Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC MARY M. HULL, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF’s REPLY IN SUPPORT OF (Docket 41) MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DECREE and AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff MARY M. HULL (HULL), through her counsel, hereby submits this reply in support of (Docket 41) her motion for a judicial decree and an award of attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 29 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (FOIA), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

I.

Reply to DOL’s Statement of Facts.

HULL brought this action claiming the DOL’s failure to fully respond to her FOIA request, and the delay in responding was a violation of FOIA. The specifics of the underlying litigation are detailed in the Court’s Order of December 2, 2005 (Docket 28). In a prior filing with this Court, HULL laid out a litany of examples of the DOL’s bad faith behavior which the Court recited in its December 2, 2005 Order. In a super-sized legal brief filed on May 2, 2006 (Docket 49), Government counsel for the DOL makes generalizations, excuses and gives apologies while trying to recast those material facts and contentions which this Court found quite troublesome. HULL addresses the material facts within her following reply arguments.

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

II. A.

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 13

ARGUMENT

The Court Should Grant HULL an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, Since She Substantially Prevailed in this Protracted FOIA Litigation.

No doubt, under the Tenth Circuit’s pre-Buckhannon case law applying the “catalyst theory” standard, HULL’s motion for an award of fees and and expenses would be granted for the simple reason that the filing of this action was necessary to obtain the requested FOIA information and the filing of the action had a substantial causative effect on the delivery of the information. As this Court succinctly put it, “the record strongly suggests that HULL’s lawsuit prompted the DOL to release this information.” (See Docket 28, p. 20). Remarkably, the DOL admits that HULL meets the post-Buckhannon standard because she “substantially prevailed” and, “consequently, Plaintiff is eligible for an award of attorney’s fees and costs.” (Docket 49, DOL Brief at 11). 1 But, the DOL downplays everything HULL achieved and argues Plaintiff is only entitled to receive an award of attorney’s fee in the amount of $375 (Id., DOL Brief at 28). Before this civil action was commenced, HULL started with nothing, not a single page from the DOL’s investigation file. Now, she has practically the whole DOL file, save a few documents that are either clearly protected by an attorney-client privilege or otherwise protected by FOIA Exemption 5, deliberative process documents. From start to finish, the DOL’s handling of HULL’s FOIA request and the DOL’s conduct in this civil action have been quite peculiar. To begin with, at the second step administrative level, the DOL’s Office of the Solicitor did not timely consider HULL’s appeal of the initial FOIA denial. There was no response to HULL’s March 16, 2004 administrative

1

As noted by both parties, to date there is no post -Buckhannon decision by the Tenth Circuit concerning a FOIA attorney’s fee award.

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 3 of 13

appeal for almost 90 days, over 70 days past the deadline. 2 Pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(iii), the Solicitor of the DOL had twenty (20) days from March 16, 2004 within which to make a determination. And, never during this two year old civil action has the DOL established any “unusual circumstances” within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii), to justify the DOL’s delay. ‘Bureaucratic ineptitude,’ as sheepishly proclaimed by the DOL’s counsel, is not a legal excuse. Two purposes for awarding attorney’s fees in a FOIA action are (1) to “encourage Freedom of Information Act suits that benefit the public interest” and (2) to serve “as compensation for enduring an agency’s unreasonable obduracy in refusing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act’s requirements.” LaSalle Extension Univ. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 627 F.2d 481, 484 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Had the DOL timely complied with HULL’s FOIA request in the first instance and had the DOL been candid about the status of the soon to be abandoned investigation, litigation could have been avoided. The DOL forced HULL into a litigation posture which resulted in the Court’s involvement beneficial to HULL. The balance of the following four pertinent factors weigh in favor of granting HULL’s motion for an award of fees and reimbursement of expenses.

1.

Plaintiff’s HULL’s Interest in This Case is Public Oriented; the Information Obtained Satisfies the “Public Benefit” Factor.

First, this civil action resulted in a public benefit for thousands of Qwest Pension Plan participants scattered across the nation. The “public benefit” factor “speaks for an award ‘[of attorney’s fees] when the complainant’s victory is likely to add to the fund of information the

2

It is undisputed that the DOL did not respond to HULL’s administrative appeal until June16, 2004, three months after the appeal was lodged. (See Docket 2, Answer to Complaint, ¶ 11 and Docket 13, DOL’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 2)

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 4 of 13

citizen may use in making vital political choices.” Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995). None of the information that this Court ordered the DOL to produce to HULL was previously in the public domain. For example, the Court ordered disclosures revealed that the DOL had previously recovered for the Qwest Pension Plan over $1.4 million in misspent monies. (See Docket 49, Exhibit E, Bates 754 “Assets Restored Total $1,482,946”). Certainly, since it sought to withhold those facts from HULL, the DOL had never before told any other pension plan participants of those facts. The revelation clearly demonstrates how the government, at one time, was doing its job to protect the rights of thousands of pension plan participants. 3 Public benefit is therefore derived from the disclosure. See Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 339 F.Supp.2d 13, 22 (D.D.C. 2004) (finding public benefit where the disclosure “will assist the citizenry in making informed judgments” about the agency). The FOIA responsive information learned by HULL has been mass distributed by email and posted on the Internet at the AUSWR’s free website for all public viewing. See http://www.uswestretiree.org/legal2.htm#Hull

2.

Plaintiff HULL Has No Commercial Interest At Stake; the Information Obtained Provided No Commercial Benefit to HULL.

Second, there is no truth to the DOL’s suggestion that revelation of the thousands of pages produced to HULL – all of which information relates to her pension plan’s operations – results in a ‘commercial benefit’ to HULL. There is no evidence that HULL seeks to either personally benefit or commercially profit from the FOIA information gained. HULL is not running a business with plans to sell the gathered information. Indeed, HULL is the president of

3

Any reasonable citizen has to wonder why would the DOL want to keep secret the fact that in FebruaryMarch 2000, the agency had restored to the U S WEST/Qwest Pension Plan over $1.4 million in assets? (See Docket 49, Exhibit E, Bates 754 “Assets Restored Total $1,482,946”).

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 5 of 13

the Association of U S WEST Retirees, a non-profit organization and retiree watchdog group. In the opposition brief, counsel for the DOL takes a stab at the fact some Qwest retirees have other litigation pending in the District of Colorado concerning the Qwest Pension Plan. But, the Kerber case filed a year after this FOIA case was commenced concerns a completely unrelated dispute – the partial termination of a long standing defined pension benefit, called the “Pension Death Benefit.” The Kerber case has nothing to do with the FOIA information gathered herein. The information obtained herein was not sought to either prepare for or maintain the Kerber litigation. Lastly, the FOIA request was not made as a substitute for the civil discovery process underway in the Kerber case. Neither HULL nor AUSWR are named parties to the Kerber case.

3.

Plaintiff HULL Has A Substantial Interest In The DOL’s Records That She Sought.

Third, HULL has a substantial interest in the DOL records that she sought. Her FOIA request is totally concerned with what the DOL learned about the operations of the Qwest Pension Plan, which defined benefit plan the DOL was investigating. HULL is a plan participant receiving a monthly annuity payment. She and tens of thousands of others plan participants are very dependent upon the financial well being of the pension plan. The DOL acknowledges that the retiree association of which HULL is an elected officer has voluntarily taken on the mission to foster awareness about the pension plan’s operations and financial condition. Indeed, HULL and the retirees rightfully seek to police their pension plan.

4.

The DOL’s Withholding Did Not Have A Reasonable Basis in Law.

Fourth, the DOL’s withholding of records did not have a reasonable basis in law. Here, there was no reasonable basis for withholding everything and forcing HULL into a litigation -5-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 6 of 13

posture. Not until late December 2004, nine months after the March 3, 2004 FOIA request was received did the DOL begin producing to HULL 4,000 pages, the bulk of the requested responsive papers. This was done while the DOL took the position, in bad faith, that all other documents were exempt from FOIA disclosure on the grounds there was still an “on-going” or active investigation, and that disclosure of those other papers would interfere with the investigation process. HULL continues to argue that the FOIA records produced reveal there was no activity in the subject matter investigation after May 2004. Even, if this Court accepts the DOL’s contention that between May 2004 and April 2005 the “investigation” remained “ongoing,” why in December 2004 was there a dramatic change in the DOL’s original position espoused in March 2004 that not a single page of those 4,000 pages could, then, be turned over to HULL? Obviously, the reason for the change in the DOL’s position is that this lawsuit motivated the DOL to start complying with FOIA. After the DOL admitted the alleged “on-going” investigation, which was truly inactive, had been officially “closed” in early April 2005, the DOL took another seven weeks until late June 2005, to turn over 1,400 pages of additional FOIA responsive information. Unlike the situation in Ellis v. United States, 941 F.Supp. 1068, 1078 (D. Utah 1996) (court discussing the declaration by government official explaining reason for delay) , the DOL’s brief does not include any sworn statement by a DOL official to establish the federal agency was engaging in due diligence, and there are no established facts to substantiate Government counsel’s argument that there was a “failure of communications between various DOL components.” (Docket 49, DOL Brief, at p. 20). Finally, a review of the last batch of papers the DOL produced in February 2006, just ahead of further Court intervention as requested in HULL’s December 29, 2005 filed motion

-6-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 7 of 13

(See Docket 29), 4 confirms there was no activity in the subject matter investigation file during May 2004 through April 2005. Government counsel argues in the DOL’s opposition brief that the “release of these additional documents, one of which was dated March 7, 2005, proves that the investigation remained open between May 2004 and April 2005.” (Docket 49, DOL’s Brief, at p. 21). In rebuttal, HULL files herewith as Exhibit 2 the 39 pages the DOL turned over to her in February 2006. The March 7, 2005 document is an inter-office memorandum outlining what Qwest repaid to the Qwest Savings Plan in December 2001 and June 2002. (See Exhibit 2, go to page hand marked as page 37). That document does not suggest anything was happening between May 2004 and April 2005! Therefore, the undisputed evidence is that nothing was happening, there was no “ongoing” investigation after May 2004. Albeit, the fact the agency’s file was not “officially closed” until April 2005 reflects “bureaucratic ineptitude.” What happened to HULL is not at all like what happened to the FOIA requesters in cases relied upon and cited in the DOL’s brief at pp. 18-19. 5 See Simon v. United States (FOIA request made on February 2, 2003 - FOIA response made in April 2003); Frydman v. Department of Justice, 852 F. Supp. 1497, 1504 (D. Kan 1994) (finding the government “waited three to four months after the [single] document was discovered to inform plaintiff of the document” demonstrated some sluggishness by agency, it did not show bad faith); Republic of New Afrika v. FBI 645 F. Supp. 117, 122 (D.D.C. 1985) (finding the “FBI’s delay in producing documents does not necessarily amount to proof of obdurate behavior or bad faith, especially 4

Since the withheld documents were produced in February 2006, HULL’s December 29, 2005 filed motion (Docket 29) was withdrawn by HULL as being moot. 5

Oddly, in support of its argument that ‘foot dragging’ is not sufficient grounds for awarding attorney’s fees under FOIA, the DOL cited in its brief at pp. 18-19 Guam Contractors’ Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 570 F. Supp. 163 (N.D. Cal 1983). But, the trial court’s decision not to award attorney’s fees in that case was due to the fact that the requesters had clearly by-passed the second step administrative process and hurriedly filed suit seeking the requested FOIA information for “purely commercial purposes” to assist them in a commercial bidding process. That case is inapposite.

-7-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 8 of 13

since the [FOIA Requester] was equally to blame for any delays because it failed to pay reproduction costs in a timely fashion”); Read v. FAA, 252 F. Supp.2d. 1108, 1112 (W.D. WA 2003) (finding the FAA’s “regrettable delay” is not attributable to mere bureaucratic ineptitude” but that taking almost two years to fully respond to the FOIA request “demonstrates recalcitrance and obduracy”). Here, HULL made her FOIA request on March 3, 2004. The last of the responsive documents were placed in the mail by the DOL almost two years later, on February 24, 2006. (See Exhibit 2). Even if the focus, as the DOL would have it, is limited to the reasonableness of the DOL’s withholding documents this Court ordered released after conducting the in camera inspection, the Court should find that the DOL acted unreasonably and that the DOL’s overall recalcitrant and obdurate conduct requires the Government to bear responsibility for HULL’s reasonable attorney's fees.

B.

The Requested $300 Hourly Rate is Reasonable; the Detailed Time Expended Was Necessary; the Very Modest Expenses Were Necessary.

This Court has ample experience awarding reasonable attorney hourly fees based upon the prevailing market rates in the Denver community. This Court can determine an applicable hourly rate relying on its superior knowledge of rates for lawyers with comparable skill and experience practicing in the Denver area. See Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 1998); Praseuth v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 406 F.3d 1245, 1259 (10th Cir.2005) (approving the district court's determination of the applicable hourly rate by “relying on its knowledge of rates for lawyers with comparable skill and experience practicing” in the relevant market). Several months ago, the DOL’s counsel was provided with a curriculum vitae for HULL’s

-8-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 9 of 13

counsel, and a copy is filed herewith as Exhibit 3. 6 It is undisputed that the undersigned counsel has over 23 years experience with complicated federal court litigation. In Bat v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 2006 WL 446078 (D. Colo. February 21, 2006), Magistrate Judge Boland noted that an hourly rate of $350 for an attorney with 24 years experience is within the prevailing market rate for the Denver area. The undersigned counsel has requested payment at the hourly rate of $300. None of the time spent by HULL’s counsel was irrelevant and, certainly, there has been no attempt to gouge the Government. There is no evidence of excessiveness or redundancy. Also, the filing fee ($150) and the photocopying costs ($420) were all necessarily incurred. In her opening brief, HULL revealed her counsel had expended 90 billable hours. The undersigned counsel expended an additional fifteen (18) hours reviewing the DOL’s opposition brief, reviewing case law and performing all other work necessary for drafting this reply brief. The requested fee award is now $32,400, based upon a total 108 billable hours. Should the Court not award the requested fees and expenses, the result will be a perverse incentive for the DOL to, once again, play a game of ‘cat and mouse’ or ‘tug-of-war’ in an attempt to wear down a less determined, but still deserving FOIA requester. No United States citizen should ever have to go through this much aggravation in order to get a federal agency to comply with a legitimate FOIA request. “Bureaucratic ineptitude,” should never become an excuse for the Government to force a citizen into a two year long civil action under FOIA.

6

Exhibit 3, the curriculum vitae given to Government counsel, is limited to reflecting just that part of Attorney Curtis L. Kennedy’s work done on behalf of Qwest Pension Plan participants, both active employees and retirees.

-9-

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

C.

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 10 of 13

The Court Should Grant HULL a Judicial Decree Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4)(F) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

In her Complaint at paragraph 19 and paragraph A of the Prayer For Relief, HULL both alleges and asks this Court, “pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F), [to] issue an order finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding of documents responsive to HULL’s FOIA request raises questions whether DOL agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding.” 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4)(F) states: “Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employee or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends.” (emphasis added). HULL should be granted such a judicial decree with the requested finding. The DOL deliberately chose to put HULL and her attorney through an unnecessary and protracted litigation process, even though the underlying FOIA subject matter - the DOL’s investigation of the Qwest Pension Plan - had been abandoned and, certainly, there was no ongoing investigation activity after May 2004. The public will be best served if the DOL is called on the carpet for its obstructionist behavior and the federal agency is put to task to take corrective action. In her motion and opening brief (Docket 41), HULL asked for relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. When Congress amended Section 1927 to include attorneys’ fees among the category of expenses that a court might award, it made clear that the purpose of the statute was to deter unnecessary delays in litigation.” H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1234, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 8, - 10 -

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 11 of 13

reprinted in 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 2716, 2782; see Cheng v. GAF Corp., 713 F.2d 886, 890 (2d Cir.1983). Here, the DOL caused United States Assistant Attorney Michael Johnson to unnecessarily multiply the proceedings in this case and delay the flow of FOIA responsive documents to HULL. For example, the DOL caused Government counsel during April-May 2005 to litigate a motion for summary judgment concerning the application of FOIA Exemption 7 to the “on-going investigation,” when the federal agency had actually abandoned the underlying investigation! Since the investigation file was de facto closed, there was no longer any just reason to argue the application of FOIA Exemption 7. HULL and her counsel were unnecessarily required to expend a lot of legal effort to counter and oppose a baseless litigation maneuver. In the DOL’s last filed legal brief (Docket 49), Government counsel belatedly apologizes and laments about the federal agency’s “bureaucratic ineptitude,” or lack of communication with him. 7 Therefore, the DOL should take responsibility to indemnify Government counsel for causing a violation of 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. To the extent the DOL can dodge liability under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, the Court should, in the alternative, apply its inherent powers under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 11(c)(1)(B) and direct the DOL to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against the DOL. Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 208 F.3d 1180, 1186-1187 (10th Cir. 2000).

7

While HULL contends this litigation was unreasonable and substantially calculated by the DOL to cause HULL to incur a lot of trouble before the federal agency would perform its duty under FOIA, neither HULL nor her counsel are contending United States Assistant Attorney Michael Johnson knowingly acted vexatiously.

- 11 -

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

III.

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 12 of 13

CONCLUSION

For the aforesaid reasons and those reasons set forth in the Declaration of Curtis L. Kennedy previously submitted as Exhibit 1 with the March 31, 2006 opening brief in support of this pending motion, this Court should enter a judicial decree, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4)(F), with a finding that the circumstances surrounding the DOL’s withholding of documents responsive to HULL’s FOIA request prior to and during this litigation raise questions about whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding. In this case, the DOL’s conduct highly suggests an effort to gamble that the former “catalyst standard” for awarding attorney’s fees might not apply within the Tenth Circuit courts due to growing post-Buckhannon case law awarding attorney’s fees only if the FOIA requester “substantially prevailed,” meaning his or her civil action resulted in judicial orders altering the behavior of the federal agency. After stringing HULL along, every time HULL realized part of the DOL’s investigative file was missing, the DOL repeatedly spoon fed her with some more responsive FOIA documents, always just ahead of this Court’s intervention. Nevertheless, HULL substantially prevailed in this FOIA ordeal. Therefore, the Court should grant HULL’s request for an award of attorney’s fees based upon 108 hours at the rate of $300 for at total of $32,400, plus expenses of $570.00. DATED this 8th day of May, 2006. s/ Curtis L. Kennedy Curtis L. Kennedy 8405 East Princeton Avenue Denver, CO 80237-1741 Telephone: 303-770-0440 Facsimile: 303-843-0360 e-mail [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Mary M. Hull

- 12 -

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 13 of 13

The Following Exhibits Are Filed Herewith: Exhibit 2

Documents produced by DOL in February 2006; and

Exhibit 3

Curtis L. Kennedy curriculum vitae.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 8th day of May, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. I also certified that on this 31st day of March, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was delivered to Defendant’s counsel of record via email as follows: Michael C. Johnson, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 1225 17th Street, 7th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Tele: 303-454-0134 Fax: 303-454-0404 E-mail: [email protected] Also, copy of the same was delivered via email to Plaintiff Mary M. Hull. Mimi Hull 678 Clarkson St. Denver, CO 80218-2302 E-mail: [email protected] s/ Curtis L. Kennedy Curtis L. Kennedy

- 13 -

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Exhibit 2

Page 1 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 3 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 4 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 5 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 6 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 7 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 8 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 9 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 10 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 11 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 12 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 13 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 14 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 15 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 16 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 17 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 18 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 19 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 20 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 21 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 22 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 23 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 24 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 25 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 26 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 27 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 28 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 29 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 30 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 31 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 32 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 33 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 34 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 35 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 36 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 37 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 38 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 39 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 40 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 41 of 41

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Exhibit 3

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 5

CURTIS L. KENNEDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 8405 E. PRINCETON AVE. DENVER, CO 80237-1741

[email protected]

TELEPHONE (303) 770-0440 ___________________

ALSO ADMITTED IN: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT STATE OF ARIZONA

FAX (303) 843-0360

STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF TEXAS WASHINGTON, D.C.

EDUCATION 1982

J.D., University of Colorado College of Law Boulder, Colorado

1979

B.A., University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma

LEGAL EXPERIENCE 1983 - Present

Solo Practice. Emphasizing federal employee benefits law (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), federal age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment Act), and other employment related issues on behalf of plaintiff workers and retirees. Providing pro bono legal representation in federal COBRA law related claims.

1982 - 1983

Associate, Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw & Harring, Denver, CO. General business litigation and employment litigation.

1981

Law Clerk, Hall & Evans, Denver, CO. Natural Resources litigation.

ADMITTED / LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW State of Arizona State of Colorado State of Oklahoma State of Texas District of Columbia

United States Supreme Court Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 3 of 5

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals District of Columbia Court of Appeals United States Tax Court District of Arizona Northern District of California District of Colorado Northern District of Oklahoma Western District of Oklahoma Northern District of Texas Southern District of Texas

ASSOCIATIONS Arizona Bar Association Colorado Bar Association District of Columbia Bar Association Oklahoma Bar Association Texas Bar Association National Employment Lawyers Association Plaintiff's Employment Lawyers Association - Colorado

REPRESENTATIVE SPEECHES / PAPERS PRESENTED Various speeches / papers before the National Employment Lawyers Association annual meetings and Colorado Bar Association sponsored continuing legal education seminars on Employee Retirement Income Security Act litigation.

SIGNIFICANT LABOR LAW CIVIL ACTIONS INVOLVING U S WEST/QWEST SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED (* Denotes either a class certification in part or class-wide settlement) ( ** Denotes consolidation of several cases) ( *** Denotes where served as special or pro hac vice co-counsel)

*

Walker, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 84-M-790, District of Colorado ERISA / ADEA / Common Law

Holder, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 85-M-122, District of Colorado ERISA / ADEA / Common Law

Page 2

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

Document 52

Reed v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 85-M-1368, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 4 of 5

Rivera, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of New Mexico (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-621, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Kendall, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 85-M-2004, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Vigil, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of New Mexico (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-628, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Martin, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 85-M-2696, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Adcock, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of New Mexico (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-640, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Mulcahy, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Co., Case No. 86-M-596, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Bush, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Utah (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-622, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Mead, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-M-869, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law Baker, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-M-1102, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Cormani, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Utah (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-653, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Bryant, v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-M-1103 ERISA / ADEA / Common Law

Boyd, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Wyoming (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-654, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Davis v. The Mountain States Tel. & Co., Case No. 85-M-1857, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Johnson, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Arizona (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-661, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Counts, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-M-2087, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Blodgett, et al. v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Arizona (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-662, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Wilson, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-399 PHX, CAM, District of Arizona Common Law / Arizona wage statute Crowder v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 86-M-2259, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Engstrom, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Arizona (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-663, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Hancock et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Case No. 87-M-177, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Koonce, et al. v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Arizona (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-664, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Fillingham v. The Mountain States Tel. & Co., Case No. 87-1538 PHX RGS, District of Arizona ERISA / Common Law

Holz, et al. v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Arizona (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-665, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Savage, et al v. The Mountain States Tel. & Co., District of Montana (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-282, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Lynch, et al. v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Idaho (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-703, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Barker, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of New Mexico (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-585, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Jedlick, et al. v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., District of Idaho (MDL 798 transfer to) Case No. 89-M-704, District of Colorado ERISA / Common Law

Page 3

Case 1:04-cv-01264-LTB-PAC

**

Document 52

Andersen, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 86-CV-8735, Denver County District Court (Case No. 88-CA-1798, Colorado Court of Appeals Common Law *

Unger v. U S WEST, Inc., et al Case No. 94-B-2598, District of Colorado ERISA

*

Phelps v. U S WEST, Inc., et al Case No. 95-Z-2759, District of Colorado ERISA

Aab, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2335, Denver County District Court Common Law

Henry v. U S WEST Communications, Inc. Case No. 96-N-724, District of Colorado ERISA / ADEA / Common Law

Brady, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2336, Denver County District Court Common Law Coppen, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2337, Denver County District Court Common Law

Matthews-Forney v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. 01-WM-0592, District of Colorado ERISA

Donahoo, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2338, Denver County District Court Common Law

Tingley v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. 02-M-0726, District of Colorado ERISA

Fagerquist, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2339, Denver County District Court Common Law

Helton v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. 02-M-1578, District of Colorado ERISA

McComas, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2340, Denver County District Court Common Law

Nearing v. Qwest Disability Plan. Case No. 02-D-828, District of Colorado ERISA

Millard, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2341, Denver County District Court Common Law

Wolff v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. 02-WY-777, District of Colorado Title VII, Equal Pay Act

Sandeman, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2342, Denver County District Court Common Law

Lauck v. Qwest Disability Plan Case No. 04-WM-0139, District of Colorado ERISA

Hoffman, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-4447, Denver County District Court Common Law

Strauss v. Anschutz Case No. 02-CV-8188, Denver County District Court Qwest shareholder derivative action *

Fisher, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-0813, El Paso County District Court Common Law Hawksworth, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-97, Mesa County District Court Common Law

Brody v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. 04-CV–39, Otero County District Court Common Law / ERISA Osborn v. Qwest Services Corporation Case No. 04-cv-01987-PSF-PAC, District of Colorado ERISA

Walker, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 90-F-108, District of Colorado Common Law Shepard v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 92-C-2291, District of Colorado ERISA

*

Page 5 of 5

Musso v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., et al Case No. CIV 93-0172 PHX RCB, District of Arizona ERISA / ADEA

Payne, et al v. U S WEST Communications, Inc., Case No. 89-CV-2334, Denver County District Court Common Law

*

Filed 05/08/2006

U S WEST, Inc. Employees' Benefit Committee v. Alexander, et al, Case No. 93-N-1318, District of Colorado ERISA

Page 4