basis of privilege and provided a privilege log; Defendants never Defendant Tavern at Phipp's moved to compel 104 Privileged Documents TAVERN 00493 TAVERN 00551 production No copy provided by Plaintiffs for review Demonstrative Evidence for Use at prior to filing Amended 105 Trial Pretrial Order

14 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 120 of 146

ATTACHMENT “G-2” – DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT LIST See following pages, which includes Defendants’ Exhibit List and Plaintiffs’

Objections.

G2-1

APPENDIX 229 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 121 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC 1 8/11/2006 Tavern Receipt No. 387 Tavern 00122 Tavern 00122 2 8/11/2006 Tavern Manager Activity Report for Receipt No. 387 Tavern 00123 Tavern 00124 3 Floor Plan of the Patio Area of The Tavern Tavern 00152 Tavern 00152 4 Floor Plan of the Restaurant Area of The Tavern Tavern 00153 Tavern 00153

Email forwarding complaint from Bob Feldberg regarding bar APPENDIX 230 5 8/18/2006 seating policy Tavern 00424 Tavern 00425 6 8/20/2006 Email response from Meredith McCabe to Bob Feldberg Tavern 00426 Tavern 00426 Meredith McCabe’s Notes regarding telephone call with 7 Trevor Adair regarding bar seating policy Tavern 00430 Tavern 00433 8 Memorandum titled “Tavern Rules” Tavern 00446 Tavern 00446 CentraArchy Management Employment Application of Heather 9 Dennis (Dennis Dep. Ex. 8) CentraArchy Management Employment Application for 10 Sheena Norris Tavern 00613 Tavern 00615 11 4/2/2005 Email from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00616 Tavern 00616 12 2/16/2006 Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00617 Tavern 00617 Letter from Sheena Norris to Heather Dennis, Matt Banker, 13 3/30/2006 and Meredith McCabe Tavern 00618 Tavern 00618 Email from Meredith McCabe to Julie Smith, copy to [email protected], Heather Dennis, and NYPATLOP@ 14 4/3/2006 bellsouth.net Tavern 00619 Tavern 00619 15 4/12/2006 Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe and Heather Tavern 00620 Tavern 00620 16 CentraArchy Vacation Policy - Management/ Administrative Tavern 00621 Tavern 00621 Email string from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe 17 4/13/2006 forwarding email from Sheena Norris Tavern 00622 Tavern 00622 18 4/13/2006 Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00623 Tavern 00623 Weekly Schedule - Management, for NYP ATL, Period 4, 19 Week 2 Tavern 00624 Tavern 00624 20 4/13/2006 Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris Tavern 00625 Tavern 00625 21 4/14/2006 Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00626 Tavern 00626 22 4/16/2006 Emails between Heather Dennis and Meredith McCabe Tavern 00627 Tavern 00627 23 4/17/2006 Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00628 Tavern 00628

1 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 122 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris, with blind 24 4/17/2006 copy to Julie Smith Tavern 00629 Tavern 00629 25 4/17/2006 Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00630 Tavern 00630 26 4/17/2006 Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris Tavern 00631 Tavern 00631

27 4/4/2006 Statement from The Best Little Flower Shop to The Tavern Tavern 00632 Tavern 00632 APPENDIX 231 28 12/23/2005 CentraArchy Payroll Information Sheet for Sheena Norris Tavern 00633 Tavern 00633 29 1/12/2006 CentraArchy Payroll Information Sheet for Sheena Norris Tavern 00634 Tavern 00634 Copy of Pedro M.’s Tip Out sheet for March 31, 2005 - April 30 4/4/2005 2, 2005 attached to a form with handwritten notes Tavern 00635 Tavern 00635 31 5/25/2006 Email from Stephanie Witt to Julie Smith Tavern 00636 Tavern 00636 Typewritten Notes: “Incident 1 - March 29th - Missing $2,000” 32 and “Incident 2 - March 31st - Missing $4,000” Tavern 00637 Tavern 00637 33 7/23/2009 Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky Tavern 00638 Tavern 00640 34 11/25/2009 Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky 35 7/20/2011 Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky CentraArchy Written Employee Counseling Report for Chris 36 12/6/2004 Pappas Tavern 00641 Tavern 00642 CentraArchy Written Employee Counseling Report for Chris 37 5/12/2004 Pappas Tavern 00643 Tavern 00644 Handwritten note from Heather - Direction given regarding 38 cocktail waitress incident Tavern 00645 Tavern 00645 39 12/31/2004 Appraisal Questions for OP Development for Chris Pappas Tavern 00646 Tavern 00649 40 3/13/2004 Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 3, Week: 4 Tavern 00655 Tavern 00655 41 1/3/2005 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00668 Tavern 00668 42 3/23/2004 Receipt, for order placed on web site Lambriarvet.com Tavern 00669 Tavern 00669 43 9/23/2004 Express Mail label from Chris Pappas to Vladimir Ribartchouk Tavern 00670 Tavern 00670 44 7/22/2004 Receipt for Priority Mail shipments totaling $30.85 Tavern 00671 Tavern 00671 45 7/22/2004 Express Mail label from Larry Hernandez to BC Software Tavern 00672 Tavern 00672 Untitled document with mailing instructions for $2000 cash to 46 be mailed to Vladimir Ribartchouk Tavern 00673 Tavern 00673 47 1/23/2003 Email from “Ironvet” to [email protected] Tavern 00674 Tavern 00674 48 FedEx Airbill from Chris Pappas to Olivia Martinez Tavern 00675 Tavern 00675

2 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 123 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC Memo by Meredith McCabe titled, Chris Pappas, Steroid Sales 49 12/16/2004 Allegations Investigation Tavern 00676 Tavern 00676 50 12/15/2004 Statement regarding Chris Pappas by Heather Dennis Tavern 00677 Tavern 00677 Notes on phone conversation with Officers Sanders and 51 12/15/2004 Alvarez, and Chris Pappas by Meredith McCabe Tavern 00678 Tavern 00678 APPENDIX 232 52 12/15/2004 Handwritten notes - Larry Miller, OP NYP ATL Tavern 00679 Tavern 00680 53 12/14/2004 Statement regarding Chris Pappas by Heather Dennis Tavern 00681 Tavern 00681 Handwritten notes with first names only, a FedEx label 54 number, and steroid drug information Tavern 00682 Tavern 00682 Money Transfer Receipt from Publix at Lenox Marketplace 55 5/27/2004 and Handwritten note: email address: Tavern 00683 Tavern 00684 56 Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 10, Week: 2 Tavern 00685 Tavern 00685 57 9/5/2004 Express Mail label from Larry Hernandez to The Upsman Tavern 00686 Tavern 00686 58 Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 7, Week: 3 Tavern 00687 Tavern 00687 Copy of 2 Express Mail labels from Larry Hernandez to Monster Productions dated September 16, 2004, and from 59 9/16/2004 Larry Hernandez David Sheppard on June 24, 2004 Tavern 00688 Tavern 00688 Western Union Customer Receipt for $410.00 from 60 9/1/2004 Perry/Smith for Pat Jackson Tavern 00689 Tavern 00689 Western Union Money Transfer from Keisha Jackson to Kim 61 5/31/2004 Rider for $565.00 Tavern 00690 Tavern 00690 62 6/25/2004 Express Mail label from Chris Pappas to Wire 2 Etc Tavern 00691 Tavern 00691 63 9/7/2004 Money Gram from Kellie Jefferson to Sarah Taylor Tavern 00692 Tavern 00692 64 8/1/2003 Pay Pal Packing Slip from Chris Pappas to Richard Smith Tavern 00693 Tavern 00693 65 11/25/2004 Email from Chris Pappas to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00703 Tavern 00703 66 10/25/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00704 Tavern 00704 67 9/17/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00705 Tavern 00705 68 9/14/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00706 Tavern 00706 69 8/30/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00707 Tavern 00707 Email from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe, copy to 70 10/22/2004 Chris Pappas Tavern 00709 Tavern 00709 71 7/11/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00710 Tavern 00710

3 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 124 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC Email from Robert Kinsella (CentraArchy) to Chris Pappas, 72 7/11/2004 copy to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00711 Tavern 00711 73 6/30/2004 Email string from Dave Kelly to Robert Kinsella Tavern 00712 Tavern 00712 Email from Meredith McCabe to [email protected],

Chris Pappas, [email protected], copy to APPENDIX 233 74 7/8/2004 Heather Dennis and [email protected] Tavern 00713 Tavern 00713 75 5/17/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00714 Tavern 00714 76 6/4/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00715 Tavern 00715 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas, copy to 77 5/6/2004 Heather Dennis Tavern 00716 Tavern 00716 78 Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 8, Week: 4 Tavern 00717 Tavern 00717 79 12/20/2002 Memo from Meredith McCabe to All CentraArchy Associates Tavern 00718 Tavern 00718 80 CentraArchy Manager Profile Form for Chris Pappas Tavern 00720 Tavern 00720 81 Tavern at Phips Cost of Beer for 2003-2007 Tavern 00721 Tavern 00802 Drawing of the bar area at The Tavern by Plaintiff Shaw (Shaw 82 Dep. Ex. 4) Drawing of the bar area at The Tavern by Patrick Kelly (Kelly 83 Dep. Ex. 1) State Tax Execution filed by Georgia Department of Revenue against Joseph S. Shaw, Execution No. REV05039654, Lien 2005-0259273 filed in Lien Bk 306, Pg 333 of the Clerk of the 84 7/27/2005 Superior Court, Fulton County, GA State Tax Execution filed by Georgia Department of Revenue against Joseph S. Shaw, Execution No. REV05039654, Lien 2011-0072111 filed in Lien Bk 1981, Pg 632 of the Clerk of 85 3/2/2011 the Superior Court, Fulton County, GA Writ of Fi Fa, Capital One Bank v. Shaw, Civil Action No. 06VS10624J, State Court of Fulton County, Lien 2010- 0291451 filed in Lien Bk 1692, Pg 90 of the Clerk of the 86 7/23/2010 Superior Court, Fulton County, GA

4 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 125 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC Statement of Claim, NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. Assignee of Bank of America v. Joseph S. Shaw, Case. No. 87 1/28/2009 09MS091545, Magistrate Court of Fulton County, GA 88 The Tavern - Location TAV01 TAV01 89 The Tavern - Floor Plan TAV02 TAV02 APPENDIX 234 90 The Tavern - Floor Plan TAV03 TAV03 91 The Tavern - Bar Area TAV04 TAV04 92 The Tavern - Main Bar TAV05 TAV05 93 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV01 TV01 94 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV02 TV02 95 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV03 TV03 96 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV04 TV04 97 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV05 TV05 98 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV06 TV06 99 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV07 TV07 100 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV08 TV08 101 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV09 TV09 102 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV10 TV10 103 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV11 TV11 104 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV12 TV12 105 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV13 TV13 106 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV14 TV14 107 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV15 TV15 108 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV16 TV16 109 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV17 TV17 110 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV18 TV18 111 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV19 TV19 112 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV20 TV20 113 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV21 TV21 114 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV22 TV22 115 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV23 TV23 116 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV24 TV24

5 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 126 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST ADMITTED EXH. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC 117 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV25 TV25 118 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV26 TV26 119 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV27 TV27 120 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV28 TV28

121 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV29 TV29 APPENDIX 235 122 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV30 TV30 123 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV31 TV31 124 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV32 TV32 125 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV33 TV33 126 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV34 TV34 127 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV35 TV35 128 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV36 TV36 129 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV37 TV37 130 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV38 TV38 131 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV39 TV39 132 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV40 TV40 133 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC01 RC01 134 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC02 RC02 135 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC03 RC03 136 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC04 RC04 137 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC05 RC05 138 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC06 RC06 139 Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead RC07 RC07 140 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO01 NO01 141 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO02 NO02 142 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO03 NO03 143 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO04 NO04 145 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO05 NO05 146 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO06 NO06 147 2005 G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans NO07 NO07 Demonstrative video of the interior of The Tavern, including 148 the bar area

6 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 127 of 146 ATTACHMENT "G-2" DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

Defendants reserve the right to introduce at trial any documents listed by Plaintiffs. Defendants reserve the right to amend their exhibit list to include documents produced after the filing of the Amended Pretrial Order. Defendants reserve the right to introduce any and all documents received as the result of trial subpoenas but not yet received. Defendants reserve the right to use additional documents for impeachment or rebuttal, the need for which cannot be reasonably foreseen.

By designating exhibits, Defendants do not waive, and hereby expressly reserve, their right to object to the admissibility of these APPENDIX 236 documents.

7 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 128 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION 1 8/11/2006 Tavern Receipt No. 387 Tavern 00122 Tavern 00122 2 8/11/2006 Tavern Manager Activity Report for Receipt No. 387 Tavern 00123 Tavern 00124 3 Floor Plan of the Patio Area of The Tavern Tavern 00152 Tavern 00152

4 Floor Plan of the Restaurant Area of The Tavern Tavern 00153 Tavern 00153 APPENDIX 237 Email forwarding complaint from Bob Feldberg regarding bar 5 8/18/2006 seating policy Tavern 00424 Tavern 00425 Hearsay, Relevance 6 8/20/2006 Email response from Meredith McCabe to Bob Feldberg Tavern 00426 Tavern 00426 Meredith McCabe’s Notes regarding telephone call with Trevor 7 Adair regarding bar seating policy Tavern 00430 Tavern 00433 8 Memorandum titled “Tavern Rules” Tavern 00446 Tavern 00446 CentraArchy Management Employment Application of Heather 9 Dennis (Dennis Dep. Ex. 8) CentraArchy Management Employment Application for Sheena 10 Norris Tavern 00613 Tavern 00615 11 4/2/2005 Email from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00616 Tavern 00616 Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Unduly 12 2/16/2006 Tavern 00617 Tavern 00617 Prejudicial Letter from Sheena Norris to Heather Dennis, Matt Banker, and 13 3/30/2006 Meredith McCabe Tavern 00618 Tavern 00618 Relevance Email from Meredith McCabe to Julie Smith, copy to [email protected], Heather Dennis, and NYPATLOP@ 14 4/3/2006 bellsouth.net Tavern 00619 Tavern 00619 Relevance Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe and Heather 15 4/12/2006 Dennis Tavern 00620 Tavern 00620 Relevance 16 CentraArchy Vacation Policy - Management/ Administrative Tavern 00621 Tavern 00621 Relevance Email string from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of 17 4/13/2006 forwarding email from Sheena Norris Tavern 00622 Tavern 00622 Time Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of 18 4/13/2006 Tavern 00623 Tavern 00623 Time Weekly Schedule - Management, for NYP ATL, Period 4, 19 Week 2 Tavern 00624 Tavern 00624

1 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 129 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris Relevance, Waste of 20 4/13/2006 Tavern 00625 Tavern 00625 Time, Cumulative Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of

21 4/14/2006 Tavern 00626 Tavern 00626 Time, Cumulative APPENDIX 238 Emails between Heather Dennis and Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of 22 4/16/2006 Tavern 00627 Tavern 00627 Time, Cumulative Email from Julie Smith to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of 23 4/17/2006 Tavern 00628 Tavern 00628 Time, Cumulative Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris, with blind copy Relevance, Waste of 24 4/17/2006 to Julie Smith Tavern 00629 Tavern 00629 Time, Cumulative Email from Sheena Norris to Meredith McCabe Relevance, Waste of 25 4/17/2006 Tavern 00630 Tavern 00630 Time, Cumulative Email from Meredith McCabe to Sheena Norris Relevance, Waste of 26 4/17/2006 Tavern 00631 Tavern 00631 Time, Cumulative Statement from The Best Little Flower Shop to The Tavern Relevance, Waste of 27 4/4/2006 Tavern 00632 Tavern 00632 Time, Cumulative 28 12/23/2005 CentraArchy Payroll Information Sheet for Sheena Norris Tavern 00633 Tavern 00633 29 1/12/2006 CentraArchy Payroll Information Sheet for Sheena Norris Tavern 00634 Tavern 00634 Copy of Pedro M.’s Tip Out sheet for March 31, 2005 - April 2, 30 4/4/2005 2005 attached to a form with handwritten notes Tavern 00635 Tavern 00635 Relevance 31 5/25/2006 Email from Stephanie Witt to Julie Smith Tavern 00636 Tavern 00636 Hearsay, Relevance Typewritten Notes: “Incident 1 - March 29th - Missing $2,000” 32 and “Incident 2 - March 31st - Missing $4,000” Tavern 00637 Tavern 00637 Hearsay, Relevance 33 7/23/2009 Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky Tavern 00638 Tavern 00640 Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky Unduly Prejudicial, 34 11/25/2009 Late Disclosure Email from Sheena Norris to Stephanie Oginsky Unduly Prejudicial, 35 7/20/2011 Late Disclosure CentraArchy Written Employee Counseling Report for Chris 36 12/6/2004 Pappas Tavern 00641 Tavern 00642 Relevance CentraArchy Written Employee Counseling Report for Chris 37 5/12/2004 Pappas Tavern 00643 Tavern 00644 Relevance

2 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 130 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Handwritten note from Heather - Direction given regarding 38 cocktail waitress incident Tavern 00645 Tavern 00645 Relevance 39 12/31/2004 Appraisal Questions for OP Development for Chris Pappas Tavern 00646 Tavern 00649 Hearsay, Relevance

Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 3, Week: 4 APPENDIX 239 40 3/13/2004 Tavern 00655 Tavern 00655 Relevance Email from Meredith McCabe Relevance, Impermissible 41 1/3/2005 Tavern 00668 Tavern 00668 Character Evidence 42 3/23/2004 Receipt, for order placed on web site Lambriarvet.com Tavern 00669 Tavern 00669 Relevance Express Mail label from Chris Pappas to Vladimir Ribartchouk 43 9/23/2004 Tavern 00670 Tavern 00670 Relevance 44 7/22/2004 Receipt for Priority Mail shipments totaling $30.85 Tavern 00671 Tavern 00671 Relevance 45 7/22/2004 Express Mail label from Larry Hernandez to BC Software Tavern 00672 Tavern 00672 Relevance Untitled document with mailing instructions for $2000 cash to 46 be mailed to Vladimir Ribartchouk Tavern 00673 Tavern 00673 Relevance 47 1/23/2003 Email from “Ironvet” to [email protected] Tavern 00674 Tavern 00674 Relevance 48 FedEx Airbill from Chris Pappas to Olivia Martinez Tavern 00675 Tavern 00675 Relevance Memo by Meredith McCabe titled, Chris Pappas, Steroid Sales Relevance, Allegations Investigation Impermissible 49 12/16/2004 Tavern 00676 Tavern 00676 Character Evidence Statement regarding Chris Pappas by Heather Dennis Relevance, Impermissible 50 12/15/2004 Tavern 00677 Tavern 00677 Character Evidence Notes on phone conversation with Officers Sanders and Relevance, Alvarez, and Chris Pappas by Meredith McCabe Impermissible Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 51 12/15/2004 Tavern 00678 Tavern 00678 Prejudicial

3 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 131 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Handwritten notes - Larry Miller, OP NYP ATL Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence,

Hearsay, Unduly APPENDIX 240 52 12/15/2004 Tavern 00679 Tavern 00680 Prejudicial Statement regarding Chris Pappas by Heather Dennis Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 53 12/14/2004 Tavern 00681 Tavern 00681 Prejudicial Handwritten notes with first names only, a FedEx label number, Relevance, and steroid drug information Impermissible Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 54 Tavern 00682 Tavern 00682 Prejudicial Money Transfer Receipt from Publix at Lenox Marketplace and Relevance, Handwritten note: email address: Impermissible [email protected] Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 55 5/27/2004 Tavern 00683 Tavern 00684 Prejudicial Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 10, Week: 2 56 Tavern 00685 Tavern 00685 Express Mail label from Larry Hernandez to The Upsman Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 57 9/5/2004 Tavern 00686 Tavern 00686 Prejudicial Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 7, Week: 3 58 Tavern 00687 Tavern 00687

4 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 132 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Copy of 2 Express Mail labels from Larry Hernandez to Relevance, Monster Productions dated September 16, 2004, and from Larry Impermissible Hernandez David Sheppard on June 24, 2004 Character Evidence,

Hearsay, Unduly APPENDIX 241 59 9/16/2004 Tavern 00688 Tavern 00688 Prejudicial Western Union Customer Receipt for $410.00 from Perry/Smith 60 9/1/2004 for Pat Jackson Tavern 00689 Tavern 00689 Relevance Western Union Money Transfer from Keisha Jackson to Kim 61 5/31/2004 Rider for $565.00 Tavern 00690 Tavern 00690 Relevance 62 6/25/2004 Express Mail label from Chris Pappas to Wire 2 Etc Tavern 00691 Tavern 00691 Relevance 63 9/7/2004 Money Gram from Kellie Jefferson to Sarah Taylor Tavern 00692 Tavern 00692 Relevance Pay Pal Packing Slip from Chris Pappas to Richard Smith Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence, Hearsay, Unduly 64 8/1/2003 Tavern 00693 Tavern 00693 Prejudicial 65 11/25/2004 Email from Chris Pappas to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00703 Tavern 00703 Relevance Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Relevance, Impermissible 66 10/25/2004 Tavern 00704 Tavern 00704 Character Evidence 67 9/17/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00705 Tavern 00705 Relevance 68 9/14/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00706 Tavern 00706 Relevance 69 8/30/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00707 Tavern 00707 Relevance Email from Heather Dennis to Meredith McCabe, copy to Chris 70 10/22/2004 Pappas Tavern 00709 Tavern 00709 Relevance 71 7/11/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00710 Tavern 00710 Relevance Email from Robert Kinsella (CentraArchy) to Chris Pappas, 72 7/11/2004 copy to Meredith McCabe Tavern 00711 Tavern 00711 Relevance 73 6/30/2004 Email string from Dave Kelly to Robert Kinsella Tavern 00712 Tavern 00712 Relevance Email from Meredith McCabe to [email protected], Chris Pappas, [email protected], copy to Heather 74 7/8/2004 Dennis and [email protected] Tavern 00713 Tavern 00713 Relevance

5 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 133 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION 75 5/17/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas Tavern 00714 Tavern 00714 Relevance 76 6/4/2004 Email from Meredith McCabe Tavern 00715 Tavern 00715 Relevance Email from Meredith McCabe to Chris Pappas, copy to Heather

77 5/6/2004 Dennis Tavern 00716 Tavern 00716 Relevance APPENDIX 242 Tavern At Phipps Weekly Schedule - Mgt, Period: 8, Week: 4 Relevance, Impermissible 78 Tavern 00717 Tavern 00717 Character Evidence Memo from Meredith McCabe to All CentraArchy Associates 79 12/20/2002 Tavern 00718 Tavern 00718 80 CentraArchy Manager Profile Form for Chris Pappas Tavern 00720 Tavern 00720 Relevance 81 Tavern at Phipps Cost of Beer for 2003-2007 Tavern 00721 Tavern 00802 Drawing of the bar area at The Tavern by Plaintiff Shaw (Shaw 82 Dep. Ex. 4) Drawing of the bar area at The Tavern by Patrick Kelly (Kelly 83 Dep. Ex. 1) State Tax Execution filed by Georgia Department of Revenue Relevance, against Joseph S. Shaw, Execution No. REV05039654, Lien Impermissible 2005-0259273 filed in Lien Bk 306, Pg 333 of the Clerk of the Character Evidence, Superior Court, Fulton County, GA Unduly Prejudicial, 84 7/27/2005 Waste of Time State Tax Execution filed by Georgia Department of Revenue Relevance, against Joseph S. Shaw, Execution No. REV05039654, Lien Impermissible 2011-0072111 filed in Lien Bk 1981, Pg 632 of the Clerk of the Character Evidence, Superior Court, Fulton County, GA Unduly Prejudicial, 85 3/2/2011 Waste of Time Writ of Fi Fa, Capital One Bank v. Shaw, Civil Action No. Relevance, 06VS10624J, State Court of Fulton County, Lien 2010-0291451 Impermissible filed in Lien Bk 1692, Pg 90 of the Clerk of the Superior Court, Character Evidence, Fulton County, GA Unduly Prejudicial, 86 7/23/2010 Waste of Time

6 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 134 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION Bank of America Judgment Against Joseph Shaw Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence,

Unduly Prejudicial, APPENDIX 243 87 Waste of Time 88 The Tavern - Location TAV01 TAV01 Late Disclosure 89 The Tavern - Floor Plan TAV02 TAV02 Late Disclosure 90 The Tavern - Floor Plan TAV03 TAV03 Late Disclosure 91 The Tavern - Bar Area TAV04 TAV04 Late Disclosure 92 The Tavern - Main Bar TAV05 TAV05 Late Disclosure 93 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV01 TV01 Late Disclosure 94 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV02 TV02 Late Disclosure 95 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV03 TV03 Late Disclosure 96 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV04 TV04 Late Disclosure 97 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV05 TV05 Late Disclosure 98 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV06 TV06 Late Disclosure 99 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV07 TV07 Late Disclosure 100 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV08 TV08 Late Disclosure 101 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV09 TV09 Late Disclosure 102 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV10 TV10 Late Disclosure 103 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV11 TV11 Late Disclosure 104 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV12 TV12 Late Disclosure 105 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV13 TV13 Late Disclosure 106 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV14 TV14 Late Disclosure 107 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV15 TV15 Late Disclosure 108 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV16 TV16 Late Disclosure 109 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV17 TV17 Late Disclosure 110 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV18 TV18 Late Disclosure 111 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV19 TV19 Late Disclosure 112 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV20 TV20 Late Disclosure 113 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV21 TV21 Late Disclosure 114 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV22 TV22 Late Disclosure

7 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 135 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION 115 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV23 TV23 Late Disclosure 116 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV24 TV24 Late Disclosure 117 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV25 TV25 Late Disclosure

118 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV26 TV26 Late Disclosure APPENDIX 244 119 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV27 TV27 Late Disclosure 120 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV28 TV28 Late Disclosure 121 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV29 TV29 Late Disclosure 122 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV30 TV30 Late Disclosure 123 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV31 TV31 Late Disclosure 124 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV32 TV32 Late Disclosure 125 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV33 TV33 Late Disclosure 126 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV34 TV34 Late Disclosure 127 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV35 TV35 Late Disclosure 128 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV36 TV36 Late Disclosure 129 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV37 TV37 Late Disclosure 130 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV38 TV38 Late Disclosure 131 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV39 TV39 Late Disclosure 132 Photograph at The Tavern at Phipps TV40 TV40 Late Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 133 RC01 RC01 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 134 RC02 RC02 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 135 RC03 RC03 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 136 RC04 RC04 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 137 RC05 RC05 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 138 RC06 RC06 Disclosure Photograph of Lobby Lounge at Ritz Carlton Buckhead Relevance, Late 139 RC07 RC07 Disclosure

8 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 136 of 146

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

EXH. ADMITTED NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BEGDOC ENDDOC OBJECTION G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 140 2005 NO01 NO01 Time, Late Disclosure

G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans APPENDIX 245 Relevance, Waste of 141 2005 NO02 NO02 Time, Late Disclosure G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 142 2005 NO03 NO03 Time, Late Disclosure G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 143 2005 NO04 NO04 Time, Late Disclosure G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 145 2005 NO05 NO05 Time, Late Disclosure G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 146 2005 NO06 NO06 Time, Late Disclosure G. Greenbaum photograph in New Orleans Relevance, Waste of 147 2005 NO07 NO07 Time, Late Disclosure Demonstrative video of the interior of The Tavern, including the bar area Relevance, Waste of 148 Time, Late Disclosure Plaintiffs' Object Generally to the Late Disclosure of Exhibits

9 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 137 of 146 PLAINTIFFS' ADDENDUM TO OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Exhibit 87: Relevance, Impermissible Character Evidence, Unduly Prejudicial, Waste of Time, and unclear as to whether same exhibit as previously identified as Defendants’ Exhibit 87.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to object or comment on Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, the final of which is still not APPENDIX 246 available for review at 8:15 pm on July 22, 2011. Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 138 of 146

ATTACHMENT “H-1” – PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF None at this time.

H1-1

APPENDIX 247 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 139 of 146

ATTACHMENT “H-2” – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

None at this time.

H2-1

APPENDIX 248 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 140 of 146

ATTACHMENT “I-1” – PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM See following page.

I1-1

APPENDIX 249 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 141 of 146

Plaintiffs Special Verdict Form

Answer each of the following three questions:

1. Did Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. § 2000a by depriving Mr. Carroll and Mr. Shaw of the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations” of The Tavern at Phipps “by discrimination or segregation on the ground of race.”

Yes/No

If so, what amount of damages for Mr. Carroll are appropriate?

If so, what amount of damages for Mr. Shaw are appropriate?

2. Did Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by depriving Mr. Carroll and Mr. Shaw of their rights in the “making, performance, modification, and[/or] termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship” with The Tavern at Phipps?

Yes/No

If so, what amount of damages for Mr. Carroll are appropriate?

If so, what amount of damages for Mr. Shaw are appropriate?

3. Are punitive damages appropriate?

Yes/No

If so, what amount of damages are appropriate?

APPENDIX 250 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 142 of 146

ATTACHMENT “I-2” – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

See following pages.54

ATL 18,185,879v7

54 Defendants reserve the right to modify this proposed Verdict Form in light of subsequent developments in the law or in this case, including rulings by the Court.

I2-1

APPENDIX 251 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 143 of 146

!" #$% &"!#%' (#)#%( '!(#*!+# +,&*# ",*#$%*" '!(#*!+# ,- .%,*.!) )#/)"#) '!0!(!," 1,% 2)**3 +)**,//4 B B 56789:8;;4 B B <= B B +!0!/ )+#!," -!/% #$% #)0%*" +,*5= 79> B ",= CDEFG+0GHICJG#K#G1-L +%"#*))*+$3 *%(#)&*)"# B ?)").%?%"# +,=4 B B '@;@9>79:A= B B 1,(%5$ ($)K4 B B 56789:8;;4 B <= B B +!0!/ )+#!," -!/% #$% #)0%*" +,*5= 79> B ",= CDEFG+0GHIIJG#K#G1-L +%"#*))*+$3 *%(#)&*)"# B ?)").%?%"# +,=4 B B '@;@9>79:A= B B 0%*'!+# -,*?

!" #$ %$& '()* +,-+ ./-()+(''0 12$34* +,-+ #4'4)*-)+0 '-(/4* +$ 142'$25 -)% 6$)+2-6+&-/ $7/(8-+($) $94* +$ ./-()+(''0 -+ :,4 :-342) $) ;&8&0+ !!< =>>?@

:,4 :-342) A$21" BBBBBB CDE BBBBBB FG

A4)+2-;26,% BBBBBB CDE BBBBBB FG

56@7A@ MN :N OP@A:8N9 H=

! APPENDIX 252 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 144 of 146

!" #$ %$& '()* +,-+ ./-()+(''0 12$34* +,-+ #4'4)*-)+0 -054* ./-()+(''0 +$ 6(34 &1 +,4(2 04-+0 -+ +,4 7-2 -+ 8,4 8-342) -)* /-+42 249&(24* ./-()+(''0 +$ /4-34 +,4 240+-&2-)+ $) :&6&0+ ;;< !==> 0$/4/% 74?-&04 +,4% -24 7/-?5@

AAAAAABCD AAAAAA EF

!" #$% &'()*+ ,- .$ /%*(.0$' 12 3$ '$. &'()*+ &'# "%+.4*+ 5%*(.0$'(6 #$%+ 3*708*+&.0$'( &+* 9$:;7*.*3<

!" #$% &'()*+ =>? .$ /%*(.0$' 12 ;7*&(* @$ .$ /%*(.0$' A<

G" H,(?, #4'4)*-)+I0J ()+4)+($)-//% *(0?2(K()-+4* -6-()0+ ./-()+(''0@

8,4 8-342) L$21" AAAAAA BCD AAAAAA EF

L4)+2-:2?,% AAAAAA BCD AAAAAA EF

B7*&(* @$ .$ /%*(.0$' C<

M" #$ %$& '()* +,-+ 4-?, ./-()+('' 12$34* ,4 0&''424* -)% *-K-64 -0 +,4 240&/+ $' +,4 ()+4)+($)-/ *(0?2(K()-+($) $' $)4 $2 7$+, #4'4)*-)+0"

L-22$// AAAAAA BCD AAAAAA EF

D,-N AAAAAA BCD AAAAAA EF

!" #$% &'()*+ ,- .$ /%*(.0$' C "$+ 8$.4 B7&0'.0""(2 3$ '$. &'()*+ &'# "%+.4*+ 5%*(.0$'(6 #$%+ 3*708*+&.0$'( &+* 9$:;7*.*3<

!" #$% &'()*+ =>? .$ /%*(.0$' C "$+ $'* $+ 8$.4 B7&0'.0""(2 ;7*&(* @$ .$ /%*(.0$' D<

! APPENDIX 253 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 145 of 146

"# $%&' &()*+' ), !"#$%&'()"*+ -&(&./0 12, &+34 -2- /&5% 67&2+'2,, 89):/ %/ 20 /+'2'7/- ') 9/5):/9 ,9)( 0*5% ;/,/+-&+'104 &0 ') <%25% 3)* &+0? ') @*/0'2)+0 A &+- !B

C&99)77D E%/ E&:/9+ C)98# FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG C/+'9&H95%3 FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG E)'&7 FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

?%&

I# ;) 3)* ,2+- '%&' 67&2+'2,,0 89):/- '%&' ;/,/+-&+'0 &5'/- ')<&9- '%/( )+ H*.*0' AAJ KLLI <2'% /:27 ()'2:/ )9 2+'/+' )9 5&77)*0 2+-2,,/9/+5/ ') '%/29 ,/-/9&773 89)'/5'/- 92.%'0B

E%/ E&:/9+ C)98# GGGGGG =>? GGGGGG MN

C/+'9&H95%3 GGGGGG =>? GGGGGG MN

,- +". (&'/%* 01 )" 2.%')3"& 4 -"* 5")6 7%-%&8(&)'9 8" &") (&'/%* (&+ -.*)6%* :.%')3"&'; +".* 8%<35%*()3"&' (*% !"#$<%)%8#

,- +". (&'/%* =>? )" 2.%')3"& 4 -"* "&% "* 5")6 7%-%&8(&)'9 $<%('% @" )" 2.%')3"& AB

O# $%&' &()*+' ), $.&3)3C% -&(&./0 12, &+34 -2- /&5% 67&2+'2,, 89):/ %/ 20 /+'2'7/- ') 9/5):/9 ,9)( 0*5% ;/,/+-&+'104 &0 ') <%25% 3)* &+0? ') @*/0'2)+ ID

C&99)77D E%/ E&:/9+ C)98# FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG C/+'9&H95%3 FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG E)'&7 FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

?%&

! APPENDIX 254 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 146 of 146

"#$% &'( )*+% $',-.%/%0 /)12 3%401$/ 5'4,6 -.%*2% )*+% /)% 7(4& 5'4%-%42'# 218# *#0 0*/% 1/ *#0 1#9'4, /)% :*1.199 /)*/ &'( )*+% 4%*$)%0 * (#*#1,'(2 +%401$/;

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 7(4& 5'4%-%42'#

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< =*/%

! APPENDIX 255