Case 3:14-cv-01017-AC Document 125 Filed 01/19/18 Page 83 of 94 Prior to the shootings on November 9, the Fontaine Bleau had not triggered the requirements of the City’s TPM ordinance. (Marchetti Depo., 80:17-81:20.) The shootings and homicide, however, did trigger the ordinance, and the City’s LLT voted to pursue a TPM violation concurrently with the City’s request to the OLCC for the emergency suspension. The City never issued the TPM violation to DeWalt because the Fontaine Bleau never reopened. (City 30(b)(6) Depo., 122;18-124:6.) The City pursued this concurrent action because it was unsure whether the OLCC would act on its request for the suspension, and therefore, wanted to have the TPM violation ready in the event the OLCC allowed the Fontaine Bleau to reopen with no restrictions and no change to its operations. (City 30(b)(6) Depo., 124:17-125:9.) Also, the TPM ordinance allowed 10 days for a licensee to respond to the City’s Notice of Violation, and then required additional time to reach any sort of abatement agreement with the licensee. Given the concern that DeWalt would reopen the Fontaine Bleau after the shooting, the City, through Marchetti and the LLT, determined it was not in the best interest of public safety to use the TPM process. (City 30(b)(6) Depo., 124:17-125:24.) The City viewed the TPM process as inadequate to address the situation at the Fontaine Bleau because Marchetti had no faith DeWalt would work collaboratively to make the process work. (City 30(b)(6) Depo., 125:25-126:18.) During the City’s 30(b)(6) deposition conducted by plaintiffs, City representative Theresa Marchetti testified about several clubs where shootings occurred and ONI did not pursue a request for immediate suspension from OLCC afterwards. For each club that plaintiffs asked about, Ms. Marchetti identified ONI’s reason for not pursuing an immediate suspension. Her responses are summarized in the table below: Club 720 Club Shooting Date 4/17/2009 ONI Reason for not Pursuing Suspension Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Page 77 – CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 823-4047 30(b)(6) Cite 51:1252:25 Case 3:14-cv-01017-AC Document 125 Filed 01/19/18 Page 84 of 94 Good Call Sports Bar 10/23/2010 Not aware of shooting within 24 hours JD’S Bar and Grill New Copper Penny 1/24/2011 2/12/2012 Grand Central Restaurant Mystic Club 2/19/2012 Not aware of shooting within 24 hours Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; No history of problem solving efforts; ONI pursued TPM violation Not aware of shooting within 24 hours 7/18/2012 Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Club Skinn 5/8/2013 Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Mystic Club 1/11/2014 Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol New Copper Penny 3/26/2014 Magoo’s Bar and Grill 4/26/2014 East China Lounge 6/8/2014 Soobies Bar and Grill 7/5/2014 Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol; Club cooperated with ONI to problem solve Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; ONI pursued TPM Violation Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; ONI pursued TPM Violation License already cancelled Shady Lady Tavern 8/10/2014 Boss Hawg’s Bar and Grill 2/2/2015 Shimmers 2/24/2015 Hourglass Club 10/3/2015 Pallas Club Heat Gentlemen’s Club Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; No history of problem solving efforts; ONI pursued TPM Violation Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; No history of problem solving efforts; ONI pursued TPM Violation Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; ONI pursued TPM violation No history of problem solving efforts; ONI pursued TPM violation 10/23/2015 Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; No history of problem solving efforts; ONI pursued TPM Violation 11/13/2015 Not serious enough to warrant immediate suspension; ONI pursued TPM violation Page 78 – CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 823-4047 54:2555:24 55:25-57:8 58:1560:15 61:1962:17 62:1863:24 65:2266:19 67:1569:17 69:1871:16 72:6-74:12 74:13-77:4 77:1878:13 78:1479:14 92:2393:12 79:1580:17; 89:16-24; 91:2492:22 93:1394:24 99:13100:14 107:2-24 Case 3:14-cv-01017-AC Document 125 Filed 01/19/18 Page 85 of 94 Triple Nickel 8/4/2016 Lucky Corner Bar & Grill Maddy’s 9/5/2016 9/23/2016 Not serious enough to warrant immediate suspension; Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol; ONI pursued TPM violation Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Roseland Theater 10/6/2016 Not aware of shooting within 24 hours Club Playpen 10/20/2016 Not connected to patrons or service of alcohol Club SinRock 1/26/2017 Crystal Ballroom 8/12/2017 Not serious enough to warrant immediate suspension; Not aware of shooting within 24 hours; No history of problem solving efforts 107:25109:18 110:12111:15 111:16113:15 113:16114:8 135:19138:1 138:2-20 138:21139:15 There is no racial component to the City’s response to shootings at nightclubs; rather, the availability of information and the facts underlying each shooting inform the City’s response. There is no evidence that the City had a policy of treating specific clubs differently based on racial animus after a shooting occurred. None is apparent from any of the depositions plaintiffs conducted or the evidence plaintiffs possess. Moreover, plaintiffs did not ask during the 30(b)(6) deposition whether the City knew that any of the clubs plaintiffs referenced were black-owned, catered to a black clientele, or primarily played hip hop music. Plaintiffs therefore cannot argue that the City’s responses to shootings, whether by pursuit of emergency suspension or by pursuit of a TPM violation, were motivated by racial animus Furthermore, these clubs are a tiny sample of all of the establishments that hold liquor licenses in the City of Portland. In 2013, there were about 3,000 liquor licensees within the administrative purview of ONI’s liquor license team. (City 30(b)(6) Depo., 171:8-17.) Plaintiffs cannot show that ONI’s actions towards the liquor licensees within its administrative purview is skewed or unbalanced due to racial animus. Page 79 – CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 823-4047