LAWSUIT: Louisville Metro Government Vs Louisville Metro Council

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000001 of 000188

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
CIVIL BRANCH
____ DIVISION
NO. ____
FILED ELECTRONICALLY
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY PLAINTIFF

METRO GOVERNMENT for itself and on behalf of
its Cabinets, Divisions, Departments, Officers and Employees.
v. VERIFIED COMPLAINT
LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL; DEFENDANTS

Serve:
Via Jefferson County Sheriff
Councilman David James
601 W. Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
JESSICA GREEN, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 1;
BARBARA SHANKLIN, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council

District 2;
KEISHA DORSEY, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 3;
BARBARA SEXTON SMITH, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council
District 4;
DONNA PURVIS, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 5;
DAVID JAMES, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 6;
PAULA McCRANEY, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District
7;
BRANDON COAN, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 8;
BILL HOLLANDER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 9;
PAT MULVIHILL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 10;
KEVIN KRAMER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 11;
RICK BLACKWELL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 12;
MARK FOX, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 13;
CINDI FOWLER, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 14;
KEVIN TRIPLETT, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 15;
SCOTT REED, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 16;
MARKUS WINKLER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 17;
MARILYN PARKER, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 18;
ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council

District 19;
STUART BENSON, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 20;
NICOLE GEORGE, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 21;
ROBIN ENGEL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 22;
JAMES PEDEN, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 23;
MADONNA FLOOD, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 24;
DAVID YATES, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 25; and
BRENT ACKERSON, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 26.
Serve All Members:
Via Jefferson County Sheriff

Louisville, Kentucky 40202
** ** ** ** ** **
Comes Plaintiff, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (the “Plaintiff” or “Metro
Government”) for itself and on behalf of its Cabinets, Divisions, Departments, Officers and
Employees by counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants, Louisville Metro Council
2
(“Metro Council”), Jessica Green (“Green”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro

Council District 1, Barbara Shanklin (“Shanklin”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
Metro Council District 2, Keisha Dorsey (“Dorsey”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
Metro Council District 3, Barbara Sexton Smith (“Smith”), in her official capacity as
Councilwoman for Metro Council District 4, Donna Purvis (“Purvis”), in her official capacity as
Councilwoman for Metro Council District 5, David James (“James”), in his official capacity as
Councilman for Metro Council District 6, Paula McCraney (“McCraney”), in her official capacity
as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 7, Brandon Coan (“Coan”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 8, Bill Hollander (“Hollander”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 9, Pat Mulvihill (“Mulvihill”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 10, Kevin Kramer (“Kramer”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 11, Rick Blackwell (“Blackwell”), in his official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 12, Mark Fox (“Fox”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 13, Cindi Fowler (“Fowler”), in her official capacity as
Councilman for Metro Council District 14, Kevin Triplett (“Triplett”), in his official capacity as
Councilman for Metro Council District 15, Scott Reed (“Reed”), in his official capacity as
Councilman for Metro Council District 16, Markus Winkler (“Winkler”), in his official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 17, Marilyn Parker (“Parker”), in her official capacity
as Councilman for Metro Council District 18, Anthony Piagentini (“Piagentini”), in his official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 19, Stuart Benson (“Benson”), in his official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 20, Nicole George (“George”), in her official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 21, Robin Engel (“Engel”), in his official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 22, James Peden (“Peden”), in his official
3
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 23, Madonna Flood (“Flood”), in her official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 24, David Yates (“Yates”), in his official
capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 25, Brent Ackerson (“Ackerson”), in his
official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 26 (Defendants collectively are referred
to herein as the “Defendants”), hereby states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This action addresses three distinct questions. The first two concern the interplay between
KRS 61.810 to KRS 67C.103(14). Specifically, whether the testimony the Metro Council seeks,
though its Government Oversight and Audit Committee (hereinafter the “Committee”)1 from
Metro Government’s Chief of Public Safety, Amy Hess (“Chief Hess”) (and eventually others2)
concerns pending litigation so that it must be taken in executive session, and if it does, who has
the right to waive that requirement? Further, this matter involves separation of powers and the
proper scope of any investigation initiated by the Committee.
Plaintiff has fully cooperated with, and in turn sought the cooperation of the Committee,
ever since it voted on July 14, 2020, to investigate the actions and alleged inaction of the Metro
Government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and related
protests in Louisville. Specifically, following a written request from the Committee Chairman,
the Plaintiff agreed that Chief Hess and Louisville Metropolitan Police Department (“LMPD”)
Chief Robert Schroeder (“Chief Schroeder”) would appear voluntarily before the Committee on
August 3, 2020 and testify in open session on certain enumerated subjects outlined in a July 30,
2020 e-mail from the Committee’s attorneys.
1
In certain documentation, the Committee is referred to as the GOAC.
2
Through its Government Oversight and Audit Committee, the Metro Council has the power to subpoena officers or
appointees of certain boards or commissions and any department of division of the consolidated local government.
KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).
4
On the evening of Thursday July 30, 2020, subsequent to the parties agreeing on the date,

manner, and subjects of the proposed testimony of August 3, 2020, a sweeping federal civil rights
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against
the Metro Government, Mayor Fischer, Chief Schroeder, Assistant Chief LaVita Chavous and
seventeen LMPD officers, being specifically, Scott et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government, et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky No. 3:20-cv-00535-
CRS (the “Scott Action”). The Scott Action seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated and seeks to enjoin Metro Government and
LMPD’s use of various tactical measures with respect to future protests.
Because the allegations and claims in the Scott Action completely subsume the topics that
were on the Committee agenda for August 3, 2020, Plaintiff communicated to the Defendants their
commitment to proceed with Chief Hess’s and Chief Schroeder’s testimony in executive session
on that date pursuant to the express mandate of KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2), or alternatively, to waive
that requirement and testify in an open session on a date in the future when doing so would not
adversely impact the newly filed pending litigation. Through counsel, Plaintiff estimated that it
would at least be prepared to waive that requirement and present Chief Hess in approximately 30
days, absent unforeseen circumstances. This proposal was made first in writing, and then again
during the August 3, 2020 special meeting of the Committee. Rather than accept either proposal,
the Committee, through its Chair, emphatically and dramatically told the witnesses where the door
was and advised them to leave. Subsequently, on August 5, 2020, the Committee issued a
Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder compelling them to
testify on August 17, 2020. Although the subpoena does not expressly indicate the testimony will
be sought in open session, that fact appears clear from all surrounding circumstances.
5
In an effort to continue to find common ground and avoid a legal dispute, Plaintiff renewed

its commitment to presenting Chief Hess to testify in an open meeting at a time when she could
reasonably do so without adversely impacting the pending litigation. In the renewed offer, Plaintiff
again stated this could likely be accomplished as early as the first week of September, and Plaintiff
offered to present other witnesses who could testify in open session on matters of interest to the
GOAC, but which are not covered by the pending litigation. This renewed request has been ignored
to date, and Plaintiff is left with little choice other than bring this action.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government is the executive authority
for the consolidated local government of Louisville/Jefferson County, organized under KRS
Chapter 67C. The Mayor of Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government is Greg Fischer (the
“Mayor”). The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Metro Government and, accordingly,
has all executive and administrative power of the same. The Mayor is responsible for, and has
supervisory authority over, numerous executive cabinets, departments, and divisions all of which
comprise his Administration (the “Administration”).
2. Defendant Metro Council is the legislative authority for the consolidated local
government of Louisville/Jefferson County, organized under KRS Chapter 67C. In this capacity,
the Metro Council is the legislative body for the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government.
Pursuant to CR 4.04, it may be served by serving Council President David James and Metro
Council attorney Jonathan Ricketts.
3. Defendant Jessica Green is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro
Council District 1. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.
6
4. Defendant Barbara Shanklin is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 2. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.
5. Defendant Keisha Dorsey is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
6. Defendant Barbara Sexton Smith is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman
for Metro Council District 4. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.
7. Defendant Donna Purvis is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro
8. Defendant David James is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
Council District 6. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.
9. Defendant Paula McCraney is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
10. Defendant Brandon Coan is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
11. Defendant Bill Hollander is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
12. Defendant Pat Mulvihill is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
13. Defendant Kevin Kramer is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
14. Defendant Rick Blackwell is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
7
15. Defendant Mark Fox is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro

16. Defendant Cindi Fowler is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro
17. Defendant Kevin Triplett is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
18. Defendant Scott Reed is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
19. Defendant Markus Winkler is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
20. Defendant Marilyn Parker is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
21. Defendant Anthony Piagentini is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for
Metro Council District 19. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.
22. Defendant Stuart Benson is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
23. Defendant Nicole George is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for
24. Defendant Robin Engel is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
25. Defendant James Peden is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
8
26. Defendant Madonna Flood is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

27. Defendant David Yates is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
28. Defendant Brent Ackerson is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro
29. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to KRS 23A.010 and KRS
418.040, and venue is proper pursuant to KRS 452. 405 and KRS 452.450.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
30. The Metro Council is the legislative body for the Louisville-Jefferson County
Metro Government.
31. KRS 67C.103 provides, in relevant part, that
(13) All legislative powers of a consolidated local government are vested in

the consolidated local government council. The term "legislative power" is
to be construed broadly and shall include the power to:
(f) Make independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs

of the consolidated local government and any board or commission
that:
1. Is composed of members who are appointed by the mayor

and approved by the legislative council; or
2. Has a budget that is equal to or greater than one million

dollars ($1,000,000.00), except that this subparagraph shall
not apply to any fee officer elected within the consolidated
local government.
32. KRS 67C.103(14)(a) provides that “[t]he consolidated local government council
shall establish a Government Oversight and Audit Committee.” Id.
33. This committee has the power to:
9
1. Compel testimony and the submission of work papers or documents;

2. Issue subpoenas to compel any officer of or appointee to a board or
commission described in subsection (13)(f) of this section or any
department or division of the consolidated local government to
appear before the committee and to compel the submission to the
committee of any work papers or documents pertinent to an
independent audit or investigation. Any subpoenas issued or
testimony compelled shall be subject to any relevant statutes
concerning privacy. Testimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be
taken in executive session. The right to privacy or the requirement
that testimony be taken in executive session may be waived by the
person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify;
3. Petition the appropriate Circuit Court to compel obedience by

proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of a
subpoena issued from the Circuit Court or a refusal to testify therein,
if any officer or appointee fails or refuses to testify or furnish the
work papers or documents subpoenaed[.]
34. Per the express terms of the statute, the powers granted to the Metro Council flow
from its “legislative power.”
35. Pursuant to these provisions, the Metro Council formed the Committee. The
Committee, at all relevant times herein, is part of and acting under the authority of, the Metro
Council.
36. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
Government and exercises those powers set forth therein in KRS 67C.105 including the authority
to supervise, administer and control all departments and agencies
37. In her capacity as Chief of Public Safety, Chief Amy Hess is responsible for, and
has supervisory authority over, Louisville Fire, Emergency Services, Corrections, and the LMPD.
38. On or about March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor (“Taylor”) was shot and killed during
the execution of a search warrant. Taylor’s shooting garnered national attention and community
leaders called for an investigation into the shooting.
10
39. On or about May 25, 2020, George Floyd (“Floyd”) was killed while being arrested

by the Minneapolis Police Department. Within days of Floyd’s death, massive large-scale protests
swept through the nation.
40. The deaths of Taylor and Floyd caused significant protests in downtown Louisville
beginning on or about May 28, 2020 and continue to the present day.
41. During the protests, LMPD, Kentucky State Police (“KSP”), and members of the
Kentucky National Guard were, at various times, responsible for the safety of the public including
the large majority of protestors who were protesting peacefully.
42. Since June 1, 2020, Chief Hess has had supervisory authority and responsibility
over the LMPD.
43. Unfortunately, some individuals took the opportunity to not engage in a peaceful
protest, but instead to engage in unlawful behavior including violent confrontations with law
enforcement and the widescale destruction of property.
44. These activities led to interactions between protestors and the LMPD, KSP, and the
National Guard. During these interactions, various methods of crowd control were utilized by law
enforcement.
45. On May 31, 2020, David McAtee (“McAtee”) was shot and killed during an
encounter with law enforcement including the National Guard near Dino’s Food Mart, sparking
further protests.
46. The Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the KSP have each either initiated their own or assumed oversight of certain investigations of the
Taylor and McAtee deaths, and those investigations are ongoing.
11
47. On July 14, 2020, the Metro Council passed Order No. 003, Series 2020 entitled

An Order to Investigate the Actions and Inaction of the Administration Surrounding the Death of
Breonna Taylor, the Death of David McAtee, and Related Protests in Louisville Metro (the
“Order”). July 14, 2020 Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A.).
48. The Order references the death of Taylor, the protests, and the shooting of McAtee.
Id. at 1. The Order states that “the protests sparked law-enforcement responses and actions that
included the lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other
chemical agents, and other techniques[.]” Id.
49. The Order alleges that “critical information about the planning, training,
communication, and execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor’s
home and her death has been withheld from the public” and that “information surrounding the
planning, coordination, training, and execution of responses by activated National Guard personnel
working in concert with LMPD has been withheld from the public[.]” Id.
50. In part, the Order states that:
[The] Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand these
events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions
made by, and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local
government and any board or commission described in KRS §
67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his
leadership team, and his administration (the “Administration”) and LMPD
by and through its agents[.]
51. The Order states that the “Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a
transparent, public process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing
information is revealed to help resolve” the issues referenced in the Order. Id. at 2.
52. The Order thereby authorizes the Committee to investigate the matters and, after
the investigation, “report findings of fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or
12
make recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and

processes for investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.” Id.
53. The Order provides:
The scope of this investigation shall include, but not be limited to:
- Working with any counsel for GOAC/Louisville Metro Council,

and/or its designated investigator.
- Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions

of officers of the consolidated local government and any board or
commission described in KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited
to Mayor Greg Fischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the
"Administration") and LMPD by and through its agents that led to the
search warrant execution and shooting death of Breonna Taylor on March
13, 2020.
- Identifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents,

policies, processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro
Government and impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and
David McAtee.
- Identifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems

that led to the execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in
the middle of the night, and the death of Breonna Taylor.
- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best

practices, and follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD
in relation to the death of Breonna Taylor.
- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best

practices, and follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD
in relation to the death of David McAtee.
- Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD

in response to protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death
of Breonna Taylor.
- Interviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the

foregoing public concerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena
authority set forth in KRS 67C.103(14)(e).
Order at 2-3.
13
54. The Order directs that the Committee “will conduct the investigation into the

Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David
McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to protests in Louisville Metro with the
legislative power contained in KRS §§ 67C.103(13)(f), 67C.103(14), and according to Metro
Council Rule 4A.04(b).” Id. at 3.
55. Finally, the Order provides that the Committee “Chair shall have the power to issue
subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS §§ 67C.103(14)(e) and Metro Council Rule
4A.04(b) during regular or special meetings of the Committee.” Id. at 3.
56. In furtherance of the Order, on July 17, 2020, the Chairman of the Committee,
Councilman Brent Ackerson sent a letter to Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder formally requesting
that each appear for a hearing before the Committee on or before August 5, 2020. July 17, 2020
Correspondence (attached hereto as Exhibit B). According to the July 17, 2020 correspondence,
the Committee would refrain from asking Chief Hess or Chief Schroeder to divulge “information
which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation." Id.
57. Through correspondence from counsel for the Committee on July 30, 2020, the
Committee conveyed to the Metro Government that it intended to question Chief Hess and Chief
Schroeder regarding the following topics:
A) vandalism, and the response to it;
B) the use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be
targeted or came in contact with the same;
C) the placement of snipers on rooftops;
D) the placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment;
E) the warning to and communications with protestors;
14
F) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other
equipment by officers;
G) any “stand-down” order(s), directives, guidance given or passed

along to government responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.; and
H) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David

McAtee was shot.
See July 30, 2020 E-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit C).
58. With the understanding that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s appearances would
not require them to divulge any information regarding ongoing investigations, the Metro
Government agreed that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would appear before the Committee on
August 3, 2020.
59. Subsequently, on July 30, 2020, the Scott Action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. See Scott Complaint (attached hereto as
Exhibit D).
60. The Scott Action names as defendants therein: the Metro Government, the Mayor,
individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville, Chief Schroeder, individually and
in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, LaVita
Chavous, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan
Police Department, Louisville Metropolitan Police Department Officer “J.” Johnson, Louisville
Metropolitan Police Department Officer John Does #1-#15, and Jane Doe #1, in their individual
capacities. Id.
61. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil
rights violations and common law directly related to the topics that the Committee seeks to
question Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder regarding. The Scott Action concerns the Metro
15
Government’s response to the protests throughout Louisville beginning on May 28, 2020.

Specifically, the Scott Action raises allegations of the use of tear gas and pepper balls,3 allegations
that the media was targeted or came into contact with such agents;4 the stationing of officers atop
buildings;5 the placement and use of sound equipment;6 warnings and communications with
protesters [and others];7 the use of helmets and other protective gear;8 purported stand-down
orders, directives, guidance given or passed along to government responders;9 and how or why
law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David McAtee was shot.10
62. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action seek compensatory and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief against the Metro Government and the LMPD.
63. The Kentucky Open Meetings Act is codified in KRS 61.800 through KRS 61.850.
The Open Meetings Act. KRS 61.810 codifies several exceptions to the requirement that public
meetings be done in open session including the litigation exception which provides that an agency
may enter a closed or executive session for “discussions of proposed or pending litigation against
or on behalf of the public agency.” KRS 61.810(c).
3
See Scott Complaint at paras. 37, 39-42, 44-47, 50, 52, 56-7, 59-60, 64, 68, 70, 74, 78-79, 81-84, 87, 90, 98, 101-
103, 106,, 122-125, 128-129, 133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187, 194-196, 216, 227, 231-233, 239,
250 and 273.
4
Id. at para. 49 alleges LMPD officers targeted journalists, and para. 107 alleges an LMPD officer shot a reporter
from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball on June 17, 2020
5
Id. at para. 226.
6
Id. at para. 100 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. 104, 108 and 137-138, 204 and 239 all allege
the use of LRAD’s by LMPD.
7
Id. at para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who seek class certification on
behalf of all peaceful protesters) include “whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd
Control Weaponry;”.
8
Id. at paras. 35, 101, 142, 155, 163, 180, 208 and 227 all concern the use of helmets or other riot/protective gear by
LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters [and others].
9
The Scott Complaint, para 94 alleges that “[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant
Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be instituting needed
reforms to the LMPD’s use of force practices. But the very next day, in response to criticism from the LMPD,
Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to “stand
down” and that Defendant Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.”
10
Id. at para. 69 alleges that on the evening of May 31, 2020, “two and a half miles from the site of the protests
downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while attempting to disperse a small
social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee’s restaurant,” which is across the street from Dino’s.
16
64. Through KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2), the subpoena power of the Committee is

expressly limited by the exceptions to the Open Meeting Act contained in KRS 61.810, including
the litigation exception.
65. Therefore, any testimony solicited or subpoenaed by the Committee must be taken
in executive session if it includes “discussions of proposed or pending litigation against or on
behalf of the public agency.” KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) and KRS 61.810.
66. KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) states that “. . . the requirement that testimony be taken in
executive session may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify.”
67. The subject matter and allegations allegedly supporting the plaintiffs’ claims in the
Scott Action directly relate to and are encompassed in the line of questioning that the Committee
seeks to ask Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder about. Therefore, the proposed testimony of Chief
Hess and Chief Schroeder would directly relate to and touch upon every aspect of the potential
defense, answer, strategy, and positions of the Metro Government, the LMPD, and all of the named
defendants in the Scott Action.
68. Following the filing of the Scott Action, counsel for the Metro Government, Chief
Hess and Chief Schroeder contacted the Committee and indicated that, in light of the relief sought
by the Scott plaintiffs, the fact that Chief Schroeder did not have sufficient time to confer with
personal counsel, and the congruence between the Scott Action and the Committee’s investigation,
pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would only
testify in executive session should the Committee wish to proceed as scheduled on August 3, or
would be willing to sit for a public hearing at a date in the near future when doing so would not
adversely impact the defendants’ litigation position in the Scott action. Metro Government August
3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit E).
17
69. In response, the Committee Chairman, Counselman Brent Ackerson, indicated

through counsel that he did not intend to conduct the appearance in executive session and would
not delay or continue the August 3, 2020 hearing until a date in the future when one or both
witnesses would waive the executive session requirement set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).
Committee August 3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit F).
70. Specifically, the Committee Chairman has taken the position that KRS
67C.103(14)(b) does not require that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s testimony to be taken in
executive session as he does not believe the testimony falls within the scope of KRS 61.810. The
Committee Chairman further indicated his intent to waive the executive session requirement as he
contends it is his right to do.
71. On August 3, 2020, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder appeared before the
Committee and again conveyed that they were more than willing to answer questions regarding
the Committee’s investigation but, pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, would only
do so on that day in an executive session in light of the Scott Action.
72. During the August 3, 2020 hearing, Chairman Ackerson responded by stating that
“my sole focus is to get the truth out to the public about what has happened and why.” Later, the
Chair said “today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair of this body whose job it is to get
the truth out here to the public. . . .”
73. Chairman Ackerson refused to allow for testimony in executive session and
indicated that the Committee is “not going into executive session. There will be nothing hidden
18
from the public regarding this matter” and went on to state “Zero. Plain and simple. So, with that

being said, if you're not going to proceed, there's the door.”11
74. As the Committee refused to respect the mandate set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2)
that it only take testimony on a matter covered by KRS 61.810 in executive session, Chief Hess and
Chief Schroeder excused themselves from the August 3, 2020 meeting.
75. On August 5, 2020, the Committee issued a Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a
separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder. See August 5, 2020 Subpoena (attached hereto as Exhibit
G). The Subpoena demands that Chief Hess appear before the Committee on August 17, 2020 to
testify relating to the investigation authorized by the Order. The Subpoena conveys that Chief
Hess’s “failure to obey this subpoena may subject you to contempt proceedings as provided in
KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b).
76. Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have nothing to hide and remain willing to testify
in executive session, or in an open session at a future date when doing so will not adversely impact
the Scott Action. In fact, on August 7, 2020, Plaintiff, through counsel, again reached out to the
Committee to reiterate its willingness for Chief Hess to testify in open session once a brief,
reasonable time was allowed for the Metro Government to evaluate the Scott Action. See August
7, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit H). Plaintiff further conveyed that Chief Hess would
be willing to testify in executive session on August 17, 2020 pursuant to the express language of
KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810.
77. Finally, in their correspondence, Plaintiff conveyed to the Committee its concerns
that the Committee may be exceeding the scope of its authority granted by the Kentucky General
11
It is unclear from the pubic proceedings whether the Chair sought or had the consensus of his fellow committee
members on this point, despite the fact that KRS 61.815 provides a very clear procedure for going into executive
session, which involves action by the committee as a whole, and is not vested in the Chair.
19
Assembly under KRS 67C.103(14)(b) based on comments from the Chair about the purpose and

objectives of the hearing, i.e., to get the truth out to the public.
78. Upon information and belief, the Committee neither intends to go into executive
session when compelling testimony from Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder on August 17, 2020,
nor intends to delay hearing from these witnesses until a later date when they would be prepared
to waive the executive session requirement.
COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO KRS CHAPTER 418
79. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations of preceding paragraphs 1 through 78
as though set forth fully herein.
80. Because of the foregoing, there exists a controversy between Plaintiff and
Defendants concerning the interpretation of KRS 61.810(c) and its interplay with KRS
67C.103(14)(b) in these circumstances.
81. Further, there exists a separate controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants as to
the scope of the Committee’s authority in conducting its investigation, as parts of the Committee’s
Order investigation and the comments of the Committees’ Chairperson stray from a legislative
purpose and evidence an intent to engage in a general fact-finding mission.
82. In accordance with KRS 418.040 and KRS 418.045, this Court is empowered to
make a binding declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations regarding KRS
67C.103(14)(b) on the questions of whether the topics on which it intends to compel testimony
pursuant to its August 5, 2020 subpoenas concerns pending litigation so as to fall into the exception
to open meetings set out in KRS 61.810(c), and if it does, who holds the ability to waive that
requirement—i.e., the Committee or the person/agency receiving the subpoena.
20
83. Further, the Court is empowered to make a binding declaration of the parties’

respective rights and obligations regarding the scope of the Committee’s investigation and the
requirement that it must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative
purpose.
COUNT II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
84. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of preceding paragraphs 1 through 83
as though set forth fully herein.
85. The Committee is seeking to enforce KRS 67C.103(14)(b) in a manner that is in
contravention of its statutory authority.
86. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the August 5, 2020 subpoena is enforced and
Chief Hess is either required to testify in open session before the Committee, or risk being held in
contempt if she refuses. Moreover, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the Committee proceeds
in a manner that is not reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose
87. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is necessary to protect
their rights.
88. Further, the questions presented in this action are capable of repetition in the future
given the class of persons subject to the Committee’s subpoena power, which further presents a
justiciable case or controversy warranting a declaration of the parties’ rights, with respect to not
only the outstanding subpoenas, but as to any subsequently served subpoenas.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
A. Pursuant to KRS 418.050, this action be docketed for early hearing as in the case
of a motion;
21
B. Upon such hearing, this Court enter its Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the

Defendants declaring that:
i. KRS 67C.103(14)(b) requires that any testimony given by Chief Hess or
other witnesses on matters that are subject to pending litigation be given in
executive session;
ii. it is the individual or agency subpoenaed who holds the privilege to waive
the requirement that testimony regarding pending litigation be taken in
executive session; and
iii. the Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that
serve a legitimate legislative purpose;
C. For injunctive relief restraining the Metro Council from enforcing its August 5,
2020 Legislative Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to “testify [in an open session] before the
Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17, 2020 at 2:30 p.m., restraining the
Metro Council from requiring Chief Hess or any other witness subject to the Committee’s
subpoena power to testify in an open session on matters concerning pending litigation unless the
witness or the agency presenting the witness waives that requirement, and requiring that the scope
of the Government Oversight and Audit Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to
matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose; and
D. For such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may appear entitled under the
circumstances.
22
oRDER NO. 0oS,SER|ES 2o2o
AN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF THE

ADMINISTRATION SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF BREONNA
TAYLOR, THE DEATH OF DAVID MCATEE, AND RELATED
PROTESTS IN LOUISVILLE METRO
SPONSORED BY: GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AUDTT

COMMITTEE CHAIR BRENT ACKERSON AND VICE CHAIR ANTHONY
PIAGENTINI
WHEREAS, in the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shot
and killed inside her home by the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), part of
Louisville Metro Government, and which reports to the Mayor;
WHEREAS, during a subsequent night of protests in Louisville Metro, David McAtee

was shot and killed at his place of business by a Kentucky National Guard soldier
working alongside LMPD;
WHEREAS, the protests sparked law-enforcement re$ponse$ and actions that included
the lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other
chemical agents, and other techniques;
WHEREI\S, rnuch critical information about the planning, training, communication, and
execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor's home
and her death has been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;
WHEREAS, information surrounding the planning, coordination, training, and execution

of responses by activated National Guard personnel working in concert with LMPD has
been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;
WHEREAS, the uncertainty of these months-long investigations with no additional

information afforded the families or the public has sown distrust, unrest, and damage to
our social fabric, the confidence in government, and general community morale;
WHEREAS, Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand these
events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made by,
and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local government and any board or
commission described in KRS S 67C,103(13X0, including but not limited to Mayor Greg
Fischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration") and LMPD by
and through its agents; ;
EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a transparent, public
process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing information
is revealed to help resolve the aforementioned issues and omissions;
WHEREAS, under KRS $ the Legislative Council

67C.103(13Xf), of the
LouisvillelJefferson County Metro Government ("Metro Council") shall have the power to
"[m]ake independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the consolidated
local government";
WHEREAS, Metro Council will investigate these concerns regarding the Administration
in the Government Oversight and Audit Commiftee (.GOAC") utilizing powers set forth
in KRS S 67C.103(14); and;
WHEREAS, at the completion of the GOAC investigation, GOAC will report findings of
fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make recommendations for
any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes for
investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT {"METRO COUNCIL"I
AS FOLLOWST
SECTION l: Louisville Metro Council, through the Government Oversight and Audit
Committee, hereby initiates an investigation into the actions and inaction of the
Administration leading to the no-knock search warrant and subsequent shooting death
of Breonna Taylor, the shooting death of David McAtee during protests in Louisville
Metro, and the planning and response to protests and destructive activity in Louisville
Metro following these deaths. The scope of this investigation shall include, but not be
limited to:
Working with any counsel for GOACllouisville Metro Council, andlor its
desig nated investigator.
Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officers

of the consolidated local government and any board or commission described in
KRS $ 67C.103(13Xil, including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his
leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration")and LMPD by and
through its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting death
of Breonna Taylor on March 13,2020.
ldentifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,
2
processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Government
and impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.
ldentifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to the
execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the
night, and the death of Breonna Taylor"
ldentifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the
death of Breonna Taylor.
ldentifying any error$ or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions rnade by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the
death of David McAtee"
Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in resporrse
to protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death of Breonna Taylor.
lnterviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing public

ooncerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS
67C.103(14Xe).
SECTION ll: The Government Oversight and Audit Commifiee will conduct the
investigation into the Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of
Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to
protests in Louisville Metro with the legislative power contained in KRS $$
67C.103(13X0, 67C.103(14), and according to Metro Council Rute 4A.04(b).
SECTION lll: The Government Oversight and Audit Committee Chair shatt have the
power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS S$ 67C.103{14)(e)
and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special s of the Committee.
SECTION lV: This r shalltake effect upon its pas
Metro CouncilClerk Govern Oversight and Audit

Committee
?S)-e)
Approved LOUISVI LLF MFTRO COUNCIL
ADOPTED
?s
3
BY
Jonathan Ricketts
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG,ALITY:

. \l t{
*.
;)

P^)
Lor;rsv rt .t",n M.rlno Ct-llrNc: tt-

[]ru,x l'1. Ar. xti'Ls(.tr-
2 (i'r r r I ) r;s rntt:'r' C.'ot-jN-(:il..N' r\ N
luly 17,2020
Amy Hess
Chief of Public Services
527 W . Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor
arny. hess@louisvilleky. gov
Sent via US Mail and Email
RE: Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee

oR-004-20
Dear Chief Hess
On July 14,2020, the Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee
(hereinafter "Committec"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and
inactions of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David
McAtee, and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.
To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers.
Please provide us with dates between now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the
Committee. We ask that you please block out 2-4 hours for questions and discussion with the Committee.
Please be advised that the Committee shall refrain, at this time, from asking you to divulge
information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attomey General and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Ackerson, Chairman
Oversight and Audit Cornmittee
(:01 \\t.l[,l,r,riRsr]N S1nr.r,r. . (502) 574-1126 . Lor.llsvlr.r.r,i, KY 40202 ' wlvrv.louisvilleky.gov 'i'1(:*;:::r"'
EXHIBIT B
Louisr.,rt-t,n Mu't'no Couxcn
Il rr r,*-'r''ll Ai. rrp.sr-r
"'
l(ir l l)ts'r'utc: r: C"'ouNr.tt"it.rin
t
Ju,ly 17,2020
Robert Schroeder
Interim Chief, LMPD
robert. schroeder@louisvil leky. gov
Sent via US Mailand Email

oR-004-20
Dear Interim Chief Schroeder:
(hereinafter "Committee"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and inactions
of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee,
and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.
To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers,
Please provide us with dates befween now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the
information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the
Thank YOU,
. Ackerson, Chairman
ent Oversight and Audit Committee
601 W .ll,t,l,l,RspN Slnr,r;r' . (-5021 574-1126 . L<)Lllsvn,.l-t, Ky40202 . 1v11'lv,lsuisvitleky.gor' -.'ii,it"

From : Jonatha n Ricketts <Jonatha n, Ricketts@ rickettslawoffi ces,com>
Sent: Thursday, July 30,2020 t2:02 PM
To: Steve Amato <samato@mcbrayerfirm.com>; David J. Guarnieri <dguarnieri@mcbrayerfirm.com>
Cc: Ch ristopher Bush <Ch ristopher. Bush @ rickettslawoffices.com>
Subject: Aug 3 GOAC Meeting follow-up between counsel
Steve and David,

This follows our call on 7 /28,ln an attempt to answer questions on behalf of your client, we had a
chance to speak with Chairman Ackerson regarding the oath, "pre-meetings", opening remarks, scope and
form or format of the meeting Monday. I will address them one at a time:
1, Oaths: Chairman Ackerson intends to administer the oath to your clients in the form previously shared
with you,
EXHIBIT C
2. "Pre-meetings": The Chair was puzzled by this as he informs us that he did not request a "pre-meeting

with your clients.He would prefer for all discussions to be conducted in an open meeting. I believe you
have not objections to that.
3. Opening remarks: You clients will be permitted opening remarks, however they will be limited to 5
minutes each.
4. Scope and From are addressed together: The Chair anticipates the evening will go like this: The
meeting will be called to order, your clients will be sworn, and be permitted to make their opening
remarks. The Chair will then make opening remarks. He will then ask your clients in narrative and
chronological form to generally describe in chronological order police/law enforcement response to
protests that began on the evening of May 28,2020, and take us up to current time, He expects that
as the narrative unfolds, he may interrupt them to get clarity or follow-up on the events, Specific
topics he'd like for them to be prepared to talk about throughout the chronological events are:
o a) vandalism, and response to it,
o b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted or came in contact
with same,
o c) placement of snipers on roof tops,
o d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment,
o e) warning to and communications with protestors,
o f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,
o g) any "stand-down" order(s), directives, guidance given or passed alongto government
responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.,
o h) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.
I am informed that the Chair will collect questions before the meeting from other councilmembers,
will conduct the questioning, and will reserve the final 30 minutes for any follow up questions by
Councilmembers,
I believe I have answered your questions. Furthet I believe that I have been thorough enough herein
to allow your client not only to be prepared, but also to provid.e notice to you sufficient to raise concerns in
advance of the meeting so that we might address them beforehand. I also want to be clear that the form of
the hearing will be fluid and this list, while as thorough as I can be at this time, may not be exhaustive,
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, and please thank your clients for me
on behalf of the committee for voluntarily agreeing to appear before the Committee'
Thanks,
/iaaflatt
Jonathan S. Ricketts
Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC

4055 Shelbyvilie Road
Phone: (502)896-2302
Fax: (502)896-2362
htt.tr, ://www. ricl<ettslawoffj ceq,com

Notice: This email is subject to provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C, SS 2510-
2521 and the information contained herein and any accompanying attachment(s) are also subject to the attorney-
client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, and include confidential and privileged matters intended only for
the limited use of the recipient to whom this email message is addressed, subject to law and court rules. lf any
reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly
prohibited, and may be unlawful. lntended recipients'use is limited as authorized by law or rule. lf you have
received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return mail, and delete the original
message and destroy all copies from your system, also notify the sender immediately by telephone at (502)896-
2302 or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Should this email contain settlement
negotiations as intended by the sender, same shall be prohibited from use by applicable state or federal rule, and
sender does not consent to its use in a manner inconsistent with those rules. Please Note that (1) E-mail
communication is not a secure method of communication; (2) Any e-mail sent to you by this firm, or by you to this
firm, may be copied and held by various unauthorized computers as the communication is transmitted; and (3)
Persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your
computer or the computers of Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC, or even a computer unconnected to either of us. lf you
subsequently elect not to receive future communications from my office via e-mail, please immediately notify me at
(502)896-2302.
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1 of 46 PagelD #: l-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTER}{ DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH,

KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY,
STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY,
and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE
AGAINST RACIAL AND POUTICAL
REPRESSION, on behalf of themselves and Civil Action No
all others similarly situated,
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, DEMAND
V
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERS ON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT, GREG
FISCHER, individually and in his official
capacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERT
SCHROEDER, individually and in his
official capacity as Interim Chief of the
Louisville Metropolitan Police Department,
LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in her
official capacity as Assistant Chief of the
and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J.''
JOHNSON, LOUISVILLE
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES
#l-#15 and JANE DOE #1, in their
individual capacities,
Defendants
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
"[O]ur constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and
encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured
in a democratic society." Cox v. State of La.,379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965). Rarely before has this
principle been as readily apparent as it is today; following the senseless killings of George Floyd,
EXHIBIT D
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 2 of 46 PagelD #:2

Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black individuals at the hands of police, protesters in all
fifty states are demanding police accountability and reform.
Rather than treating its peaceful protesters as important parts of the democratic process
protected by the Constitution, the City of Louisville has chosen to forcibly silence them-often
using military-type weapons and tactics that resemble those used by authoritarian regimes to
stifle dissent. ln the days following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis
police officers on May 25,2020, a key demand for protesters who took to the streets around the
country was justice for Breonna Taylor, who was killed by Louisville police officers in her own
home on March 13,2020. Louisville police officers sought to quell these demonstrations through
the sustained use of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, and other forms of military-grade
technology. This combat-style response led to yet another senseless death: on May 3I,2020,
Louisville police and the National Guard fired eighteen live rounds at David McAtee, a local
Black restaurant owner, killing him. Since then, countless peaceful protesters-including elected
officials and local educators-have been shot, gassed, beaten, and arrested solely for making
their voices heard. Louisville police officers also abused the city's curfew order while it was in
effect, employing force to arrest or disperse people hours before they were required by the
curfew order to clear the streets. And to this day, both Louisville's Mayor and Kentucky's
Governor have defended the police department's conduct.
Plaintiffs are a diverse group of individuals who have come together to exercise their
rights to protest and demand change from their government. For that, Louisville police officers
have subjected them to shocking and violent levels of force, Plaintiff Corbin Smith was tear
gassed, beaten with batons, and forced to beg for his life while an officer kneeled on his neck.
2
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt 1- Filed 07130120 Page 3 of 46 PagelD #: 3

Plaintiff Stevie Schauer was shoved to the ground and violently beaten by officers who saw her
recording their misconduct; friends who tried to help her were shot with pepper balls.
Their experiences are just a few examples of the sustained violence that Louisville has
unleashed on its citizens. Plaintiffs now bring this suit, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, to guarantee and protect their constitutional right to demand change from their
government at this singular moment in history.
PARTIES
l. Plaintiff Attica Scott is a citizen of the United States and cunently resides in
Kentucky. She cunently serves in the Kentucky House of Representatives, representing the 41st
District.
2. Plaintiff Corbin Smith currently resides in Indiana,
3, Plaintiff Kayla Meisner currently resides in Kentucky.
4. Plaintiff Tyler Weakley curently resides in lndiana.
5. Plaintiff Stevie Schauer currently resides in Kentucky.
6, Plaintiff Willa Tinsley currently resides in Kentucky.
7. Plaintiff Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression
("KAARPR") is a 501(c)(3) organized under the laws of Kentucky that has more than 900 dues-
paying members. Its mission is to "inform the public and provide a channel for public debate
conceming the human and constitutional rights of all people; to bring together diverse groups of
people to support those repressed for racist or political reasons; fand] to work to end racist
practices in the community and government."l The organization's work is focused on, among
other things, combating the use of excessive force by police, including against protestors;
I About Us, Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, http://www.kentuckyalliance.org/about.html
(last visited July 30, 2020).
a
J
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07rcAl2} Page 4 of 46 PagelD #'. 4
challenging cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in prisons and jails in Kentucky;

limiting the disproportionate effect of the criminal justice system on Black individuals; and
improving education access and opportunity for Black and Brown children in the greater
Louisville area.
8. Since its founding more than 40 years ago, KAARPR has, among other things,
highlighted the stories of victims of police abuse as a means of drawing attention to the larger
systemic issues discussed above. For example, over twenty years ago, KAARPR launched a
campaign around the death of Adrien Reynolds, who was subjected to excessive force during his
arrest and then killed by corectional officials.
9. KAARPR is also a leading member of Louisville Citizens Against Police Abuse,
a coalition of local organizations united to fight police brutality in Black and Brown
communities in Louisville.
10, Defendant Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("City of Louisville")
is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky. Defendant City
of Louisville, acting through the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department ("LMPD"), is
responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD
matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. In
addition, the City of Louisville is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring
that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.
11. Defendant Greg Fischer is the Mayor of the City of Louisville. In that capacity, he
is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, superuision, implementation, and conduct of
all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD
4
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 5 of 46 PagelD #: 5

personnel, In addition, Defendant Fischer is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and
ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.
12. Defendant Robert Schroeder is the Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan
Police Department. Defendant Schroeder was appointed to this role on or about June 1, 2020.
Before his appointment as Interim Chief, Defendant Schroeder was Deputy Chief of the
Louisville Metropolitan Police Department. In his capacity as both Interim Chief and Deputy
Chief, he is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and
conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of
all LMPD personnel. In addition, Defendant Schroeder is responsible for enforcing the rules of
the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of
Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and expeditious investigations into officer
misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Schroeder was acting within the scope of his
employnent and under color of state law.
13. Defendant LaYita Chavous is an Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan
Police Department. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementing the policy, practice,
supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment,
training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. ln addition, Defendant Chavous is
responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the
laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and
expeditious investigations into officer misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Chavous was
acting within the scope of her employment and under color of state law.
14. Defendants LMPD Officer'oJ." Johnson and LMPD Officers John Does #1-15 and
ooOfftcers")
Jane Doe #1, (collectively, "Defendant Officers" or are police officers employed by
5
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 6 of 46 PagelD #: 6

the City of Louisville. In this role, Defendant Officers were duly appointed and acting officers,
servants, employees and/or agents of Louisville. At all relevant times, they were acting in the
scope of their employment and under color of state law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This action arises under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, 42 U .S.C. $ I 983, and Kentucky state law.
16. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1343(a)(3),
1343(a)(), and 1367,
l7 . Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C, $ 1391(b) and (e)
because at least some Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the acts and
omissions giving rise to this action took place in this district.
JURY TRJAL DEMAND
18. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.
FACTS
The Killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd Spur Nutionwide Protests
19. Over the past several months, a number of high-profile instances of police killing
unarmed Black people have shocked the nation's conscience.
20, Shortly after midnight on March 13,2020, three LMPD police officers shot and
killed Breonna Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency medical technician who lived in
Louisville,
21. The LMPD officers executed a no-knock warrant at Ms. Taylor's apartment.
Upon entry, the officers fired over twenty rounds at Ms, Taylor and her boyfriend.
6
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 7 of 46 PagelD #'.7

22. Ms. Taylor, who was unarmed and sleeping in bed, was struck eight times-but
did not die immediately. lnstead, for five or six minutes, she lay bleeding in her bed, her
boyfriend pleading unsuccessfully for the officers to help her. Ms. Taylor died from her injuries,
23, Ms. Taylor's story quickly captured national attention. Calls for justice for her
killing began to grow.
24. ln response, the LMPD opened an internal investigation into whether its officers
violated any departmental policies, The Attorney General of Kentucky has opened an
investigation into possible criminal charges against the officers. And the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has opened a separate probe into the officers' conduct.
25, To date, however, the officers who killed Breonna Taylor have not been arested,
Defendant Schroeder has initiated termination procedures against just one of the three officers
involved.
26. Less than two months later, on May 25,2020, officers from the Minneapolis
Police Department killed George Floyd while anesting him on suspicion of passing a counterfeit
twenty-dollar bill.
27. A bystander captured the killing on video; for nearly eight minutes after Mr.
Floyd had been placed in handcuffs, a police officer kneeled on Mr, Floyd's neck while three
other officers stood by and watched.
28. Mr. Floyd repeatedly begged for mercy, pleading that he could not breathe. He
called out for his mother. His last words were "please, I can't breathe."
29. Video of Mr. Floyd's murder spread almost immediately. Within days, his story
had become the defining topic of national discourse. Elected officials and public figures of all
political affiliations denounced the police officers' actions.
7
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page B of 46 PagelD #: I

30. All four of the officers involved in Mr. Floyd's killing have been arrested and
criminally charged,
31. The killings of Ms. Taylor and Mr, Floyd-emblematic of the widespread pattern
of police violence against unarmed Black people-touched a nerve in communities across the
country, sparking mass protests about how police interact with Black people.
32. Within a week of Mr. Floyd's killing, large-scale demonstrations had begun in all
fifty states. Those protests remain ongoing.
Protests Begin in Louisville, Prompting Immediate and Egregious Use of Force by LMPD
Malt 28, 2020
33. On May 28,2020, LMPD released the audio of the 911 call placed by Breonna
Taylor's boyfriend the night she was killed.
34. That evening, large-scale demonstrations began in Louisville. At approximately
8:00 p.m., protesters carrying signs reading "Justice for Breonna" and chanting "Breonna was
asleep" marched through downtown Louisville to gather near the Louisville Metro Hall,2
35. Protesters were met by a fleet of armed LMPD officers clad in riot gear.
36, At approximately l1:15 p.m., ahandful of protesters threw plastic water bottles at
the LMPD officers.
37. In response, LMPD officers fired a combination of pepper balls (pepper-spray
projectiles launched using guns or similar weapons) and live ammunition into the crowd of
protesters, nearly all of whom were protesting peacefully. Seven people were hit with live
bullets, Protesters began to disperse.
2
Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauth
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates; Protestors arcested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,Couriet
Joumal (May 28, 2020 at l0:56 p,m,), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsipolitics/metro-
government/2020lQ5l28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52801620021 .
8
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3ol20 Page 9 of 46 PagelD #: 9

38. At least one of the injured protesters claimed that he was shot in the back of the
head by a police officer. He has sued both LMPD and the Kentucky State Police. See Albert v.
Unknown Individual Kentuclcy State Police Officers, et al.,No.3:20-cv-00418 (W.D. Ky.).
39. LMPD officers then began to launch canisters of tear gas into the crowd,
40, LMPD subsequently claimed that the tear gas and gunshots were necessary to
prevent assaults on officers. But no officers were reported as injured during the protests.3
4L The LMPD's use of tear gas against peaceful protestors on May 28,2020 was
widely reported in the media.
42. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers have been disciplined by
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas against
peaceful protestors on May 28,2020.
Ma:t 29. 2020
43. Demonstrations continued the next day, on May 29,2020.An even larger group
of protesters marched through downtown Louisville starting in the late aftemoon, Many of the
protesters were young teenagers,a
44. By the early evening, LMPD officers began using flash grenades, tear gas, and
pepper balls on the largely peaceful crowd.
45, Plaintiff Attica Scott and her daughter were present at this protest; both were
demonstrating peacefully but were shoved by police and then hit with tear gas,
3
Mike Baker, 7 People Shot at Louisville Protest Over the Death of Breonna Taylor, N.Y. Times (May 29,2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020105129/usllouisville-protest-shooting-breonna-tay1or.html,
4
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arresled as Breonna Taylor rallies conlinue around Louisville,Coutier
Joumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 3 l, 2020, I I :00 p.m.), https://www.courier-
journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2020105/28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-
protest/52807 620021 .
9

46. For over four hours, flash grenades launched by LMPD "volleyed through the air
like cannon-fire" while tear gas deployed by LMPD "wafted across entire city blocks."s
47. LMPD officers fired pepper balls indiscriminately into the crowd.
48. As one newspaper reported, "[b]y l0 p.m., downtown Louisville looked like a war
zone."6
49, LMPD officers targeted journalists who were covering the chaos, flrring pepper
bullets at groups of reporters who were videotaping the scene.T
50. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers were disciplined by Defendant
Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous as a result ofusing tear gas, flash grenades,
or pepper bullets against peaceful protestors on May 29 , 2020.
May 30. 2020
51. On May 30,2020,Mayor Greg Fischer instituted a 9:00 p.m. cityr,vide curfew and
called in the National Guard,8
52. Protesters began to gather downtown for peaceful demonstrations in the afternoon
on May 30. Some volunteers brought stockpiles of water and milk to use both as eyewash due to
LMPD's indiscriminate use of tear gas, as well as to provide essential drinking water for the
protest on a long sunny day. They stored these stockpiles in Jefferson Square Park for all
protesters to use.
5
Mandy Mclaren, A traumatized generation: Louisville's youth demand racial justice during mass protesls,
Louisville Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,5:31 p.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/05/30/breonna-taylor-protest-louisvilles-youth-demand-racial-justic e152910300021 .
6ld.
1
@wave3news, "WAVE 3 News reporter Kaitlin Rust appeared to have been hit by rubber bullets reportedly
fired
by an LMPD officer during a protest in downtown Louisville," Twitter (May 29,2020,10:23 p.m.),
https ://twitter,com/wave3 news/status/ 1 266 5 5 57 3 17 3 1 4 1 5040?s=20.
8
Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer sets curfew calls in National Guardfor Breonna Taylor protests, " Louisville
Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,9:49 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-
government/2 020l05l30lmayor-fischer-sets-breonna-taylor-protest-curfew-cal1s-national-guardl52906900021 '
10
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 11- of 46 PagelD #: It

53. At approximately 7:30 p,m., while protesters were peacefully demonstruting, a
group of plainclothes LMPD police officers began destroying the protesters' stockpiles without
explanation,e
54. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers intentionally destroyed the
protesters' supplies to discourage protesters from remaining at the demonstrations.
55. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers had decided to use tear gas on
protesters before they began to destroy the protesters' supplies,
56. At approximately 8:00 p,m.-an hour before the official curfew and thitty
minutes after destroying the protesters' stockpiles of water and milk-LMPD officers began to
launch tear gas into the crowd of peaceful protesters and beat them back with batons. At the
time, some protesters had lain down on the street while chanting for police accountability.
57. LMPD officers launched tear gas at a crowd of protesters, including former State
Representative Charles Booker, who were standing in a place several yards away from the riot
line.lo
58. Approximately 40 protesters were arrested,ll
59. When asked about LMPD's conduct, Defendant Fischer conceded that the
protesters were nonviolent, but he nonetheless defended the use of tear gas and batons by saying
e
Natalie Neysa Alunda , Police officers in Louisville smash milk jugs and water bottles at Breonna Taylor protest, "
Louisville Courier Journal (May 30, 2020,9:43 p.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal,com/story/news/locall2020l05l30lbreonna-taylor-protest-louisville-police-smash-protesters'
supplies/5295 8400021.
r0
Charles Booker (@Booker4KY), "We were yards away. No one was confrontational, It was not 9p' They started
throwing gas at us anyway, I wish I could say this is unbelievable," Twitter (May 30, 2020,8:52 p.m.),
https ://twitter.com/Booker4KY I statusl 126689 52439 \33 67 5 53? s:/0,
rr Rob Byers, Curfew remains in effect
for Louisville for at least another night amid prolesls, Louisville Courier
Journal (May 31, 2020, I l:54 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsllocaV2020l05/31/breonna-taylor-
prote sts Joui svi l1 e-curfew-remains-effect-s unday I 529 9 457 002I'
11
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page L2 of 46 PagelD #: 12

the demonstration "looked like it was going to be taking a tum for the worse," and that police
used their judgment.l2
60. Upon information and beliel no LMPD officers have been disciplined by
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas and batons on
nonviolent protestors.
Malt 31.2020
61. The next evening saw similar violent police responses to largely peaceful protests.
62. In the early evening on May 3I,2020, approximately 1,000 protesters gathered at
the Muhammad Ali Center in downtown Louisville. From there, they marched to Jefferson
Square Park, arriving shortly before 8:00 p,m.-again an hour before offrcial curfew.
63. Almost immediately, LMPD officers arived at the park and decreed that the
demonstration was an unlawful assembly without providing any further explanation.
64, Just minutes later, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs (explosive devices
commonly used by militaries, which cause temporary blindness, deafness, and loss of balance)
and tear gas into the peaceful crowd, forcing protesters out of the park and onto the surrounding
streets.
65. LMPD officers also fired projectiles at people holding innocuous objects like
umbrellas.
66. As protesters got into their cars to drive away from the protest, LMPD officers
lined up on an overpass and fired at cars, breaking the windows of several vehicles.13
t2 Darcy Costello, Breonna Taylor proteslors question police tactics used prior to Louisville's curfew time,
Louisville Courier Joumal (May 3 I , 2020, 5:50 p.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-
government/2 020105/3llbreonna-taylor-protesters-question-lmpd-tactics-against-saturday-rally/53006420021 .
i, puinkill.. Gillz (@ltz5500Gil1z), "This is LMPD shooting at peoples vehicles as they tried to go home from the
protest...they was us dead in Louisville, ky," Twitter (June 1, 2020,9:52 a.m.),
https ://twitter. com/Itzs500G illzl statusl 1267 45 4024288292867 .
t2
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 13 of 46 PagelD #: l-3

67. Approximately 100 protesters were arrested and held in police custody.
68. LMPD further defended the decision to use tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to
the start of the official city-wide curfew, by claiming that "people with leaf blowers fwere] in the
crowd, We know those are used for things like dispensing powder chemicals and for blowing gas
back toward police."r4 City officials also claimed, without providing any evidence, that leaf
blowers were loaded with bleach.ls
69. Later that evening, and two and a half miles from the site of the protests
downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while
attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's restaurant,
70. Upon encountering the group, LMPD officers and the National Guard began
firing pepper balls. One of the pepper balls came dangerously close to striking Mr. McAtee's
niece in the head,
7L Mr. McAtee, in response, drew a handgun and fired a warning shot into the air.
72. Approximately eight seconds later, LMPD and National Guard officers fired
eighteen live rounds at Mr. McAtee; one bullet from a National Guard offtcer struck Mr.
McAtee, killing him.r6
ra
Hayden Ristevski (@HaydenWDRB). "Metro Council President David James tells WDRB 'police saw people
approaching that had Gaf blowers loaded wth bleach that was intended to blow at police. So they sent out the tear
gu.,' lu*.r .uys police were trying to disperse the crowd because that. UPDATE: responso from @LMPD
spokesperson..." Twitter (May 31, 2020,10:24 p'm.),
https ://twitter.com/HaydenWDRB/status/l 2 67 28087 9 61 4857 219? s:20'
t5
irooks Holton, Proiestors in Louisville question why police fired tear gas before curfew, WDRB Louisville, KY
(May 3, 2020), https://www,wdrb.com/news/protesters-inJouisville-question-why-police-fired-tear-gas-before-
curfew/article-50da8e76-a3 a9- I I ea-95d8-
bf6a8ed76863-html?utm_medium:social&utm-source:email&utm-campaign:user-share.
r6
Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar, Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guardfatal shooting of West End
businiss owner,Louisville Courier Journal (June 1, 2020,8:37 a'm'), https://www.courier-
joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-
shooting/53067 330021 .
l3
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1-4 of 46 PagelD #'. L4

73. None of the LMPD officers had turned on their body cameras, despite a mandate
to do so in LMPD's own operating policies.
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas, flash bangs,
pepper balls, and other projectiles on peaceful protesters.
Juuel,2!2!
75. The next day, on June 1, 2l}},Defendant Schroeder was appointed as Interim
Chief of the LMPD.
76, That evening, protesters again congregated in Jefferson Square Park,
77 . The demonstration was peaceful; protesters and police officers even linked arms
at points.lT
78. Nonetheless, at 10:00 p.m., officers fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd
to disperse the protesters.
79, The next day, on June 2,2020, one LMPD officer, Officer Katie Crews, posted a
photo of a protester offering her flowers on her social media page and wrote, "I hope the pepper
balls that she got lit up with a little later on hurt. Come back and getya some more ole girl, I'll
be on the line again tonight."ls
r7
Lucas Aulbach, The morning after: What happened at Monday's David McAtee and Breonna Taylor prolests,
Louisville Courier Joumal (June 2, 2020,6:31 a.m.), https://www,courier-
joumal.com/story/news/1ocall2020l06l02ldavid-mcatee-breonna-taylor-protests-louisville-monday-
recapl53l5267002l.
t8
tirtPO fficer under investigation after Facebook post about protestor, WDRB Louisville, KY (June 2,2020),
https://www.wdrb.com/news/lmpd-officer-under-investigation-after-facebook-post-about-
protester/arti cle 5 d622 -a4d8 - I 7 ea-a7 a4 -93 I a2800 a02d'html'
-b29
t4
80.

Officer Crews was one of the LMPD officers involved in the shooting death of
David McAtee just two days prior, but she was allowed to continue in her duties.le
8l. Although Officer Crews is under investigation for her social media post, upon
information and belief, no LMPD officers have been investigated or disciplined by Defendants
Fischer, Schroeder, or Chavous for using tear gas and pepper balls on peaceful protesters,
Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous Approve of und Sanction LMPD's Use of Force,
Resulting in Continued Use of Force by LMPD OfJicers
82, Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous knew
and, either explicitly, or through acquiescence, approved of LMPD's decision to use tear gas,
flash bangs, pepper balls, batons, and other forms of force on protesters between May 28,2020
and June 1,2020.
83. The version of LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures that was in effect at the
time required supervisors-including Defendants Chavous and Schroeder-to be notified any
time chemical agents, including pepper balls, were deployed'2o
84. LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures also required approval from a
commanding officer-such as Defendants Schroeder and Chavous-prior to using any chemical
agents, including pepper balls.2l
85, LMPD's conduct came under intense media scrutiny almost immediately. But
Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have done nothing to correct LMPD's illegal
course, instead acquiescing to LMPD's use of violent force on peaceful protesters.
re
Billy Kobin and KalaKachmar , Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guard fata shooting of West End
businiss owner, Louisville Courier Joumal (June I 2020, 8:37 a.m,), https://www.courier-
journal.com/s tory/newsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-
shooting/53067 330021 .
20
LourJvrr-B MErRo PoLrcE Dnr'r, SrexoARD OpERATING PRocEDUREs ("SoP") $ 3.1.1 (May 31,2004)'
2rSOP g 9.1.8 (Nov.7,2019),
15
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed A7130120 Page 16 of 46 PagelD #: 16

86. Defendant Fischer has defended his and LMPD's prior decisions, despite the
results, and has consistently refused to take meaningful action to protect protesters from unlawful
uses offorce.
87 , On May 30,2l20,just hours after LMPD officers destroyed peaceful protesters'
stockpiles of water and milk, arbitrarily enforced curfew restrictions over an hour earlier than
announced, and launched tear gas at dispersing crowds as described above, Defendant Fischer
issued a statement thanking LMPD for "show[ing] discipline, restraint and professionalism under
exhemely volatile circumstances." He then continued "to thank the law enforcement who came
in to assist from other agencies," as well.22
88. ln the same statement, Defendant Fischer stated that although he respected the
right to protest peacefully, he instructed Louisville residents to 'ostay home,"
89. When asked at a news conference about LMPD's destruction of protesters'
supplies, Defendant Fischer defended LMPD's conduct, speculating that police may have
believed there were flammable materials hidden among milk and water.23 Defendant Fischer did
not explain, and has not explained, any basis for such a conclusion.
90, Defendant Fischer has repeatedly defended LMPD's use of tear gas on protesters.
In a statement on June 2,2020, Defendant Fischer's spokesperson, Jean Porter, said that although
the Mayor was "sorry that some peaceful protesters were caught up in that," LMPD is there "to
22
Mayor Greg Fischer's statement on May 29 prolesls, LouisvilleKY.Gov (May 30, 2020),
https://louisvilleky.gov/news/mayor-greg-fi schero/oE2Yo8)%99s-statement-may-29-protests.
23
Amina Elahi, Louisville Mayor Claims, Ihthoul Details, Protestors' Seized Supplies were Hazardoas, WFPL
News Louisville (May 31,2020), https://wfpl.org/louisville-mayor-claims-without-details-protesters-seized-
supplies-were-hazardous/.
16
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 1-7 of 46 PagelD #: 17

protect public safety and keep order, and they make the decision-to use tear gas when they
believe that is in jeopardy."2a
91. On June 3,2020, Defendant Fischer issued a statement praising LMPD for
"putting in long hours," while "suffering insults and assaults" in dealing with protests. The
Mayor continued: "They are frustrated . . . I absolutely respect that. That doesn't change my
appreciation of the work they are doing, as I've expressed time and time again."25
92. On June 10,2020,in response to pressure from the public and the Louisville
Metro Council, Defendant Schroeder announced that LMPD officers would no longer be
permitted to use tear gas without his approval.26
93 . The June 27 , 2020 amendments to LMPD 's Standard Operating Procedures make
no reference to this new restriction.2T
94. ln the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer
apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be
instituting needed reforms to the LMPD's use of force practices. But the very next day, in
response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that
2a
Andrew Wolfson and Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer says Louisville welcomes peaceful protest' Why was one
cleared with tear gas? Louisville Courier Journal (June 2, 0202,6:36 a.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal,com/storylnewsl2020l06l}2/kentucky-leaders-question-why-louisvi1le-police-tear-gassed-
protesters/53 I 26650021.
,5 Taylor Weiter and Heather Fountaine, Watch: Louisville police walk out on Mayor Greg Fischer, FOP conf rms,
WHASI l ABC Louisville, KY (June 3,2020,8:07 p.m.), https://www.whasl Lcom/article/news/local/louisville-
police-fop-mayor-frscher/4 I 7-cddce5 93 -b5 dc-47e3-83 6b -25cai 7 3 e7 I 09'
lu T"rru Duvail, Sarah Ludd and Ben Tobin, Louisville police roundup: Tear gas limits, detective sidelined,
community policing survey, Louisville Courier Joumal (June 10, 2020,11'.27 a.m.), https://www,courier-
joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06ll0llouisville-police-c'ant-use-tear-gas-future-without-direct-
ordetl53332750021.
27
SOP $ 9,1.9 (June 27,2020) (using same language as prior version of SOP).
17
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 0713A120 Page 18 of 46 PagelD #: 18

he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to "stand down" and that Defendant
Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.28
95. Upon information and belief, since June 15,2020, Defendant Schroeder has not
implemented any changes to LMPD's use-of-force policies to better protect protesters,
96. At a media briefing on May 3I,2020, Defendant Chavous blamed the violence on
"anarchists" who intended to cause chaos---even though she identified no actual violent acts by
protesters.2e
97. At that same conference, Defendant Chavous defended the decision to,fire on
individuals carrying umbrellas, saying that umbrellas "can be used as weapons."30
98.' Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have
taken no action to reform LMPD's use-of-force policies or otherwise curtail LMPD's use of
force against peaceful protesters beyond the announcement regarding central approval oftear gas
usage.
Defendant City of Louisville's Ongoing Use of Force and Mass Arrests to Quell Protest and
Prevent Recording
99. Following two weeks of relativ'e calm between police and protesters, on June 15,
2020,the LMPD officers resumed their use of aggressive tactics and potentially lethal weapons'
on protesters,
28
Ragsdale, Travis, Mayor Fischer denied claim that he's giving Louisville police 'stand down' orders at protesls,
WDRB Louisville, KY (June 16,2020), https://www.wdrb.com/news/mayor-f,rscher-denies-claim+hat-hes-giving-
louisville-police-stand-down-orders-at-protests/article_4307b4b2-afe4- I I ea-83cf-23b024a8834c.htm1.
2e
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arrested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,Coutier
Joumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 31, 2020, ll:00 p'm.), https://www'courier-
journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-gov emmentl2020/05/28/breonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-
protest/52807 62002/ .
30
Lucas Aulbach, From tense to touching moments, here's how Louisville's protests went down Sunday night,
Louisville Courier Joumal (June 1, 2020, 6:18 a.m.), https ://www.courier-
joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06lOllbreonna-taylor-protest-what-happened-sundayJouisville/5305 156002/'
18
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 19 of 46 PagelD #: 19

100. Throughout that afternoon and evening, LMPD officers deployed smoke
grenades, pepper rounds, flash bangs, and a sound cannon against protesters, They also
continued to target individuals, including members of the press, who were documenting the
protests and the police response.
101. ln the late afternoon of June 15, a small group of peaceful protesters was gathered
near 9th Street and W. Chestnut Street. A line of LMPD officers in helmets, arrnor, and riot
shields moved toward the protesters, ordering them to move back. When the protesters did not
leave, the police marched north on 9th Street firing pepper balls and impact rounds toward the
crowd.
102. As the police moved down the road, they approached Plaintiff Schauer, who was
standing still on the sidewalk and was recording the officers with her cellphone. Two officers
walked over to her, threw her to the ground, and fired pepper balls at protesters who attempted to
help her. An officer then arrested Plaintiff Schauer.
103. The police eventually moved down to the area around W. Jefferson Street and 7th
Street, near LMPD headquarters, at which point the police took several steps backwards, The
protesters cheered, thinking that the police were backing off. Instead, the police fired a round of
pepper balls into the crowd,
104. Shortly thereafter, police used a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), a sonic
weapon that deploys a high-frequency sound wave, on peaceful protesters,
105. During the protests, a number of riot police gang-tackled a man in the middle of
the road. The officers' actions were captured by a security guard at the Hall of Justice, who
recorded it on his cellphone camera from behind a window. As the guard recorded the activity,
an officer fired a pepper ball at him, striking and cracking the window near where the guard had
I9
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 20 of 46 PagelD #'.20

been standing, LMPD confirmed that an officer had fired at the security guard. The guard told
Buzzfeed News that he had not reported the incident because he feared retaliation from the
police,3l
106, Later that night, another officer ran his car into a peaceful protester. The man told
WFPL, "I watched fthe officer] look at his back up cam and he ran right into me, literally."32
107 . Police use of force against peaceful protesters continued throughout the week. On
Ihe morning of Wednesday, June I7 ,2020, police again fired pepper balls at peaceful protesters
on multiple occasions. One officer shot a reporter from the Courier Journal, who was recording
the protests, with a pepper ball.
108. On Thursday, June 18,2020, the police used both peppers balls and LRADs
against peaceful protesters again, The police reportedly shot one protester in the eye with a
pepper ball. Another protester, who was sleeping in the park, awoke to an officer pointing a
Glock firearm in his face.
109. LMPD officers have also continued to engage in mass arrests of protesters, many
of whom have had charges subsequently dropped. ln total, between May 28,2020 and July 24,
2020, over 500 protesters have been arrested.33
3rAmber Jamieson, Police Shot At A Man Who Filmed Them Tackling Protestors in Louisville, BuzzFeed News
(June 17,2020,8:50 p.m,), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/louisville-shot-fired-security-
guard-video,
It Stafl (Iser of Pepper Balls Resumes At Downtown Louisville Protests, WFPL News Louisville (June 15, 2020),
https://wfpl,org/use-of-pepper-balls-tear-gas-resumes-at-downtown-louisville-protests/.
33
Hayes Gardier, 49 diys and 435 arrests; Protestors in Breonna Taylor movement unfazed by charges, Louisville
Courier Joumal (July 16, 2020, l:13 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/storylnewsl2020l0Tll6lbreonna-taylot-
protesters-arrests-show-we-mean-business/5 4349470021; https://www.wdrb.com/news/76-demonstrators-arrested-
after-shutting-down-market-street-as-part-of-breonna-taylor-protests/article-4f0f/000-cde5- I I ea-b69 I -
cf4c20dff0d I .html.
20
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 21 of 46 PagelD #,2L
10.

I In conducting these affests, LMPD has continued to target those recording or
livestreaming the police response to protesters.3a
I 1 1. Many protesters were initially charged with serious offenses, including felony
offenses that cary possible prison time.
112. For instance, on Tuesday, July 14,2020, more than 100 protesters arrived at
Attorney General Daniel Cameron's residence in Louisville to protest the Attorney General's
Office's delay in investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor,35 Eighty-seven of the protesters
were ultimately arrested and charged with Intimidating a Participant in the Legal Process, a
felony.
113. Three days later, the County Attorney for Jefferson County, Mike O'Connell,
announced that "in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas," his
office was dismissing all of the 87 felony charges brought against the peaceful protesters.36
ll4. ln response to an isolated and random shooting on June 27,2020, LMPD began
enforcing an 1 1:00 p.m. curfew at Jefferson Square Park, the main site for organized
demonstrations.
3a
Lucas Aulbach, Livestreaers at Breonna Taylor protests believe Louisville police are targeting them, Louisville
Courier Joumal (July 5, 2020,3:23 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/local/2020l07l05llouisville-
breonna-taylor-protesters-say-police-target-live-streametsl5380284002/ .
3s87 charged withfelony after protest on AG Daniel Cameron's lawn in Louisville, WLKY News, Louisville KY
(July 14, 2020,8:46 p.m.), https://www.wlky.com/article/protesters-march-through-east-louisville-to-ag-daniel-
camerons-homel333 1387 l.
36
County attorney dismissingfelony chargesfor protestors involved in sit-in at Cameron's home,WDRB
Louisville, KY (July 17,2020), https://www.wdrb,com/news/county-attorney-dismissing-felony-charges-for-
protesters-involved-in-sit-in-at-camerons-home/article 2a3ce3d2-c851-llea-bd89-d7f2aba6blb9.html'
2I
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 22 of 46 PagelD #:22

1 15. LMPD officers also violently tore down encampments that protesters had erected
in the park, destroying protesters' property. Defendant Schroeder recognized that LMPD
officers' actions were "less than our standards" and apologi zedforthe officers' actions.3T
116. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers' actions in destroying protesters'
property was motivated in part by a desire to punish protesters for exercising their First
Amendment rights.
Il7. The curfew at Jefferson Square Park remains in effect, despite no further
instances of violent conduct,
1 1 8. Protests have continued nearly daily through downtown Louisville as of the date
of this filing.
119. The Kentucky Attorney General's investigation into the killing of Breonna Taylor
remains pending. The conclusion of that investigation is likely to trigSer larger protests and more
aggressive police responses.
120. On July 16,2020, the Louisville Metro Council opened an investigation into
whether Defendant Fischer and LMPD's conduct in response to the peaceful protests warranted
Defendant Fischer's removal from office.38
The Dangers of "Less-than-Lethal" Force
I2l. Although termed "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal" force, military-grade crowd
control devices expose targets to serious risks of injury, and even death.
37
Kelli Dugan and Cox Media National Content Desk, Police identify victirn infatal Louisville protest shooting;
suspect in custody,Fox 23 News Louisville KY, (June 28,2020), https://www,fox23.com/news/trending/police-
identify-victim-fatal-louisville-protest-shooting-suspect-custody/5BE6L63XLJGRHHDTMHQHPQYVBA/.
38
Madeline Holcombe, Mima Alsharif and Elizabeth Joseph, Louisville mayor to be investigated for handling or
protestors and Breonna Taylor's case, CNN (July 16, 2020,6:38 a.m'),
https://www.cnn.com/2020107/16/us/louisville-investigation-mayor-taylor-protest/index.html,
22
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 23 of 46 PagelD #.23

I22. The Sixth Circuit has recognized the significant damage done by using a chemical
irritant such as tear gas: the gas "burns the face [and] nostrils, restricts breathing passages, and
causes blindness. It causes a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an
involuntary closing of the eyes, a gaggingreflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx ." (Jnited
States v. Mosley,635 F.3d 859,862 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted)
I23, Studies have found that individuals exposed to tear gas can continue to experience
significant adverse health consequences up to one month after exposure.3e
I24. Despite being frequently described as non-lethal technology, tear gas can result in
death. Recently, a protester in Ohio who was exposed to tear gas and pepper spray died from
cardiac arrest,
I25, The use of tear gas during the ongoing Novel Coronavirus -2019 ("COVID-19")
pandemic creates additional risks for those exposed. COVID-19 is spread tlrrough respiratory
droplets, which are spread by coughing, sneezing, and talking.40 ln addition to burning of the
eyes, nose, and mouth, exposure to tear gas can cause increased nasal secretions, immediate
coughing, and sneezing.al
126. Public health experts unanimously agree that wearing a respiratory mask is one of
the most important ways of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
3e
Y.G, Karagama,J.R. Newton, and C.J,R. Newbegin. "Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to
CS spray." Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J'R' Soc, Med' April 2003.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539444/.
a0
Comoavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/faq.html#Spread.
4r y.G. kurugu*,J.R, Newton, and C,J.R. Newbegin, Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to CS
spray, Ioumal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J.R. Soc' Med. (April 2003)'
https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539 4441 .
23
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 24 of 46 PagelD #'. 24

I27 . Many protesters taking parl in the nationwide demonstrations have thus made sure
to don masks before leaving their homes
I28. Because tear gas creates respiratory problems, however, many individuals
exposed to tear gas cannot keep their masks on, When large groups of people congregate,
remove their masks, and cough or sneeze, the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19
skyrockets.
I29. Because tear gas covers an entire area,it cannot be targeted at specific people. It
inherently injures everyone exposed to'it.
130, Flash bangs can also cause serious injury, and even death, Flash bangs detonated
too close to a person can cause burns, loss of limbs, and lasting partial hearing loss. ln extreme
cases, flash bangs can cause asphyxiation, heart attacks, and internal bleeding.
131, When detonated around gravel or loose glass, flash bangs can send shrapnel
flying with enough force to wound those nearby
I32. Because flash bangs cover entire areas, they cannot be targeted at specific people.
Flash bangs inherently place everyone exposed to them at risk of serious physical harm,
133. Pepper balls and rubber bullets can cause significant injuries, and even death, if
they hit a person's face, neck, or torso. Because such projectiles are often fired at velocities
similar to live ammunition, they cause severe damage upon impact.
134. A survey ofthose sffuck by such projectiles found that they prove fatal
approximately 3%of the time, and cause permanent disability approximately 15% of the time.a2
42
Rohini J,Haar,Vincent Lacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Madhavi Dandun, Sher D, Wesier, Death, iniury and
disabilityfrom kinetic impacl projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review, BMJ Joumals Open, Vol.7,
I ssue I 2, (20 l7), https //bmj open. bmj. com/con tent/ 7 I I 2 I e0 1 8 I 5 4' fu I l.
:
24
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 25 of 46 PagelD #'.25

Seventy-one percent of those struck with rubber bullets or pepper balls suffered severe injuries
that required medical intervention.a3
135. Although rubber bullets and pepper balls can be targeted, their use at longer
ranges is "likely to be inaccurate and indiscriminate."aa
136. LMPD's own Standard Operating Procedures recognize that "[t]he potential exists
for [such types of ammunition] to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and
neck,"45
137 . LRADs are sonic weapons that deploy a high-frequency sound wave at atargel.
138, LRADs, developed by the military for use in the Iraq War in 2004,46 have been
found to cause significant harm to individuals' ear drums and can cause perrnanent hearing loss.
Named Plaintffi Are Injured by LMPD's Use of Force
I39. All Named Plaintiffs have been victims of LMPD's disproportionate and violent
response to protests.
Attica Scott
140. Plaintiff Scott first attended demonstrations on May 29,2020. She and her
teenage daughter joined a group of protesters at approximately 5:30 p,m. at 6th Street and W.
Jefferson Street.
I4l. Plaintiff Scott attended the demonstrations both to protest the killing of Breonna
Taylor and, in her capacity as a Member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, to document
what was happening in her community.
43
Id.
aa
Physical Human Rights. International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, https://www.inclo.net/pdf/lethal-
in-disguise.pdf.
45
soP $ 9.1,10.
46
Eric Niiler, Sonic Weapons' Long, Noisy History, History Stories (August27,2018)'
https ://www.history.com/news/sonic-weapons-warfare-acoustic'
25
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 26 of 46 PagelD #:26

I42, Shortly before aniving at the protest, she saw footage online of dozens of LMPD
officers in riot gear lined up in front of the YUM! Center.
143. For several hours after Plaintiff Scott anived, she observed no violence by other
protesters. Instead, members of the group participated in die-ins, marches, and chanting; some
protesters chanted "hands up don't shoot."
I44. After approximately three hours, Plaintiff Scott observed a small number of
people in the crowd throw plastic water bottles. Other demonshators immediately denounced the
behavior,
145. Without warning, the line of LMPD officers began advancing quickly with batons
drawn, pushing the crowd back.
146. Defendant Officer J. Johnson noticed Plaintiff Scott recording the scene and
approached her, shoving her backward, While backing away, Plaintiff Scott tripped on a box
behind her, fell to the ground, and injured her knee.
I47 . Plaintiff Scott was able to meet up with her daughter, who informed her she was
bleeding and needed medical attention. Plaintiff Scott found a medic tent set up by protesters to
get first aid for her knee.
148. As she received medical attention at the tent, LMPD officers deployed tear gas.
An immediate cloud covered the area. Plaintiff Scott saw a thick cloud of smoke. Plaintiff Scott
couldn't see anything through the smoke. Her eyes started burning badly, and she used her
facemask to help act as a barrier between her face and the smoke.
149. . Plaintiff Scott ran from the tear gas. She ultimately met up with her daughter and
her friend, and the three went to their car, where they stayed nearby the protest for another
twenty or so minutes.
26
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurment 1 Filed 07130120 Page 27 of 46 PagelD #'.27

150. Plaintiff Scott was also present at the protest on June 15, where she witnessed
LMPD using pepper balls indiscriminately against protesters,
l5l, On June 18,2020, Plaintiff Scott filed a formal complaint with LMPD, asking the
department to investigate its officers' inappropriate use of tear gas,
I52. LMPD responded by letter dated June 29,2020, stating that her complaint was
being investigated,
153. She has received no further contact from LMPD since that letter.
Corbin Smith and T)tler Weaklett
154. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley drove into downtown Louisville to go to dinner on
the evening of May 31,2020, but they decided to first stop by the demonstrations to show
support for the community.
155. They anived downtown and, wearing face masks, began walking towards
Broadway Street, where the protest was taking place. On their way, Plaintiffs Smith and
Weakley walked past a group of police officers in riot gear who said nothing about a curfew in
effect.
156. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley saw the group of protesters at approximately 8:30
p.m,, thirty minutes before the official curfew that had just been implemented was schedule to
begin.
157. For fifteen minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley observed protesters marching
and chanting peacefully
158. Then, without warning or justification, LMPD officers began deploying flash
bangs and tear gas into the crowd, causing a panicked stampede away from the police line.
27
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2A Page 28 of 46 PagelD #:28

159. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley were close to a tear gas cannister that exploded.
Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both inhaled the gas and immediately began choking. For several
minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both felt as if they were suffocating.
160. Plaintiff Weakley observed a police car drive into the crowd of protesters on a
street perpendicular to Broadway Street, fuither exacerbating the chaos.
1 61 . Tear gas began filling the air, obscuring visibility in the area. Nonetheless,
officers began firing pepper balls and rubber bullets indiscriminately.
162. Plaintiff Smith felt a pepper ball fly close to his ear, prompting him and Plaintiff
Weakley to start running back to their car.
163. On the way, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley encountered a line of approximately 40
LMPD officers in riot gear.
164. Plaintiff Smith begged the officers to let them get to their car. The officers
responded by drawing and training their weapons on both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley.
165, Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley then slowly raised their hands above
their heads and kneeled on the ground. Both feared that they were about to be shot, perhaps
fatally.
166, Although both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley had already submitted,
LMPD Officers John Does #1-5 charged and tackled Plaintiff Smith to the ground, slamming
him into the road. LMPD Officers John Does #6-9 andLMPD Officer Jane Doe #l tackled
Plaintiff Weakley and pinned her to the ground.
167 . Plaintiff Smith, surprised by the use of force, asked why they were being placed
under arrest. Defendant Officer John Doe #l responded by calling him a domestic terorist and
pressing him further into the ground,
28

168. Defendant Officer John Doe #2 placed his knee at the base of Plaintiff Smith's
neck and pushed down, fuither limiting Plaintiff Smith's ability to breathe. Echoing the haunting
words of George Floyd, Plaintiff Smith began pleading that he could not breathe,
169. Defendant Officers John Does #1,3,4, and 5 then began to beat Plaintiff Smith
with their batons, striking his back and his legs.
170, Plaintiff Smith feared that he would be killed by LMPD Officers John Does #1-5,
joining the ranks of countless unarmed Black people killed by aggressive policing.
l7l. After a few minutes, Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer
Jane Doe #1 pulled up Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley and placed them on the sidewalk
curb, Defendant Officer John Doe #3 pulled Plaintiff Smith's face mask off without explanation.
172. Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe #l then
placed both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley under arrest. Neither Plaintiff was told on what
basis they were being arrested.
173, Plaintiff Smith was ultimately charged with one count of misdemeanor unlawful
assembly and one count of misdemeanor curfew violation. Plaintiff Weakley was charged with
one count of felony rioting,
174. LMPD's conduct profoundly impacted both Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley.
l7 5 . As a result of the attack, Plaintiff Smith sustained cuts and bruises to his knees,
legs, and back,
17 6, Plaintiff Smith, fearful of further police misconduct, did not attend any further
protests for approximately one week. He has since returned to protests in Louisville.
177. At every protest he has attended since, he remains afraid that LMPD officers will
react as violently as they did on May 31,2020.
29
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7l30l2o Page 30 of 46 PagelD #: 30

178. Plaintiff Weakley has been traumalizedby the events of that night; she has
refused to attend any fuilher demonstrations out of fear. She attended one celebration on June 19,
2020,but she began to feel anxious as the sun went down; she left the event early for fear of
police crackdown.
Willa Tinslev
179, Plaintiff Tinsley first joined the protests on May 28,2020. She had learned about
the demonstrations on social media, and drove downtown to join at approximately 10:00 p.m.
180. When Plaintiff Tinsley arrived at the protests, she observed LMPD officers in riot
gear advancing on the protesters. Almost immediately, she saw flash bangs exploding by her and
heard pepper balls being fired,
181. A tear gas cannister exploded near Plaintiff Tinsley, who immediately could not
open her eyes or breathe because of the pain. Disoriented, she began to run in the direction of the
crowd, attempting to leave the area and find her car.
182. Eventually, another protester who saw Plaintiff Tinsley helped wash out her eyes.
Plaintiff Tinsley then began to search for her car to go home.
183. As she searched, she encountered another protester who was also looking for his
vehicle. As they walked, they encountered LMPD Officers John Does #10-13'
184. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 began yelling at Plaintiff Tinsley and the
other protester to clear the area, Plaintiff Tinsley responded that they were looking for her car.
The other protester told the officers that they were on a public sidewalk'
185. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 responded by firing pepper balls at Plaintiff
Tinsley and the other protester-from just a few feet away. Plaintiff Tinsley was shot in the arm,
torso, and leg at close range,
30
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 31 of 46 PagelD #: 31

186. Plaintiff Tinsley and the other protester turned and began to run away. Defendant
Officers John Does #10-13 continued to fire pepper balls at them, hitting Plaintiff Tinsley on the
back and on her legs.
187. In total, Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 discharged approximately 30
rounds of pepper balls at Plaintiff Tinsley and her friend, striking Plaintiff Tinsley approximately
l0 times.
188. She sustained significant bruising on her back and legs from the shots.
189, For several days following the incident, Plaintiff Tinsley could not use her arm
because ofsevere pain,
190. Plaintiff Tinsley joined a demonstration on the evening of May 31,2020. She had
learned about the event on social media.
191. She joined the march downtown around 7:00 p.m. When she arrived, the scene
was wholly peaceful; protesters were chanting and marching with signs'
I92. The protesters were not causing any damage to surrounding property'
193. Despite the peaceful nature of the protesters, Plaintiff Tinsley heard LMPD
officers stating that the demonstration was an unlawful gathering.
194. Plaintiff Tinsley then heard the explosion of tear gas cannisters and saw clouds of
smoke filling the air, She saw a flash bang detonate near her.
195, The tear gas blinded her and burned her nose and throat, while the flash bang
impaired her hearing and caused her to grow disoriented'
196. Through the cloud of smoke, pepper balls began whizzingby her. Plaintiff
Tinsley was struck multiple times in the arms and legs with projectiles, causing significant
bruising.
31

I97, Disoriented, and unable to see or hear well, Plaintiff Tinsley stumbled onto a side
street. Other protesters poured milk in her eyes to alleviate the burning.
198. Eventually, scared to be alone in the midst of the widespread police violence, she
found her way to a group of approximately 40 other protesters.
199. A group of LMPD officers found the protesters and began beating them with
batons, ultimately arresting the whole group.
200. Plaintiff Tinsley was held in jail for approximately 30 hours and ultimately
charged with one count of misdemeanor curfew violation.
' 201 While Plaintiff Tinsley was in jail, an LMPD officer told her, in sum and
substance: "We're trying to arrest you guys so you have to spend a night in jail and learn your
lesson."
202. At another point, an LMPD officer told her directly: "This is to teach you a
lesson."
203, Since then, Plaintiff Tinsley has been wary of attending further demonstrations.
She has only attended a handful of protests, and never stays after sunset, out of a fear of further
police force.
204, For example, Plaintiff Tinsley ptunn.d on attending protests on June 15 , 2020.
After she learned LMPD was using an LRAD, however, Plaintiff Tinsley, who has hearing
problems, decided not to attend the protest.
Stevie Schauer
205. Plaintiff Schauer joined a small group of young people on the afternoon of June
15,2020 for a march through downtown Louisville.
32

206. Immediately, Plaintiff Schauer noticed that the police presence at the gathering
was much more aggressive than on prior days of protests she had attended---even though there
were only approximately 50 people protesting, a smaller gathering than the previous protests she
had attended.
207 , Plaintiff Schauer observed an LMPD helicopter circling protesters from above.
208, As the group of protesters, including Plaintiff Schauer, moved south on 9th Street
from W. Jefferson Street towards W. Chestnut Street, they encountered a line of LMPD officers
in riot gear-with their batons out-blocking off the street.
209. LMPD officers yelled that the crowd needed to move back.
2IO. Plaintiff Schauer immediately left the street and got onto the sidewalk, where no
officers were present. Other individuals-who, upon information and belief, had not participated
in the demonstrations-were also standing on the sidewalk without issue'
2ll, ln an effort to document what was happening, Plaintiff Schauer took out her cell
phone and began to record the LMPD officers.
212. Almost immediately after she began recording, LMPD Officers John Does #14-15
broke from the line of.riot officers and approached her quickly'
213. Defendant Officer John Doe #14 yelled "move back" and immediately shoved
Plaintiff Schauer to the ground with enough force to bruise her shoulder and twist her ankle.
2I4, The shove also caused PlaintiffSchauer's cell phone and eyeglasses to shatter.
215. Plaintiff Schauer-who has a chronic condition that causes joint sensitivity-
feared that she had badly injured her shoulder or ankle.
216. Plaintiff Schauer's friend, who was also at the demonstration, tried to walk over
to Plaintiff Schauer to check on her. LMPD officers began firing pepper balls at the friend's feet,
JJ
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7130120 Page 34 of 46 PagelD #:34

217 , Defendant Officers John Does #14-15 then pushed Plaintiff Schauer to the ground
and used a plastic tie to bind her wrists.
218. The plastic tie was coiled tightly enough to bruise her wrists.
219. Plaintiff SchauerwasplacedunderarrestatapproximateLyT:30 p.m. Shewaskept
in jail for 10 hours and ultimately charged with one count of felony rioting and one count of
misdemeanor unlawful assembly.
220. At the precinct, an LMPD officer asked her "Was it worth it? You dirtied your
record for this."
221. Plaintiff Schauer had to keep her ankle wrapped in an elastic bandage for a week
to heal the injury she sustained in the course ofher arrest.
222, Since this experience, Plaintiff Schauer has been too afraid to participate in
further protests. Though she wishes to continue marching in support of the movement for police
accountability, she fears further physical violence if she participates in any additional
demonstrations.
223. To date, she feels nervous and anxious around police officers.
Kavla Meisner
224. Plaintiff Meisner attended a demonshation on the evening of May 29,2020.
225. The group of protesters was peacefully chanting and marching through
downtown. As she marched, Plaintiff Meisner saw tanks lined up along the Second Street
Bridge.
226. The protest continued down to the courthouse. After marching around the
courthouse several times, Plaintiff Meisner saw police officers stationed on top of buildings, and
she saw that police had set up banicades and brought out tanks and police vans.
34
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07l3ol20 Page 35 of 46 PagelD #: 35

227 . Then, protesters were met by a phalanx of approximately 200 LMPD officers in
riot gear and armed with batons, guns, and tear gas.
228. LMPD officers began erecting baricades to prevent people from leaving the area.
22g. LMPD officers then threatened to fire into the trapped crowd unless the group sat
down.
230. With no options, the group-including Plaintiff Meisner-sat down.
231. Nonetheless, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs and pepper balls and
launching tear gas indiscriminately into the seated crowd, prompting a panicked retreat.
232. The wave of tear gas hit Plaintiff Meisner; she was instantly unable to see or
breathe from the pain of the irritant.
233. Plaintiff Meisner had to be led away from the scene by a friend; together, they hid
in a parking gam;ge nearby as LMPD officers continued to launch tear gas into the dispersing
crowd,
234. Plaintiff Meisner then observed LMPD offiders open fire on a group of local
journalists who were covering the event.
235. Though she continues to attend demonstrations, Plaintiff Meisner fears further
police use of force against peaceful demonstrators, She feared for her life during the events of
May 29, and no longer has any trust for public officials or LMPD, She believes that LMPD will
rctaliateagainst protesters who are trying to stand up for what is right.
Kentuclqt Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression
236. As part of its work combatting racial discrimination in policing, Plaintiff
KAARPR has been involved in coordinating and attending many of the recent demonstrations in
Louisville.
35

237. Earlier this spring, Plaintiff KAAPR launched a campaign related to the killing of
Breonna Taylor calling for the arrest of those officers responsible for her death, as well as
systemic reforms that will prevent excessive use of police force in the future. These include
reforms to LMPD's use of force policies, as well as systems that allow for meaningful
community oversight of the LMPD.
238, Plaintiff KAARPR's members have attended demonstrations and peacefully
protested in Louisville between May 28,2020 and the present.
239, Many of Plaintiff KAARPR's members themselves been victims of police abuse
during the protests; members who were protesting peacefully have been tear-gassed, shot with
rubber bullets, pushed and hit with batons, and experienced flash bangs and LRAD usage.
240. As a result, Plaintiff KAARPR has been forced to divert resources into purchasing
first aid supplies, as well as milk and water to treat those injured at protests. Additionally,
Plaintiff KAARPR has hired individuals to provide security, and purchased security goggles,
food, masks, and cleaning supplies for members attending protests,
24L On at least one occasion, during the course of a protest, LMPD directed sanitation
officials to collect Plaintiff KAARPR's supplies, thus preventing Plaintiff KAARPR from using
them and requiring Plaintiff KAARPR to purchase additional supplies'
242. Altogether, Plaintiff I(AARP.R has spent over $10,000 dollars in these and other
purchases for protests responding to police violence.
243. Plaintiff KAARPR has also had to expend significant staff time responding to the
excessive use offorce by police at the protests'
244. Plaintiff KAARPR has expended time and money to organize additional protests
directed towards addressing police use of force at previous protests.
36

245 . Plaintiff KAARPR has also spent staff time participating in various public
education events related to the excessive use of police force at the protests. For example, on
several occasions, Plaintiff KAARPR's leadership has responded to local press inquiries
regarding the use of excessive force against protestors. Likewise, Plaintiff KAARPR has
launched a campaign, encouraging protestors to live stream marches and demonstrations, as a
means of recording acts of police violence,
246. The money and staff time Plaintiff KAARPR has spent on responding to
excessive police violence has prevented it from conducted other activities it had planned to
engage in.
247. At the beginning of the year, Plaintiff KAARPR had planned to conduct public
education events, including various panels and speakers, and organize public rallies related to the
lack of adequate education for children attending schools in Louisville's West End, as well as the
need for additional money in the City Budget for the education of Black and Brown children in
Louisville.
248. As a result of the increased staff time need to treat protestors injured by police
violence, purchase supplies to treat these protestors after they have been injured, respond to
media and public inquiries regarding the use of police force, as well as organize additional
protests in response to LMPD's excessive use of force against protestors, Plaintiff KAARPR has
been unable to organize these events or otherwise work towards improving education access and
education funding,
249. LMPD's use of force against peaceful protesters to shut down demonstrations has
also fiustrated Plaintiff KAARPR's mission to (a) ensure that public fora for free speech and
debate regarding issues of human and constitutional rights remain available to all people; (b)
JI
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3)l20 Page 38 of 46 PagelD #: 38

eliminate police abuse against peaceful, private civilians; and (c) bring together community
members to speak out on issues related to abusive police practices.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
250. Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals under Rule 23(bxlXA) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
("Plaintiff Class"). The Plaintiff Class comprises all individuals who peacefully participated in
any day of protests between May 28,2020 andJuly 30, 2020 onwhich LMPD officers utilized
tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, rubber bullets, impact rounds, batons, or other comparable
crowd control weaponry ("Crowd Control Weaponry") and were actually exposed to Crowd
Control Weaponry at those protests.
251, All of the members of the Plaintiff Class were injured in largely the same ways as
a result of Louisville's conduct-all of their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest in a
public forum and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from the use of excessive force were
violated.
252. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members would
be impracticable. Thousands of peaceful protesters have been subjected to the Crowd Control
Weaponry that the LMPD has deployed from May 28, 2020 to July 30, 2020. Hundreds of
peaceful protesters have been arrested during that time.
253. The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to all members
of the Plaintiff Class. Among others, the questions common to the Plaintiff Class include:
a. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters
caused an immediate end to peaceful demonstrations and actually stifled
38

free speech and peaceful assembly on matters of significant public
importance;
b. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters is
likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from fuither protests or
demonstrations;
c, Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters
creates a significant risk ofserious bodily injury;
d. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters was
unnecessary and/or excessive to maintaining public safety;
e. Why LMPD chose to use Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful
protesters;
f. Whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd
Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;
g. Whether LMPD attempted to use other forms of crowd control before
resorting to Crowd Control Weaponry; and
h. Whether the City of Louisville has ratified the LMPD's conduct, either
through its express statements or by acquiescence.
254. Common issues of law and fact predominate any individual issues.
255. All members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the same practices and policies
of the City of Louisville.
256. The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiffs
were peacefully protesting when LMPD employed Crowd Control Weaponry on them. The
injuries they suffered as a result of Crowd Control Weaponry, as well as the chilling effect of
39

these uses of force on their willingness to peacefully assemble to protest, are identical to the
injuries sustained by the rest of the Plaintiff Class.
257 . The entire Plaintiff Class will benefit from the injunctive relief sought herein.
258. Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest with any members of the Plaintiff Class, are
committed to vigorous prosecution of all claims on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, and will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class,
25g. A class action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient resolution
of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Plaintiff Class is impracticable. Further, the
prosecution of thousands of individual actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class
would create the substantial risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish
potentially incompatible standards of; conduct for Defendant City of Louisville.
260. The Plaintiff Class is represented by competent counsel.
COUNT I
First Amendment Free Speech and Assembly - 42 U.S.C. $ 1933
(Against All Defendants)
261. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
262. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers, Defendant Fischer, Defendant
Schroeder, and Defendant Chavous have acted-and continue to act-under color of state law'
263. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class engaged in constitutionally protected speech and
assembly by participating in peaceful protests about the killings of unarmed Black people at the
hands of police officers.
264. Defendant Officers engaged in use of Crowd Conhol Weaponry, and the other
forms of excessive force detailed above, causing injuries to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
40
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 41- of 46 PagelD #.41-

265. Defendants Schroeder, Fischer, and Chavous approved ofand ratified the conduct
of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such Crowd Control Weaponry or
other forms of excessive force.
266. Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous are final policymakers for all
matters related to LMPD's conduct. Their decisions regarding LMPD matters constitute the
official policies of Defendant City of Louisville.
267 , Defendants' conduct is sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from
participating in further protests for fear of being subject to similar force, and did in fact actually
deter Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class from participating in further demonstrations.
268. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class reasonably fear the continued use of such
weaponry at future protests.
269. Upon information and belief, certain Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class
have been actually chilled in their exercise of protected First Amendment rights.
270. LMPD officers have continued to use Crowd Control Weaponry on protesters,
including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020'
27L Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to
approve LMPD's use of force, both expressly and by acquiescence'
272. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained
the physical and emotional damages detailed above'
273. As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of tear gas and flash
bangs as approved by Defendant City of Louisville, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class continue to
fear participating in peaceful protests.
4l
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent l- Filed 07130120 Page 42 of 46 PagelD #: 42

COUNT II
Fourth Amendment Excessive Force - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983
27 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were peaceful and
nonviolent protesters who did not disobey or refuse any police order.
276. Defendant Officers nonetheless Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff Class,
277 , By using Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs, and physically striking and
tackling Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs to excessive force.
of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such force.
the injuries detailed above.
including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020.
282. Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to
283. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class remain active advocates against police brutality
and intend to peacefully protest again within the coming weeks.
42

284, As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of Crowd Control
Weaponry, and other forms of physical force as approved by Defendants City of Louisville,
Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class will likely be fuither harmed
if they participate in peaceful protests.
COUNT III
Common Law Battery
(Against Defendant City of Louisville and Defendant Officers)
285, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260
286. By deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live ammunition, and other projectiles at
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
to a forcible physical touching.
287. At no point did Plaintiffs or the Plaintiff Class consent, acquiesce, or otherwise
agree to the touching as detailed above.
288. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.
289. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers' forcible touching,
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered the damages herein alleged.
290. Defendant City of Louisville, as the employer of all LMPD officers, is responsible
and liable for torts committed by all LMPD officers under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
COUNT IV
Common Law Assault
2gl. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260
43

292. By threatening to deploy and in fact deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live
ammunition, and other projectiles at Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers
threatened to subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to a forcible physical touching,
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class respectfully request that this Court
certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
a. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and
Chavous, as well as LMPD's officers, employees, and agents, from the use of
Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;
b. Requiring Defendant City of Louisville to promulgate official policies
restricting the use of Crowd Control Weaponry to situations when a police
officer or other person faces an imminent risk of serious physical danger;
c. Awarding such damages to Plaintiffs as will fully compensate them for their
loss of rights, as well as their physical and emotional injuries, owing to
Defendants' conduct;
44
Case 3:20-cv-00535:CRS Document 1 Filed O7l3Ol2O Page 45 of 46 PagelD #: 45

d, Awarding punitive damages against the Officer Defendants and Defendants
Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous;
e. Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuanlto 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;
Sndo
f. Granting such other relief as may be just and proper.
45
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 46 of 46 PagelD #'.46

Dated July 30, 2020
Louisville, KY
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Heather Gatnarek

Ashok Chandran* Corey Shapiro
Christopher Kemmitt* Heather Gatnarek
Ajmel Quereshi* Mashayla Hays
Kristen Johnson* Aaron Tucekf
NAACP Lncar Dsnuusp & ACLU oF KENTCKY FouuoartoN, INc.
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 325 W. Main St. Suite 2210
40 Rector St., 5th Floor Louisville, KY 40202
New York, NY 10006 (s02) s8I-9746
Tel.: (212) 96s-2200 corey@aclu-ky.org
Fax,: (212) 226-7592 heather@aclu-ky.org
achandr an@n aacpl df. or g mashayla@aclu-ky.org
ckemmitt@naacpldf. org aarcn@aclu-ky.org
aquereshi@naacpldf, org
kj ohnson@naacpldf. org Earl S. Ward*
O. Andrew F. Wilson*
Samuel Shapiro*
Andrew K. Jondahl*
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF
ABADY WARD &MAAZELLLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763-s000
eward@ecbawm.com
awilson@ecbawm.com
sshapiro@ecbawm.com
ajondahl@ecbawm.com
* pro hac vice application forthcoming

I application admission forthcoming
for
46
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt l--l- Filed 07130120 Page 1- of 2 PagelD #: 47
rs44 (Rev.o8/r8) CIVI COVER SHEET
TheJS44civilcoversheetandtheinformationcontainedhereinneitherreplacenorsupplementthefilingandserviceofpleadingsorotherpapersasrequiredbylaw, exceptas
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Confi:rence of th6 United Slates in September I 974, is required for the use ol the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government,
Rep. Attica Scott, Corbin Smith, Kayla Meisner, Tyler Weakley, Stevie Mayor Greg Fischer, Robert Schroeder, LaVita Chavous, LMPD
Schauer, Willa Tinsley, KY Alliance Against Racist & Political Bepression Officer "J." Johnson, LMPD Ofiicers John Doe #1-15 & Jane Doe #1
(b) county of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Jefferson County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson
(EXCEPT IN U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES) (]N U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attomeys (Firn Nuntc, Adtlress, ontl Telephone Nunber)

Gatnafek, 1q"U1hef
Attorneys (tf Known)
sarah Martin, Jefferson county Attorney's office,
ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, S25 W. Main St. Suite 2210, Louisville, Civil Division, 531 Court Place, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202
KY 40202, (502) 581-9746
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION fa,ce n n "X" in one Box onty) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Ptqce an "x" in one Boxfor Ptaintill
(For Diversil)) Cqses Only) and One Boxfor Defendanl)
OI U.S.covemment d3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.5. Governnent Nol a Pqrly) Citizen ofThis State ol o I Incorporated or Principal Place n4 04
ofBusiness In This State
D2 U.S, Govenrnent O 4 Diversity Citizen of Another SJate o2 0 2 Incorporated aurl Principal Place o5 0.5
Defendant (lndicate Citizenship of Pcn'ties in Irem III) ofBusiness In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a D3 D 3 Foreign Nation o 6 tr6

OF SUIT on "X" in One Box Click
TR A.-T TE RANKPIIPT'V
D I l0 lnsurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY O 625 Drug Related Seizure O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 D 375 False Claims Act
O 120 Marine O 3 l0 Airplane D 365 Personal Injury - ofPropefiy 2l UsC 88 I O 423 Withdrawal D 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC
O 130 Miller Act O 315 Airplane Product Product Liability O 690 Other 28 USC l5? 3729(a))
D 140 Negotiable Inslrumenl Liability D 367 Health Care/ O 400 State Reapportionment
D 150 Recovery ofOverpaynent O 320 Assault, Libel & Phannaceutical 0 410 Antitrust
& Enforcernent of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 0 820 Copyrights 0 430 Banks and Banking
D l5l Medicare Act O 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability O 830 Patent O 450 Commerce
0 152 Recovery ofDefaulted Liability O 368 Asbestos Personal D 835 Patent - Abbr€viated 0 460 Deportation
Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application O 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) O 345 Marine Product Liability D 840 Tradernark Corupt Organizations
0 153 Recovery ofOverpaynent Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY SN'IAI. SN..IIRIT\/ D 480ConsurnerCredit
ofVeteran's Benefits D 350 Motor Vehicle D 370 Other Fraud D ?10 Fair Labor Standards D 86r HrA(r395ff) D 485 Telephone Consumer
D 160 Stockholders' Suits O 355 Motor Vehicle D 371 Truth in Lending Act O 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
O I 90 Other Contract Product Liability O 380 Other Personal O 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIwC/DIww (a05(e)) O 490 Cable/Sat TV
D 195 Contract Product Liability D 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVI O 850 Securities/Cornmodities/
O 196 Franchise Injury O 385 Property Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Act O 86s Rsl (40s(g)) Exchange
O 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability O 751 Falnily and Medical O 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical MalDractice Leave Act O 891 Agricultural Acts
pApIlp'tv ctvil, RtcH'I's DPICANFIl Ptr'TITIr)NS O 790 Other Labor Litigation NNDNRAI- TAX SIIITS D 893 Environrnental Mattere
D 210 Land Condemnation D( 440 other civil Rights Habeas Corpus: D 791 Employee Retirement O 870 Tdes (U.S. Plaintiff O 895 Freedorn oflnfonnation
O 220 Foreclosure O 441 Voting O 463 Alien Detainee lncome security Act or Defendant) Act
D 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment O 442 Employment O 510 Motions to Vacate O 871 IRS-Third Party O 896 Arbitration
O 240 Torts to Land D 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 O 899 Adminislrative Procedure
O 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
O 290 All Other Real Property O 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - O 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Deoision
Employment Other: O 462 Naturalization Application O 950 Constitutionality of
D 446 Arner. rv/Disabilities - O 540 Mandamus & Other O 465 Other hnmigration State Statutes
Other O 550 Civil Rights Actions
O 448 Education O 555 Prison condition
O 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Pluce an "X" in one Box only)
X I original D 2 Removed from o3 Remanded from D4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from D 6 Multidistrict

Litigation -
O 8 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District
Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do nol cile iurisdictional slatutes unle$s diversit!):
42 U.S.C. 1 983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION of cause
to Delendants' violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment and Fourth Amendment ri hts; d sou ht
VII, REQUESTED IN E CttgCt< IF THIS rS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P, JURYDEMAND: X Y". DNO
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See inslruclions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

0712912020 Heather Gatnarek
l'oR olnc!; usu 0NLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l--l- Filed O7l30/20 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 48
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September I 974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil cornplaint filed. The attomey filing a case should cornplete the form as follows:
I.(a) Ptaintiffs-Defendants. Enter narnes (last, first, rniddle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a govemment agency, use
only the full narne or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identifu first the agency and
then the official, giving both narne and title.
(b) CountyofResidence. Foreachcivil casefiled,exceptU.S.plaintiffcases,enterthenameofthecountywherethefirstlistedplaintiffresidesatthe
tirne of filing, In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the narne of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county ofresidence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the finn name, address, telephone number, and attomey of record. If there are several attomeys, list them on an attachment, noting
.in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F,R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C, 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers ofthe United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3)Thisreferstosuitsunder23U,S,C. l33l,wherejurisdictionarisesundertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,anamendment
' totheConstitution,anactofCongressoratreatyoftheUnitedStates. IncaseswheretheU,s,isaparty,theU.S.plaintiffordefendantcodetakes
precedence, and box I ot'2 should be rnarked.
biversityofcitizenship. (4)Thisreferstosuitsunder28U.S.C. l332,wherepartiesarecitizensofdifferentstates. WhenBox4ischecked,the
citizenship of the dillerent parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal Party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: @
V Origin. Place an "X" in one ofthe seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. ( I ) Cases which originate in the United States district coufis.
Removed frorn State Court, (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts rnay be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Regranded frorr Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened, (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening ddte as the filing date.
Transferred frorn Another District. (5) For cases transfened under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
rnultidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C'
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation - Dir.ect File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite
jurisdictional
statutesunlessdiversity. Exarnple: U.S.Civil Statute: 47USC553 BriefDescription: Unauthorizedreceptionofcableservice
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action, Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Defirand. check the appropriatc box to indicate whether or not a jw'y is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases, This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, inseft the docket
numbers and the correspondingjudge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
DAV]DJ. GIJARNIERI 201 EAsr MAIN SrREEr, SutrE 900
t MEBRAYER
LExTNGToN, K€NTUcKY 40507

ilq"tn&$slelisu.eQs
ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS (859) 231-8780 EXT. 218
Fax: (8s9) 231-6518
August 3,2020
Via mail a[d-email

Lt..t tb' rrllljs&stl:&d-c& stlu:liws i-f"'.rsg*gq,n:
,[rt
C ri s t npher, B u S h(# l'itk u t s I arv o tli ccs, cf:lr r
!-r
Hon. Jonathan Ricketts

Hon. Christopher Bush
4055 Shelbyville Road
Re: Louisville Metro Council Investigation
Dear Jonathan and Christopher,
In followup to our call, we write to continue the dialogue regarding the appearances of
Interim LMPD Chicf Robert Schroeder and Chief of Public Services Amy Hess before the
Govemrnent Ovcrsight and Audit Committee. As you know, on July 14,2020, that Committee
voted to "conduct an investigation into the Administration, its actions and falleged] inaction
regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions
reiponding to protests in Louisville Metro." In furtherance of this investigation, Chairman
Aclerson wrote to Chief Schroeder and to Chief Hess on July 17,2020, formally requesting their
appearances before the Cornmittee on or before August 5,2020 for 2-4 hours so they could answer
quistions and have a discussion with the Committee. In his July 17 letters, Chairman Ackerson
expressly advised each witness that at this time the Committee would refrain from asking either
from "divulging information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky
Attomey Geneial and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Consistent with that understanding,
Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020, and it is
our understanding based on Mr. Rickett's July 30, 2020 email that the topics the Committee intends
to inquire about ire a) vandalism, and response to it, b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and
how media came to be targeted or came in contact with same, c) placement of snipers on roof tops,
d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment, c) warning to and communications with
piotestors, f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,
g) any 'ostand-down" order(s), dircctives, guidance given or passed along to govemment
i"rponArrr relative to protests, vandalism, etc., and h) how or why law enf,orcement came to be at
Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.
appearance would not require them to divulge

With the understanding that their
information which could compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General,
Law Olfises: Lexlngton i Lorliriville
GnvsrnrilBrlt Aifaira; FronLJorl; I Wi:shington' D'C.
mcbrSyecfirm.oom
EXHIBIT E
q h? r: i.\Y#.w
t n\4 )

August 3,2420
or the FBI, Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear and testify, and they still plan to do so.
However, on July 30,2020 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky styled Scott, et., al., v. Louisttille/Jefferson County Metro Government, et. al,,
3:20-CV-535 (the "scott Action"). The allegations and claims asserted therein concern the same
subject matters Chiefs Schroeder and Hess have been asked to address on August 3. Specifically,
the gravamen of the Complaint in the Scott Action concems LMPD's response to protests
throughout Louisville beginning on May 28,2020 and continuing to present day, and it specifically
concems: the use of tear gas and peppff balls;l allegations that the media was targeted or came
into contact with such agents;2 the stationing of officers atop buildings;3 the placement and usc of
sound equipment;a wamings and communications with protesters fand others];s the use of helmets
and other protective gear;6 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or passed
along to government responders;7 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night
1
Complaint? paras, 37 ,39-42, 44-47, 50,52, 56-7,59-60,64,68,70,74,78-79,81-84, 87, 90, 98,
l0t-103, 106,,122-125,128-129,133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187,194-196,
216,227,231-233,239,250 aniJ273 all allege the use and/or improper use of tear gas and/or
pepper balls.
2
Complaint,pata.4g alleges LMPD officers targeted joumalists, and para, 107 alleges an LMPD
officer shot a repoder from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball
on June 17,2020
3
Complaint,para.226.
a
Complaint, ptro. I 00 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. I 04, 1 08 and 137 -
138,204 and239 all allege the use of LRAD's by LMPD.
5
Complaint, para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who
seek class certification on behalf of all peaceful protesters) include "whether LMPD officers issued
any waming before employing Crowd Control Weaponry;".
6
Complaint, paras. 35, 101, 142,155,163, 180,208 and227 all concern the use of helmets or
other rioVprotective gear by LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters fand others].
7 Complaint,para 94 alleges that "[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 75,2020,
Defendant Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result,
he would be instituting needed refonns to the LMPD's use of tbrce practices, But the very next
day, in responss to criticism from ths LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating
o'stand
that he had not instructed and would not instruct offrcers to down'o and that Defendant
Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action,"
2
MEBRAYER

August 3,2020
David McAtee was shot.8 The Plaintiffs in the ,Scott Action aro wcll aware of the Committee
investigation and in fact, specifically mention it in their Complaint.e
Because of the significant, if not corrplete, overlap between this now pending litigation
and Monday's scheduled agerrda, much, if not the entirety, of Monday's Committee hearing will
have to take place in executive session per the mandate of the Kentucky Ceneral Assembly.
Specifically, KRS 67C.103(14)(b), which is expressly referenced in the Cornmittee's OR-004-20,
requires that "[t]estimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session." As you
know, KRS 61.810(c) exempts discussions of proposed or pending litigation llom open meetings.
On July 31,202A, we contacted the two of you to ensure that the Cornmittee was aware of
the Scott suit, and to inquire whether it affects whether the Committee plans to proceed as
scheduled, or believes a continuance is in order. While Mr, Bush had not hacl an opportunity to
confer with the Committee and/or its leadership to determine whether this newly filed lawsuit
alters its planned course of action, Mr. Bush did indicate a preliminary assessment that this
development would unlikely change the timing of things. Given the Committee's expressed
demand for "a transparent, public process" as stated in the eighth recital in OR-004-20, it seems
your client should reconsider proceeding forward on Monday.
The Administration is committed to participating in the Committee's investigation, as it

shares the same goals of bringing to light the truth of these events not only so that the community
can get answers to the questions it has surrounding them, but also so that any resulting policy
changes can be made in an effective, substantive way. However, just as the Committee already
recognized the need to balance the integrity of the AG and FBI investigations with its audit and
oversight authority, we ask that the Cornmittee also recognize the need to balance the important
interests the General Assembly protected when enacting KRS 61.810 (which is carried over into
its enactment of KRS 67C.I03) with the mutual goals and objectives our clients have for an open,
transparent process, Accordingly, rather than proceed on Monday under the unsatisfactory
constraints of executive session, we encourage the Committee to reschedule the appearances of
Chiefs Schroeder and Hess to a time whcn they can reasonably and prudently testifli about the
above referenced matters in an open, rather than closed setting.
KRS 67C.103(14Xb) permits an agency or witness to waive the requirement that the
testirrony be taken in executive session. If we proceed forward on Monday, neither witness can
reasonably be expected to do so, and will not do so given: ( 1 ) that the Scott lawsuit was just filed
two business days ago; (2) Chief Schroeder is named as an individual defendant and has not had
8
Complaint, para, 69 alleges that on thc evening of May 31,2020, "two and a half miles from the
site of the protests downtown, LMPD offioers and the National Guard shot and killed David
McAtee while attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's
restaurant," which is across the street from Dino's.
e
Cornplaint,palaT20,
3
Hon. Jonathan Ricketts { MgBRAYER

August 3,2420
an opportunity to confer with personal counsel, and most significantly, (3) the lawsuit not only
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but it also seeks injunctive relief that could result in
limitations on LMPD's ability to effectively and lawfully manage future protests in a way that
recognizes the First Amendment rights associated with peaceful protests without impairing
LMPD's ability to protect and serve, by effoctively policing those whose objective is not to
peacefully protest, but to vandalize or destroy property, loot businesses or otherwise make
mayhem.
While we have shared the essential components of this letter in our call of this morning,
we look forward to hearing from you once you have had a chance to confer with your client about
whether it plans to proceed Monday in executive session, or prefers to delay the hearing for a
sufficient amount of time to allow for the witnesses to testiff in an open meeting without adverse
impact on pending litigation.
-\2Jl
Sincerely,
DAVID J. GUARNIERI
STEPHEN G. AMATO
Attorneys For Louisville Metro Government
L, Kl .-
C. KLAUSING
Attomey for LMPD Chief Schroeder =*e
4
RTcrnrTS LAW OPNCNS, PLLC

ATToRNEYS lr Law
THE RICKETTS BUILDING OF COUNSEL:
+oss SHEI-SyVILLE ROAD
JONATHAN S, RICKETTS CHARLES E, RICKETTS, JR,
Also Admitted: U.S. Court of Appeals LoUISVTLLE, KENTUcKY 40207 Also Admitted: District of Columbia
for the Armed Forces Phone (502) 896-2303
Fax (502)896-2362 A. CARL PLATT
Also Admitted: lndiana
CHRISTOPHER D. BUSH
August 3,2020
Hon. David Guarnieri

Hon. Stephen Amato
Hon. Joseph Klausing
Via Email Only
Dear Counsel,
Thank you for our conversation this morning and your subsequent letter of today's date.
I apologize that this letter does not conform to customary conespondence format, and may
contain typographical errors; however, in an attempt to answer your letter as efficiently and
quickly as possible, please accept this letter in the spirit of expeditious communications intended
for the benefit of our clients,
I understand from our call that Mr, Klausing is now representing Chief Schroeder. Mr,
Amato and Mr. Guarnieri remain counsel for Chief Hess.
ln speaking with Councilman Ackerson after our call, please know that he intends to
proceed today as scheduled and previously agreed,
With respect to the new concerns raised in your letter this afternoon, we understand them
to be that be the "pending litigation exceptiono'contained in KRS 61.810(1)(c) and KRS
67C.I03(I4)(b) require today's meeting to occur in executive session, or be delayed until an
open and public meeting can be had at some unidentified point in the future. The Chair does not
agree and does not see any mandate or support for a continuance or a closed meeting. The crux
of the position set forth in your letter and previous discussions appears to be that the topics slated
for today's meeting are now subsumed by the litigation referenced in your letter, filed last week
in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, and therefore the "pending litigation"
exception applies to the testimony of your clients. By our analysis, this exception would not
apply to the topics slated for today's discussion. As you know, the Open Meetings Act and
developing caselaw make clear that the exceptions under 61 .8 I 0 are to be construed nanowly.
With respect to the pending litigation exception, caselaw is clear that it is to be narrowly
implemented. See eg Floyd County v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (KY 1997)(the pending litigation
exceptions "would apply to matters commonly inherent to litigation, such as preparation, strategy
or tactics.... And must "not be expanded to include general discussions of everything tangential
to the topic."). Based on this caselaw, we believe no basis for going into closed session exists if
EXHIBIT F
the council asked your clients about topics other than litigation strategy, which it has no intent to
do, and it would be unlawful to invoke the exception so broadly.
While your clients may find it personally unpleasant and untimely to discuss these topics
in the open, "[t]he exceptions to the open meetings laws are not to be used to shield the agency
from unwanted or unpleasant public input, interference or scrutiny." Ratlffi 955 S.W.2d at924.
"The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is
good for the public to know and what is not good for them to know" 1974Ky. Acts Chap. 377,
HB 100.
Finally, the Open Meeting Act exceptions are a "shield," not a "shackle," The General
Assembly did not intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption
applies. See eg Lawson v. OAG 415 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2013)("The General Assembly did not
intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption applies".)
Accordingly, the Committee is free to waive any exemption that may apply, at any time.
For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully communicate the Committee's intent to proceed
today, as no authority cited in your letter would appear to compel them to cancel or continue
today's meeting.
Thanking you for your continued understanding in accepting the fluid and hunied nature
of these communications among counsel for the benefit of our clients and the public's right to
know about matters most important to them, I remain,
Very truly yours,
/s/ Jonathan Ricketts

i ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces. com
JSR
COMMOITWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
LOUSVILLE METRO COUNCIL
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AI]DIT COMMITTEE

IN RE: II\T\{ESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF TIIE ADMINISTRATION SURROT]ND-
ING THE DEATH OF BREONNA TAYLOR, TIIE DEATII OT'DAVID MCATEE, AI\ID RELATED PROTESTS
IN LOUISVILL METRO
(AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION PER LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL ORDER Nb. OO3, SERIES 2O2O)
LEGISLATwE ( x.) SUBPOENA ( ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

To: Amy Hess, Chief of Public Services, 527 W,Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor, Louisville, l{Y 40202
Pursuant to KRS 67C.IA304) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b), and a majority vote of the Government Oversight and
Audit Committee,you are commanded to appear before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee at Historic City
Hall, 601 West Jefferson Sfreet, Louisville, KY 40202 on the lTth day of AuAust , 2020 atthe hour of 2:30 pm.
.-X To testiff before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee, relative to the above referenced independent
audit or investigation.
To produce work papers or documents described on Attachment A hereto
Your failure to obey this subpoenamay subject you to contempt as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro
Council Rule 4A.04(b).
Issued by:
Title: Presiding Government Oversight and Audit Committee
601 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202
Date:
t*t't)ttf *'|.** ** rl.**'t****'t**'t**+* ****************1.,t** 'l*****,i****

TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TrrE WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGES SERVTCE OF T{E SUBPOENA
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a true copy of this subpoena:
Signed Date:
'1.{.i. {. ****d.**t**+,f t* t,t***********f ** **** ++*****'i+*'F***+*+**t*
I, being first duly swom state that I am over l8 years ofage and that the
day of 20----- I personally delivered a true copy ofthis subpoena to
who is known to me.
Signed:
county of
Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by this day of
20-.
Signed: Title:
My commission expires:
,1.*{.t*f,* ****,F***+t,1.********rl.*+***
*+************+*,1.d,+******
{< t
TO BE COMPLETED. WHEN SUBPOENA IS SERVED BY AN 9FFICER
This subpoena was served by delivery of a true copy to , this _ day of
20
Signed: Title:
-
EXHIBIT G
- -- -'-Aiubpo.enashatbe,rrrJ;#ffi;H####ilr;#'#H###;T;#;#'u'poe,iasmaybeserved

by an officer by whom a summons might be served, or by any person over l8 years ofage whose affidavit is endorsed above, or a
witness may acknowledge service by his signature above. An exact, signed duplicate must be filed with the Government Oversight
and Audit Conomittee at or prior to the appearance scheduled above.
DAVID J, GUAI{NIERI 201 EAST MAIN STREEI', SUITE
dguarn ieri@mcbraycrfi rm. conr MilffiI${AYffiR } LEXINGTON, KY 40507
9OO

859,231.8780 Ex',l- l218
FAX: 859.960.2917
August 7,2020
vIA MAIL.{Np E}{ArL

Jon athan.Ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces.com
Chri stopher. B ush(@ri ckettslawot'fices. com
Jonathan Ricketts, Esq.
Christopher Bush, Esq.
Louisville, Kentucky 4A207
RE: Louisville Metro Council Investigation
We are in receipt of the subpoena the Louisville Metro Council Government Oversight and
Audit Committee has issued for Chief of Public Safety Amy Fless, and we are awars that the
Comnrittee has also subpoenaed Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder. We hereby
accept service of the subpoena to Chief }Iess as indicated by our signatures on the subpoena
enclosed herewith.
'I'he subpoena does not speci$ whether the testin:ony requested for August 17,2020 will
be in open or closed session, but based on the comments the Committee's Chair made at the Augnst
3, 2020 Special Meeting, and the vote that was taken afterward, we are proceeding on the
unde rstanding that the Committee is seeking Cliief Hess to testify in an open session on the same
t<lpics delineated in your July 30 email. I write to again notify the Committee tliat our position
remains turchanged that if it wishes to proceed at this time, it must do so in executive session, and
to also reiterate our position that Chief Hess is not prepared to waive the executive session
requirement and testifr in open session until it is reasonably clear that shc can do so without
adversely impacting Metro Government's interests in the pencling ACLU litigation.
We continue to believe that Chief l{ess could appear to testi$ in open session hy the first
week of Septernber. By that time, the defendants in the ACLU suit will likely have been served,
retained cormsel and responded to the allegations in the cornplaint, Also, we will likely have a
better idea by then whether any temporary injunctive relief will be sought related to LMPD's
managing of future protests. Given the imporlant role that peacet'ul protests play in our democratic
society, it is critical that LMPD not be constrained in those instances where coutter prctesters
attempt to engage the peaceful protesters, and it is equally critical that LMPD maintain the ability
to effectively police those whose intention it is not to peacefully protest, but to engage in unlawful
i.r;t li::.,:t:: I ii),i:ij:,rir I i ,,r ,.,..:t:;.
ir:::,iiii irili:t:i:, ..:ii;;::.: !::: t::1. ..r; , I il:j:,ri'!riir-irii ,.: r'.
rno tiri)y{)r{irm.roin
EXHIBIT H
t4U) ffi14.b"Ytr"W
t l

Chlistopher Bush, Esq.
Angust 7,2A20
Page2
behavior. We would hope the Committee, too, shares these goals. In a similar vein, the Chair said
on August 3 that he doesn't care about lawsuits and damages, Given the austerc times state and
local governments are facing due to the impact COVID-19 has and continues to have, my client
does not have the same viewpoint as the Chair, and perhaps the rest of the Cornmittee in this regard,
Accordingly, rather than disobey the Committee's subpoena by refusing to appear, or

rvasting the Committee's time by appearing and insisting that the Committee go into executive
session, my client plans to file a declaratory judgment action early next week in order to resolve
the current disagreement it has with your client on the application of KRS 61.S10(c) to these
proceedings. Based on comments made by some of the Committee members after we excused
ourselves fi'om Monday's special meeting, i,ve think there is a common desire by many involved
for a clear resolution so any further work by the Committee is in accordance with established law.
As a practioal matter, however, it is unlikely a cirouit court action can result in a tinal, non-
appealable declaratory judgment befbre August 17, so absent an ogreement to postpone the
scheduled appearances, we will have no choice but to seek ir{urrctive relief under CR 65.03 and
cR 65.04.
While our differing opinions on the application oi'KRS 61.810(c) to the Committee's
investigation make a legal action inevitabJe, we do not believe it necessary for each party to devote
the substantial time and resources that would be required in an injunction hearing, and would like
to seek an agreement on the most ef{icient, and expcdient way to proceed, Specifically, my client
proposes that Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, Chief of Louisville Forward, and select members of
Louisville Forward appear on August 17 in lieu of Chiefs Hess and Schroeder to discuss and
educate the Committee on that department's activity on Elliott Avenue in regards to vacant and
abandoned propefiy and public nuisances. Comments flom your members at the meeting on
August 3'd indicated that they would like to hear testimony on this topic as well, and so long as the
questioning does not encroach on the Attorney General or FBI investigations, they can appear in
"open session". This resolution allows the Committee to holcl the soheduled session on the 17th
tvith testimony that would likely have occurred anyway at a later date, and allows the parlies and
the circuit court time to work through the legal question in a more prudent, but still, expeditious
man.ner.
One other issue I want to raise with you at this time in an effort to avoid a similar, and
hopefully avoidable impasse as the one that occun'ed on August 3 in regard to the open meeting
concetns, is that under the separation of powers principles embodied in the Kentucky Constitution,
the Committee's investigation has to heive as its focus a legislative purpose, and cannot merely be
a fact finding mission that is unrelated to current or possibly future legislation. Based on that part
of the eleventh recital of Order No. 003, Series 2020 that the Council adopted on July 14,2020,
Lt :, iliiit,t:::. i. ;::.:l :i:l l,:': i I ;; :l r,,;i i i i;

,..i:r,... ,.i ,1.:: :.::, . ,1 :: rjl:r i.. : ii..,:1:: !''j . ,i :;
"
rr;t:lit'',yltr'lir tr l:,ttit
MgBRI\YER

Ricketts Law Oftlces, PLLC
Augnst 7,2A2A
Page 3
stating that the Committee will make findings of fact so that "the Metro Council may take
legislative action," we are proceeding with the good fuith understanding that there is consensus on
this point. Howevero some of the comments from the Chair and others suggest that the purpose of
the investigation may simply be an open ended, fact finding mission that is not oonfined to existing
ordinances or ordinances that are being contemplated, instead.l
We are available the remainder of today, tluoughout the weekend and first thing Monday
if you wish to discuss orr above proposal or any other aspect of this letter. Otherwise, we will keep
you apprised of any filing in circuit court.
Sincerely,
\t
DAVID J. GUARNIERI
DJG:dmp
4837-1862-0615, v. 1
IAt the August 3 Special Meeting, in his opening remalks, the Chair said, "my sole focus is to get the truth out to the
public about what has happened and why." Later, the Chair said "today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair
of this body whose job it is to get the truth out here to the public. , , ,"
Invr illiulri: Inrin0tun I huisrrilln

liovn'rnnrrrl A[[irirs: IrirrrkfcriI Wi:shinllnn, 0 I].
nrnblirynriilnr r:nnr

CIVIL BRANCH
____ DIVISION
NO. ____

METRO GOVERNMENT, for itself and on behalf of
v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND

TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL, et al. DEFENDANTS
** ** ** ** ** **
Comes Plaintiff, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (the “Plaintiff” or “Metro
Government”), by counsel and hereby respectfully requests, for the reasons set forth herein, the
Court enter a Restraining Order pursuant to CR 65.03 and a Temporary Injunction pursuant to CR
65.04, restraining Defendants, Louisville Metro Council (“Metro Council”) and the named
individual Metro Council Members1 (collectively, “Defendants”), from enforcing the August 5,
2020 Legislative Subpoena (“Subpoena”) requiring Chief Hess to “testify [in open session] before
the Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17, 2020 at 2:30 p.m., restraining
Defendants from seeking testimony from Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to
pending litigation without first going into executive session, and requiring the scope of the
1
The named Metro Council Members are Jessica Green (District 1), Barbara Shanklin (District 2), Keisha Dorsey
(District 3), Barbara Sexton Smith (District 4), Donna Purvis (District 5), David James (District 6), Paula McCraney
(District 7), Brandon Coan (District 8), Bill Hollander (District 9), Pat Mulvihill (District 10), Kevin Kramer (District
11), Rick Blackwell (District 12), Mark Fox (District 13), Cindi Fowler (District 14), Kevin Triplett (District 15),
Scott Reed (District 16), Markus Winkler (District 17), Marilyn Parker (District 18), Anthony Piagentini (District 19),
Stuart Benson (District 20), Nicole George (District 21), Robin Engel (District 22), James Peden (District 23),
Madonna Flood (District 24), David Yates (District 25), and Brent Ackerson (District 26).
Government Oversight and Audit Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that

serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Metro Government faces a level of uncertainty and turmoil that has been rarely seen
in history. In the midst of a global, once in a century pandemic that has altered every aspect of the
Metro Government’s operations, significant domestic unrest has developed regarding law
enforcement and its interactions with the African American community. This unrest has led to
months long large-scale protests, and disruptive interactions with law enforcement have occurred
throughout the city. The Metro Government faces litigation in federal court regarding its handling
of these protests, and the Kentucky Attorney General, the FBI, and the Kentucky State Police
(“KSP”) are involved in investigations into the shooting of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee
during encounters with law enforcement.
In this backdrop, the Metro Council’s Government Oversight and Audit Committee (the
“Committee”) initiated an investigation into its executive counterparts’ handling of a number of
issues which, pertinent to this motion, include LMPD’s policies and procedures. In furtherance of
the Committee’s investigation, Chief Amy Hess (“Chief Hess”), the Metro Government’s Chief of
Public Safety, and Louisville Metropolitan Police Department (“LMPD”) Chief Robert Schroeder
(“Chief Schroeder”) agreed to appear and testify in open session before the Committee on August
3, 2020 on certain delineated subjects. However, less than two business days before they were
scheduled to testify, the Metro Government, the Mayor, Chief Schroeder, and others were sued in
an action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky styled Scott,
et al., v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, et al., 3:20-CV-535 (the “Scott Action”)
for alleged civil rights abuses.
2
The subject matter addressed in the Scott Action is the same subject matter of the proposed

questioning by the Committee. As such, so as not to adversely impact the Defendants’ positions
in the newly filed Scott Action, and consistent with the express directives of KRS 67C.103(14),
the Metro Government, Chief Hess, and Chief Schroeder requested their testimony either be taken
in executive session on August 3, 2020, or delayed until they could testify in an open session
without adversely impacting the Scott Action. Not satisfied with their proposal, the Committee
demanded Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder either testify then and there in open session or leave.
Perched on the horns of this dilemma, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder excused themselves from
the special meeting and the Committee has now subpoenaed Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder to
give testimony in open session on August 17, 2020.
Chief Hess, Chief Schroeder, and Mayor Greg Fischer (the “Mayor”) and his
Administration want nothing more than to share with the public and the Committee their
experiences and thoughts related to LMPD’s policies and procedures and the related matters,
provided the Committee respects the express language of KRS 67C.103(14) and the legislative
purpose that underlies the investigatory powers the General Assembly conferred on it when
enacting KRS 67C.103(13) and (14). To that end, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have offered,
on numerous occasions, to testify in executive session now, or to testify at an open session when
doing so will not unreasonably impact the Scott Action. This procedure would balance the
Committee’s rights to get the information it seeks with the protections the General Assembly has
afforded public agencies involved in pending litigation.
Despite the attempts at cooperation, Defendants insisted upon ignoring the plain language
of KRS 67C.103(14) and intend to attempt to compel Chief Hess to testify in open session on
August 17, 2020, going even so far as to incorrectly assert the closed session is the Committee’s
3
privilege to waive. As detailed herein, the Metro Council is acting in violation of KRS

67C.103(14) and the Metro Government and Chief Hess will be irreparably harmed if injunctive
relief is not granted.
Accordingly, this Court should restrain Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena requiring
Chief Hess to testify in open session before the Committee on August 17, 2020, restrain
Defendants from seeking testimony from Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to
pending litigation without first going into executive session, and require the scope of the
Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative
purpose.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The Metro Council is the city council, organized under KRS Chapter 67C, for the
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government.2 In this capacity, the Metro Council is the
legislative body for the Metro Government. Pursuant to KRS 67C.103(13), the Metro Council
formed the Committee.3
2. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
Government and, accordingly, has all executive and administrative power of the government. The
Mayor is responsible for, and has supervisory authority over, numerous executive cabinets,
departments, and divisions all of which comprise his Administration (the “Administration”) and
exercises those powers set forth therein in KRS 67C.105.
2
Each of the named individual Defendants are current elected members of the Metro Council.
3
The current members of the Committee are Ackerson, Piagentini, Smith, Hollander, Coan, Fowler, Purvis, Kramer,
Flood, Blackwell, and Benson.
4
3. As part of the Administration, Chief Hess is the Chief of the department of Public

Safety. In this capacity, Chief Hess is responsible for, and has supervisory authority over,
Louisville Fire, Emergency Services, Corrections, and the LMPD.
4. On or about March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor (“Taylor”) was shot and killed during
the execution of a search warrant. Taylor’s shooting garnered national attention and community
leaders called for an investigation into the shooting.
5. On or about May 25, 2020, George Floyd (“Floyd”) was killed while being arrested
by the Minneapolis Police Department. Within days of Floyd’s death, massive large-scale protests
swept through the nation.
6. The deaths of Taylor and Floyd caused significant protests in downtown Louisville
beginning on or about May 28, 2020 which continue to the present day. During the protests,
LMPD, KSP, and members of the Kentucky National Guard were, at various times, responsible
for the safety of the public including the large majority of protestors who were protesting
peacefully.
7. Since June 1, 2020, Chief Hess has had supervisory authority and responsibility
over the LMPD.
8. Unfortunately, some individuals took the opportunity to not engage in a peaceful
protest, but instead to engage in unlawful behavior including violent confrontations with law
enforcement and the widescale destruction of property. These activities led to interactions between
protestors and the LMPD, KSP, and the National Guard. During these interactions, various
methods of crowd control were utilized by law enforcement.
5
9. On May 31, 2020, David McAtee (“McAtee”) was shot and killed during an

encounter with law enforcement including the Kentucky National Guard near Dino’s Food Mart,
sparking further protests.
10. The Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the KSP have each either initiated their own or assumed oversight of certain investigations of the
Taylor and McAtee deaths, and those investigations are ongoing.
11. On July 14, 2020, the Metro Council passed Order No. 003, Series 2020 entitled
An Order to Investigate the Actions and Inaction of the Administration Surrounding the Death of
Breonna Taylor, the Death of David McAtee, and Related Protests in Louisville Metro (the
“Order”). July 14, 2020 Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A.).
12. After referencing the death of Taylor, the protests, and the shooting of McAtee,
the Order states that “the protests sparked law-enforcement responses and actions that included the
lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other chemical agents,
and other techniques[.]” Id. at 1. The Order alleges that “critical information about the planning,
training, communication, and execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna
Taylor’s home and her death has been withheld from the public” and that “information surrounding
the planning, coordination, training, and execution of responses by activated National Guard
personnel working in concert with LMPD has been withheld from the public[.]” Id.
13. In part, the Order states the “Metro Council and the public at large seek to better
understand these events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made
by, and orders given by any officers” of the Metro Government, any board or commission
described in KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including the Mayor and his administration, and by LMPD.
6
Id. at 1. The Order further states the “Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a

transparent, public process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing
information is revealed to help resolve” the issues referenced in the Order. Id. at 2.
14. The Order authorizes the Committee to investigate these matters and, after the
investigation, “report findings of fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make
recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes
for investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.” Id. The Order provides that the scope of
the investigation shall include:
Working with any counsel for GOAC/Louisville Metro Council, and/or its
designated investigator.
- Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officers

KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his
leadership team, and his administration (the "Administration") and LMPD by and
through its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting death of
Breonna Taylor on March 13, 2020.
- Identifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,

processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Government and
impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.
- Identifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to

the execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the
night, and the death of Breonna Taylor.
- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the death
of Breonna Taylor.
- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the death
of David McAtee.
- Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in response
7
- Interviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing public

concerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS
67C.103(14)(e).
Order at 2-3.
15. The Order directs that the Committee “will conduct the investigation into the
Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David
McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to protests in Louisville Metro with the
legislative power contained in KRS §§ 67C.103(13)(f), 67C.103(14), and according to Metro
Council Rule 4A.04(b).” Id. at 3. Finally, the Order provides that the Committee “Chair shall
have the power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS §§ 67C.103(14)(e) and
Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special meetings of the Committee.” Id. at 3.
16. In furtherance of the Order, on July 17, 2020, the Chairman of the Committee,
Councilman Brent Ackerson sent a letter to Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder formally requesting
each appear for a hearing before the Committee on or before August 5, 2020. July 17, 2020
Correspondence (attached hereto as Exhibit B). According to the July 17, 2020 correspondence,
the Committee would refrain from asking Chief Hess or Chief Schroeder to divulge “information
which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation." Id.
17. On July 30, 2020, through correspondence from its counsel, the Committee
conveyed that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would be questioned on the following topics:
A) vandalism, and the response to it;
B) the use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted
or came in contact with the same;
C) the placement of snipers on rooftops;
D) the placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment;
8
E) the warning to and communications with protestors;
F) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment

by officers;
G) any “stand-down” order(s), directives, guidance given or passed along to

government responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.; and
H) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David McAtee
was shot.
See July 30, 2020 E-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit C).
18. With the understanding that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s appearances would
not require them to divulge any information regarding ongoing investigations, the Metro
Government agreed both would appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020.
19. Subsequently, however, on July 30, 2020, the Scott Action was filed in federal
court. See Scott Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit D). The Scott Action names as defendants
the Metro Government, the Mayor, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville,
Chief Schroeder, individually and in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville
Metropolitan Police Department, LaVita Chavous, individually and in her official capacity as
Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, Louisville Metropolitan Police
Department Officer “J.” Johnson, Louisville Metropolitan Police Department Officer John Does
#1-#15, and Jane Doe #1, in their individual capacities. Id. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action assert
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations and common law directly related to the
topics that the Committee seeks to question Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder regarding, and seek
compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the LMPD.
20. The Scott Action concerns the Metro Government’s response to the protests
throughout Louisville beginning on May 28, 2020. Specifically, the Complaint in the Scott Action
9
raises allegations of the use of tear gas and pepper balls;4 allegations that the media was targeted

or came into contact with such agents;5 the stationing of officers atop buildings;6 the placement
and use of sound equipment;7 warnings and communications with protesters [and others];8 the use
of helmets and other protective gear;9 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or
passed along to government responders;10 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s
the night David McAtee was shot.11
21. As such, the subject matter and allegations allegedly supporting the plaintiffs’
claims in the Scott Action directly relate to and are encompassed in the line of questioning that the
Committee seeks to ask Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder about. Therefore, the proposed testimony
of Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would directly relate to and touch upon every aspect of the
potential defense, answer, strategy, and positions of the Metro Government, the LMPD, and all of
the named defendants in the Scott Action.
4
See Scott Complaint at paras. 37, 39-42, 44-47, 50, 52, 56-7, 59-60, 64, 68, 70, 74, 78-79, 81-84, 87, 90, 98, 101-
103, 106,, 122-125, 128-129, 133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187, 194-196, 216, 227, 231-233, 239,
250 and 273.
5
Id. at para. 49 alleges LMPD officers targeted journalists, and para. 107 alleges an LMPD officer shot a reporter
from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball on June 17, 2020
6
Id. at para. 226.
7
Id. at para. 100 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. 104, 108 and 137-138, 204 and 239 all allege
the use of LRAD’s by LMPD.
8
Id. at para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by plaintiffs (who seek class certification on
behalf of all peaceful protesters) include “whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd
Control Weaponry;”.
9
Id. at paras. 35, 101, 142, 155, 163, 180, 208 and 227 all concern the use of helmets or other riot/protective gear by
LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters [and others].
10
Complaint, para 94 alleges that “[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer
apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be instituting needed reforms
to the LMPD’s use of force practices. But the very next day, in response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant
Fischer walked back his promise, stating that he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to “stand down”
and that Defendant Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.”
11
Id. at para. 69 alleges that on the evening of May 31, 2020, “two and a half miles from the site of the protests
downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while attempting to disperse a small
social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee’s restaurant,” which is across the street from Dino’s.
10
22. Following the filing of the Scott Action, counsel for the Metro Government

contacted the Committee and indicated that, in light of the relief sought by the Scott plaintiffs, the
fact that Chief Schroeder did not have sufficient time to confer with personal counsel, and the
congruence between the Scott Action and the Committee’s investigation, pursuant to KRS
67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would only testify in executive
session should the Committee wish to proceed as scheduled on August 3, or would be willing to
testify in an open meeting at a date in the near future when doing so would not adversely impact
the litigation position in the Scott Action. Metro Government August 3, 2020 Letter (attached
hereto as Exhibit E).
23. In response, the Committee Chairman, Counselman Brent Ackerson, indicated
through counsel that he did not intend to conduct the appearance in executive session and would
not delay or continue the August 3, 2020 hearing until a date in the future when one or both
witnesses would waive the executive session requirement set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).
Committee August 3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit F). Specifically, the Committee
Chairman has taken the position that KRS 67C.103(14)(b) does not require that Chief Hess and
Chief Schroeder’s testimony to be taken in executive session as he does not believe the testimony
falls within the scope of KRS 61.810 and that he intends to waive the executive session
requirement.
24. On August 3, 2020, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder appeared before the
Committee and again conveyed they were more than willing to answer questions regarding the
Committee’s investigation but, pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, would only do
so on that day in an executive session in light of the Scott Action.
11
25. During the August 3, 2020 hearing, Chairman Ackerman responded that “my sole

focus is to get the truth out to the public about what has happened and why.” Later, the Chairman
said “today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair of this body whose job it is to get the
truth out here to the public. . . .” Chairman Ackerman refused to allow for testimony in executive
session and indicated the Committee is “not going into executive session. There will be nothing
hidden from the public regarding this matter” and went on to state “Zero. Plain and simple. So, with
that being said, if you're not going to proceed, there's the door.”12
26. As the Committee refused to respect the mandate set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b) that
it only take testimony on a matter covered by KRS 61.810 in executive session, Chief Hess and
Chief Schroeder excused themselves from the August 3, 2020 meeting. On August 5, 2020, the
Committee issued the Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder.
See August 5, 2020 Subpoena (attached hereto as Exhibit G). The Subpoena demands that Chief
Hess appear before the Committee on August 17, 2020 to testify relating to the investigation
authorized by the Order and conveys that “failure to obey this subpoena may subject you to
contempt proceedings as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b).”
27. Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have nothing to hide and remain willing to testify
in executive session, or in an open session at a future date when doing so will not adversely impact
the Scott Action. In fact, on August 7, 2020, Plaintiff, through counsel, again reached out to the
Committee to reiterate its willingness for Chief Hess to testify in open session once a brief,
reasonable time was allowed for the defendants to be served, to retain and confer with counsel,
and to respond to the allegations in the Scott Action. See August 7, 2020 Letter (attached hereto
12
It is unclear from the pubic proceedings whether the Chair sought or had the consensus of his fellow committee
members on this point, despite the fact that KRS 61.815 provides a very clear procedure for going into executive
session, which involves action by the committee as a whole, and is not vested in the Chair.
12
as Exhibit H). Plaintiff further conveyed Chief Hess would be willing to testify in executive

session on August 17, 2020 per the language of KRS 67C.103(14)(b). Finally, Plaintiff conveyed
its concerns that the Committee is exceeding the scope of its authority granted by the Kentucky
General Assembly under KRS 67C.103(14)(b).
28. Upon information and belief, the Committee neither intends to go into executive
session when compelling testimony from Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder on August 17, 2020,
nor does it intend to delay hearing from these witnesses until a later date, and it does not plan to
confine its questions to matters related to a legislative purpose.
29. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint in this matter seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Committee is acting in violation of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and that
the Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate
legislative purpose.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed without the injunctive relief requested herein as
Defendants seek to enforce the Subpoena against Chief Hess prior to the time that a final judgment
can be entered in this matter, the Defendants will not be prejudiced by the requested injunctive
relief, and there is more than enough to conclude that Plaintiff will likely prevail on the claims
asserted in its Verified Complaint. The reality is injunctive relief will ensure the rights of all
affected will be fairly decided by this Court and protect the public interest.13
13
Various members of the Committee expressed a like desire for these unresolved issues to be adjudicated by the
Court.
13
I. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A RESTRAINING ORDER UNTIL IT CAN

CONDUCT A FULL HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
CR 65.03 provides a restraining order may be entered without notice to the other party at
the commencement of an action only if:
(a) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by verified complaint or affidavit
that the applicant's rights are being or will be violated by the adverse party and the
applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage before the
adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and
(b) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which
have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claims that notice
should not be required.
CR 65.03(1). Here, Plaintiff meets the requirements for the issuance of a restraining order pursuant
to CR 65.03. As detailed herein and in the Verified Complaint,14 the Subpoena and actions of the
Defendants are and will violate the Plaintiff’s rights as Defendants are acting in violation of the
express mandates of KRS 67C.103(14). The Metro Council, through the Committee, has conveyed
its intent to enforce the Subpoena and require open session testimony despite the limitation placed
upon it via KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810. If the Court does not restrain the Metro Council
from enforcing the Subpoena, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed as Chief Hess will be forced to
comply or face contempt proceedings, and no judgment of this Court will be able to remedy its
damages. Moreover, there will be little to no prejudice to Defendants through the issuance of the
requested restraining order as notice of this motion will be served upon the Metro Council’s
attorney. The Metro Council will be free to file a motion to dissolve the restraining order and any
response in opposition to the Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.
Accordingly, the Court should enter a restraining order restraining Defendants from
enforcing the Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to testify before the Committee on August 17, 2020,
14
The Verified Complaint is hereby incorporated herein for the purposes of meeting the requirements of CR 65.03.
14
until such time that the Court can conduct a hearing and consider Plaintiff’s requested temporary

injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena, restraining the Metro
Council from requiring Chief Hess to testify in an open session, and requiring the scope of the
Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative
purpose. 15
II. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
1) Legal standard relating to the issuance of temporary injunctive relief.
CR 65.04 authorizes temporary injunctive relief if it is clearly shown the movant’s rights
are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury, loss or damage pending a final judgment. “Under this rule, the circuit court
may grant injunctive relief when it finds ‘(1) that the movant’s position presents ‘a substantial
question’ on the underlying merits of the case, i.e. that there is a substantial possibility that the
movant will ultimately prevail; (2) that the movant’s remedy will be irreparably impaired absent
the extraordinary relief; and (3) that an injunction will not be inequitable, i.e. will not unduly harm
other parties or disserve the public.’” SM Newco Paducah, LLC v. Kentucky Oaks Mall Company,
499 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Price v. Paintsville Tourism Commission, 261 S.W.3d
482, 484 (Ky. 2008)). Here, each of these factors favor entry of temporary injunctive relief and
will be considered in turn.
15
Pursuant to CR 65.03(5), a restraining order is effective and binding at the time of service and “shall remain in force
until, and not after, (a) the time set for a hearing on a motion to dissolve the restraining order unless there is then
pending a motion for a temporary injunction, or (b) the entry of an order on a motion for a temporary injunction, or
(c) the entry of a final judgment, whichever is earlier.” As such, prior to the Court’s order on the requested temporary
injunctive relief, the restraining order must remain in effect.
15
2) There is a substantial possibility Plaintiff will ultimately prevail.

In its Verified Complaint, Plaintiff alleges there is a dispute between itself and Defendants
regarding the interpretation of KRS 67C.103 and requests the Court enter a declaratory judgment,
pursuant to KRS Chapter 418, finding Defendants cannot require Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder,
or any other witnesses, to testify in open session on matters concerning pending litigation, and that
the Committee’s investigation has to be reasonably tailored to matters serving a legitimate
legislative purpose. There is a substantial possibility Plaintiff will prevail on its claims.
A) Defendants are acting in contravention of KRS 67C.103(14).
Defendants, through the Committee and the Subpoena issued thereby, are acting in
contravention of KRS 67C.103(14) as they are attempting to force Chief Hess to testify in open
session despite the testimony including discussion of information related to pending litigation
against the Metro Government. KRS 67C.103 provides, in relevant part:
(13) All legislative powers of a consolidated local government are vested in the
consolidated local government council. The term "legislative power" is to be
construed broadly and shall include the power to:
(f)Make independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the

consolidated local government and any board or commission that:
1. Is composed of members who are appointed by the mayor and approved by the
legislative council; or
2. Has a budget that is equal to or greater than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00),
except that this subparagraph shall not apply to any fee officer elected within the
consolidated local government.
KRS 67C.103(13)(f)(1)-(2). Further, KRS 67C.103(14) provides, in relevant part, the Metro
Council shall establish the Committee which shall have the power to:
1. Compel testimony and the submission of work papers or documents;
2. Issue subpoenas to compel any officer of or appointee to a board or commission

described in subsection (13)(f) of this section or any department or division of the
16
consolidated local government to appear before the committee and to compel the

submission to the committee of any work papers or documents pertinent to an
independent audit or investigation. Any subpoenas issued or testimony compelled
shall be subject to any relevant statutes concerning privacy. Testimony subject to
KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session. The right to privacy or
the requirement that testimony be taken in executive session may be waived
by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify;
3. Petition the appropriate Circuit Court to compel obedience by proceedings for

contempt as in the case of disobedience of a subpoena issued from the Circuit Court
or a refusal to testify therein, if any officer or appointee fails or refuses to testify or
furnish the work papers or documents subpoenaed[.]
KRS 67C.103(14)(a)-(b) (emphasis added). Thus, per the express terms of KRS 67C.103(14)(a)-
(b), the Committee has the power to subpoena witnesses to testify in furtherance of their
“legislative power.” However, that power is qualified by the requirement that, if the testimony is
subject to KRS 61.810, then it shall only be taken in executive session, unless waived by the person
or entity being compelled to testify. See KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) (“the requirement that testimony
be taken in executive session may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or
compelled to testify”).
KRS 61.800 through KRS 61.850 codifies Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). The
OMA provides that “formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in
secret” and, to further that policy, any exceptions to the OMA must be “strictly construed.” KRS
61.800. KRS 61.810 codifies several exceptions to the OMA, including the litigation exception
which provides an agency may enter a closed session for “discussions of proposed or pending
litigation against or on behalf of the public agency.” KRS 61.810(c). The litigation exception
covers “strategy, tactics, possible settlement and other matters pertaining to the case.” Carter
v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414,419 (Ky. 2012) (emphasis added). The exception does not apply where
the threat of litigation is remote or simply because the agency’s attorney is present. Id. at 419.
17
There is little doubt the matters sought to be the subject of questioning by the Committee

“pertain” to the Scott Action. As detailed herein, the list of subject matters the Committee
committed to mirrors that of the allegations in the Scott complaint and will necessarily require
Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder testify regarding these allegations. The Committee is not seeking
a general discussion of the LMPD’s policies and procedures, and is instead seeking a pointed,
express questioning relating directly to the allegations asserted in the Scott Action.
This is the exact scenario that is encompassed by the litigation exception contained in the
OMA. In enacting the statutory litigation exception, the General Assembly recognized that public
discussions related to pending litigation can and often will prejudice the ability of a governmental
agency to effectively prosecute or defend its legal interests. That principal is especially true when
the governmental body in which the executive session is entered into is not the governmental body
that has been sued. Here, it would be a meeting of the Committee going into executive session to
discuss the Plaintiff’s pending litigation and matters relating thereto. It is simply not up to the
Committee as to when the Plaintiff is entitled to protection from KRS 61.810.
This is not a situation where there is an “insufficient threat or possibility of litigation” or
“where the possibility of litigation is remote or unsubstantiated.” Carter, 366 S.W.3d at 419-20.
Instead, the Scott Action is an active, pending matter in which many of the defendants have not
been served, and most of them have not had time to confer with counsel or respond to the
allegations. If this were a matter where members of the Administration wanted to learn more about
the facts underpinning the lawsuit from those with information pertaining to it, it would clearly
meet the exception to the OMA for the executive branch, and the fact that the request comes from
a competing branch of government does nothing to change this analysis.
18
The reading of the litigation exception that has been put forward by Defendants is far too

narrow of a reading. Defendants have posited that the litigation exception only applies if litigation
strategy is being directly discussed. However, that is not consistent with the language of KRS
61.810, which does not limit the litigation exception to times in which the governmental agency
seeks the advice of its attorney. Instead, the litigation exception applies much more broadly. Had
the General Assembly wanted to limit the scope of the litigation exception it could have done so
similar to the manner in which multiple other states crafted their open meetings act. See, e.g., Tex.
Gov't Code Ann. § 551.071 (exception to Texas Open Meetings Act “when the governmental body
seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation; or (B) a settlement
offer”); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 121.22 (g)(3) (exception to Ohio Open Meetings Act for
“conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body
that are the subject of pending or imminent court action”); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-431.03(A)(4)
(exception to Arizona Open Meetings Act for “discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the
public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's
position… in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to
avoid or resolve litigation.”); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 286.011(8)(c) (Florida government entities “may
meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is
presently a party before a court or administrative agency” provided three conditions are met
including the attorney advising the entity that they have advice regarding the litigation). Instead
of doing so, the General Assembly chose to leave it to matters pertaining to the litigation.
The purpose in which the Committee can undertake the investigation illustrates the fallacy
of Defendants’ narrow reading of the statute. The argument that the litigation exception applies
only if litigation strategy is being directly discussed simply disregards the Committee’s limitation
19
to matters in furtherance of a legislative purpose. Committees formed under KRS 67C.103 do not

have it in their power to invade into matters in which testimony would involve litigation strategy
or legal advice as they are confined to legislative related inquiries. Therefore, the incorporation
of the litigation exception in the statute, in a manner put forward by the Defendants, is nonsensical
as it would not serve to limit the Committee’s power in any way.
Further illustrating the Defendants’ misunderstanding of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) is their
position that they have the ability to waive the closed meeting exception. Again, the statute
provides “[t]he right to privacy or the requirement that testimony be taken in executive session
may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify.” KRS
67C(14)(b)(2) (emphasis added). It is not Defendants that are being protected by the statute, but
instead it is the Plaintiff. Defendants have no power to waive the Plaintiff’s right to an executive
session and their position to the contrary fails.
The reality is there is no harm to Defendants in respecting the rights given to the Plaintiff
by the statute. Defendants can only have a legislative purpose in seeking the testimony as their
goal is to gather information to effectuate legislative change. Plaintiff has offered to give the
Committee that information in executive session on any day, or in open session after it has time to
fully evaluate the Scott Action. Not satisfied with this option, Defendants have chosen to violate
the statute instead.
As this situation is the exact situation in which the litigation exception is intended to apply,
there is a substantial possibility that Plaintiff will prevail on this claim.
B) The Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that

serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
KRS 67C.103(13)(f) expressly conditions the power of the Metro Council to create the
Committee upon its legislative power and the scope of its authority is thereby limited to that
20
delegation of legislative power from the General Assembly. See Bruner v. City of Danville, 394

S.W.2d 939, 942 (Ky. 1965) (A city’s “legislative body can neither delegate nor exercise in its
own right a power it does not have, to-wit, an arbitrary power.”). “[A] city possess only those
powers expressly granted by the Constitution and statutes plus such powers as are necessarily
implied or incident to the expressly granted powers and which are indispensable to enable it to
carry out its declared objects, purposes, and expressed powers.” City of Bowling Green v. T & E
Elec. Contractors, 602 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Ky. 1980). Accordingly, the only legitimate purpose the
Committee could have in conducting its investigation is in furtherance of its legislative power.
As the legislative power is to “make the laws, and to alter and repeal them,” the Committee
must only be conducting its investigation in the pursuit of making, altering, or repealing law.
Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Bevin, 575 S.W.3d 673, 682 (Ky. 2019). Consistent therewith,
the Order qualifies the investigation as the Metro Council “may take legislative action and/or make
recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies.” Order at 2. Despite
this, there is evidence the Committee may not in fact be acting for a legislative purpose. As
Chairman Ackerman represented at the August 3, 2020 hearing, the “sole focus is to get the truth
out to the public about what has happened and why.” The purpose that is sought to be achieved
by the Subpoena is to inquire of the Administration’s response to the protests and other issues
attendant thereto. These types of proceedings are more appropriately in the province of the
executive and judicial branches.16 As such, to the extent the Committee is acting for something
other than a legislative purpose, there is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.17
16
Moreover, it appears questionable as to how the Metro Council could dictate any changes to the Administration or
the LMPD’s policies. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government
and in that capacity has the executive power over the departments in his Administration, including the LMPD. It is
the Administration, not the Metro Council or the Committee, which has the supervisory authority over the LMPD and
the attendant power to implement its policies and procedures.
17
These issues are concerning given the important role the doctrine of separation of powers plays in Kentucky’s
system of governance. See Sibert v. Garrett, 246 S.W. 455, 457 (Ky. 1922) (“[p]erhaps no state forming a part of the
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment that the Committee’s

investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose has
a substantial possibility of success.
3. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed absent temporary injunctive relief.
Similarly, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the requested temporary injunctive relief
is not issued. Under Kentucky law, an injury is “irreparable if there is no adequate remedy for it
existing at law.” Wallace v. Jackson, 3 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky. 1928). In other words, “an injury
is irreparable if there exists no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of damages.”
United Carbon Co. v. Ramsey, 350 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Ky. 1961) (internal citations omitted).
“[T]he clearest example of irreparable injury is where it appears that the final judgment would be
rendered completely meaningless should the probable harm alleged occur prior to trial.” Maupin
v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Ky. App. 1978).
Plaintiff and its claims present a clear example of irreparable harm. Specifically, the harm
Plaintiff seeks to redress in its Verified Complaint is the actions of the Committee in violation of
KRS 67C.107(14). If the requested injunctive relief is not entered, Plaintiff will be unable to
appropriately prepare for its response in the Scott Action and will directly have its interests in that
action impacted. The Subpoena requires Chief Hess to appear before the Committee on August
17, 2020 to testify in open session. Without injunctive relief, Chief Hess will be faced with the
dilemma of complying with the subpoena and testifying despite the Committee’s violation of KRS
67C.103(14) or face the threat of contempt proceedings. Thus, without injunctive relief, a
national government of the United States has a constitution whose language more emphatically separates and
perpetuates what might be termed the American tripod form of government than does ... [the Kentucky]
Constitution....”); In re Appointment of Clerk of Court of Appeals, 297 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Ky. 1957) (“[t]he doctrine
of the separation of governmental powers…runs like a golden thread throughout the fabric of our government.”).
22
judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor will be meaningless as Chief Hess will have been forced to

make this decision and the violative conduct of the Committee will be completed. There will no
judgment this Court could enter to remedy this damage. See Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d
695, 699 (Ky. App. 1978) (forced compliance with a subpoena, without injunctive relief, would
render a final judgment meaningless).
Finally, Plaintiff, will be irreparably harmed if the scope of the Committee’s investigation
is not reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose. Certain actions of
the Committee appear to be exceeding their proper legislative purpose and necessarily invading
the executive branch’s province. If the Court does not enter the requested temporary injunctive
the Committee’s invasion of the executive branch will continue.
4. The equities and public interests weigh in favor of issuing temporary injunctive relief.
The need for the issuance of temporary injunctive relief is even more clear when
considering the equities of doing so. The Court must weigh the absence of any commensurate
harm to the interests of a defendant against the immediate and irreparable harm the plaintiff will
suffer from the defendant’s conduct. Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Ky. App. 1978).
“It is only where an injunction will operate oppressively and the benefit to the complainant is slight
that an injunction will be denied to balance the convenience of the parties.” Pike County Bd. of
Ed. v. Belfry Coal Corp., 346 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Ky. 1961). In deciding this element, Kentucky courts
consider numerous factors including, but not limited to, (i) the possible detriment to public interest,
(ii) the harm to the defendant, and (iii) whether the injunction will merely preserve the status quo.
Maupin, 575 S.W.2d at 699. In this case, the equities clearly favor the issuance of the requested
temporary injunctive relief.
23
As established herein, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the event that temporary

injunctive relief is not entered as a judgment in its favor would be meaningless. When this harm
is weighed against the potential prejudice to the Defendants, the equities clearly favor issuance of
the requested temporary injunctive relief as there will be little to no harm to the Defendants. Again,
Plaintiff has conveyed to the Committee, on multiple occasions, Chief Hess’s willingness to testify
immediately in executive session, or in the future in an open session.
The only potential prejudice Defendants can put forward is that the issuance of temporary
injunctive relief will delay hearing the testimony in an open hearing.18 This is simply insufficient
to change the equities analysis here. The only purpose the Committee could have in conducting
its investigation is to fulfill a legislative goal. To assert Defendants will be prejudiced by a brief
delay in their proceedings is in contravention to the system of governance that is in place. To the
Plaintiff’s knowledge, there is no emergency legislation under consideration by the Metro Council,
and there is no pending legislation under consideration to which Committee’s investigation relates.
Further, the Defendants are able to proceed immediately, so long as they abide by the
express mandates of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) that testimony covered by KRS 61.810 be taken in
closed session. The requested temporary injunctive relief will do nothing but preserve the status
quo while protecting Plaintiff from irreparable harm and equities favor the issuance of temporary
injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff hereby requests the Court enter a Temporary
Restraining Order pursuant to CR 65.03 and a Temporary Injunction pursuant to CR 65.04,
18
In a similar scenario, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in Maupin v. Stansbury, found the detriment of delay to the
defendant Board of Aldermen was insufficient to shift the equities against the issuance of a temporary injunction.
Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d at 699.
24
restraining Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to testify in open session

before the Committee on August 17, 2020, restraining Defendants from seeking testimony from
Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to pending litigation without first going into
executive session, and requiring the scope of the Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored
to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
NOTICE
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set this matter for a hearing at its earliest
convenience.
McBRAYER PLLC
201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
Lexington, KY 40507-1361
(859) 231-8780
BY: /s/ David J. Guarnieri

DAVID J. GUARNIERI
STEPHEN G. AMATO
CYNTHIA L. EFFINGER
JASON R. HOLLON
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
4830-8568-6471, v. 2
25
oRDER NO. 0oS,SER|ES 2o2o
AN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF THE

ADMINISTRATION SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF BREONNA
TAYLOR, THE DEATH OF DAVID MCATEE, AND RELATED
PROTESTS IN LOUISVILLE METRO
SPONSORED BY: GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AUDTT

COMMITTEE CHAIR BRENT ACKERSON AND VICE CHAIR ANTHONY
PIAGENTINI
WHEREAS, in the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shot
and killed inside her home by the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), part of
Louisville Metro Government, and which reports to the Mayor;
WHEREAS, during a subsequent night of protests in Louisville Metro, David McAtee

was shot and killed at his place of business by a Kentucky National Guard soldier
working alongside LMPD;
WHEREAS, the protests sparked law-enforcement re$ponse$ and actions that included
the lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other
chemical agents, and other techniques;
WHEREI\S, rnuch critical information about the planning, training, communication, and
execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor's home
and her death has been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;
WHEREAS, information surrounding the planning, coordination, training, and execution

of responses by activated National Guard personnel working in concert with LMPD has
been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;
WHEREAS, the uncertainty of these months-long investigations with no additional

information afforded the families or the public has sown distrust, unrest, and damage to
our social fabric, the confidence in government, and general community morale;
WHEREAS, Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand these
events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made by,
and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local government and any board or
commission described in KRS S 67C,103(13X0, including but not limited to Mayor Greg
Fischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration") and LMPD by
and through its agents; ;
EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a transparent, public
process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing information
is revealed to help resolve the aforementioned issues and omissions;
WHEREAS, under KRS $ the Legislative Council

67C.103(13Xf), of the
LouisvillelJefferson County Metro Government ("Metro Council") shall have the power to
"[m]ake independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the consolidated
local government";
WHEREAS, Metro Council will investigate these concerns regarding the Administration
in the Government Oversight and Audit Commiftee (.GOAC") utilizing powers set forth
in KRS S 67C.103(14); and;
WHEREAS, at the completion of the GOAC investigation, GOAC will report findings of
fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make recommendations for
any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes for
investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT {"METRO COUNCIL"I
AS FOLLOWST
SECTION l: Louisville Metro Council, through the Government Oversight and Audit
Committee, hereby initiates an investigation into the actions and inaction of the
Administration leading to the no-knock search warrant and subsequent shooting death
of Breonna Taylor, the shooting death of David McAtee during protests in Louisville
Metro, and the planning and response to protests and destructive activity in Louisville
Metro following these deaths. The scope of this investigation shall include, but not be
limited to:
Working with any counsel for GOACllouisville Metro Council, andlor its
desig nated investigator.
Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officers

KRS $ 67C.103(13Xil, including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his
leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration")and LMPD by and
through its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting death
of Breonna Taylor on March 13,2020.
ldentifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,
2
processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Government
and impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.
ldentifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to the
execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the
night, and the death of Breonna Taylor"
ldentifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the
death of Breonna Taylor.
ldentifying any error$ or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions rnade by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the
death of David McAtee"
Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in resporrse
lnterviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing public

ooncerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS
67C.103(14Xe).
SECTION ll: The Government Oversight and Audit Commifiee will conduct the
investigation into the Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of
Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to
protests in Louisville Metro with the legislative power contained in KRS $$
67C.103(13X0, 67C.103(14), and according to Metro Council Rute 4A.04(b).
SECTION lll: The Government Oversight and Audit Committee Chair shatt have the
power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS S$ 67C.103{14)(e)
and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special s of the Committee.
SECTION lV: This r shalltake effect upon its pas
Metro CouncilClerk Govern Oversight and Audit

Committee
?S)-e)
Approved LOUISVI LLF MFTRO COUNCIL
ADOPTED
?s
3
BY
Jonathan Ricketts
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG,ALITY:

. \l t{
*.
;)

P^)
Lor;rsv rt .t",n M.rlno Ct-llrNc: tt-

[]ru,x l'1. Ar. xti'Ls(.tr-
2 (i'r r r I ) r;s rntt:'r' C.'ot-jN-(:il..N' r\ N
luly 17,2020
Amy Hess
Chief of Public Services
527 W . Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor
arny. hess@louisvilleky. gov
Sent via US Mail and Email

oR-004-20
Dear Chief Hess
(hereinafter "Committec"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and
inactions of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David
McAtee, and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.
To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers.
Please provide us with dates between now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the
information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attomey General and the
Ackerson, Chairman
Oversight and Audit Cornmittee
(:01 \\t.l[,l,r,riRsr]N S1nr.r,r. . (502) 574-1126 . Lor.llsvlr.r.r,i, KY 40202 ' wlvrv.louisvilleky.gov 'i'1(:*;:::r"'
EXHIBIT B
Louisr.,rt-t,n Mu't'no Couxcn
Il rr r,*-'r''ll Ai. rrp.sr-r
"'
l(ir l l)ts'r'utc: r: C"'ouNr.tt"it.rin
t
Ju,ly 17,2020
Robert Schroeder
Interim Chief, LMPD
robert. schroeder@louisvil leky. gov
Sent via US Mailand Email

oR-004-20
Dear Interim Chief Schroeder:
(hereinafter "Committee"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and inactions
of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee,
and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.
To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers,
Please provide us with dates befween now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the
information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the
Thank YOU,
. Ackerson, Chairman
ent Oversight and Audit Committee
601 W .ll,t,l,l,RspN Slnr,r;r' . (-5021 574-1126 . L<)Lllsvn,.l-t, Ky40202 . 1v11'lv,lsuisvitleky.gor' -.'ii,it"

From : Jonatha n Ricketts <Jonatha n, Ricketts@ rickettslawoffi ces,com>
Sent: Thursday, July 30,2020 t2:02 PM
To: Steve Amato <samato@mcbrayerfirm.com>; David J. Guarnieri <dguarnieri@mcbrayerfirm.com>
Cc: Ch ristopher Bush <Ch ristopher. Bush @ rickettslawoffices.com>
Subject: Aug 3 GOAC Meeting follow-up between counsel
Steve and David,

This follows our call on 7 /28,ln an attempt to answer questions on behalf of your client, we had a
chance to speak with Chairman Ackerson regarding the oath, "pre-meetings", opening remarks, scope and
form or format of the meeting Monday. I will address them one at a time:
1, Oaths: Chairman Ackerson intends to administer the oath to your clients in the form previously shared
with you,
EXHIBIT C
2. "Pre-meetings": The Chair was puzzled by this as he informs us that he did not request a "pre-meeting

with your clients.He would prefer for all discussions to be conducted in an open meeting. I believe you
have not objections to that.
3. Opening remarks: You clients will be permitted opening remarks, however they will be limited to 5
minutes each.
4. Scope and From are addressed together: The Chair anticipates the evening will go like this: The
meeting will be called to order, your clients will be sworn, and be permitted to make their opening
remarks. The Chair will then make opening remarks. He will then ask your clients in narrative and
chronological form to generally describe in chronological order police/law enforcement response to
protests that began on the evening of May 28,2020, and take us up to current time, He expects that
as the narrative unfolds, he may interrupt them to get clarity or follow-up on the events, Specific
topics he'd like for them to be prepared to talk about throughout the chronological events are:
o a) vandalism, and response to it,
o b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted or came in contact
with same,
o c) placement of snipers on roof tops,
o d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment,
o e) warning to and communications with protestors,
o f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,
o g) any "stand-down" order(s), directives, guidance given or passed alongto government
responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.,
o h) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.
I am informed that the Chair will collect questions before the meeting from other councilmembers,
will conduct the questioning, and will reserve the final 30 minutes for any follow up questions by
Councilmembers,
I believe I have answered your questions. Furthet I believe that I have been thorough enough herein
to allow your client not only to be prepared, but also to provid.e notice to you sufficient to raise concerns in
advance of the meeting so that we might address them beforehand. I also want to be clear that the form of
the hearing will be fluid and this list, while as thorough as I can be at this time, may not be exhaustive,
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, and please thank your clients for me
on behalf of the committee for voluntarily agreeing to appear before the Committee'
Thanks,
/iaaflatt

4055 Shelbyvilie Road
Phone: (502)896-2302
Fax: (502)896-2362
htt.tr, ://www. ricl<ettslawoffj ceq,com

Notice: This email is subject to provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C, SS 2510-
2521 and the information contained herein and any accompanying attachment(s) are also subject to the attorney-
client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, and include confidential and privileged matters intended only for
the limited use of the recipient to whom this email message is addressed, subject to law and court rules. lf any
reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly
prohibited, and may be unlawful. lntended recipients'use is limited as authorized by law or rule. lf you have
received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return mail, and delete the original
message and destroy all copies from your system, also notify the sender immediately by telephone at (502)896-
2302 or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Should this email contain settlement
negotiations as intended by the sender, same shall be prohibited from use by applicable state or federal rule, and
sender does not consent to its use in a manner inconsistent with those rules. Please Note that (1) E-mail
communication is not a secure method of communication; (2) Any e-mail sent to you by this firm, or by you to this
firm, may be copied and held by various unauthorized computers as the communication is transmitted; and (3)
Persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your
computer or the computers of Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC, or even a computer unconnected to either of us. lf you
subsequently elect not to receive future communications from my office via e-mail, please immediately notify me at
(502)896-2302.
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1 of 46 PagelD #: l-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTER}{ DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH,

KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY,
STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY,
and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE
AGAINST RACIAL AND POUTICAL
REPRESSION, on behalf of themselves and Civil Action No
all others similarly situated,
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, DEMAND
V
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERS ON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT, GREG
FISCHER, individually and in his official
capacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERT
SCHROEDER, individually and in his
official capacity as Interim Chief of the
LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in her
official capacity as Assistant Chief of the
and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J.''
JOHNSON, LOUISVILLE
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES
#l-#15 and JANE DOE #1, in their
individual capacities,
Defendants
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
"[O]ur constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and
encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured
in a democratic society." Cox v. State of La.,379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965). Rarely before has this
principle been as readily apparent as it is today; following the senseless killings of George Floyd,
EXHIBIT D
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 2 of 46 PagelD #:2

Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black individuals at the hands of police, protesters in all
fifty states are demanding police accountability and reform.
Rather than treating its peaceful protesters as important parts of the democratic process
protected by the Constitution, the City of Louisville has chosen to forcibly silence them-often
using military-type weapons and tactics that resemble those used by authoritarian regimes to
stifle dissent. ln the days following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis
police officers on May 25,2020, a key demand for protesters who took to the streets around the
country was justice for Breonna Taylor, who was killed by Louisville police officers in her own
home on March 13,2020. Louisville police officers sought to quell these demonstrations through
the sustained use of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, and other forms of military-grade
technology. This combat-style response led to yet another senseless death: on May 3I,2020,
Louisville police and the National Guard fired eighteen live rounds at David McAtee, a local
Black restaurant owner, killing him. Since then, countless peaceful protesters-including elected
officials and local educators-have been shot, gassed, beaten, and arrested solely for making
their voices heard. Louisville police officers also abused the city's curfew order while it was in
effect, employing force to arrest or disperse people hours before they were required by the
curfew order to clear the streets. And to this day, both Louisville's Mayor and Kentucky's
Governor have defended the police department's conduct.
Plaintiffs are a diverse group of individuals who have come together to exercise their
rights to protest and demand change from their government. For that, Louisville police officers
have subjected them to shocking and violent levels of force, Plaintiff Corbin Smith was tear
gassed, beaten with batons, and forced to beg for his life while an officer kneeled on his neck.
2
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt 1- Filed 07130120 Page 3 of 46 PagelD #: 3

Plaintiff Stevie Schauer was shoved to the ground and violently beaten by officers who saw her
recording their misconduct; friends who tried to help her were shot with pepper balls.
Their experiences are just a few examples of the sustained violence that Louisville has
unleashed on its citizens. Plaintiffs now bring this suit, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, to guarantee and protect their constitutional right to demand change from their
government at this singular moment in history.
PARTIES
l. Plaintiff Attica Scott is a citizen of the United States and cunently resides in
Kentucky. She cunently serves in the Kentucky House of Representatives, representing the 41st
District.
2. Plaintiff Corbin Smith currently resides in Indiana,
3, Plaintiff Kayla Meisner currently resides in Kentucky.
4. Plaintiff Tyler Weakley curently resides in lndiana.
5. Plaintiff Stevie Schauer currently resides in Kentucky.
6, Plaintiff Willa Tinsley currently resides in Kentucky.
7. Plaintiff Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression
("KAARPR") is a 501(c)(3) organized under the laws of Kentucky that has more than 900 dues-
paying members. Its mission is to "inform the public and provide a channel for public debate
conceming the human and constitutional rights of all people; to bring together diverse groups of
people to support those repressed for racist or political reasons; fand] to work to end racist
practices in the community and government."l The organization's work is focused on, among
other things, combating the use of excessive force by police, including against protestors;
I About Us, Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, http://www.kentuckyalliance.org/about.html
(last visited July 30, 2020).
a
J
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07rcAl2} Page 4 of 46 PagelD #'. 4
challenging cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in prisons and jails in Kentucky;

limiting the disproportionate effect of the criminal justice system on Black individuals; and
improving education access and opportunity for Black and Brown children in the greater
Louisville area.
8. Since its founding more than 40 years ago, KAARPR has, among other things,
highlighted the stories of victims of police abuse as a means of drawing attention to the larger
systemic issues discussed above. For example, over twenty years ago, KAARPR launched a
campaign around the death of Adrien Reynolds, who was subjected to excessive force during his
arrest and then killed by corectional officials.
9. KAARPR is also a leading member of Louisville Citizens Against Police Abuse,
a coalition of local organizations united to fight police brutality in Black and Brown
communities in Louisville.
10, Defendant Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("City of Louisville")
is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky. Defendant City
of Louisville, acting through the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department ("LMPD"), is
responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD
matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. In
addition, the City of Louisville is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring
that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.
11. Defendant Greg Fischer is the Mayor of the City of Louisville. In that capacity, he
is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, superuision, implementation, and conduct of
all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD
4
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 5 of 46 PagelD #: 5

personnel, In addition, Defendant Fischer is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and
ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.
12. Defendant Robert Schroeder is the Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan
Police Department. Defendant Schroeder was appointed to this role on or about June 1, 2020.
Before his appointment as Interim Chief, Defendant Schroeder was Deputy Chief of the
Louisville Metropolitan Police Department. In his capacity as both Interim Chief and Deputy
Chief, he is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and
conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of
all LMPD personnel. In addition, Defendant Schroeder is responsible for enforcing the rules of
the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of
Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and expeditious investigations into officer
misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Schroeder was acting within the scope of his
employnent and under color of state law.
13. Defendant LaYita Chavous is an Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan
Police Department. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementing the policy, practice,
supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment,
training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. ln addition, Defendant Chavous is
responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the
laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and
expeditious investigations into officer misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Chavous was
acting within the scope of her employment and under color of state law.
14. Defendants LMPD Officer'oJ." Johnson and LMPD Officers John Does #1-15 and
ooOfftcers")
Jane Doe #1, (collectively, "Defendant Officers" or are police officers employed by
5

the City of Louisville. In this role, Defendant Officers were duly appointed and acting officers,
servants, employees and/or agents of Louisville. At all relevant times, they were acting in the
scope of their employment and under color of state law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This action arises under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, 42 U .S.C. $ I 983, and Kentucky state law.
16. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1343(a)(3),
1343(a)(), and 1367,
l7 . Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C, $ 1391(b) and (e)
because at least some Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the acts and
omissions giving rise to this action took place in this district.
JURY TRJAL DEMAND
18. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.
FACTS
The Killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd Spur Nutionwide Protests
19. Over the past several months, a number of high-profile instances of police killing
unarmed Black people have shocked the nation's conscience.
20, Shortly after midnight on March 13,2020, three LMPD police officers shot and
killed Breonna Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency medical technician who lived in
Louisville,
21. The LMPD officers executed a no-knock warrant at Ms. Taylor's apartment.
Upon entry, the officers fired over twenty rounds at Ms, Taylor and her boyfriend.
6
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 7 of 46 PagelD #'.7

22. Ms. Taylor, who was unarmed and sleeping in bed, was struck eight times-but
did not die immediately. lnstead, for five or six minutes, she lay bleeding in her bed, her
boyfriend pleading unsuccessfully for the officers to help her. Ms. Taylor died from her injuries,
23, Ms. Taylor's story quickly captured national attention. Calls for justice for her
killing began to grow.
24. ln response, the LMPD opened an internal investigation into whether its officers
violated any departmental policies, The Attorney General of Kentucky has opened an
investigation into possible criminal charges against the officers. And the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has opened a separate probe into the officers' conduct.
25, To date, however, the officers who killed Breonna Taylor have not been arested,
Defendant Schroeder has initiated termination procedures against just one of the three officers
involved.
26. Less than two months later, on May 25,2020, officers from the Minneapolis
Police Department killed George Floyd while anesting him on suspicion of passing a counterfeit
twenty-dollar bill.
27. A bystander captured the killing on video; for nearly eight minutes after Mr.
Floyd had been placed in handcuffs, a police officer kneeled on Mr, Floyd's neck while three
other officers stood by and watched.
28. Mr. Floyd repeatedly begged for mercy, pleading that he could not breathe. He
called out for his mother. His last words were "please, I can't breathe."
29. Video of Mr. Floyd's murder spread almost immediately. Within days, his story
had become the defining topic of national discourse. Elected officials and public figures of all
political affiliations denounced the police officers' actions.
7
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page B of 46 PagelD #: I

30. All four of the officers involved in Mr. Floyd's killing have been arrested and
criminally charged,
31. The killings of Ms. Taylor and Mr, Floyd-emblematic of the widespread pattern
of police violence against unarmed Black people-touched a nerve in communities across the
country, sparking mass protests about how police interact with Black people.
32. Within a week of Mr. Floyd's killing, large-scale demonstrations had begun in all
fifty states. Those protests remain ongoing.
Protests Begin in Louisville, Prompting Immediate and Egregious Use of Force by LMPD
Malt 28, 2020
33. On May 28,2020, LMPD released the audio of the 911 call placed by Breonna
Taylor's boyfriend the night she was killed.
34. That evening, large-scale demonstrations began in Louisville. At approximately
8:00 p.m., protesters carrying signs reading "Justice for Breonna" and chanting "Breonna was
asleep" marched through downtown Louisville to gather near the Louisville Metro Hall,2
35. Protesters were met by a fleet of armed LMPD officers clad in riot gear.
36, At approximately l1:15 p.m., ahandful of protesters threw plastic water bottles at
the LMPD officers.
37. In response, LMPD officers fired a combination of pepper balls (pepper-spray
projectiles launched using guns or similar weapons) and live ammunition into the crowd of
protesters, nearly all of whom were protesting peacefully. Seven people were hit with live
bullets, Protesters began to disperse.
2
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates; Protestors arcested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,Couriet
Joumal (May 28, 2020 at l0:56 p,m,), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsipolitics/metro-
government/2020lQ5l28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52801620021 .
8
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3ol20 Page 9 of 46 PagelD #: 9

38. At least one of the injured protesters claimed that he was shot in the back of the
head by a police officer. He has sued both LMPD and the Kentucky State Police. See Albert v.
Unknown Individual Kentuclcy State Police Officers, et al.,No.3:20-cv-00418 (W.D. Ky.).
39. LMPD officers then began to launch canisters of tear gas into the crowd,
40, LMPD subsequently claimed that the tear gas and gunshots were necessary to
prevent assaults on officers. But no officers were reported as injured during the protests.3
4L The LMPD's use of tear gas against peaceful protestors on May 28,2020 was
widely reported in the media.
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas against
peaceful protestors on May 28,2020.
Ma:t 29. 2020
43. Demonstrations continued the next day, on May 29,2020.An even larger group
of protesters marched through downtown Louisville starting in the late aftemoon, Many of the
protesters were young teenagers,a
44. By the early evening, LMPD officers began using flash grenades, tear gas, and
pepper balls on the largely peaceful crowd.
45, Plaintiff Attica Scott and her daughter were present at this protest; both were
demonstrating peacefully but were shoved by police and then hit with tear gas,
3
Mike Baker, 7 People Shot at Louisville Protest Over the Death of Breonna Taylor, N.Y. Times (May 29,2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020105129/usllouisville-protest-shooting-breonna-tay1or.html,
4
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arresled as Breonna Taylor rallies conlinue around Louisville,Coutier
Joumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 3 l, 2020, I I :00 p.m.), https://www.courier-
journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2020105/28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-
protest/52807 620021 .
9

46. For over four hours, flash grenades launched by LMPD "volleyed through the air
like cannon-fire" while tear gas deployed by LMPD "wafted across entire city blocks."s
47. LMPD officers fired pepper balls indiscriminately into the crowd.
48. As one newspaper reported, "[b]y l0 p.m., downtown Louisville looked like a war
zone."6
49, LMPD officers targeted journalists who were covering the chaos, flrring pepper
bullets at groups of reporters who were videotaping the scene.T
50. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers were disciplined by Defendant
Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous as a result ofusing tear gas, flash grenades,
or pepper bullets against peaceful protestors on May 29 , 2020.
May 30. 2020
51. On May 30,2020,Mayor Greg Fischer instituted a 9:00 p.m. cityr,vide curfew and
called in the National Guard,8
52. Protesters began to gather downtown for peaceful demonstrations in the afternoon
on May 30. Some volunteers brought stockpiles of water and milk to use both as eyewash due to
LMPD's indiscriminate use of tear gas, as well as to provide essential drinking water for the
protest on a long sunny day. They stored these stockpiles in Jefferson Square Park for all
protesters to use.
5
Mandy Mclaren, A traumatized generation: Louisville's youth demand racial justice during mass protesls,
Louisville Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,5:31 p.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/05/30/breonna-taylor-protest-louisvilles-youth-demand-racial-justic e152910300021 .
6ld.
1
@wave3news, "WAVE 3 News reporter Kaitlin Rust appeared to have been hit by rubber bullets reportedly
fired
by an LMPD officer during a protest in downtown Louisville," Twitter (May 29,2020,10:23 p.m.),
https ://twitter,com/wave3 news/status/ 1 266 5 5 57 3 17 3 1 4 1 5040?s=20.
8
Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer sets curfew calls in National Guardfor Breonna Taylor protests, " Louisville
Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,9:49 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-
government/2 020l05l30lmayor-fischer-sets-breonna-taylor-protest-curfew-cal1s-national-guardl52906900021 '
10
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 11- of 46 PagelD #: It

53. At approximately 7:30 p,m., while protesters were peacefully demonstruting, a
group of plainclothes LMPD police officers began destroying the protesters' stockpiles without
explanation,e
54. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers intentionally destroyed the
protesters' supplies to discourage protesters from remaining at the demonstrations.
55. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers had decided to use tear gas on
protesters before they began to destroy the protesters' supplies,
56. At approximately 8:00 p,m.-an hour before the official curfew and thitty
minutes after destroying the protesters' stockpiles of water and milk-LMPD officers began to
launch tear gas into the crowd of peaceful protesters and beat them back with batons. At the
time, some protesters had lain down on the street while chanting for police accountability.
57. LMPD officers launched tear gas at a crowd of protesters, including former State
Representative Charles Booker, who were standing in a place several yards away from the riot
line.lo
58. Approximately 40 protesters were arrested,ll
59. When asked about LMPD's conduct, Defendant Fischer conceded that the
protesters were nonviolent, but he nonetheless defended the use of tear gas and batons by saying
e
Natalie Neysa Alunda , Police officers in Louisville smash milk jugs and water bottles at Breonna Taylor protest, "
Louisville Courier Journal (May 30, 2020,9:43 p.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal,com/story/news/locall2020l05l30lbreonna-taylor-protest-louisville-police-smash-protesters'
supplies/5295 8400021.
r0
Charles Booker (@Booker4KY), "We were yards away. No one was confrontational, It was not 9p' They started
throwing gas at us anyway, I wish I could say this is unbelievable," Twitter (May 30, 2020,8:52 p.m.),
https ://twitter.com/Booker4KY I statusl 126689 52439 \33 67 5 53? s:/0,
rr Rob Byers, Curfew remains in effect
for Louisville for at least another night amid prolesls, Louisville Courier
Journal (May 31, 2020, I l:54 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsllocaV2020l05/31/breonna-taylor-
prote sts Joui svi l1 e-curfew-remains-effect-s unday I 529 9 457 002I'
11
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page L2 of 46 PagelD #: 12

the demonstration "looked like it was going to be taking a tum for the worse," and that police
used their judgment.l2
60. Upon information and beliel no LMPD officers have been disciplined by
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas and batons on
nonviolent protestors.
Malt 31.2020
61. The next evening saw similar violent police responses to largely peaceful protests.
62. In the early evening on May 3I,2020, approximately 1,000 protesters gathered at
the Muhammad Ali Center in downtown Louisville. From there, they marched to Jefferson
Square Park, arriving shortly before 8:00 p,m.-again an hour before offrcial curfew.
63. Almost immediately, LMPD officers arived at the park and decreed that the
demonstration was an unlawful assembly without providing any further explanation.
64, Just minutes later, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs (explosive devices
commonly used by militaries, which cause temporary blindness, deafness, and loss of balance)
and tear gas into the peaceful crowd, forcing protesters out of the park and onto the surrounding
streets.
65. LMPD officers also fired projectiles at people holding innocuous objects like
umbrellas.
66. As protesters got into their cars to drive away from the protest, LMPD officers
lined up on an overpass and fired at cars, breaking the windows of several vehicles.13
t2 Darcy Costello, Breonna Taylor proteslors question police tactics used prior to Louisville's curfew time,
Louisville Courier Joumal (May 3 I , 2020, 5:50 p.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-
government/2 020105/3llbreonna-taylor-protesters-question-lmpd-tactics-against-saturday-rally/53006420021 .
i, puinkill.. Gillz (@ltz5500Gil1z), "This is LMPD shooting at peoples vehicles as they tried to go home from the
protest...they was us dead in Louisville, ky," Twitter (June 1, 2020,9:52 a.m.),
https ://twitter. com/Itzs500G illzl statusl 1267 45 4024288292867 .
t2
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 13 of 46 PagelD #: l-3

67. Approximately 100 protesters were arrested and held in police custody.
68. LMPD further defended the decision to use tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to
the start of the official city-wide curfew, by claiming that "people with leaf blowers fwere] in the
crowd, We know those are used for things like dispensing powder chemicals and for blowing gas
back toward police."r4 City officials also claimed, without providing any evidence, that leaf
blowers were loaded with bleach.ls
69. Later that evening, and two and a half miles from the site of the protests
downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while
attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's restaurant,
70. Upon encountering the group, LMPD officers and the National Guard began
firing pepper balls. One of the pepper balls came dangerously close to striking Mr. McAtee's
niece in the head,
7L Mr. McAtee, in response, drew a handgun and fired a warning shot into the air.
72. Approximately eight seconds later, LMPD and National Guard officers fired
eighteen live rounds at Mr. McAtee; one bullet from a National Guard offtcer struck Mr.
McAtee, killing him.r6
ra
Hayden Ristevski (@HaydenWDRB). "Metro Council President David James tells WDRB 'police saw people
approaching that had Gaf blowers loaded wth bleach that was intended to blow at police. So they sent out the tear
gu.,' lu*.r .uys police were trying to disperse the crowd because that. UPDATE: responso from @LMPD
spokesperson..." Twitter (May 31, 2020,10:24 p'm.),
https ://twitter.com/HaydenWDRB/status/l 2 67 28087 9 61 4857 219? s:20'
t5
irooks Holton, Proiestors in Louisville question why police fired tear gas before curfew, WDRB Louisville, KY
(May 3, 2020), https://www,wdrb.com/news/protesters-inJouisville-question-why-police-fired-tear-gas-before-
curfew/article-50da8e76-a3 a9- I I ea-95d8-
bf6a8ed76863-html?utm_medium:social&utm-source:email&utm-campaign:user-share.
r6
Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar, Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guardfatal shooting of West End
businiss owner,Louisville Courier Journal (June 1, 2020,8:37 a'm'), https://www.courier-
joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-
shooting/53067 330021 .
l3
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1-4 of 46 PagelD #'. L4

73. None of the LMPD officers had turned on their body cameras, despite a mandate
to do so in LMPD's own operating policies.
Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas, flash bangs,
pepper balls, and other projectiles on peaceful protesters.
Juuel,2!2!
75. The next day, on June 1, 2l}},Defendant Schroeder was appointed as Interim
Chief of the LMPD.
76, That evening, protesters again congregated in Jefferson Square Park,
77 . The demonstration was peaceful; protesters and police officers even linked arms
at points.lT
78. Nonetheless, at 10:00 p.m., officers fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd
to disperse the protesters.
79, The next day, on June 2,2020, one LMPD officer, Officer Katie Crews, posted a
photo of a protester offering her flowers on her social media page and wrote, "I hope the pepper
balls that she got lit up with a little later on hurt. Come back and getya some more ole girl, I'll
be on the line again tonight."ls
r7
Lucas Aulbach, The morning after: What happened at Monday's David McAtee and Breonna Taylor prolests,
Louisville Courier Joumal (June 2, 2020,6:31 a.m.), https://www,courier-
joumal.com/story/news/1ocall2020l06l02ldavid-mcatee-breonna-taylor-protests-louisville-monday-
recapl53l5267002l.
t8
tirtPO fficer under investigation after Facebook post about protestor, WDRB Louisville, KY (June 2,2020),
https://www.wdrb.com/news/lmpd-officer-under-investigation-after-facebook-post-about-
protester/arti cle 5 d622 -a4d8 - I 7 ea-a7 a4 -93 I a2800 a02d'html'
-b29
t4
80.

Officer Crews was one of the LMPD officers involved in the shooting death of
David McAtee just two days prior, but she was allowed to continue in her duties.le
8l. Although Officer Crews is under investigation for her social media post, upon
information and belief, no LMPD officers have been investigated or disciplined by Defendants
Fischer, Schroeder, or Chavous for using tear gas and pepper balls on peaceful protesters,
Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous Approve of und Sanction LMPD's Use of Force,
Resulting in Continued Use of Force by LMPD OfJicers
82, Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous knew
and, either explicitly, or through acquiescence, approved of LMPD's decision to use tear gas,
flash bangs, pepper balls, batons, and other forms of force on protesters between May 28,2020
and June 1,2020.
83. The version of LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures that was in effect at the
time required supervisors-including Defendants Chavous and Schroeder-to be notified any
time chemical agents, including pepper balls, were deployed'2o
84. LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures also required approval from a
commanding officer-such as Defendants Schroeder and Chavous-prior to using any chemical
agents, including pepper balls.2l
85, LMPD's conduct came under intense media scrutiny almost immediately. But
Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have done nothing to correct LMPD's illegal
course, instead acquiescing to LMPD's use of violent force on peaceful protesters.
re
Billy Kobin and KalaKachmar , Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guard fata shooting of West End
businiss owner, Louisville Courier Joumal (June I 2020, 8:37 a.m,), https://www.courier-
journal.com/s tory/newsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-
shooting/53067 330021 .
20
LourJvrr-B MErRo PoLrcE Dnr'r, SrexoARD OpERATING PRocEDUREs ("SoP") $ 3.1.1 (May 31,2004)'
2rSOP g 9.1.8 (Nov.7,2019),
15
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed A7130120 Page 16 of 46 PagelD #: 16

86. Defendant Fischer has defended his and LMPD's prior decisions, despite the
results, and has consistently refused to take meaningful action to protect protesters from unlawful
uses offorce.
87 , On May 30,2l20,just hours after LMPD officers destroyed peaceful protesters'
stockpiles of water and milk, arbitrarily enforced curfew restrictions over an hour earlier than
announced, and launched tear gas at dispersing crowds as described above, Defendant Fischer
issued a statement thanking LMPD for "show[ing] discipline, restraint and professionalism under
exhemely volatile circumstances." He then continued "to thank the law enforcement who came
in to assist from other agencies," as well.22
88. ln the same statement, Defendant Fischer stated that although he respected the
right to protest peacefully, he instructed Louisville residents to 'ostay home,"
89. When asked at a news conference about LMPD's destruction of protesters'
supplies, Defendant Fischer defended LMPD's conduct, speculating that police may have
believed there were flammable materials hidden among milk and water.23 Defendant Fischer did
not explain, and has not explained, any basis for such a conclusion.
90, Defendant Fischer has repeatedly defended LMPD's use of tear gas on protesters.
In a statement on June 2,2020, Defendant Fischer's spokesperson, Jean Porter, said that although
the Mayor was "sorry that some peaceful protesters were caught up in that," LMPD is there "to
22
Mayor Greg Fischer's statement on May 29 prolesls, LouisvilleKY.Gov (May 30, 2020),
https://louisvilleky.gov/news/mayor-greg-fi schero/oE2Yo8)%99s-statement-may-29-protests.
23
Amina Elahi, Louisville Mayor Claims, Ihthoul Details, Protestors' Seized Supplies were Hazardoas, WFPL
News Louisville (May 31,2020), https://wfpl.org/louisville-mayor-claims-without-details-protesters-seized-
supplies-were-hazardous/.
16
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 1-7 of 46 PagelD #: 17

protect public safety and keep order, and they make the decision-to use tear gas when they
believe that is in jeopardy."2a
91. On June 3,2020, Defendant Fischer issued a statement praising LMPD for
"putting in long hours," while "suffering insults and assaults" in dealing with protests. The
Mayor continued: "They are frustrated . . . I absolutely respect that. That doesn't change my
appreciation of the work they are doing, as I've expressed time and time again."25
92. On June 10,2020,in response to pressure from the public and the Louisville
Metro Council, Defendant Schroeder announced that LMPD officers would no longer be
permitted to use tear gas without his approval.26
93 . The June 27 , 2020 amendments to LMPD 's Standard Operating Procedures make
no reference to this new restriction.2T
94. ln the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer
apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be
instituting needed reforms to the LMPD's use of force practices. But the very next day, in
response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that
2a
Andrew Wolfson and Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer says Louisville welcomes peaceful protest' Why was one
cleared with tear gas? Louisville Courier Journal (June 2, 0202,6:36 a.m.), https://www.courier-
joumal,com/storylnewsl2020l06l}2/kentucky-leaders-question-why-louisvi1le-police-tear-gassed-
protesters/53 I 26650021.
,5 Taylor Weiter and Heather Fountaine, Watch: Louisville police walk out on Mayor Greg Fischer, FOP conf rms,
WHASI l ABC Louisville, KY (June 3,2020,8:07 p.m.), https://www.whasl Lcom/article/news/local/louisville-
police-fop-mayor-frscher/4 I 7-cddce5 93 -b5 dc-47e3-83 6b -25cai 7 3 e7 I 09'
lu T"rru Duvail, Sarah Ludd and Ben Tobin, Louisville police roundup: Tear gas limits, detective sidelined,
community policing survey, Louisville Courier Joumal (June 10, 2020,11'.27 a.m.), https://www,courier-
joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06ll0llouisville-police-c'ant-use-tear-gas-future-without-direct-
ordetl53332750021.
27
SOP $ 9,1.9 (June 27,2020) (using same language as prior version of SOP).
17
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 0713A120 Page 18 of 46 PagelD #: 18

he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to "stand down" and that Defendant
Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.28
95. Upon information and belief, since June 15,2020, Defendant Schroeder has not
implemented any changes to LMPD's use-of-force policies to better protect protesters,
96. At a media briefing on May 3I,2020, Defendant Chavous blamed the violence on
"anarchists" who intended to cause chaos---even though she identified no actual violent acts by
protesters.2e
97. At that same conference, Defendant Chavous defended the decision to,fire on
individuals carrying umbrellas, saying that umbrellas "can be used as weapons."30
98.' Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have
taken no action to reform LMPD's use-of-force policies or otherwise curtail LMPD's use of
force against peaceful protesters beyond the announcement regarding central approval oftear gas
usage.
Defendant City of Louisville's Ongoing Use of Force and Mass Arrests to Quell Protest and
Prevent Recording
99. Following two weeks of relativ'e calm between police and protesters, on June 15,
2020,the LMPD officers resumed their use of aggressive tactics and potentially lethal weapons'
on protesters,
28
Ragsdale, Travis, Mayor Fischer denied claim that he's giving Louisville police 'stand down' orders at protesls,
WDRB Louisville, KY (June 16,2020), https://www.wdrb.com/news/mayor-f,rscher-denies-claim+hat-hes-giving-
louisville-police-stand-down-orders-at-protests/article_4307b4b2-afe4- I I ea-83cf-23b024a8834c.htm1.
2e
and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arrested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,Coutier
Joumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 31, 2020, ll:00 p'm.), https://www'courier-
journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-gov emmentl2020/05/28/breonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-
protest/52807 62002/ .
30
Lucas Aulbach, From tense to touching moments, here's how Louisville's protests went down Sunday night,
Louisville Courier Joumal (June 1, 2020, 6:18 a.m.), https ://www.courier-
joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06lOllbreonna-taylor-protest-what-happened-sundayJouisville/5305 156002/'
18

100. Throughout that afternoon and evening, LMPD officers deployed smoke
grenades, pepper rounds, flash bangs, and a sound cannon against protesters, They also
continued to target individuals, including members of the press, who were documenting the
protests and the police response.
101. ln the late afternoon of June 15, a small group of peaceful protesters was gathered
near 9th Street and W. Chestnut Street. A line of LMPD officers in helmets, arrnor, and riot
shields moved toward the protesters, ordering them to move back. When the protesters did not
leave, the police marched north on 9th Street firing pepper balls and impact rounds toward the
crowd.
102. As the police moved down the road, they approached Plaintiff Schauer, who was
standing still on the sidewalk and was recording the officers with her cellphone. Two officers
walked over to her, threw her to the ground, and fired pepper balls at protesters who attempted to
help her. An officer then arrested Plaintiff Schauer.
103. The police eventually moved down to the area around W. Jefferson Street and 7th
Street, near LMPD headquarters, at which point the police took several steps backwards, The
protesters cheered, thinking that the police were backing off. Instead, the police fired a round of
pepper balls into the crowd,
104. Shortly thereafter, police used a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), a sonic
weapon that deploys a high-frequency sound wave, on peaceful protesters,
105. During the protests, a number of riot police gang-tackled a man in the middle of
the road. The officers' actions were captured by a security guard at the Hall of Justice, who
recorded it on his cellphone camera from behind a window. As the guard recorded the activity,
an officer fired a pepper ball at him, striking and cracking the window near where the guard had
I9

been standing, LMPD confirmed that an officer had fired at the security guard. The guard told
Buzzfeed News that he had not reported the incident because he feared retaliation from the
police,3l
106, Later that night, another officer ran his car into a peaceful protester. The man told
WFPL, "I watched fthe officer] look at his back up cam and he ran right into me, literally."32
107 . Police use of force against peaceful protesters continued throughout the week. On
Ihe morning of Wednesday, June I7 ,2020, police again fired pepper balls at peaceful protesters
on multiple occasions. One officer shot a reporter from the Courier Journal, who was recording
the protests, with a pepper ball.
108. On Thursday, June 18,2020, the police used both peppers balls and LRADs
against peaceful protesters again, The police reportedly shot one protester in the eye with a
pepper ball. Another protester, who was sleeping in the park, awoke to an officer pointing a
Glock firearm in his face.
109. LMPD officers have also continued to engage in mass arrests of protesters, many
of whom have had charges subsequently dropped. ln total, between May 28,2020 and July 24,
2020, over 500 protesters have been arrested.33
3rAmber Jamieson, Police Shot At A Man Who Filmed Them Tackling Protestors in Louisville, BuzzFeed News
(June 17,2020,8:50 p.m,), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/louisville-shot-fired-security-
guard-video,
It Stafl (Iser of Pepper Balls Resumes At Downtown Louisville Protests, WFPL News Louisville (June 15, 2020),
https://wfpl,org/use-of-pepper-balls-tear-gas-resumes-at-downtown-louisville-protests/.
33
Hayes Gardier, 49 diys and 435 arrests; Protestors in Breonna Taylor movement unfazed by charges, Louisville
Courier Joumal (July 16, 2020, l:13 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/storylnewsl2020l0Tll6lbreonna-taylot-
protesters-arrests-show-we-mean-business/5 4349470021; https://www.wdrb.com/news/76-demonstrators-arrested-
after-shutting-down-market-street-as-part-of-breonna-taylor-protests/article-4f0f/000-cde5- I I ea-b69 I -
cf4c20dff0d I .html.
20
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 21 of 46 PagelD #,2L
10.

I In conducting these affests, LMPD has continued to target those recording or
livestreaming the police response to protesters.3a
I 1 1. Many protesters were initially charged with serious offenses, including felony
offenses that cary possible prison time.
112. For instance, on Tuesday, July 14,2020, more than 100 protesters arrived at
Attorney General Daniel Cameron's residence in Louisville to protest the Attorney General's
Office's delay in investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor,35 Eighty-seven of the protesters
were ultimately arrested and charged with Intimidating a Participant in the Legal Process, a
felony.
113. Three days later, the County Attorney for Jefferson County, Mike O'Connell,
announced that "in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas," his
office was dismissing all of the 87 felony charges brought against the peaceful protesters.36
ll4. ln response to an isolated and random shooting on June 27,2020, LMPD began
enforcing an 1 1:00 p.m. curfew at Jefferson Square Park, the main site for organized
demonstrations.
3a
Lucas Aulbach, Livestreaers at Breonna Taylor protests believe Louisville police are targeting them, Louisville
Courier Joumal (July 5, 2020,3:23 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/local/2020l07l05llouisville-
breonna-taylor-protesters-say-police-target-live-streametsl5380284002/ .
3s87 charged withfelony after protest on AG Daniel Cameron's lawn in Louisville, WLKY News, Louisville KY
(July 14, 2020,8:46 p.m.), https://www.wlky.com/article/protesters-march-through-east-louisville-to-ag-daniel-
camerons-homel333 1387 l.
36
County attorney dismissingfelony chargesfor protestors involved in sit-in at Cameron's home,WDRB
Louisville, KY (July 17,2020), https://www.wdrb,com/news/county-attorney-dismissing-felony-charges-for-
protesters-involved-in-sit-in-at-camerons-home/article 2a3ce3d2-c851-llea-bd89-d7f2aba6blb9.html'
2I
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 22 of 46 PagelD #:22

1 15. LMPD officers also violently tore down encampments that protesters had erected
in the park, destroying protesters' property. Defendant Schroeder recognized that LMPD
officers' actions were "less than our standards" and apologi zedforthe officers' actions.3T
116. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers' actions in destroying protesters'
property was motivated in part by a desire to punish protesters for exercising their First
Amendment rights.
Il7. The curfew at Jefferson Square Park remains in effect, despite no further
instances of violent conduct,
1 1 8. Protests have continued nearly daily through downtown Louisville as of the date
of this filing.
119. The Kentucky Attorney General's investigation into the killing of Breonna Taylor
remains pending. The conclusion of that investigation is likely to trigSer larger protests and more
aggressive police responses.
120. On July 16,2020, the Louisville Metro Council opened an investigation into
whether Defendant Fischer and LMPD's conduct in response to the peaceful protests warranted
Defendant Fischer's removal from office.38
The Dangers of "Less-than-Lethal" Force
I2l. Although termed "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal" force, military-grade crowd
control devices expose targets to serious risks of injury, and even death.
37
Kelli Dugan and Cox Media National Content Desk, Police identify victirn infatal Louisville protest shooting;
suspect in custody,Fox 23 News Louisville KY, (June 28,2020), https://www,fox23.com/news/trending/police-
identify-victim-fatal-louisville-protest-shooting-suspect-custody/5BE6L63XLJGRHHDTMHQHPQYVBA/.
38
Madeline Holcombe, Mima Alsharif and Elizabeth Joseph, Louisville mayor to be investigated for handling or
protestors and Breonna Taylor's case, CNN (July 16, 2020,6:38 a.m'),
https://www.cnn.com/2020107/16/us/louisville-investigation-mayor-taylor-protest/index.html,
22
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 23 of 46 PagelD #.23

I22. The Sixth Circuit has recognized the significant damage done by using a chemical
irritant such as tear gas: the gas "burns the face [and] nostrils, restricts breathing passages, and
causes blindness. It causes a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an
involuntary closing of the eyes, a gaggingreflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx ." (Jnited
States v. Mosley,635 F.3d 859,862 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted)
I23, Studies have found that individuals exposed to tear gas can continue to experience
significant adverse health consequences up to one month after exposure.3e
I24. Despite being frequently described as non-lethal technology, tear gas can result in
death. Recently, a protester in Ohio who was exposed to tear gas and pepper spray died from
cardiac arrest,
I25, The use of tear gas during the ongoing Novel Coronavirus -2019 ("COVID-19")
pandemic creates additional risks for those exposed. COVID-19 is spread tlrrough respiratory
droplets, which are spread by coughing, sneezing, and talking.40 ln addition to burning of the
eyes, nose, and mouth, exposure to tear gas can cause increased nasal secretions, immediate
coughing, and sneezing.al
126. Public health experts unanimously agree that wearing a respiratory mask is one of
the most important ways of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
3e
Y.G, Karagama,J.R. Newton, and C.J,R. Newbegin. "Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to
CS spray." Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J'R' Soc, Med' April 2003.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539444/.
a0
Comoavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/faq.html#Spread.
4r y.G. kurugu*,J.R, Newton, and C,J.R. Newbegin, Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to CS
spray, Ioumal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J.R. Soc' Med. (April 2003)'
https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539 4441 .
23

I27 . Many protesters taking parl in the nationwide demonstrations have thus made sure
to don masks before leaving their homes
I28. Because tear gas creates respiratory problems, however, many individuals
exposed to tear gas cannot keep their masks on, When large groups of people congregate,
remove their masks, and cough or sneeze, the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19
skyrockets.
I29. Because tear gas covers an entire area,it cannot be targeted at specific people. It
inherently injures everyone exposed to'it.
130, Flash bangs can also cause serious injury, and even death, Flash bangs detonated
too close to a person can cause burns, loss of limbs, and lasting partial hearing loss. ln extreme
cases, flash bangs can cause asphyxiation, heart attacks, and internal bleeding.
131, When detonated around gravel or loose glass, flash bangs can send shrapnel
flying with enough force to wound those nearby
I32. Because flash bangs cover entire areas, they cannot be targeted at specific people.
Flash bangs inherently place everyone exposed to them at risk of serious physical harm,
133. Pepper balls and rubber bullets can cause significant injuries, and even death, if
they hit a person's face, neck, or torso. Because such projectiles are often fired at velocities
similar to live ammunition, they cause severe damage upon impact.
134. A survey ofthose sffuck by such projectiles found that they prove fatal
approximately 3%of the time, and cause permanent disability approximately 15% of the time.a2
42
Rohini J,Haar,Vincent Lacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Madhavi Dandun, Sher D, Wesier, Death, iniury and
disabilityfrom kinetic impacl projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review, BMJ Joumals Open, Vol.7,
I ssue I 2, (20 l7), https //bmj open. bmj. com/con tent/ 7 I I 2 I e0 1 8 I 5 4' fu I l.
:
24
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 25 of 46 PagelD #'.25

Seventy-one percent of those struck with rubber bullets or pepper balls suffered severe injuries
that required medical intervention.a3
135. Although rubber bullets and pepper balls can be targeted, their use at longer
ranges is "likely to be inaccurate and indiscriminate."aa
136. LMPD's own Standard Operating Procedures recognize that "[t]he potential exists
for [such types of ammunition] to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and
neck,"45
137 . LRADs are sonic weapons that deploy a high-frequency sound wave at atargel.
138, LRADs, developed by the military for use in the Iraq War in 2004,46 have been
found to cause significant harm to individuals' ear drums and can cause perrnanent hearing loss.
Named Plaintffi Are Injured by LMPD's Use of Force
I39. All Named Plaintiffs have been victims of LMPD's disproportionate and violent
response to protests.
Attica Scott
140. Plaintiff Scott first attended demonstrations on May 29,2020. She and her
teenage daughter joined a group of protesters at approximately 5:30 p,m. at 6th Street and W.
Jefferson Street.
I4l. Plaintiff Scott attended the demonstrations both to protest the killing of Breonna
Taylor and, in her capacity as a Member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, to document
what was happening in her community.
43
Id.
aa
Physical Human Rights. International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, https://www.inclo.net/pdf/lethal-
in-disguise.pdf.
45
soP $ 9.1,10.
46
Eric Niiler, Sonic Weapons' Long, Noisy History, History Stories (August27,2018)'
https ://www.history.com/news/sonic-weapons-warfare-acoustic'
25

I42, Shortly before aniving at the protest, she saw footage online of dozens of LMPD
officers in riot gear lined up in front of the YUM! Center.
143. For several hours after Plaintiff Scott anived, she observed no violence by other
protesters. Instead, members of the group participated in die-ins, marches, and chanting; some
protesters chanted "hands up don't shoot."
I44. After approximately three hours, Plaintiff Scott observed a small number of
people in the crowd throw plastic water bottles. Other demonshators immediately denounced the
behavior,
145. Without warning, the line of LMPD officers began advancing quickly with batons
drawn, pushing the crowd back.
146. Defendant Officer J. Johnson noticed Plaintiff Scott recording the scene and
approached her, shoving her backward, While backing away, Plaintiff Scott tripped on a box
behind her, fell to the ground, and injured her knee.
I47 . Plaintiff Scott was able to meet up with her daughter, who informed her she was
bleeding and needed medical attention. Plaintiff Scott found a medic tent set up by protesters to
get first aid for her knee.
148. As she received medical attention at the tent, LMPD officers deployed tear gas.
An immediate cloud covered the area. Plaintiff Scott saw a thick cloud of smoke. Plaintiff Scott
couldn't see anything through the smoke. Her eyes started burning badly, and she used her
facemask to help act as a barrier between her face and the smoke.
149. . Plaintiff Scott ran from the tear gas. She ultimately met up with her daughter and
her friend, and the three went to their car, where they stayed nearby the protest for another
twenty or so minutes.
26
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurment 1 Filed 07130120 Page 27 of 46 PagelD #'.27

150. Plaintiff Scott was also present at the protest on June 15, where she witnessed
LMPD using pepper balls indiscriminately against protesters,
l5l, On June 18,2020, Plaintiff Scott filed a formal complaint with LMPD, asking the
department to investigate its officers' inappropriate use of tear gas,
I52. LMPD responded by letter dated June 29,2020, stating that her complaint was
being investigated,
153. She has received no further contact from LMPD since that letter.
Corbin Smith and T)tler Weaklett
154. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley drove into downtown Louisville to go to dinner on
the evening of May 31,2020, but they decided to first stop by the demonstrations to show
support for the community.
155. They anived downtown and, wearing face masks, began walking towards
Broadway Street, where the protest was taking place. On their way, Plaintiffs Smith and
Weakley walked past a group of police officers in riot gear who said nothing about a curfew in
effect.
156. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley saw the group of protesters at approximately 8:30
p.m,, thirty minutes before the official curfew that had just been implemented was schedule to
begin.
157. For fifteen minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley observed protesters marching
and chanting peacefully
158. Then, without warning or justification, LMPD officers began deploying flash
bangs and tear gas into the crowd, causing a panicked stampede away from the police line.
27
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2A Page 28 of 46 PagelD #:28

159. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley were close to a tear gas cannister that exploded.
Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both inhaled the gas and immediately began choking. For several
minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both felt as if they were suffocating.
160. Plaintiff Weakley observed a police car drive into the crowd of protesters on a
street perpendicular to Broadway Street, fuither exacerbating the chaos.
1 61 . Tear gas began filling the air, obscuring visibility in the area. Nonetheless,
officers began firing pepper balls and rubber bullets indiscriminately.
162. Plaintiff Smith felt a pepper ball fly close to his ear, prompting him and Plaintiff
Weakley to start running back to their car.
163. On the way, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley encountered a line of approximately 40
LMPD officers in riot gear.
164. Plaintiff Smith begged the officers to let them get to their car. The officers
responded by drawing and training their weapons on both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley.
165, Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley then slowly raised their hands above
their heads and kneeled on the ground. Both feared that they were about to be shot, perhaps
fatally.
166, Although both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley had already submitted,
LMPD Officers John Does #1-5 charged and tackled Plaintiff Smith to the ground, slamming
him into the road. LMPD Officers John Does #6-9 andLMPD Officer Jane Doe #l tackled
Plaintiff Weakley and pinned her to the ground.
167 . Plaintiff Smith, surprised by the use of force, asked why they were being placed
under arrest. Defendant Officer John Doe #l responded by calling him a domestic terorist and
pressing him further into the ground,
28

168. Defendant Officer John Doe #2 placed his knee at the base of Plaintiff Smith's
neck and pushed down, fuither limiting Plaintiff Smith's ability to breathe. Echoing the haunting
words of George Floyd, Plaintiff Smith began pleading that he could not breathe,
169. Defendant Officers John Does #1,3,4, and 5 then began to beat Plaintiff Smith
with their batons, striking his back and his legs.
170, Plaintiff Smith feared that he would be killed by LMPD Officers John Does #1-5,
joining the ranks of countless unarmed Black people killed by aggressive policing.
l7l. After a few minutes, Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer
Jane Doe #1 pulled up Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley and placed them on the sidewalk
curb, Defendant Officer John Doe #3 pulled Plaintiff Smith's face mask off without explanation.
172. Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe #l then
placed both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley under arrest. Neither Plaintiff was told on what
basis they were being arrested.
173, Plaintiff Smith was ultimately charged with one count of misdemeanor unlawful
assembly and one count of misdemeanor curfew violation. Plaintiff Weakley was charged with
one count of felony rioting,
174. LMPD's conduct profoundly impacted both Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley.
l7 5 . As a result of the attack, Plaintiff Smith sustained cuts and bruises to his knees,
legs, and back,
17 6, Plaintiff Smith, fearful of further police misconduct, did not attend any further
protests for approximately one week. He has since returned to protests in Louisville.
177. At every protest he has attended since, he remains afraid that LMPD officers will
react as violently as they did on May 31,2020.
29
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7l30l2o Page 30 of 46 PagelD #: 30

178. Plaintiff Weakley has been traumalizedby the events of that night; she has
refused to attend any fuilher demonstrations out of fear. She attended one celebration on June 19,
2020,but she began to feel anxious as the sun went down; she left the event early for fear of
police crackdown.
Willa Tinslev
179, Plaintiff Tinsley first joined the protests on May 28,2020. She had learned about
the demonstrations on social media, and drove downtown to join at approximately 10:00 p.m.
180. When Plaintiff Tinsley arrived at the protests, she observed LMPD officers in riot
gear advancing on the protesters. Almost immediately, she saw flash bangs exploding by her and
heard pepper balls being fired,
181. A tear gas cannister exploded near Plaintiff Tinsley, who immediately could not
open her eyes or breathe because of the pain. Disoriented, she began to run in the direction of the
crowd, attempting to leave the area and find her car.
182. Eventually, another protester who saw Plaintiff Tinsley helped wash out her eyes.
Plaintiff Tinsley then began to search for her car to go home.
183. As she searched, she encountered another protester who was also looking for his
vehicle. As they walked, they encountered LMPD Officers John Does #10-13'
184. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 began yelling at Plaintiff Tinsley and the
other protester to clear the area, Plaintiff Tinsley responded that they were looking for her car.
The other protester told the officers that they were on a public sidewalk'
185. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 responded by firing pepper balls at Plaintiff
Tinsley and the other protester-from just a few feet away. Plaintiff Tinsley was shot in the arm,
torso, and leg at close range,
30
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 31 of 46 PagelD #: 31

186. Plaintiff Tinsley and the other protester turned and began to run away. Defendant
Officers John Does #10-13 continued to fire pepper balls at them, hitting Plaintiff Tinsley on the
back and on her legs.
187. In total, Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 discharged approximately 30
rounds of pepper balls at Plaintiff Tinsley and her friend, striking Plaintiff Tinsley approximately
l0 times.
188. She sustained significant bruising on her back and legs from the shots.
189, For several days following the incident, Plaintiff Tinsley could not use her arm
because ofsevere pain,
190. Plaintiff Tinsley joined a demonstration on the evening of May 31,2020. She had
learned about the event on social media.
191. She joined the march downtown around 7:00 p.m. When she arrived, the scene
was wholly peaceful; protesters were chanting and marching with signs'
I92. The protesters were not causing any damage to surrounding property'
193. Despite the peaceful nature of the protesters, Plaintiff Tinsley heard LMPD
officers stating that the demonstration was an unlawful gathering.
194. Plaintiff Tinsley then heard the explosion of tear gas cannisters and saw clouds of
smoke filling the air, She saw a flash bang detonate near her.
195, The tear gas blinded her and burned her nose and throat, while the flash bang
impaired her hearing and caused her to grow disoriented'
196. Through the cloud of smoke, pepper balls began whizzingby her. Plaintiff
Tinsley was struck multiple times in the arms and legs with projectiles, causing significant
bruising.
31

I97, Disoriented, and unable to see or hear well, Plaintiff Tinsley stumbled onto a side
street. Other protesters poured milk in her eyes to alleviate the burning.
198. Eventually, scared to be alone in the midst of the widespread police violence, she
found her way to a group of approximately 40 other protesters.
199. A group of LMPD officers found the protesters and began beating them with
batons, ultimately arresting the whole group.
200. Plaintiff Tinsley was held in jail for approximately 30 hours and ultimately
charged with one count of misdemeanor curfew violation.
' 201 While Plaintiff Tinsley was in jail, an LMPD officer told her, in sum and
substance: "We're trying to arrest you guys so you have to spend a night in jail and learn your
lesson."
202. At another point, an LMPD officer told her directly: "This is to teach you a
lesson."
203, Since then, Plaintiff Tinsley has been wary of attending further demonstrations.
She has only attended a handful of protests, and never stays after sunset, out of a fear of further
police force.
204, For example, Plaintiff Tinsley ptunn.d on attending protests on June 15 , 2020.
After she learned LMPD was using an LRAD, however, Plaintiff Tinsley, who has hearing
problems, decided not to attend the protest.
Stevie Schauer
205. Plaintiff Schauer joined a small group of young people on the afternoon of June
15,2020 for a march through downtown Louisville.
32

206. Immediately, Plaintiff Schauer noticed that the police presence at the gathering
was much more aggressive than on prior days of protests she had attended---even though there
were only approximately 50 people protesting, a smaller gathering than the previous protests she
had attended.
207 , Plaintiff Schauer observed an LMPD helicopter circling protesters from above.
208, As the group of protesters, including Plaintiff Schauer, moved south on 9th Street
from W. Jefferson Street towards W. Chestnut Street, they encountered a line of LMPD officers
in riot gear-with their batons out-blocking off the street.
209. LMPD officers yelled that the crowd needed to move back.
2IO. Plaintiff Schauer immediately left the street and got onto the sidewalk, where no
officers were present. Other individuals-who, upon information and belief, had not participated
in the demonstrations-were also standing on the sidewalk without issue'
2ll, ln an effort to document what was happening, Plaintiff Schauer took out her cell
phone and began to record the LMPD officers.
212. Almost immediately after she began recording, LMPD Officers John Does #14-15
broke from the line of.riot officers and approached her quickly'
213. Defendant Officer John Doe #14 yelled "move back" and immediately shoved
Plaintiff Schauer to the ground with enough force to bruise her shoulder and twist her ankle.
2I4, The shove also caused PlaintiffSchauer's cell phone and eyeglasses to shatter.
215. Plaintiff Schauer-who has a chronic condition that causes joint sensitivity-
feared that she had badly injured her shoulder or ankle.
216. Plaintiff Schauer's friend, who was also at the demonstration, tried to walk over
to Plaintiff Schauer to check on her. LMPD officers began firing pepper balls at the friend's feet,
JJ
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7130120 Page 34 of 46 PagelD #:34

217 , Defendant Officers John Does #14-15 then pushed Plaintiff Schauer to the ground
and used a plastic tie to bind her wrists.
218. The plastic tie was coiled tightly enough to bruise her wrists.
219. Plaintiff SchauerwasplacedunderarrestatapproximateLyT:30 p.m. Shewaskept
in jail for 10 hours and ultimately charged with one count of felony rioting and one count of
misdemeanor unlawful assembly.
220. At the precinct, an LMPD officer asked her "Was it worth it? You dirtied your
record for this."
221. Plaintiff Schauer had to keep her ankle wrapped in an elastic bandage for a week
to heal the injury she sustained in the course ofher arrest.
222, Since this experience, Plaintiff Schauer has been too afraid to participate in
further protests. Though she wishes to continue marching in support of the movement for police
accountability, she fears further physical violence if she participates in any additional
demonstrations.
223. To date, she feels nervous and anxious around police officers.
Kavla Meisner
224. Plaintiff Meisner attended a demonshation on the evening of May 29,2020.
225. The group of protesters was peacefully chanting and marching through
downtown. As she marched, Plaintiff Meisner saw tanks lined up along the Second Street
Bridge.
226. The protest continued down to the courthouse. After marching around the
courthouse several times, Plaintiff Meisner saw police officers stationed on top of buildings, and
she saw that police had set up banicades and brought out tanks and police vans.
34
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07l3ol20 Page 35 of 46 PagelD #: 35

227 . Then, protesters were met by a phalanx of approximately 200 LMPD officers in
riot gear and armed with batons, guns, and tear gas.
228. LMPD officers began erecting baricades to prevent people from leaving the area.
22g. LMPD officers then threatened to fire into the trapped crowd unless the group sat
down.
230. With no options, the group-including Plaintiff Meisner-sat down.
231. Nonetheless, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs and pepper balls and
launching tear gas indiscriminately into the seated crowd, prompting a panicked retreat.
232. The wave of tear gas hit Plaintiff Meisner; she was instantly unable to see or
breathe from the pain of the irritant.
233. Plaintiff Meisner had to be led away from the scene by a friend; together, they hid
in a parking gam;ge nearby as LMPD officers continued to launch tear gas into the dispersing
crowd,
234. Plaintiff Meisner then observed LMPD offiders open fire on a group of local
journalists who were covering the event.
235. Though she continues to attend demonstrations, Plaintiff Meisner fears further
police use of force against peaceful demonstrators, She feared for her life during the events of
May 29, and no longer has any trust for public officials or LMPD, She believes that LMPD will
rctaliateagainst protesters who are trying to stand up for what is right.
Kentuclqt Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression
236. As part of its work combatting racial discrimination in policing, Plaintiff
KAARPR has been involved in coordinating and attending many of the recent demonstrations in
Louisville.
35

237. Earlier this spring, Plaintiff KAAPR launched a campaign related to the killing of
Breonna Taylor calling for the arrest of those officers responsible for her death, as well as
systemic reforms that will prevent excessive use of police force in the future. These include
reforms to LMPD's use of force policies, as well as systems that allow for meaningful
community oversight of the LMPD.
238, Plaintiff KAARPR's members have attended demonstrations and peacefully
protested in Louisville between May 28,2020 and the present.
239, Many of Plaintiff KAARPR's members themselves been victims of police abuse
during the protests; members who were protesting peacefully have been tear-gassed, shot with
rubber bullets, pushed and hit with batons, and experienced flash bangs and LRAD usage.
240. As a result, Plaintiff KAARPR has been forced to divert resources into purchasing
first aid supplies, as well as milk and water to treat those injured at protests. Additionally,
Plaintiff KAARPR has hired individuals to provide security, and purchased security goggles,
food, masks, and cleaning supplies for members attending protests,
24L On at least one occasion, during the course of a protest, LMPD directed sanitation
officials to collect Plaintiff KAARPR's supplies, thus preventing Plaintiff KAARPR from using
them and requiring Plaintiff KAARPR to purchase additional supplies'
242. Altogether, Plaintiff I(AARP.R has spent over $10,000 dollars in these and other
purchases for protests responding to police violence.
243. Plaintiff KAARPR has also had to expend significant staff time responding to the
excessive use offorce by police at the protests'
244. Plaintiff KAARPR has expended time and money to organize additional protests
directed towards addressing police use of force at previous protests.
36

245 . Plaintiff KAARPR has also spent staff time participating in various public
education events related to the excessive use of police force at the protests. For example, on
several occasions, Plaintiff KAARPR's leadership has responded to local press inquiries
regarding the use of excessive force against protestors. Likewise, Plaintiff KAARPR has
launched a campaign, encouraging protestors to live stream marches and demonstrations, as a
means of recording acts of police violence,
246. The money and staff time Plaintiff KAARPR has spent on responding to
excessive police violence has prevented it from conducted other activities it had planned to
engage in.
247. At the beginning of the year, Plaintiff KAARPR had planned to conduct public
education events, including various panels and speakers, and organize public rallies related to the
lack of adequate education for children attending schools in Louisville's West End, as well as the
need for additional money in the City Budget for the education of Black and Brown children in
Louisville.
248. As a result of the increased staff time need to treat protestors injured by police
violence, purchase supplies to treat these protestors after they have been injured, respond to
media and public inquiries regarding the use of police force, as well as organize additional
protests in response to LMPD's excessive use of force against protestors, Plaintiff KAARPR has
been unable to organize these events or otherwise work towards improving education access and
education funding,
249. LMPD's use of force against peaceful protesters to shut down demonstrations has
also fiustrated Plaintiff KAARPR's mission to (a) ensure that public fora for free speech and
debate regarding issues of human and constitutional rights remain available to all people; (b)
JI
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3)l20 Page 38 of 46 PagelD #: 38

eliminate police abuse against peaceful, private civilians; and (c) bring together community
members to speak out on issues related to abusive police practices.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
250. Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals under Rule 23(bxlXA) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
("Plaintiff Class"). The Plaintiff Class comprises all individuals who peacefully participated in
any day of protests between May 28,2020 andJuly 30, 2020 onwhich LMPD officers utilized
tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, rubber bullets, impact rounds, batons, or other comparable
crowd control weaponry ("Crowd Control Weaponry") and were actually exposed to Crowd
Control Weaponry at those protests.
251, All of the members of the Plaintiff Class were injured in largely the same ways as
a result of Louisville's conduct-all of their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest in a
public forum and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from the use of excessive force were
violated.
252. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members would
be impracticable. Thousands of peaceful protesters have been subjected to the Crowd Control
Weaponry that the LMPD has deployed from May 28, 2020 to July 30, 2020. Hundreds of
peaceful protesters have been arrested during that time.
253. The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to all members
of the Plaintiff Class. Among others, the questions common to the Plaintiff Class include:
a. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters
caused an immediate end to peaceful demonstrations and actually stifled
38

free speech and peaceful assembly on matters of significant public
importance;
b. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters is
likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from fuither protests or
demonstrations;
c, Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters
creates a significant risk ofserious bodily injury;
d. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters was
unnecessary and/or excessive to maintaining public safety;
e. Why LMPD chose to use Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful
protesters;
f. Whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd
Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;
g. Whether LMPD attempted to use other forms of crowd control before
resorting to Crowd Control Weaponry; and
h. Whether the City of Louisville has ratified the LMPD's conduct, either
through its express statements or by acquiescence.
254. Common issues of law and fact predominate any individual issues.
255. All members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the same practices and policies
of the City of Louisville.
256. The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiffs
were peacefully protesting when LMPD employed Crowd Control Weaponry on them. The
injuries they suffered as a result of Crowd Control Weaponry, as well as the chilling effect of
39

these uses of force on their willingness to peacefully assemble to protest, are identical to the
injuries sustained by the rest of the Plaintiff Class.
257 . The entire Plaintiff Class will benefit from the injunctive relief sought herein.
258. Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest with any members of the Plaintiff Class, are
committed to vigorous prosecution of all claims on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, and will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class,
25g. A class action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient resolution
of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Plaintiff Class is impracticable. Further, the
prosecution of thousands of individual actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class
would create the substantial risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish
potentially incompatible standards of; conduct for Defendant City of Louisville.
260. The Plaintiff Class is represented by competent counsel.
COUNT I
First Amendment Free Speech and Assembly - 42 U.S.C. $ 1933
262. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers, Defendant Fischer, Defendant
Schroeder, and Defendant Chavous have acted-and continue to act-under color of state law'
263. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class engaged in constitutionally protected speech and
assembly by participating in peaceful protests about the killings of unarmed Black people at the
hands of police officers.
264. Defendant Officers engaged in use of Crowd Conhol Weaponry, and the other
forms of excessive force detailed above, causing injuries to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
40
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 41- of 46 PagelD #.41-

of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such Crowd Control Weaponry or
other forms of excessive force.
267 , Defendants' conduct is sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from
participating in further protests for fear of being subject to similar force, and did in fact actually
deter Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class from participating in further demonstrations.
268. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class reasonably fear the continued use of such
weaponry at future protests.
269. Upon information and belief, certain Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class
have been actually chilled in their exercise of protected First Amendment rights.
including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020'
27L Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to
the physical and emotional damages detailed above'
273. As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of tear gas and flash
bangs as approved by Defendant City of Louisville, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class continue to
fear participating in peaceful protests.
4l
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent l- Filed 07130120 Page 42 of 46 PagelD #: 42

COUNT II
Fourth Amendment Excessive Force - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983
27 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were peaceful and
nonviolent protesters who did not disobey or refuse any police order.
276. Defendant Officers nonetheless Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff Class,
277 , By using Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs, and physically striking and
tackling Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs to excessive force.
of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such force.
the injuries detailed above.
including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020.
282. Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to
283. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class remain active advocates against police brutality
and intend to peacefully protest again within the coming weeks.
42

284, As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of Crowd Control
Weaponry, and other forms of physical force as approved by Defendants City of Louisville,
Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class will likely be fuither harmed
if they participate in peaceful protests.
COUNT III
Common Law Battery
285, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260
286. By deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live ammunition, and other projectiles at
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
to a forcible physical touching.
288. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.
COUNT IV
Common Law Assault
2gl. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260
43

292. By threatening to deploy and in fact deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live
ammunition, and other projectiles at Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers
threatened to subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to a forcible physical touching,
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class respectfully request that this Court
certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
a. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and
Chavous, as well as LMPD's officers, employees, and agents, from the use of
Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;
b. Requiring Defendant City of Louisville to promulgate official policies
restricting the use of Crowd Control Weaponry to situations when a police
officer or other person faces an imminent risk of serious physical danger;
c. Awarding such damages to Plaintiffs as will fully compensate them for their
loss of rights, as well as their physical and emotional injuries, owing to
Defendants' conduct;
44
Case 3:20-cv-00535:CRS Document 1 Filed O7l3Ol2O Page 45 of 46 PagelD #: 45

d, Awarding punitive damages against the Officer Defendants and Defendants
Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous;
e. Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuanlto 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;
Sndo
f. Granting such other relief as may be just and proper.
45
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 46 of 46 PagelD #'.46

Dated July 30, 2020
Louisville, KY
/s/ Heather Gatnarek

Ashok Chandran* Corey Shapiro
Christopher Kemmitt* Heather Gatnarek
Ajmel Quereshi* Mashayla Hays
Kristen Johnson* Aaron Tucekf
NAACP Lncar Dsnuusp & ACLU oF KENTCKY FouuoartoN, INc.
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 325 W. Main St. Suite 2210
40 Rector St., 5th Floor Louisville, KY 40202
New York, NY 10006 (s02) s8I-9746
Tel.: (212) 96s-2200 corey@aclu-ky.org
Fax,: (212) 226-7592 heather@aclu-ky.org
achandr an@n aacpl df. or g mashayla@aclu-ky.org
ckemmitt@naacpldf. org aarcn@aclu-ky.org
aquereshi@naacpldf, org
kj ohnson@naacpldf. org Earl S. Ward*
O. Andrew F. Wilson*
Samuel Shapiro*
Andrew K. Jondahl*
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF
ABADY WARD &MAAZELLLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763-s000
eward@ecbawm.com
awilson@ecbawm.com
sshapiro@ecbawm.com
ajondahl@ecbawm.com
* pro hac vice application forthcoming

I application admission forthcoming
for
46
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt l--l- Filed 07130120 Page 1- of 2 PagelD #: 47
rs44 (Rev.o8/r8) CIVI COVER SHEET
TheJS44civilcoversheetandtheinformationcontainedhereinneitherreplacenorsupplementthefilingandserviceofpleadingsorotherpapersasrequiredbylaw, exceptas
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Confi:rence of th6 United Slates in September I 974, is required for the use ol the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government,
Rep. Attica Scott, Corbin Smith, Kayla Meisner, Tyler Weakley, Stevie Mayor Greg Fischer, Robert Schroeder, LaVita Chavous, LMPD
Schauer, Willa Tinsley, KY Alliance Against Racist & Political Bepression Officer "J." Johnson, LMPD Ofiicers John Doe #1-15 & Jane Doe #1
(b) county of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Jefferson County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson
(EXCEPT IN U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES) (]N U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attomeys (Firn Nuntc, Adtlress, ontl Telephone Nunber)

Gatnafek, 1q"U1hef
Attorneys (tf Known)
sarah Martin, Jefferson county Attorney's office,
ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, S25 W. Main St. Suite 2210, Louisville, Civil Division, 531 Court Place, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202
KY 40202, (502) 581-9746
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION fa,ce n n "X" in one Box onty) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Ptqce an "x" in one Boxfor Ptaintill
(For Diversil)) Cqses Only) and One Boxfor Defendanl)
OI U.S.covemment d3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.5. Governnent Nol a Pqrly) Citizen ofThis State ol o I Incorporated or Principal Place n4 04
ofBusiness In This State
D2 U.S, Govenrnent O 4 Diversity Citizen of Another SJate o2 0 2 Incorporated aurl Principal Place o5 0.5
Defendant (lndicate Citizenship of Pcn'ties in Irem III) ofBusiness In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a D3 D 3 Foreign Nation o 6 tr6

OF SUIT on "X" in One Box Click
TR A.-T TE RANKPIIPT'V
D I l0 lnsurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY O 625 Drug Related Seizure O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 D 375 False Claims Act
O 120 Marine O 3 l0 Airplane D 365 Personal Injury - ofPropefiy 2l UsC 88 I O 423 Withdrawal D 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC
O 130 Miller Act O 315 Airplane Product Product Liability O 690 Other 28 USC l5? 3729(a))
D 140 Negotiable Inslrumenl Liability D 367 Health Care/ O 400 State Reapportionment
D 150 Recovery ofOverpaynent O 320 Assault, Libel & Phannaceutical 0 410 Antitrust
& Enforcernent of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 0 820 Copyrights 0 430 Banks and Banking
D l5l Medicare Act O 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability O 830 Patent O 450 Commerce
0 152 Recovery ofDefaulted Liability O 368 Asbestos Personal D 835 Patent - Abbr€viated 0 460 Deportation
Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application O 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) O 345 Marine Product Liability D 840 Tradernark Corupt Organizations
0 153 Recovery ofOverpaynent Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY SN'IAI. SN..IIRIT\/ D 480ConsurnerCredit
ofVeteran's Benefits D 350 Motor Vehicle D 370 Other Fraud D ?10 Fair Labor Standards D 86r HrA(r395ff) D 485 Telephone Consumer
D 160 Stockholders' Suits O 355 Motor Vehicle D 371 Truth in Lending Act O 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
O I 90 Other Contract Product Liability O 380 Other Personal O 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIwC/DIww (a05(e)) O 490 Cable/Sat TV
D 195 Contract Product Liability D 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVI O 850 Securities/Cornmodities/
O 196 Franchise Injury O 385 Property Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Act O 86s Rsl (40s(g)) Exchange
O 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability O 751 Falnily and Medical O 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical MalDractice Leave Act O 891 Agricultural Acts
pApIlp'tv ctvil, RtcH'I's DPICANFIl Ptr'TITIr)NS O 790 Other Labor Litigation NNDNRAI- TAX SIIITS D 893 Environrnental Mattere
D 210 Land Condemnation D( 440 other civil Rights Habeas Corpus: D 791 Employee Retirement O 870 Tdes (U.S. Plaintiff O 895 Freedorn oflnfonnation
O 220 Foreclosure O 441 Voting O 463 Alien Detainee lncome security Act or Defendant) Act
D 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment O 442 Employment O 510 Motions to Vacate O 871 IRS-Third Party O 896 Arbitration
O 240 Torts to Land D 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 O 899 Adminislrative Procedure
O 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
O 290 All Other Real Property O 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - O 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Deoision
Employment Other: O 462 Naturalization Application O 950 Constitutionality of
D 446 Arner. rv/Disabilities - O 540 Mandamus & Other O 465 Other hnmigration State Statutes
Other O 550 Civil Rights Actions
O 448 Education O 555 Prison condition
O 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Pluce an "X" in one Box only)
X I original D 2 Removed from o3 Remanded from D4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from D 6 Multidistrict

Litigation -
O 8 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District
Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do nol cile iurisdictional slatutes unle$s diversit!):
42 U.S.C. 1 983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION of cause
to Delendants' violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment and Fourth Amendment ri hts; d sou ht
VII, REQUESTED IN E CttgCt< IF THIS rS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P, JURYDEMAND: X Y". DNO
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See inslruclions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

0712912020 Heather Gatnarek
l'oR olnc!; usu 0NLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l--l- Filed O7l30/20 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 48
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September I 974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil cornplaint filed. The attomey filing a case should cornplete the form as follows:
I.(a) Ptaintiffs-Defendants. Enter narnes (last, first, rniddle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a govemment agency, use
only the full narne or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identifu first the agency and
then the official, giving both narne and title.
(b) CountyofResidence. Foreachcivil casefiled,exceptU.S.plaintiffcases,enterthenameofthecountywherethefirstlistedplaintiffresidesatthe
tirne of filing, In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the narne of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county ofresidence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the finn name, address, telephone number, and attomey of record. If there are several attomeys, list them on an attachment, noting
.in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F,R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C, 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers ofthe United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3)Thisreferstosuitsunder23U,S,C. l33l,wherejurisdictionarisesundertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,anamendment
' totheConstitution,anactofCongressoratreatyoftheUnitedStates. IncaseswheretheU,s,isaparty,theU.S.plaintiffordefendantcodetakes
precedence, and box I ot'2 should be rnarked.
biversityofcitizenship. (4)Thisreferstosuitsunder28U.S.C. l332,wherepartiesarecitizensofdifferentstates. WhenBox4ischecked,the
citizenship of the dillerent parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal Party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: @
V Origin. Place an "X" in one ofthe seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. ( I ) Cases which originate in the United States district coufis.
Removed frorn State Court, (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts rnay be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Regranded frorr Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened, (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening ddte as the filing date.
Transferred frorn Another District. (5) For cases transfened under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
rnultidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C'
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation - Dir.ect File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite
jurisdictional
statutesunlessdiversity. Exarnple: U.S.Civil Statute: 47USC553 BriefDescription: Unauthorizedreceptionofcableservice
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action, Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Defirand. check the appropriatc box to indicate whether or not a jw'y is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases, This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, inseft the docket
numbers and the correspondingjudge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
DAV]DJ. GIJARNIERI 201 EAsr MAIN SrREEr, SutrE 900
t MEBRAYER
LExTNGToN, K€NTUcKY 40507

ilq"tn&$slelisu.eQs
ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS (859) 231-8780 EXT. 218
Fax: (8s9) 231-6518
August 3,2020
Via mail a[d-email

Lt..t tb' rrllljs&stl:&d-c& stlu:liws i-f"'.rsg*gq,n:
,[rt
C ri s t npher, B u S h(# l'itk u t s I arv o tli ccs, cf:lr r
!-r

Re: Louisville Metro Council Investigation
In followup to our call, we write to continue the dialogue regarding the appearances of
Interim LMPD Chicf Robert Schroeder and Chief of Public Services Amy Hess before the
Govemrnent Ovcrsight and Audit Committee. As you know, on July 14,2020, that Committee
voted to "conduct an investigation into the Administration, its actions and falleged] inaction
regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions
reiponding to protests in Louisville Metro." In furtherance of this investigation, Chairman
Aclerson wrote to Chief Schroeder and to Chief Hess on July 17,2020, formally requesting their
appearances before the Cornmittee on or before August 5,2020 for 2-4 hours so they could answer
quistions and have a discussion with the Committee. In his July 17 letters, Chairman Ackerson
expressly advised each witness that at this time the Committee would refrain from asking either
from "divulging information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky
Attomey Geneial and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Consistent with that understanding,
Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020, and it is
our understanding based on Mr. Rickett's July 30, 2020 email that the topics the Committee intends
to inquire about ire a) vandalism, and response to it, b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and
how media came to be targeted or came in contact with same, c) placement of snipers on roof tops,
d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment, c) warning to and communications with
piotestors, f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,
g) any 'ostand-down" order(s), dircctives, guidance given or passed along to govemment
i"rponArrr relative to protests, vandalism, etc., and h) how or why law enf,orcement came to be at
Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.
appearance would not require them to divulge

With the understanding that their
information which could compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General,
Law Olfises: Lexlngton i Lorliriville
GnvsrnrilBrlt Aifaira; FronLJorl; I Wi:shington' D'C.
mcbrSyecfirm.oom
EXHIBIT E
q h? r: i.\Y#.w
t n\4 )

August 3,2420
or the FBI, Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear and testify, and they still plan to do so.
However, on July 30,2020 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky styled Scott, et., al., v. Louisttille/Jefferson County Metro Government, et. al,,
3:20-CV-535 (the "scott Action"). The allegations and claims asserted therein concern the same
subject matters Chiefs Schroeder and Hess have been asked to address on August 3. Specifically,
the gravamen of the Complaint in the Scott Action concems LMPD's response to protests
throughout Louisville beginning on May 28,2020 and continuing to present day, and it specifically
concems: the use of tear gas and peppff balls;l allegations that the media was targeted or came
into contact with such agents;2 the stationing of officers atop buildings;3 the placement and usc of
sound equipment;a wamings and communications with protesters fand others];s the use of helmets
and other protective gear;6 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or passed
along to government responders;7 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night
1
Complaint? paras, 37 ,39-42, 44-47, 50,52, 56-7,59-60,64,68,70,74,78-79,81-84, 87, 90, 98,
l0t-103, 106,,122-125,128-129,133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187,194-196,
216,227,231-233,239,250 aniJ273 all allege the use and/or improper use of tear gas and/or
pepper balls.
2
Complaint,pata.4g alleges LMPD officers targeted joumalists, and para, 107 alleges an LMPD
officer shot a repoder from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball
on June 17,2020
3
Complaint,para.226.
a
Complaint, ptro. I 00 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. I 04, 1 08 and 137 -
138,204 and239 all allege the use of LRAD's by LMPD.
5
Complaint, para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who
seek class certification on behalf of all peaceful protesters) include "whether LMPD officers issued
any waming before employing Crowd Control Weaponry;".
6
Complaint, paras. 35, 101, 142,155,163, 180,208 and227 all concern the use of helmets or
other rioVprotective gear by LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters fand others].
7 Complaint,para 94 alleges that "[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 75,2020,
Defendant Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result,
he would be instituting needed refonns to the LMPD's use of tbrce practices, But the very next
day, in responss to criticism from ths LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating
o'stand
that he had not instructed and would not instruct offrcers to down'o and that Defendant
Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action,"
2
MEBRAYER

August 3,2020
David McAtee was shot.8 The Plaintiffs in the ,Scott Action aro wcll aware of the Committee
investigation and in fact, specifically mention it in their Complaint.e
Because of the significant, if not corrplete, overlap between this now pending litigation
and Monday's scheduled agerrda, much, if not the entirety, of Monday's Committee hearing will
have to take place in executive session per the mandate of the Kentucky Ceneral Assembly.
Specifically, KRS 67C.103(14)(b), which is expressly referenced in the Cornmittee's OR-004-20,
requires that "[t]estimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session." As you
know, KRS 61.810(c) exempts discussions of proposed or pending litigation llom open meetings.
On July 31,202A, we contacted the two of you to ensure that the Cornmittee was aware of
the Scott suit, and to inquire whether it affects whether the Committee plans to proceed as
scheduled, or believes a continuance is in order. While Mr, Bush had not hacl an opportunity to
confer with the Committee and/or its leadership to determine whether this newly filed lawsuit
alters its planned course of action, Mr. Bush did indicate a preliminary assessment that this
development would unlikely change the timing of things. Given the Committee's expressed
demand for "a transparent, public process" as stated in the eighth recital in OR-004-20, it seems
your client should reconsider proceeding forward on Monday.
The Administration is committed to participating in the Committee's investigation, as it

shares the same goals of bringing to light the truth of these events not only so that the community
can get answers to the questions it has surrounding them, but also so that any resulting policy
changes can be made in an effective, substantive way. However, just as the Committee already
recognized the need to balance the integrity of the AG and FBI investigations with its audit and
oversight authority, we ask that the Cornmittee also recognize the need to balance the important
interests the General Assembly protected when enacting KRS 61.810 (which is carried over into
its enactment of KRS 67C.I03) with the mutual goals and objectives our clients have for an open,
transparent process, Accordingly, rather than proceed on Monday under the unsatisfactory
constraints of executive session, we encourage the Committee to reschedule the appearances of
Chiefs Schroeder and Hess to a time whcn they can reasonably and prudently testifli about the
above referenced matters in an open, rather than closed setting.
KRS 67C.103(14Xb) permits an agency or witness to waive the requirement that the
testirrony be taken in executive session. If we proceed forward on Monday, neither witness can
reasonably be expected to do so, and will not do so given: ( 1 ) that the Scott lawsuit was just filed
two business days ago; (2) Chief Schroeder is named as an individual defendant and has not had
8
Complaint, para, 69 alleges that on thc evening of May 31,2020, "two and a half miles from the
site of the protests downtown, LMPD offioers and the National Guard shot and killed David
McAtee while attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's
restaurant," which is across the street from Dino's.
e
Cornplaint,palaT20,
3
Hon. Jonathan Ricketts { MgBRAYER

August 3,2420
an opportunity to confer with personal counsel, and most significantly, (3) the lawsuit not only
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but it also seeks injunctive relief that could result in
limitations on LMPD's ability to effectively and lawfully manage future protests in a way that
recognizes the First Amendment rights associated with peaceful protests without impairing
LMPD's ability to protect and serve, by effoctively policing those whose objective is not to
peacefully protest, but to vandalize or destroy property, loot businesses or otherwise make
mayhem.
While we have shared the essential components of this letter in our call of this morning,
we look forward to hearing from you once you have had a chance to confer with your client about
whether it plans to proceed Monday in executive session, or prefers to delay the hearing for a
sufficient amount of time to allow for the witnesses to testiff in an open meeting without adverse
impact on pending litigation.
-\2Jl
Sincerely,
DAVID J. GUARNIERI
STEPHEN G. AMATO
Attorneys For Louisville Metro Government
L, Kl .-
C. KLAUSING
Attomey for LMPD Chief Schroeder =*e
4
RTcrnrTS LAW OPNCNS, PLLC

ATToRNEYS lr Law
THE RICKETTS BUILDING OF COUNSEL:
+oss SHEI-SyVILLE ROAD
JONATHAN S, RICKETTS CHARLES E, RICKETTS, JR,
Also Admitted: U.S. Court of Appeals LoUISVTLLE, KENTUcKY 40207 Also Admitted: District of Columbia
for the Armed Forces Phone (502) 896-2303
Fax (502)896-2362 A. CARL PLATT
Also Admitted: lndiana
CHRISTOPHER D. BUSH
August 3,2020
Hon. David Guarnieri

Hon. Stephen Amato
Hon. Joseph Klausing
Via Email Only
Dear Counsel,
Thank you for our conversation this morning and your subsequent letter of today's date.
I apologize that this letter does not conform to customary conespondence format, and may
contain typographical errors; however, in an attempt to answer your letter as efficiently and
quickly as possible, please accept this letter in the spirit of expeditious communications intended
for the benefit of our clients,
I understand from our call that Mr, Klausing is now representing Chief Schroeder. Mr,
Amato and Mr. Guarnieri remain counsel for Chief Hess.
ln speaking with Councilman Ackerson after our call, please know that he intends to
proceed today as scheduled and previously agreed,
With respect to the new concerns raised in your letter this afternoon, we understand them
to be that be the "pending litigation exceptiono'contained in KRS 61.810(1)(c) and KRS
67C.I03(I4)(b) require today's meeting to occur in executive session, or be delayed until an
open and public meeting can be had at some unidentified point in the future. The Chair does not
agree and does not see any mandate or support for a continuance or a closed meeting. The crux
of the position set forth in your letter and previous discussions appears to be that the topics slated
for today's meeting are now subsumed by the litigation referenced in your letter, filed last week
in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, and therefore the "pending litigation"
exception applies to the testimony of your clients. By our analysis, this exception would not
apply to the topics slated for today's discussion. As you know, the Open Meetings Act and
developing caselaw make clear that the exceptions under 61 .8 I 0 are to be construed nanowly.
With respect to the pending litigation exception, caselaw is clear that it is to be narrowly
implemented. See eg Floyd County v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (KY 1997)(the pending litigation
exceptions "would apply to matters commonly inherent to litigation, such as preparation, strategy
or tactics.... And must "not be expanded to include general discussions of everything tangential
to the topic."). Based on this caselaw, we believe no basis for going into closed session exists if
EXHIBIT F
the council asked your clients about topics other than litigation strategy, which it has no intent to
do, and it would be unlawful to invoke the exception so broadly.
While your clients may find it personally unpleasant and untimely to discuss these topics
in the open, "[t]he exceptions to the open meetings laws are not to be used to shield the agency
from unwanted or unpleasant public input, interference or scrutiny." Ratlffi 955 S.W.2d at924.
"The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is
good for the public to know and what is not good for them to know" 1974Ky. Acts Chap. 377,
HB 100.
Finally, the Open Meeting Act exceptions are a "shield," not a "shackle," The General
Assembly did not intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption
applies. See eg Lawson v. OAG 415 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2013)("The General Assembly did not
intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption applies".)
Accordingly, the Committee is free to waive any exemption that may apply, at any time.
For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully communicate the Committee's intent to proceed
today, as no authority cited in your letter would appear to compel them to cancel or continue
today's meeting.
Thanking you for your continued understanding in accepting the fluid and hunied nature
of these communications among counsel for the benefit of our clients and the public's right to
know about matters most important to them, I remain,
Very truly yours,
/s/ Jonathan Ricketts

i ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces. com
JSR
COMMOITWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
LOUSVILLE METRO COUNCIL
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AI]DIT COMMITTEE

IN RE: II\T\{ESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF TIIE ADMINISTRATION SURROT]ND-
ING THE DEATH OF BREONNA TAYLOR, TIIE DEATII OT'DAVID MCATEE, AI\ID RELATED PROTESTS
IN LOUISVILL METRO
(AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION PER LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL ORDER Nb. OO3, SERIES 2O2O)
LEGISLATwE ( x.) SUBPOENA ( ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

To: Amy Hess, Chief of Public Services, 527 W,Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor, Louisville, l{Y 40202
Pursuant to KRS 67C.IA304) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b), and a majority vote of the Government Oversight and
Audit Committee,you are commanded to appear before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee at Historic City
Hall, 601 West Jefferson Sfreet, Louisville, KY 40202 on the lTth day of AuAust , 2020 atthe hour of 2:30 pm.
.-X To testiff before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee, relative to the above referenced independent
audit or investigation.
To produce work papers or documents described on Attachment A hereto
Your failure to obey this subpoenamay subject you to contempt as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro
Council Rule 4A.04(b).
Issued by:
Title: Presiding Government Oversight and Audit Committee
601 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202
Date:
t*t't)ttf *'|.** ** rl.**'t****'t**'t**+* ****************1.,t** 'l*****,i****

TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TrrE WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGES SERVTCE OF T{E SUBPOENA
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a true copy of this subpoena:
Signed Date:
'1.{.i. {. ****d.**t**+,f t* t,t***********f ** **** ++*****'i+*'F***+*+**t*
I, being first duly swom state that I am over l8 years ofage and that the
day of 20----- I personally delivered a true copy ofthis subpoena to
who is known to me.
Signed:
county of
Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by this day of
20-.
Signed: Title:
My commission expires:
,1.*{.t*f,* ****,F***+t,1.********rl.*+***
*+************+*,1.d,+******
{< t
TO BE COMPLETED. WHEN SUBPOENA IS SERVED BY AN 9FFICER
This subpoena was served by delivery of a true copy to , this _ day of
20
Signed: Title:
-
EXHIBIT G
- -- -'-Aiubpo.enashatbe,rrrJ;#ffi;H####ilr;#'#H###;T;#;#'u'poe,iasmaybeserved

by an officer by whom a summons might be served, or by any person over l8 years ofage whose affidavit is endorsed above, or a
witness may acknowledge service by his signature above. An exact, signed duplicate must be filed with the Government Oversight
and Audit Conomittee at or prior to the appearance scheduled above.
DAVID J, GUAI{NIERI 201 EAST MAIN STREEI', SUITE
dguarn ieri@mcbraycrfi rm. conr MilffiI${AYffiR } LEXINGTON, KY 40507
9OO

859,231.8780 Ex',l- l218
FAX: 859.960.2917
August 7,2020
vIA MAIL.{Np E}{ArL

Jon athan.Ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces.com
Chri stopher. B ush(@ri ckettslawot'fices. com
Louisville, Kentucky 4A207
RE: Louisville Metro Council Investigation
We are in receipt of the subpoena the Louisville Metro Council Government Oversight and
Audit Committee has issued for Chief of Public Safety Amy Fless, and we are awars that the
Comnrittee has also subpoenaed Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder. We hereby
accept service of the subpoena to Chief }Iess as indicated by our signatures on the subpoena
enclosed herewith.
'I'he subpoena does not speci$ whether the testin:ony requested for August 17,2020 will
be in open or closed session, but based on the comments the Committee's Chair made at the Augnst
3, 2020 Special Meeting, and the vote that was taken afterward, we are proceeding on the
unde rstanding that the Committee is seeking Cliief Hess to testify in an open session on the same
t<lpics delineated in your July 30 email. I write to again notify the Committee tliat our position
remains turchanged that if it wishes to proceed at this time, it must do so in executive session, and
to also reiterate our position that Chief Hess is not prepared to waive the executive session
requirement and testifr in open session until it is reasonably clear that shc can do so without
adversely impacting Metro Government's interests in the pencling ACLU litigation.
We continue to believe that Chief l{ess could appear to testi$ in open session hy the first
week of Septernber. By that time, the defendants in the ACLU suit will likely have been served,
retained cormsel and responded to the allegations in the cornplaint, Also, we will likely have a
better idea by then whether any temporary injunctive relief will be sought related to LMPD's
managing of future protests. Given the imporlant role that peacet'ul protests play in our democratic
society, it is critical that LMPD not be constrained in those instances where coutter prctesters
attempt to engage the peaceful protesters, and it is equally critical that LMPD maintain the ability
to effectively police those whose intention it is not to peacefully protest, but to engage in unlawful
i.r;t li::.,:t:: I ii),i:ij:,rir I i ,,r ,.,..:t:;.
ir:::,iiii irili:t:i:, ..:ii;;::.: !::: t::1. ..r; , I il:j:,ri'!riir-irii ,.: r'.
rno tiri)y{)r{irm.roin
EXHIBIT H
t4U) ffi14.b"Ytr"W
t l

Chlistopher Bush, Esq.
Angust 7,2A20
Page2
behavior. We would hope the Committee, too, shares these goals. In a similar vein, the Chair said
on August 3 that he doesn't care about lawsuits and damages, Given the austerc times state and
local governments are facing due to the impact COVID-19 has and continues to have, my client
does not have the same viewpoint as the Chair, and perhaps the rest of the Cornmittee in this regard,
Accordingly, rather than disobey the Committee's subpoena by refusing to appear, or

rvasting the Committee's time by appearing and insisting that the Committee go into executive
session, my client plans to file a declaratory judgment action early next week in order to resolve
the current disagreement it has with your client on the application of KRS 61.S10(c) to these
proceedings. Based on comments made by some of the Committee members after we excused
ourselves fi'om Monday's special meeting, i,ve think there is a common desire by many involved
for a clear resolution so any further work by the Committee is in accordance with established law.
As a practioal matter, however, it is unlikely a cirouit court action can result in a tinal, non-
appealable declaratory judgment befbre August 17, so absent an ogreement to postpone the
scheduled appearances, we will have no choice but to seek ir{urrctive relief under CR 65.03 and
cR 65.04.
While our differing opinions on the application oi'KRS 61.810(c) to the Committee's
investigation make a legal action inevitabJe, we do not believe it necessary for each party to devote
the substantial time and resources that would be required in an injunction hearing, and would like
to seek an agreement on the most ef{icient, and expcdient way to proceed, Specifically, my client
proposes that Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, Chief of Louisville Forward, and select members of
Louisville Forward appear on August 17 in lieu of Chiefs Hess and Schroeder to discuss and
educate the Committee on that department's activity on Elliott Avenue in regards to vacant and
abandoned propefiy and public nuisances. Comments flom your members at the meeting on
August 3'd indicated that they would like to hear testimony on this topic as well, and so long as the
questioning does not encroach on the Attorney General or FBI investigations, they can appear in
"open session". This resolution allows the Committee to holcl the soheduled session on the 17th
tvith testimony that would likely have occurred anyway at a later date, and allows the parlies and
the circuit court time to work through the legal question in a more prudent, but still, expeditious
man.ner.
One other issue I want to raise with you at this time in an effort to avoid a similar, and
hopefully avoidable impasse as the one that occun'ed on August 3 in regard to the open meeting
concetns, is that under the separation of powers principles embodied in the Kentucky Constitution,
the Committee's investigation has to heive as its focus a legislative purpose, and cannot merely be
a fact finding mission that is unrelated to current or possibly future legislation. Based on that part
of the eleventh recital of Order No. 003, Series 2020 that the Council adopted on July 14,2020,
Lt :, iliiit,t:::. i. ;::.:l :i:l l,:': i I ;; :l r,,;i i i i;

,..i:r,... ,.i ,1.:: :.::, . ,1 :: rjl:r i.. : ii..,:1:: !''j . ,i :;
"
rr;t:lit'',yltr'lir tr l:,ttit
MgBRI\YER

Ricketts Law Oftlces, PLLC
Augnst 7,2A2A
Page 3
stating that the Committee will make findings of fact so that "the Metro Council may take
legislative action," we are proceeding with the good fuith understanding that there is consensus on
this point. Howevero some of the comments from the Chair and others suggest that the purpose of
the investigation may simply be an open ended, fact finding mission that is not oonfined to existing
ordinances or ordinances that are being contemplated, instead.l
We are available the remainder of today, tluoughout the weekend and first thing Monday
if you wish to discuss orr above proposal or any other aspect of this letter. Otherwise, we will keep
you apprised of any filing in circuit court.
Sincerely,
\t
DAVID J. GUARNIERI
DJG:dmp
4837-1862-0615, v. 1
IAt the August 3 Special Meeting, in his opening remalks, the Chair said, "my sole focus is to get the truth out to the
public about what has happened and why." Later, the Chair said "today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair
of this body whose job it is to get the truth out here to the public. , , ,"
Invr illiulri: Inrin0tun I huisrrilln

liovn'rnnrrrl A[[irirs: IrirrrkfcriI Wi:shinllnn, 0 I].
nrnblirynriilnr r:nnr

CIVIL BRANCH
____ DIVISION
NO. ____

METRO GOVERNMENT for itself and on behalf of
v. PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS
LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL et. al DEFENDANTS
** ** ** ** ** **
Comes Plaintiff, by and through counsel and for its initial discovery requests pursuant to
CR 33 and 34 hereby propounds the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents upon Defendants:
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.1: Please identify the individual answering these discovery
requests or contributing the documents or information in connection with the responses.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the legislative purpose for the adoption of
Louisville Metro Council Order No.003, Series 2020, adopted July 14, 2020.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all lists of questions prepared in anticipation of hearings scheduled
pursuant to Louisville Metro Council Order No. 003, Series 2020, adopted July 14, 2020 (the
“Investigation Order”);
REQUEST NO. 2: Paper or electronic (emails or texts) communications by and between

members of the Louisville Metro Council pertaining to the Investigation Order or the hearings
scheduled pursuant to same;
REQUEST NO. 3: Document reflecting a legislative purpose for the adoption of the
Investigation Order; and
REQUEST NO. 4: Documents pertaining to the contemplation or passage of the Investigation
Order.
McBRAYER PLLC
201 East Main Street, Suite 900
Lexington, Kentucky 40507
(859) 231-8780
BY: /s/ David J. Guarnieri

DAVID J. GUARNIERI
STEPHEN G. AMATO
CYNTHIA L. EFFINGER
JASON R. HOLLON
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
4811-7105-1463, v. 3
2

CIVIL BRANCH
____ DIVISION
NO. ____________
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY PLAINTIFFS

METRO GOVERNMENT, et al.
v. RESTRAINING ORDER
LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL, et al. DEFENDANTS
** ** ** ** ** **
The matter having come before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order
and the Court, being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Restraining Order is GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants are
hereby restrained from enforcing the August 5, 2020 Legislative Subpoena requiring Amy Hess to
“testify [in open session] before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17,
2020 at 2:30 p.m.
The Court further ORDERS that this matter is set for a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for
temporary injunctive relief on _________, 2020 at the hour of _______ at the Jefferson County
Judicial Center, 700 W. Jefferson St., Louisville, Kentucky 40202.
_________________________________
JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this pleading was filed Jefferson Circuit
Court and copies were served U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, this _____ day of _______, 2020, upon
the following:
David J. Guarnieri, Esq. Charles E. Ricketts, Esq.

McBrayer PLLC Jonathan S. Ricketts, Esq.
201 East Main Street, Suite 900 Ricketts Law Offices PLLC
Lexington, Kentucky 40507 4055 Shelbyville Road
_________________________________________
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT CLERK
4830-8522-5415, v. 2

LAWSUIT: Louisville Metro Government Vs Louisville Metro Council

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LAWSUIT: Louisville Metro Government Vs Louisville Metro Council

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000001 of 000188

LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY PLAINTIFF

LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL; DEFENDANTS

BARBARA SHANKLIN, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council

ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council

Serve All Members:

Via Jefferson County Sheriff

Comes Plaintiff, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (the “Plaintiff” or “Metro

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000003 of 000188

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000004 of 000188

to herein as the “Defendants”), hereby states as follows:

proper scope of any investigation initiated by the Committee.

2020 e-mail from the Committee’s attorneys.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000005 of 000188

seventeen LMPD officers, being specifically, Scott et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro

LMPD’s use of various tactical measures with respect to future protests.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000006 of 000188

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government is the executive authority

comprise his Administration (the “Administration”).

Council attorney Jonathan Ricketts.

Council District 1. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000007 of 000188

5. Defendant Keisha Dorsey is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 3. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

6. Defendant Barbara Sexton Smith is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman

Council District 5. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

Council District 6. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

9. Defendant Paula McCraney is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 7. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

Council District 8. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 9. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 10. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 11. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 12. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000008 of 000188

Council District 14. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

Council District 15. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 16. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 17. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Metro Council District 19. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 20. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 22. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 23. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000009 of 000188

Council District 25. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

Council District 26. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

31. KRS 67C.103 provides, in relevant part, that

(13) All legislative powers of a consolidated local government are vested in

(f) Make independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs

1. Is composed of members who are appointed by the mayor

2. Has a budget that is equal to or greater than one million

shall establish a Government Oversight and Audit Committee.” Id.

33. This committee has the power to:

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000010 of 000188

3. Petition the appropriate Circuit Court to compel obedience by

from its “legislative power.”

to supervise, administer and control all departments and agencies

leaders called for an investigation into the shooting.

5CF9AEE6-75E6-4565-BCCF-526EEB9F4866 : 000011 of 000188

swept through the nation.

the large majority of protestors who were protesting peacefully.