Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 20 Filed D.C. Superior Court 03/17/2014 Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION CATHERINE NUGENT 9815 SUMMIT AVENUE KENSINGTON, MD 20895 Plaintiff, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC, 1 111 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, SE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 Defendant. Case No. 2014 CA 001091 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1441 and 1446, a Notice of Removal of the above-captioned action from the Supeiior Court of the District of Columbia was ?led on March 17, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Distn'ct of Columbia. A copy of the Notice of Removal, with attachments, is attached Dated: March 17, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Santucci Joseph E. Santucci (D.C. Bar No. 953802) jsantucci@morganlewis.com Lincoln 0. Bisbee (D.C. Bar No. 979358) lbisbee@morganlewis.com Abbey M. Glenn (Bar. No. 1007654) aglenn@morganlewis.com MORGAN, LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP 1 11 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 Attorneys for De?ndam National Public Radio, Inc. Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served via email, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing Notice ofRemovaI on March 17, 2014 upon counsel For Plaintiff- Linda M. Coneia Webster Fredrickson Corrcia Puth PLLC 1775 Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Attorneys for Plamri? ls/ Joseph E. Santucc1 Joseph Santucci Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 20 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION - ?an??aw uM.1M.'4u . . CATHERINE NUGENT 9815 Summit Avenue Ken sington, MD 20895 Plaintiff, V. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. 1111 North Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20002 Defendant. .1 FEB . Civil Action No. Judge Jury Demanded COMPLAINT 1' 3?2th Q) Ii 5- (Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and Negligent Misrepresentation) COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Catherine Nugent, by and through her attorneys, Webster, Fredrickson, Correia Puth, PLLC, and for her Complaint in the above?captioned action states to this Honorable Court as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Catherine Nugent is an adult female resident of the State of Maryland. Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of D.C. Code (2013). 2. Defendant National Public Radio, Inc. is authorized to conduct business in the District of Columbia, and is an employer within the meaning of D.C. Code 2- 1401 02(10) (2013). JURISDICTION 3. Jurisdiction is founded upon D.C. Code 2-1403.16 (2013). Will Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 4 of 20 4. Venue is proper as all of the acts complained of herein occurred in the District of Columbia. FACTS GIVING RISE TO RELIEF 5. Plaintiff is Deaf and relies upon American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate. She is a full?time student at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia. 6. On or about April 16, 2013, Anjali Desai-Margolin, a career center counselor at Gallaudet sent Plaintiff an email announcing a paid internship opportunity at NPR for a Gallaudet student. Ms. Desai-Margolin encouraged Plaintiff to apply for the position which she did on April 18, 2013. NPR knew that Plaintiff was Deaf, since it sought students from Gallaudet University which holds itself out as a leader in educating the Deaf. 7. The announcement held out the following opportunity: is very interested in interviewing Gallaudet students for Communications Marketing Internships.? ?The successful candidate would assist in the planning and development of activities designed to increase awareness of the Public Radio Satellite System and NPR Labs among the widest possible audience, and strengthen the image of both organizations across public radio. The intern will support the Distribution Division's Marketing Communications team Communications, marketing, or public relations major with social media and web?development experience preferred. The ideal candidate will have a track record of successful internships with a focus on marketing and communication. Solid writing skills, knowledge of Drupal and HTML (preferred); MS Office Suite (Access, Excel, PowerPoint, and Word) are required.? 8. At the time the position was posted, the NPR website held out the chance for ?an internship like no other.? It offered that interns play a vital role in NPR's daily operations in almost every division of the organization ?om NPR News and Music, to Communications 2 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 5 of 20 and the Of?ce ofthe General Counsel. Our interns work alongside experienced staff members to gain unparalleled experience in their chosen ?eld and contribute their talents and energies to NPR's mission." 9. Plaintiff is a business administration major with concentrations in marketing and human resource management. After taking a variety of classes, Plaintiff enjoyed marketing the most and hoped to develop more familiarity with marketing through the NPR internship. 10. On or about April 29, 2013, Plaintiffinterviewed for the position with NPR Enterprise Strategies and Planning Manager Maryfran Tyler via telephone using a sign language interpreter, Karen Cook, the interim director of the career center at that time. Ms. Cook was present with Plaintiffto give voice to Plaintiffs signing. Plaintiff had been referred to Ms. Tyler by Anjali Desai-Margolin, the aforementioned career center counselor at Gallaudet. Ms. Tyler offered Plaintiff the job during the course of the telephonic interview. 11. During the interview, Ms. Tyler told Plaintiff that she would be working in Distribution Division. Ms. Tyler did not mention that Plaintiff would be teaching ASL classes during the interview process. 12. The day after her interview, Ms. Desai-Margolin informed Plaintiff that she intended to contact the Gallaudet Public Relations department so that they could make a short ?lm about Plaintiffs internship experience at NPR. 13. On or about June 3, 2013, Plaintiffbegan work as a paid intern at NPR. 14. Prior to the commencement of the internship, in an email on May 7, 2013, Ms. Tyler asked Plaintiff if she could give her (Ms. Tyler) information about the telecommunications technologies Plaintiffused to assist in communications. 15. Plaintiff indicated in response that voice recognition software would be ?very 3 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 6 of 20 help?il this summer,? and that video phone programming would help her with communications. Plaintiffalso suggested that she would be ?ne working with Apple products. 16. Once the internship began, Ms. Tyler gave Plaintiff an Apple iPad and said Plaintiff could use it to communicate with her and other staff by text. However, during daily meetings Ms. Tyler only talked or attempted rudimentary signs, even though Plaintiff had brought the iPad with her to facilitate communication, per Ms. Tyler?s instructions. Eventually Plaintiff stopped bringing the iPad to daily meetings since it was never used. Accordingly, Plaintiff was unable to follow the discussions at these meetings without an ASL interpreter. Instead, she had to rely on the haphazard interpreting efforts of a co?intern, Lindsay Boxrud, as described more fully below. 17. Plaintiff was never presented with the opportunity to utilize video phone services for incoming or outgoing calls during the internship. 18. Although Defendant initially raised the possibility of voice recognition software prior to Plaintiff beginning the internship, voice recognition software was ultimately never offered by Defendant. l9. NPR did not adequately facilitate day-to?day communications between ?experienced staff members? and Ms. Nugent. 20. Plaintiff?s first day at NPR consisted of a day-long orientation for all interns, for which two ASL interpreters were provided by the Gallaudet Interpreting Service. 21. On her second day on the job, which was her first real day at her daily work location, Plaintiff did not have an ASL interpreter. Plaintiffs co?intern attempted to interpret for her during a tour of the office and for introductions to employees, but Plaintiff could only communicate through her co-intern. As discussed below, this manner of interpreting was totally 4 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 7 of 20 inadequate. 22. Also on her second day, Plaintiff asked in an email to Ms. Tyler if she needed to attend a brown bag lunch to which all interns had been invited, and whether an ASL interpreter would be provided. Ms. Tyler informed Plaintiff that this was not a ?critical? meeting for her attend. 23. On her third day, Ms. Tyler informed Plaintiff by email that ASL interpreters would only be provided at two NPR events in June. Because ofa lack of daily ASL interpreting services, Plaintiff knew she would be unable to regularly interact with NPR staffers ?om whom she had been told she would learn. 24. Plaintiff was willing to try this arrangement, believing that it might work for a ?marketing position.? Plaintiff believed that if she were assigned projects to work on independently on her computer, regular interpreter services may not be needed. However, this was not to be the nature of Plaintiff? 3 work for Defendant. 25. Plaintiff?s actual work assignments were substantially different from the expectations Defendant created through the materials it held out to prospective interns like Plaintiffand what was stated to her in e?mails after Plaintiffwas hired. 26. Although Plaintiff believed based on representations that she would be accruing substantive and t0pical subject-area experience in the fields of marketing and communications, she learned that, instead, she would be tasked with developing lesson plans for, and teaching, a summer?long daily ASL class for NPR staff. 27. Plaintiff was not told that she would be doing ASL instruction until after she had been hired, and, even then, she was initially told only that she would be ?developing some? ASL classes which Plaintiff thought would be of an informal and conversational nature. 5 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 8 of 20 28. Plaintiff was never told that her marketing and communications internship would require her to develop a daily regimen of formal hour-long sessions to teach ASL to Ms. Tyler and other staff. 29. Plaintiff has limited experience teaching ASL and is not trained or certified in ASL instruction or interpreting. Plaintiff did not take the internship position at NPR to take on ASL teaching responsibilities. 30. From the outset of her employment, Plaintiff was required to develop a daily regimen of formal hour?long sessions to teach ASL to Ms. Tyler and other staff. She spent the majority of her time preparing lesson plans and teaching daily hour?long ASL classes. 31. Because she did not have an ASL interpreter and was misled about the requirements of her internship, Plaintiff quickly felt isolated and demeaned. 32. When Plaintiff realized what her actual job would be, it became obvious that she needed an ASL interpreter every day, because she was interacting with hearing people and needed to be clearly understood. 33. Plaintiff would never have accepted a job teaching ASL to hearing people without an ASL interpreter. 34. NPR had hired another deaf student, Lindsay Boxrud, as an intern, and assigned Plaintiff and Ms. Boxrud to teach the ASL class together. Ms. Boxrud does not attend Gallaudet University. Ms. Boxrud is able to speak. She has some hearing and does not sign in ?pure but rather uses a different version of communication involving a mixed bag of signing and talking. The difference between ASL, the recognized and official language of the Deaf in this country and Ms. Boxrud?s mode of communication was such that she was periodically instructing NPR staff using incorrect signs. Without an ASL interpreter available to provide 6 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 9 of 20 Plaintiff?s corrections, Plaintiff had to sit in mute witness to Ms. Boxrud?s erroneous instruction of Plaintiffs native language. These distinctions meant that NPR employees in the ASL classes looked to Ms. Boxrud for guidance, effectively eliminating Plaintiff from having any meaningful participation in the ASL class which she had been assigned to help teach. 35. Instead of assigning Plaintiff a certi?ed full?time ASL interpreter, and instead of discussing the matter with Plaintiff, NPR expected Plaintiff to commwiicate through Ms. Boxrud. 36. Ms. Boxrud inadequately communicated for Plaintiff. Ms. Boxrud selectively decided what information to share with Plaintiff and did not relay Plaintiffs complete responses back to the staff Ms. Boxrud was not an ASL interpreter. As mentioned above, on many occasions, Ms. Boxrud used incorrect ASL signs for words. 37. Rather than being an ASL interpreter, Plaintiff uses the term "screener" to describe the way that Ms. Boxrud inadequately facilitated and selectively filtered communications and interactions between Plaintiff and other NPR staff. 38. If NPR had not refused to provide Plaintiff with appropriate ASL interpreter services as Plaintiff obviously needed, Plaintiff would not have been forced to accept Ms. Boxrud?s role as her screener. 39. Plaintiff?s isolation was complete when on or about June l2, 2013, Ms. Tyler asked Ms. Boxrud to take two ASL interpreters from Gallaudet on a tour of the new NPR offices. Ms. Boxrud did not invite Plaintiff, leaving her alone at her desk even though the ASL interpreters were on site speci?cally to serve Plaintiffs communication needs. 40. Plaintiff was not provided with an ASL interpreter for brown bag lunches, ASL classes she was teaching, staff meetings, meetings with her supervisor, or day?to?day interactions 7 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 10 of 20 with staff. 41. Regarding Plaintiff?s access to ASL interpreters, NPR set clear expectations at the beginning of the internship. Plaintiff asked about an ASL interpreter during her second day on the job, and was informed that because Ms. Tyler did not believe that the meeting about which Plaintiff had inquired was ?critical,? Plaintiff would effectively be excluded from participation. At the outset of her internship, then, Ms. Tyler communicated to Plaintiff that no ASL interpreters would be available to her, unless she was to be attending what Ms. Tyler deemed to be a ?critical meeting.? 42. On or about June 11, 2013, Ms. Tyler informed Plaintiffthat Gallaudet would be coming to NPR soon to film Plaintiff working at NPR. Ms. Tyler also informed Plaintiff and Ms. Boxrud that Ability Magazine, a publication for the disabled community, would be coming to NPR to interview them for a story on their internship experience. 43. Plaintiff internship coincided with efforts to promote its ?Breaking the Sound Barrier? project, an effort to bring captioned radio programs to the attention of the Deaf community. 44. Plaintiff came to understand that primary reason for employing Plaintiff was to assist in its public relations strategy to build enthusiasm in the media for its new outreach programming targeting Deaf persons. NPR failed to meet its legal obligations in focusing almost exclusively on this purpose for employing Plaintiff, to Plaintiff detriment. 45. On or about June 13, 2013, Plaintiff?s parents reached out to Ms. Tyler to voice Plaintiff?s complaints as articulated above, because it was clear that Plaintiff could not communicate with Ms. Tyler without the assistance of Ms. Boxrud, and that Plaintiff had been misled about the purposes of her employment. Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 11 of 20 46. On or about June 14, 2013, Ms. Tyler terminated Plaintiff?s employmentwith NPR following the email exchange with Plaintiff?s parents. 47. When Plaintiff?s parents explained that Plaintiff wanted to keep her job, an MR human resources representative emailed Plaintiff?s parents and said that NPR would ?stand by the decision? to terminate Plaintiff. 48. Plaintiff had previously interviewed for a paid summer internship position at the Finance Of?ce of Gallaudet University, and had received an offer for that position. Plaintiff passed up that offer infavor ofthe NPR internship. On or about June 19, 2013, Plaintiff contacted the Internship Coordinator at Gallaudet?s undergraduate Business School to see if other summer internship opportunities were available. In response, Plaintiff was informed that all such opportunities had been ?lled. 49. As part of her degree requirements, Plaintiff must serve in a business-related internship of at least ten (10) hours per week for at least 10 weeks. The loss of the NPR internship has hampered Plaintiff?s progress toward the timely attainment of her diploma. COUNT I (Failure to accommodate disability in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act) 50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1?49 ofthis Complaint with the same force and vigor as if set out here in full. 51. Plaintiffis Deaf. 52. Plaintiff was quali?ed to perform the essential functions of an internship position with Defendant with the reasonable accommodation of daily interpreter services. 53. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was Deaf since it recruited her from a college for persons who are deaf. Defendant also was aware that Plaintiff was Deaf since it interviewed 9 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 12 of 20 her for the position via telephone with a sign language interpreter who was present to give voice to Plaintiffs signing. Plaintiffs needs were obvious before she was hired, see McCoy v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 2006 US. Dist. LEXIS 55403, 2006 WL 2331055, 9 (so. Tex. Aug. 9,2006). 54. Plaintiff also requested an interpreter as an accommodation on her second day on the job. 55. Plaintiff?s request for accommodation was denied. 56. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff?s disability, dea?iess, in violation of DC. Code 2-1402.11 of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, DC. Code 2?140101 - 1411.06 (2001). 57. As a direct and proximate result of these unlaw?al acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, bene?ts and entitlements, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and emotional distress. COUNT (Negligent misrepresentation) 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re?alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49 ofthis Complaint with the same force and vigor as if set out here in ?ill. 59. Defendant NPR negligently communicated false information about its internship program to Plaintiff, to wit, Defendant held out its internship program as an experiential learning opportunity in the area of marketing and communications, where it instead actually intended to have Plaintiff instruct NPR employees in ASL and serve as a component of its media outreach strategy. 60. Defendant should have recognized that Plaintiff would likely be harmed by 10 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 13 of 20 relying on Defendant?s misrepresentation. 61. By choosing to apply for the position based on the false information in internship solicitations, and subsequently accepting the position based on additional misrepresentations made by Ms. Tyler, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the false information. 62. Plaintiff was harmed by her reliance on this false information as articulated above. 63. As a direct and proximate result of these unlawful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, benefits and entitlements, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation and emotional distress. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court: 1. Enter judgment on her behalf against National Public Radio, Inc, on all counts contained herein; 2. Award Plaintiff compensatory and other damages; 3. Award back pay to Plaintiff; 4. Award punitive damages to Plaintiff; 5. Award Plaintiff her court costs, expenses, attorneys? fees, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest; 6. Declare that Defendants? conduct is in violation of the District of Columbia Code ??2?1401.01 1411.06 (2013); Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 14 of 20 7. Declare the Defendants? conduct negligent misrepresentation; and 8. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, calm (mm/a: Catherine Nugent WEBSTER, FREDRICKSON, CORREIA PUTH PLLC Linda, . Correia #13 027 1775 signed, Suite 600 Washington, DC. 20006 (202) 659?8510 Attorney for Plaintiff l2 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 15 of 20 VERIFICATION 1, Catherine Nugent, being duly sworn on oath, do hereby state that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Cam/W film: Catherine Nugent Subscribed and sworn to before me this; dayor? ,2014. do} my Public Sheri L. Williams My Commj ssion Expires; Notary Public. District of Columbia My Commission Expires 2/28/2014 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues contained herein. ~51 T71 aw? Linfifl. omega/435027 177 KStreet, Suite 600 Washington, DC. 20006 (202) 659-8510 Attorney for Plaintiff l3 Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 16 of 20 Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Catherine Nugent PI I FIT m, aini gg?k??gg? Case Number National Public Radio, Inc. Defendant SUMMONS To the above named Defendant: You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy ofthe Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the party plaintiff who is suing you. The attomey?s name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy ofthe Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to ?le the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 pm, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may ?le the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within ?ve (5) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to ?le an Answer,judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Linda M. Correia Clerk ofthe Court Name of Plaintiffs Attorney . . . . 2 Webster, Fredrickson, Correia Puth PLLC LII 2 Address Deputy Clerk 1775 Street. NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Date in ZLIJ I Telephone I I (202) 879-4828 Veunllez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction Be 00 m?t bat dlCh. hay gel (202) 879-4828 E1943 (202) 879-4828 aaeuxia mater (202) 879?4828 earn-n- IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE. OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME. lfyou wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lauyer. contact one ofthe of?ces ofthe Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation Vea al dorso la traduccion al espar?iol FORM SUMMONS Jan 2011 CASUM doc Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 17 of 20 Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET Catherine Nugent Case Number: ?l c: K4 ?n?l 4 VS Date; February 24, 2014 Nationai Public Radio, Inc l:l One ofthe defendants is being sued in their of?cial capacity. Name: (JP/ease Prim) Linda Correia Firm Name: Webster. Fredrickson, Correia Puth. PLLC Telephone No.: Six digit Uni?ed Bar No.: (202) 659-8510 435027 Relationship to Lawsuit El Attorney for Plaintiff l:l Self(Pro Se) l:l Other: TYPE or CASE: 1: Non-Jury Demand; See compIaint X1 6 Person Jury Other: PENDING RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case Judge: Case No.: Judge: 12 Person Jury Calendar Calendar#: NATURE OF SUIT: (Check One Box Only) A. CONTRACTS l:l 0 Breach ot?Contract CI 02 Breach of Warranty 06 Negotiable Instrument 15 Special Education Fees Cl 07 Personal Property I: 09 Real Property-Real Estate [:112 Speci?c Performance E113 Employment Discrimination COLLECTION CASES D14 Under $25.000 Pitt. Grants Consent I: 16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied [j 17 OVER $25,000 Pitt. Grants Consent 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied B. PROPERTY TORTS CI 01 Automobile CI 03 Destruction of Private Property 02 Conversion [3 04 Property Damage [3 O7 Shoplifting, DC Code 27402 I: 05 Trespass 06 Traf?c Adjudication C. PERSONAL TORTS I: 09 Harassment 10 Invasion ofPrivacy I Libel and Slander I: 12 Malicious Interference 13 Malicious Prosecution [3 I4 Malpractice Legal 0] Abuse ofProeess 02 Alienation ofAffeetion 03 Assault and Battery I: 04 Automobile- Personal Injury [3 05 Deceit (Misrepresentation) 06 False Accusatiou El 07 False Arrest 08 Fraud 16 Negligence- (Not Automobile, Not Malpractice) 17 Personal Injury- (Not Automobile, Not Malpractice) 18 Wrongful Death (Not Malpractice) 19 Wrongful Eviction 20 Friendly Suit 21 Asbestos 15 Malpractice Medical [Including Wrongful Death) I: 22 Toxic/Mass TOFIS 23 Tobacco I: 24 Lead Paint SEE REVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE 13 CI IF USED Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 18 of 20 Information Sheet, Continued C. OTHERS El Ol Accounting I: 10 Injunction 02 Att. Before Judgment Writ ot?Replevin 04 Condemnation (Emm Domain) l2 Enforce Mechanics Lien I: 05 Ejectment I: I6 Declaratory Judgment 07 lnsurance/Subrogation 17 Merit Personnel Act (OEA) Under $25.000 Pltf. (DC. Code Title I, Chapter 6) Grants Consent l:l 18 Product Liability I: 08 Quiet Title I: 09 Special Writ/Warrants (DC Code 11-941) Vacate Arbitration Award (DC Code 16?4401) [3 24 Application to Confirm. Modify. 25 Liens: Tax/Water Consent Granted 26 lusurance/ Subrogation Under $25,000 Consent Denied 27 lnsurance/ Subrogation Over 325.000 28 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Collection Cases Only) [3 26 Merit Personnel Act (OHR) El 30 Liens: Tax/ Water Consent Denied 3 Housing Code Regulations [3 32 Qui Tam 33 Whistleblower l:l l5 Libel l:l 19 Enter Administrative Order as Judgment DC. Code 24802.03 or 32-15l9 20 Master Meter (D.C. Code? 42-3301. et seq) l:l 03 Change oFName Cl 06 Foreign Judgment 13 Correction ofBirth Certi?cate I: 14 Correction of Marriage Certificate l:l 2l Petition for Subpoena [Rule 28-] 22 Release Mechanics Lien 23 Rule 27(a) (Perpetuate Testimony) l:l 24 Petition for Structured Settlement El 25 Petition for Liquidation 12 01/27/24 Date Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 19 of 20 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION Vs. CA. No. 2014 CA 001091 NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. INITIAL ORDER AND ADDENDUM Pursuant to DC. Code 1 1-906 and District of Columbia Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure Civ?) 40-1, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Effective this date, this case has assigned to the individual calendar designated below. All future ?lings in this case shall bear the calendar number and the judge?s name beneath the case number in the caption. On ?ling any motion or paper related thereto, one c0py (for the judge) must be delivered to the Clerk along with the original. (2) Within 60 days of the ?ling of the complaint, plaintiff must ?le proof of serving on each defendant: copies of the Summons, the Complaint, and this Initial Order. As to any defendant for whom such proof of service has not been ?led, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution unless the time for serving the defendant has been extended as provided in SCR Civ (3) Within 20 days of service as described above, except as otherwise noted in SCR Civ 12, each defendant must respond to the Complaint by ?ling an Answer or other responsive pleading. As to the defendant who has failed to respond, a default and judgment will be entered unless the time to respond has been extended as provided in SCR Civ 55(a). (4) At the time and place noted below, all counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear before the assigned judge at an Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference to discuss the possibilities of settlement and to establish a schedule for the completion of all proceedings, including, normally, either mediation, case evaluation, or arbitration. Counsel shall discuss with their clients prii to the conference whether the clients are agreeable to binding or non-binding arbitration. This order is the only notice that parties and counsel will receive concerning this Conference. (5) Upon advice that the date noted below is inconvenient for any party or counsel, the Quality Review Branch (202) 879-1750 may continue the Conference 9_n_gg, with the consent of all parties, to either of the two succeeding Fridays. Request must be made not less than six business days before the scheduling conference date. No other continuance of the conference will be granted except upon motion for good cause shown. (6) Parties are responsible for obtaining and complying with all requirements of the General Order for Civil cases, each Judge?s Supplement to the General Order and the General Mediation Order. COpies of these orders are available in the Courtroom and on the Court?s website Chief Judge Lee F. Satter?eld Case Assigned to: Judge BRIAN HOLEMAN Date: February 24, 2014 Initial Conference: 9:30 am, Friday, May 30, 2014 Location: Courtroom 214 500 Indiana Avenue NW. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 Cale-doc Case Document 5-1 Filed 03/20/14 Page 20 of 20 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL ORDER AFFECTING ALL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES In accordance with the Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act of 2006, DC. Code 16-2801, et seq. (2007 Winter Supp), "[a]fter an action is ?led in the court against a healthcare provider alleging medical malpractice, the court shall require the parties to enter into mediation, without discovery or, if all parties agree[,] with only limited discovery that will not interfere with the completion of mediation within 30 days of the Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference prior to any further litigation in an effort to reach a settlement agreement. The early mediation schedule shall be included in the Scheduling Order following the ISSC. Unless all parties agree, the stay of discovery shall not be more than 30 days after the DC. Code 16- 2821. To ensure compliance with this legislation, on or before the date of the ISSC, the Court will notify all attorneys and pro se parties of the date and time of the early mediation session and the name of the assigned mediator. Information about the early mediation date also is available over the internet at To facilitate this process, all counsel and pro se parties in every medical malpractice case are required to confer, jointly complete and sign an EARLY MEDIATION FORM, which must be ?led no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the ISSC. Two separate Early Mediation Forms are available. Both forms may be obtained at One form is to be used for early mediation with a mediator from the multi-door medical malpractice mediator roster; the second form is to be used for early mediation with a private mediator. Both forms also are available in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Of?ce, Suite 2900, 410 Street, NW. Plaintiff?s counsel is responsible for eFiling the form and is required to e?mail a courtesy copy to earlymedmal@dcsc.gov. Pro se Plaintiffs who elect not to eFile may ?le by hand in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Of?ce. A roster of medical malpractice mediators available through the Court?s Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division, with biographical information about each mediator, can be found at All individuals on the roster are judges or lawyers with at least 10 years of signi?cant experience in medical malpractice litigation. DC. Code If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the Court will appoint one. DC. Code The following persons are required by statute to attend personally the Early Mediation Conference: (1) all parties; (2) for parties that are not individuals, a representative with settlement authority; (3) in cases involving an insurance company. a representative of the company with settlement authority; and (4) attorneys representing each party with primary responsibility for the case. DC. Code 16?2824. No later than ten (10) days after the early mediation session has terminated, Plaintiff must eFile with the Court a report prepared by the mediator, including a private mediator, regarding: (1) attendance; (2) whether a settlement was reached; or, (3) if a settlement was not reached, any agreements to narrow the scope of the diSpute, limit discovery, facilitate future settlement, hold another mediation session, or otherwise reduce the cost and time of trial preparation. DC. Code 16-2826. Any Plaintiff who is pro 58 may elect to ?le the report by hand with the Civil Clerk's Of?ce. The forms to be used for early mediation reports are available at Chief Judge Lee F. Satter?eld Caio.doc