Wood v. Maryland Department of Transportation et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

D. Md.February 1, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID WOOD, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. * * * * * No. 1:16-CV-03727-JFM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Come now defendants, Maryland Department of Transportation and Motor Vehicle Administration, by Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland and by Leight D. Collins and Neil I. Jacobs, Assistant Attorneys General and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure move this Honorable Court to dismiss the above referenced action for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, based on the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General of Maryland /S/ LEIGHT D. COLLINS LEIGHT D. COLLINS Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 06659 Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Room 200 Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 (410) 768-7414 lcollins@oag.state.md.us /s/ NEIL I. JACOBS NEIL I. JACOBS Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 11634 Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Room 200 Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 (410) 768-7414 njacobs@oag.state.md.us Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of February, 2017 a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, was mailed, postage prepaid, to: Jack L. B. Gohn, Esquire Gohn, Hanky, Stichel & Berlage, LLP 201 North Charles Street Suite 2101 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 /s/ Leight D. Collins LEIGHT D. COLLINS Assistant Attorney General Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID WOOD, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. * * * * * No. 1:16-CV-03727-JFM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER Having read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying memorandum of law, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED on the ___________ day of ___________________2017. _________________________ JUDGE Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID WOOD, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. * * * * * * No. 1:16-CV-03727-JFM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS INTRODUCTION Despite the plaintiff’s dramatically reduced field of peripheral vision that falls far below Maryland minimum qualification standards for safe driving, he asks this Court to order the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (the “MVA”) to issue him a driver’s license. The Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s Complaint and request for injunctive relief because the Maryland statute requiring a minimum field of continuous vision disqualifies persons who are unable to drive safely, does not disqualify any person, or the plaintiff, because of a disability, and even if plaintiff’s license application is within the auspices of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff has failed to allege - as there is none to propose - a reasonable accommodation Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 15 -2- for his inadequate field of vision that may allow for his safe operation of a motor vehicle on Maryland highways. STATEMENT OF FACTS Field of Vision The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) identifies field of vision as “the extent of visual space over which vision is possible with the eyes held in a fixed position.” A driver’s vision is measured through objective testing by either an independent eye examiner or at a motor vehicle branch. Measurements for the purposes of the MVA can be given for both horizontal and vertical fields, though there are only minimum statutory requirements related to the field of horizontal of vision for driving licensure in Maryland. Field of vision is provided in terms of degrees from a mid-point of zero. There are individual measurements to the left and right, and then a total field of vision is accessed. The manner of measurement is similar for vertical field of vision, but the results are for superior (up) and anterior (down) from a static center point. It is important to note that unlike measurements of visual acuity (ex. 20/20) which are performed on and provide a result for each eye separately, horizontal and vertical testing are not. Testing is performed on both eyes at the same time. Results pertaining to “left” and “right” relate to a reading from a center point, not to a driver’s eye. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 15 -3- In its 2009 “Driver Fitness Medical Guidelines” NHTSA further defined field of vision/sight as: The visual field refers to one’s entire spatial area of vision when fixation is stable, and includes both central and peripheral vision. The size of the visual field is defined in terms of a “visual angle.” For an adult with normal vision, when both eyes are open, the visual field extends horizontally about 180 to 200 degrees of visual angle and vertically about 100 degrees. For each eye individually, the horizontal field is about 160 degrees. The visual field of one eye overlaps with that of the other eye to a very large degree, although not totally. The visual field is typically evaluated using a device called a perimeter or a tangent screen. Visual fields should be tested with both eyes open and examined together. Impairment in the visual field can result from a number of different eye and neurological conditions including but not limited to glaucoma, optic neuritis, diabetic retinopathy, brain injury (e.g., stroke, trauma, tumor), retinal degenerations (e.g., retinitis pigmentosa), and eye trauma. NHTSA, Driver Fitness Medical Guidelines, September, 2009, p. 39 (footnotes omitted). While NHTSA has declined to recommend a standard for visual field impairment, the agency recognizes that “[v]isual field impairment appears to elevate crash risk when it is serious (covers a great deal of the visual field with severe light sensitivity loss) and when it is binocular (i.e., occurs in both eyes).” NHTSA, Id. Nevertheless, the United States Department of Transportation regulations for commercial derivers sets a minimum field of vision standard of “at least 70 degrees in the horizontal Meridian for each eye.” 49 CFR § 391.41(b)(10). This standard, in effect since 1971, is an “incorrect statement of the previous 140 degree binocular requirement expressed in monocular terms.” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Expert Panel Recommendations, Vision and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety, March 14, 2008, p. 5. Expert panels have previously Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 15 -4- recommended that this minimum standard be reduced to at least a 120 degree binocular field of vision. Id. Maryland’s Statutory Standard for a Driver’s Field of Vision For decades the Maryland Vehicle Law has set the minimum field of vision qualification for the licensed driving of motor vehicles at 140 degrees. Compare Md. Code Ann., Transp. II, § 16-110.1(a)(1)(ii), Md. Code Ann. 1957, art. 66½, § 6-110.1. In 1997 the Maryland General Assembly amended § 16-110.1 by incorporating recommendations from the Workgroup for Modified Vision Standards. 1997 Md. Laws, Ch. 346, § 1, Preamble. The Workgroup was comprised of medical professionals, MVA staff, and citizens with an interest in driver vision standards, appointed by the MVA to review vision standards for driver’s license qualification. Id. The Workgroup was tasked to comprehensively review Maryland’s vision standards for driver’s licenses and recommend statutory amendments to modernize those standards in a manner that did not jeopardize the safety of licensees or the public. Id. One such recommendation was an exception to the 140 degree, now continuous, field of vision requirement. The Workgroup proposed allowing licensure of a person who had a field of vision of at least 110 degrees, with a field of at least 35 degrees lateral to each side. Transp. § 16- 110.1(c)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(ii). Each such applicant was required to have a visual acuity in at least one eye of 20/70, but 20/40 for commercial licenses. Transp. § 16-110.1(c)(1)(i), (d)(1)(i). The licenses issued under this provision all carry an “outside mirrors each side” Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 15 -5- restriction, along with other restrictions recommended by the applicant’s ophthalmologist/optometrist, or by the MVA. Transp. § 16-110.1(c)(3), (d)(3). The bill file of Senate Bill 303 indicates that the Legislature intended to give greater opportunity for drivers with vision impairment to retain drivers’ licenses when safe to do so, heeded advice from the Maryland Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons to limit the range of acceptable visual acuity, and considered the “direct threat” standard from the Department of Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Handbook when setting the minimum qualifications for safe driving. Department of Legislative Services, Legislative Reference File - Senate Bill 303 (1997) (excerpts attached as Exhibit A.) The Complaint The plaintiff, David Wood, is a 75-year-old resident of Annapolis, Maryland. Complaint, ¶ 1. In September, 2015, Mr. Wood sought to renew his Maryland driver’s license before its expiration date of November 29, 2015. Before his license could be renewed, Maryland law required that Mr. Wood either pass a vision test at an MVA branch office, or, alternatively, he could submit a certification of visual acuity, MVA form DL- 043A (attached to the Complaint), from a licensed physician or optometrist indicating that he met the minimum vision standards. Transp. § 16-115(i)(1) and (2). Mr. Wood sought such a certification from an ophthalmologist who could certify that he met the minimum field of requirement of 110 degrees. Complaint, ¶ 11. The ophthalmologist could not certify that Mr. Wood met the minimum vision standard for licensed driving in Maryland Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 15 -6- because, as he concedes, he has a “total field of vison of approximately 60 degrees.”1 Complaint, ¶ 12. Mr. Wood’s field of vision has deteriorated from at least 110 degrees to “approximately 60 degrees” in less than six years.2 Unable to obtain a certification that he met the minimum vision qualifications for licensed driving in Maryland, Mr. Wood followed the suggestion of his ophthalmologist and contacted the MVA’s Medical Advisory Board (“MAB”).3 Complaint ¶ 13. Mr. Wood completed a medical survey packet and submitted it to his personal physician and an ophthalmologist to complete the portion of the form requiring medical information and certifications. Id. The MVA reviewed the survey submitted by Mr. Wood and, in response, confirmed that he did not meet the minimum field of vision standard. Complaint, ¶ 14. In addition to denying him a license based on his current field of vision, a restriction noting that an MAB physician must review a future application was placed on his license. Id. Mr. 1 For the purposes of replying to the complaint the Defendants must accept the facts as alleged, however this “60 degree” measurement may be a typographical error as a copy of said ophthalmological report submitted to MVA indicates 30 degrees, not 60 degrees. 2 Mr. Wood’s license that expired in 2015 could have been issued no earlier than 2009. When issued that license he must necessarily have submitted a certification, or passed a test, indicating that his field of vision was at least 110 degrees. 3 Mr. Wood, in fact, contacted the Division of Driver Wellness and Safety, the administrative arm of the MVA that reviews medical qualifications of persons to drive safely. The MAB is a group of physicians employed by the State to advise the MVA Administrator and the agency in areas of medical expertise. Transp. § 16-118. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 15 -7- Wood was also informed that he could only be considered for licensure if he could show that his vision had improved. Id. In response to his failure to meet Maryland’s minimum field of vision requirements, plaintiff asserts that he believes he “safely compensates for his deficits in peripheral vision.” Complaint, ¶ 10. Although he is disqualified from licensure due to the current condition of his vision, he believes the MVA was bound to consider his past driving history when determining whether to issue him a license. Id. Mr. Wood argues that he was entitled to an individualized assessment by this non-medical “driving record” standard, Complaint, ¶ 27, but he makes no allegation that he is entitled to an accommodation and he does not allege that there is any accommodation that may allow him to meet the field of vision standard. The plaintiff requests, inter alia, injunctive relief requiring the MVA to issue him a driver’s license. Complaint, ¶ 30. ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to challenge a complaint when "it fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (2014). A court, when deciding a motion to dismiss, must consider well-pled allegations in a complaint as true and must construe those allegations in favor of the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1969). Further, the court must disregard the contrary allegations of the opposing party. See A.S. Abell Co. v. Chell, 412 F.2d 712, 715 (4th Cir. 1969). Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 15 -8- Nevertheless, in order to survive a Rulc 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of his or her claim. Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., 458 F.3d 332, 346-347 (4th Cir. 2006). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing . . . entitle[ment] to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (2001); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1085 (2007). The required "short and plain statement" must provide fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555-556, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 940 (2007). The showing of an "entitlement to relief" amounts to "more than labels and conclusions . . . " Id. at 555, 167 L. Ed. 2d at 940. "[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," Id. al 555, 167 L. Ed. 2d at 940; Giarranto v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 304 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, the complaint must contain "[fJactual allegations [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 167 L. Ed. 2d at 940; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 883-884 (2009). Considering the factual allegations in a complaint, a court may grant a defendant’s request for dismissal “only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 81 L. Ed. 59, 65 (1984) (citations omitted). II. MARYLAND’S VISION STANDARDS FOR DRIVER’S LICENSING DO NOT VIOLATE EITHER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OR THE REHABILITATION ACT. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 15 -9- Title II of the ADA states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Similarly, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, provides that “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). In other words, “[a] public entity discriminates against a qualified individual when it fails to provide ‘meaningful access’ to its benefits, programs, or services.” Disabled in Action v. Board of Elections of N.Y., 752 F.3d 189, 198-99 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting McElwee v. Cnty. of Orange, 700 F.3d 635, 641 (2d Cir. 2012)); see Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 498 (4th Cir. 2005). Typically, a plaintiff disabled driver alleges discrimination through unwarranted testing or other barriers to licensure not applicable to others. See Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46, 194, 49 (1st Cir. 1998) (licensed driver with cerebral palsy, observed by licensing official to have lack of control of hands, was properly required to take driving test under ADA); Coolbaugh v. State of Louisiana, 136 F.3d 430, 439 (1998) (paraplegic holder of license from other state properly required to demonstrate ability to drive under ADA); Wilson v. Thomas, 43 F. Supp. 3d 628 (2014) (allegations that plaintiffs were required to undergo unnecessary reviews, unjustified by Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 15 -10- available medical evidence, stated claim under ADA) (E.D.N.C. 2014); Briggs v. Walker, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1205 (D. Kan. 2000) (wheelchair-bound applicant may be requested to produce medical certification before being issued an instruction permit); Baily v. Anderson, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1254, (D. Kan. 1999) (license applicant using bioptic telescope lensed glasses to correct poor vision acuity did not suffer discrimination under ADA when required to submit progress report from driving instructor). In this action, Mr. Wood fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he contests the statutory minimum safe field of vision requirement, enacted to protect the public. A. Congress did not Intend to Preclude the States or the Federal Government from Setting Safety Standards to Define those Persons Unqualified for a Driver’s License. When enacting disability discrimination laws, Congress recognized that federal safety rules would limit their application “as a matter of law.” Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 573 (1999). Indeed, when enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Congress noted that commercial drivers “must be able to satisfy” the DOT safety regulations to be “qualified individuals” under the law. Id. (quoting S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 27-28 (1990); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 57 (1990); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 3, at 34 (1990)). As one federal appellate court explained, “the views of an agency such as DOT implementing a regulatory scheme designed to ensure the safety of our nation’s highways ‘constitute a body of experience and informed judgment’ to which employers may properly resort for guidance,” and a court should “hesitate to second guess a legitimate Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 15 -11- business judgment on the part of DOT and its covered employers as to the necessary qualifications of [commercial motor vehicle] operators.” Tate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 268 F.3d 989, 993 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)). The Department of Justice’s Title II Technical Assistance Manual (“TAM”) provides guidance to states that is consistent with the federal courts’ deference to DOT safety regulations: II-3.7200 Licensing. A public entity may not discriminate on the basis of disability in its licensing, certification, and regulatory activities. A person is a "qualified individual with a disability" with respect to licensing or certification, if he or she can meet the essential eligibility requirements for receiving the license or certification. The phrase "essential eligibility requirements" is particularly important in the context of State licensing requirements. While many programs and activities of public entities do not have significant qualification requirements, licensing programs often do require applicants to demonstrate specific skills, knowledge, and abilities. Public entities may not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities who apply for licenses, but may consider factors related to the disability in determining whether the individual is "qualified." ILLUSTRATION: An individual is not "qualified" for a driver's license unless he or she can operate a motor vehicle safely. A public entity may establish requirements, such as vision requirements, that would exclude some individuals with disabilities, if those requirements are essential for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. BUT: The public entity may only adopt "essential" requirements for safe operation of a motor vehicle. Denying a license to all individuals who have missing limbs, for example, would be discriminatory if an individual who could operate a vehicle safely without use of the missing limb were denied a license. A public entity, however, could impose appropriate restrictions as a condition to obtaining a license, such as requiring an individual who is unable to use foot controls to use hand controls when operating a vehicle. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 11 of 15 -12- A public entity does not have to lower or eliminate licensing standards that are essential to the licensed activity to accommodate an individual with a disability. Whether a specific requirement is "essential" will depend on the facts of the particular case. Where a public entity administers licensing examinations, it must provide auxiliary aids for applicants with disabilities and administer the examinations in accessible locations. * * * ADA TAM II-3.7200 (1993)(Emphasis added.) The DOJ TAM recognizes that vision is an essential skill for safe driving. The TAM illustration makes plain that drivers who do not meet vision requirements are not “qualified” for the State’s program of driver licensing. The caveat that drivers with missing limbs not be denied licensure per se, as such persons may be able to drive safely with prosthetics or customized operation controls, demonstrates the reasoning by which plaintiff is not “qualified” under ADA. In the context of vision, a person with poor visual acuity may be able to meet minimum standards with the use of corrective lenses. Maryland, like all states, accommodates persons whose vision may be corrected to acceptable standards. Transp. §§ 16-110.1(b), (c), (d), 16-110.2, 16-110.3. In contrast, plaintiff’s reduced field of vision cannot be corrected by lenses or any currently available device or technology. For this reason, plaintiff does not allege that he is entitled to an accommodation - because there is none. He is not qualified for licensure in Maryland and he cannot become qualified, through accommodations or otherwise. Because he is not qualified to drive safely, he is not entitled to relief under the ADA. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 12 of 15 -13- B. Even Assuming That ADA Requires an Individualized Assessment of Plaintiff’s Qualification to Drive, this was Performed and MVA Reviewed Medical Documentation of Plaintiff’s Field of Vision that Showed he is Unqualified to Drive. Plaintiff sought to have his vision qualifications reviewed by MVA, and the agency complied. A review of reports from his physician and ophthalmologist indicated that his field of vision did not meet the minimum standards of the Vehicle Law and he was told that he could only be considered for licensure if he showed that his field of vision improved. As argued above, and tacitly admitted by plaintiff in his allegations, there is no accommodation that can raise plaintiff’s field of vision to the minimum standard for safe driving. Plaintiff is not entitled to a license under ADA simply because his individual assessment resulted in the denial of his license renewal application. The condition of plaintiff’s individual field of vision was assessed and he was found not to meet the minimum standard. Thus, he is not qualified to drive. III. ELIMINATION OF THE FIELD OF VISION REQUIREMENT IN THE VEHICLE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION OF MARYLAND’S DRIVER LICENSING QUALIFICATIONS LAW. The “accommodation” proposed by the plaintiff, i.e., issuing him a driver’s license when he is ineligible under Transp. § 16-110.1(c)(1)(ii), would eliminate an important safety requirement for the issuance of driver’s licenses in Maryland. This is not an instance, in other words, where a plaintiff argues for an individual exemption from a broadly applicable rule or policy because the general concerns that led to the creation of the rule are not implicated in the plaintiff’s individual circumstances. See, e.g., Washington Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 13 of 15 -14- v. Indiana High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 852 (7th Cir. 1999) (determining that no fundamental alteration occurred because waiver of eligibility limit for one student did not undermine any purpose of the rule). Here, the plaintiff seeks to eliminate a rule under the exact circumstances for which it was created. That is, by definition, a fundamental alteration of Maryland’s driver licensing program. Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 480 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[i]n cases involving waiver of applicable rules and regulations, the overall focus should be on ‘whether waiver of the rule in the particular case is so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change’”). Thus, as a matter of law, plaintiff’s accommodation and request for relief are unreasonable and unenforceable under 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted. Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 14 of 15 -15- Respectfully submitted, BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General of Maryland /s/ Leight D. Collins ___________________________ LEIGHT D. COLLINS Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 06659 Motor Vehicle Adminstration 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E, Room 200 Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 (410) 768-7414 (410) 768-7474 (facsimile) lcollins@oag.state.md.us /s/ Neil I. Jacobs _________________________ NEIL I. JACOBS Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 11634 Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Room 200 Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 (410) 768-7414 (410) 768-7474 (facsimile) njacobs@oag.state.md.us February 1, 2017 Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 15 of 15 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 11 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 12 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 13 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03727-JFM Document 9-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 14 of 14