Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 8

ROBERT B. SYKES (#3180)

bob@sykesmcallisterlaw.com
SYKES M CALLIS TER LAW OFFICES , PLLC
311 S. State Street, Suite 240
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone No. (801) 533-0222
Former Attorney for Plaintiffs
and Interested Party
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

SUSAN HUNT, mother and personal

representative of DARRIEN HUNT,
deceased; CURTIS HUNT; and ESTATE
OF DARRIEN HUNT, by its Personal
Representative Susan Hunt,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MATTHEW L. SCHAUERHAMER;
NICHOLAS E. JUDSON; and the CITY OF
SARATOGA SPRINGS, UTAH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

SYKES SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE

TO SUSAN HUNTS OPPOSITION TO
NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS LIEN
BASED UPON DISCOVERY OF NEW
EVIDENCE

Civil No. 2:15-cv-0001-TC

[UNSEALED BY COURT ORDER
ON JANUARY 6, 2016 (DOC. 68)]
Judge Tena Campbell

Pursuant to the Courts Order (Doc. 64), Robert B. Sykes and Sykes McAllister
Law Offices, PLLC, (hereinafter SMLO), because new evidence was located, hereby
submit this Supplemental Response to Plaintiff Susan Hunts Opposition to Attorneys
Lien (Doc 24). This new evidence addresses: (1) Susan Hunts acceptance of the sum of
$900,000; (2) her acceptance of the robust non-disparagement agreement, and (3) her
acceptance of the Press Releases.

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 8

SUMMARY
Ms. Hunts Supplemental Brief claims incorrectly that Ms. Hunt never
accepted, confirmed, or consented to a final settlement with her former attorney Robert
Sykes or with Defendants. Doc. 59, Hunt Supp. Brief, p.1, filed 12/16/15. She also makes
the new claim that she never accepted the press release of Defendants that was allegedly
a material term[] of the proposed final settlement. Doc. 59, p.1.
But, the new evidence tells a much different story, of an eyes-wide-open
approval, over a several week period, of all material aspects of the settlement. This justifies
the attorney lien (Doc. 16). This new evidence, with some formerly-presented evidence, is:
Ex. 1 - 06/19/15. phone call, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (strategy info redacted) (new);
Ex. 2 - 07/06/15. voice message, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (new);
Ex. 3 - 07/08/15. phone call, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (new);
Ex. 4 - 08/03/15. phone call, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (new);
Ex. 5 - 08/10/15. phone call, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (new); and
Ex. 6 - 08/12/15. phone call, Mr. Sykes & Ms. Hunt (originally in Doc. 50).
Ex. 7 - Comparison of Press Releases of August 18, 2015 (new).

ARGUMENT
A. Ms. Hunt Definitely Accepted the $900,000 Amount.
Ms. Hunt, as early as June 19, 2015, was shooting for a settlement somewhere
between the $755,000 Offer of Judgment and $1,000,000. She agreed that day to accept $1
million if it was offered. Ex. 1:277-287, 303 (line numbers) (If I can get a million, will you
take it? . . . Susan: Yeah. Bob: All right. I hear you say yes, right? Susan: Yes.).1 On

Seven of eight pages in Exhibit 1 deal with the strategy (not herein relevant) of how to divide up
an anticipated settlement with co-plaintiff Curtis Hunt, Susan Hunts estranged husband. It is redacted.
-2-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 8

July 6, 2015, Sykes left Susan Hunt a voicemail to the effect that the $755,000 offer of
judgment was about to expire, that he had an acceptance ready to go, but you havent given
the authority to do anything tomorrow, so, thats where it stands. Ex. 2:8-14.
On July 8, 2015, Ms. Hunt was told that Defendants had rejected a $1 million
offer, but would consider an offer of less than a million. Ex. 3:40-41. Ms. Hunt specifically
agreed to take $850,000-$900,000, if offered. Ex.3: 47-67, 81-82.2
On August 3, 2015, Ms. Hunt was informed that Defendants are offering
$900,000, but it is conditional upon a non-disparagement clause. Ex. 4:15, 21-22. She
again accepted. Ex. 4:215-243. Thereafter, there were multiple discussions and affirmations
of acceptance of the $900,000 offer, which was never in question.3 All drafts of the Release
after August 3rd included the $900,000 amount.4
B.

Ms. Hunt Accepted Non-disparagement.

New Ex. 4 contains a detailed discussion of the disparagement that complicated

the settlement. Ex. 4:24-33, 54-81. Ms. Hunt was informed that Defendants had earlier that
day on August 3, 2015, made the hoped-for $900,000 offer, but had withdrawn it because
they became aware of some serious allegations of disparagement. Ex.4:19-22, 54-81 (e.g.,
the only good cop is a dead cop). Ms. Hunt was told frankly and bluntly that this kind of

She was asked to confirm this with an email, which is attached to Doc. 50 as Exhibit 1, Sykes Resp.
to Hunts Opp. to Attorneys Lien.
3

See lengthy discussion and citation to exhibits in Doc. 50:7-9.

Id.
-3-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 8

response could kill the settlement and that if she didnt want to settle tell me and Ill tell
them to go ahead and litigate. 4:35-36. Susan, you have a choice here. 4:42. You can
settle or continue to litigate, but they are never going to admit (4:45-6) that:
they hid and covered things up (4:33),
they murder[ed] my son and Im supposed to pretend like everything is okay and
not say anything (4:39), and
taking the offer means that defendant officer stays on the streets because nobody
[knows] that he murdered my son, right? 4:104.

Ms. Hunt was counseled to cease the intemperate language even though she believed its
all the truth (4:81), because the Defendants would not listen to her, and Susan, my dear,
this intemperate language is going to kill your settlement. . . . Its going to kill it. 4:83-89.
What do you want me to do? Ms. Hunt asked. 4:52 (emphasis added). Sykes
responded, inter alia: I told you to be patient .... and now weve got it [the $900,000 offer]
(4:93) and so . . . I would like to be able to call them and say you will take this offer.
4:101-102 (emphasis added ). Ms. Hunt replied nobody [cares] that he murdered my son,
right[?], to which Mr. Sykes responded well, the case is over. The case is over. . . . [Y]ou
need to move, and as soon as you get your money Id start looking for a new place. Get out
of that town. Susan: Im trying. 4:101-114 (emphasis added). The conversation then
shifted to using some of the settlement money: a) to get grief counseling and other health
concerns for Susan and her children (4:116-132); b) how the money would be paid (4:133144); and c) how much her criminal defense attorney was charging and that Sykes would
pay him out of your money when the time comes. 4:167-172.

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 5 of 8

Susan then asked [s]o what do I do now? What do you want me to do? Did
I blow it all just because I got angry? 4:215-216 (emphasis added). She further asked after
they pay up I can call them out for what they are? 4:221. She was told [n]o, there is going
to be a non-disparagement clause (4:223), and if you are going to continue to disparage
them, then you might as well not settle. 4:230-231. Reducing the anger level and healing
made sense to Susan. 4:236-241. Sykes, based on the above, closed by saying all right
. . . I will tell them we have a deal. 4:243 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
C.

Non-disparagement Included Reasonable Press Releases.

Susan Hunt repeatedly accepted the principle of restrictive Press Releases in

thereafter communicating with the press and the public. She began receiving drafts of the
Release of All Claims(Release) as early as August 7, 2015.5 These initial drafts of the
Release, and all subsequent drafts, utilized the principle of making no public statements
other than those contained in the Press Releases.6 Susan Hunt accepted this principle.7
An attempt was made to lessen the non-disparagement provisions via the Aug.
10th letter to defense counsel Heather White.8 Susan Hunt approved this letter. Ex. 5:13-18.
The Susan Hunt Press Release was received by and discussed with Susan Hunt several days

Doc. 50, Fact 11 & Point II.E.

Doc. 50, Ex.4.32(a) 8.

Doc. 50, Facts 12-16.

Doc. 50, Ex. 4:34(a).

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 6 of 8

before August 12,9 and the 8/10/15 letter made no objection to her Press Release. Ex. 5:1416. Defendants rejected most of the suggested Release changes, and Susan was told on
August 12, 2015, that the non-disparagement clause is a deal breaker for them and you told
me it was okay, you would go ahead and sign it with that clause in there, right? Ex. 6:6-8.
Susan said I will sign, yes. 6:18 (emphasis added).
A comparison of the two final Press Releases, Ex. 7 herein, shows that most
provisions are fairly benign, but some present opposite versions of key facts. Paragraph 1 of
the Hunt Release says that the Hunt family believes that Darriens death was not justified
and that the Utah County Attorneys investigation was not impartial. Ex.7 1. The Citys
1 disputes the Hunt familys claims that the officers acted inappropriately, including the
familys allegations that Mr. Hunt was shot in the back while on the ground. This failure to
admit guilt was no surprise because Ms. Hunt was told that the City did not agree that it had
done anything wrong. Ex. 4:79,83.10
Similarly, the City Press Release points out that the Utah County Attorneys
Office concluded that the shooting was justified, but Darriens family disagrees and believes
that the investigation was not impartial. These are roughly opposite equivalents. Ex. 7, both
2. Lastly, 3 of the Hunt Press Release endorses Darriens importance for the family, but
expresses a desire to heal and move forward. Comparably, 3 of the City version, expresses
9

Doc. 50, Ex.4:32.

10

Similar provisions were found in the Release (payment . . . is made for the purpose of
compromising a disputed claim and shall not be construed as an admission of liability since any liability is
denied). Release, page 1 4.
-6-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 7 of 8

condolences by the City, and likewise expresses the desire to move forward. These Press
Releases are fairly equivalent and non-controversial, particularly given the prior joint
agreement on the principle of non-disparagement.
The principle of the Press Releases was clearly material and an important part
of non-disparagement for the City. Susan initially objected, but later clearly agreed to nondisparagement with Press Releases in order to settle the case. The specific language of the
Press Releases, as shown by new Exhibits 4-6 and 7 herein, was never a material factor for
Susan Hunt. The relatively benign language of these Press Releases mirrored the principles
agreed to in the non-disparagement clauses, and should simply not be an excuse to reject or
invalidate the attorneys lien.
CONCLUSION
The newly-submitted evidence confirms that Susan Hunt agreed to settle the
case for $900,000 with robust non-disparagement provisions, of which the Press Releases
were an integral part. Ms. Hunts attorney had her authority to communicate that acceptance
to Defendants. The Press Releases were agreed to in principle, are substantively benign, and
do not constitute grounds to invalidate the Attorneys Lien. The Court should issue all
related Orders necessary to uphold the Attorneys Lien.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2016.
SYKES McALLISTER LAW OFFICES
/s/ Robert B. Sykes
ROBERT B. SYKES
(Former attorney for Plaintiff, and Interested Party)
160105.Sykes Supplemental Brief.FINAL.wpd

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-00001-TC-PMW Document 70 Filed 01/06/16 Page 8 of 8

Exhibits to Sykes SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE

TO SUSAN HUNTS OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS LIEN
BASED UPON DISCOVERY OF NEW EVIDENCE
And
Declarations of the Transcribers (Exh. 8)

1.

Transcription of 6/19/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

2.

Transcription of 7/6/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

3.

Transcription of 7/8/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

4.

Transcription of 8/3/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

5.

Transcription of 8/10/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

6.

Transcription of 8/12/15 recorded telephone call between Robert B. Sykes and

Susan Hunt

7.

Comparison of proposed Press Releases

8.

Declarations of the Transcribers

Q:\CLIENT\3020.1 HUNT.Post Disch\3. MOT\9. Sykes Suppl Brief re Atty Lien\Prep-WP docs\Exhibit Index.wpd