Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the party intending to offer exhibits at trial shall place them in a binder, properly tabbed, numbered, and indexed, and the original and two (2) copies shall be delivered to the Clerk, with copies in the same form to the opposing party, one (1) business day before the trial.

Any rebuttal disclosure by the party bearing the initial burden of proof shall be made on July 24,2025, and shall be limited as to source to expert witnesses previously identified.

Any objections to this disclosure shall be delivered to all counsel and unrepresented parties on or before September 8, 2025, and, if unresolved, will be heard at the final pretrial conference.

With the exception of rebuttal or impeachment, any information required by Rule 26(a)(3) not timely disclosed, delivered, and incorporated in the proposed final pretrial order shall result in the exclusion of the witnesses, depositions, and exhibits which are the subject of such default.

A final pretrial conference shall be conducted on September 17, 2025,10;00 a.m.. at the courthouse in Norfolk, at which time trial counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear and be prepared to present for entry the proposed final pretrial order setting forth: (1) a stipulation of undisputed facts; (2) identification of documents, summaries of other evidence, and other exhibits in accordance with Rule 26 (a)(3)(A)(iii) to which the parties agree; (3) identification of Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) materials sought to be introduced by each party to which there are unresolved objections, stating the particular grounds for each objection, and arranging for the presence of any such materials at this conference; (4) identification of witnesses in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i) indicating any unresolved objections to the use of a particular witness and the grounds therefor, and designating those witnesses expected to testify by deposition in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(ii); (5) the factual contentions of each party; and (6) the triable issues as contended by each party.

Controlling precedent has deemed certain law enforcement surveillance methods as tantamount to a drag-net, finding that these technologies violate individuals' subjective and reasonable objective expectations of privacy and therefore constitute a Fourth Amendment search.

Specifically, Defendants state that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another while traveling in an automobile on public Case 2:24-cv-00621-MSD-LRL Document 29 Filed 02/05/25 Page 15 of 23 PageID# thoroughfares.

Plaintiffs' complaint supports this conclusion by alleging that: (1) Chief Talbot stated that it Class, where the Supreme Court held Defendants also discuss New York v. is unreasonable to have an expectation of privacy in an object it that required by law to be located in a place ordinarily in plain view from the

Defendants attempt to distinguish the Flock system (static camera images) from the technology at issue in Carpenter (cell-site location data), and Beautiful Struggle (large scale aerial surveillance by plane).

the complaint alleges facts notably similar to those in Carpenter that the Supreme Court found to clearly violate society's expectation of privacy: law enforcement secretly monitoring and cataloguing the whole of tens of thousands of individual's movements over an extended period.

Supreme Court of the United States WAYNE TORCIVIA, Petitioner Vv.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 358 words, excludingthe parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Alan Jame Wilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc.

In an opinion concurring in the denial of en banc rehearing, he explained that “when public officials make the deliberate and considered decision to trample on a citizen’s constitutional rights, they deserve to be held accountable.” Wearry v. Foster, No. 20-30406, slip op.

Judge Ho’s opinion provides yet another reason for this Court to consider the second question presented in this case—i.e., the availability of qualified immunity for non-police state actors.

In his opinion, Judge Ho (at 3-4) quoted JUSTICE THOMAS’s opinion in Hoggard v. Rhodes, 141 S. Ct. 2421, 2422 (2021) (THOMAS, J., respecting denial), where JUSTICE THOMAS expressed doubt that such officials, “who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies,” should “receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting[.

Those circumstances, he explained, were markedly different from cases that “fall[] squarely in the deliberate violation bucket” where qualified immunity is less necessary.

As noted in the petition, petitioner was held for hours after being medically cleared for discharge— just to carry out the seizure of his firearms from his home.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November3, 2022, three (3) copies of the SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:

1115 H Street, N.E.

Pe oS &, Oe Messe ATS ae

: District of Columbia My commission expires September 30, 2027.

None of respondents’ arguments can reconcile the decision below with Caniglia’s rejection of a seizure in identical circumstances based on identical and non- exigent supposed needs.

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(h), I certify that the Reply Brief for Petitioner contains 3,000 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Sworn to and subscribed before me by said Affiant on the date designated below.

Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires February 14, 2023

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(h), I certify that the Reply Brief for Petitioner contains 3,000 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Sworn to and subscribed before me by said Affiant on the date designated below.

Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires February 14, 2023

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

None of respondents’ arguments can reconcile the decision below with Caniglia’s rejection of a seizure in identical circumstances based on identical and non- exigent supposed needs.

contrary to contentions of the Petitioner, the Second circuit Decision as pertains to the State employees and Mary catherine Smith, and the consideration of the Qualified immunity Doctrine was appropriately and equitably applied to the complicated fact pattern presented to the court in the instant litigation.

Factual Presentation To the extent relevant, Petitioner, Wayne Torcivia is a 57 year old man with no record of violence and no history of suicide attempts, depression, or mental health treatment.

Application of the qualified immunity doctrine does not require address, limitation and/or restriction under the instant fact pattern, or as a general proposition as it serves an important and necessary governmental and societal value and necessity for the government to perform its functions and therefore, in the end, protect the public at large.

However, the government actors are afforded certain protections from liability, based upon the thought and reasoning that “the public good can best be secured by allowing officers charged with the duty of deciding upon the rights of others, to act upon their own free, unbiased convictions, uninfluenced by any apprehensions.

under the current fact pattern and based upon the intricacies of the interrelated issues between the police actions and the cPeP actors, the doctrine of qualified immunity should not be discouraged and should not be considered for limitation by the court in the instant matter.

required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), As I certify that the document contains 6 ,720 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 11th day of October, 2022.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of October, 2022.

Mariana Braylovskiy Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026

None of the individual county officers are respondents here.

None of those claims are at issue here.