ShareThis Page

Woman drops G-20 lawsuit against Pittsburgh

| Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:00 p.m.

One of the 25 people who sued Pittsburgh over their arrests and treatment by police in Oakland following the 2009 Group of 20 economic summit dropped her complaint on Wednesday.

Joanne Ong, who was 19 years old and a junior at Carnegie Mellon University when she was arrested on Sept. 25, 2009, filed a motion to dismiss her claims. Vic Walczak, state legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said there was no settlement between Ong and the city.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer approved Ong's motion.

Another 11 plaintiffs accepted an offer from the city in January that paid them $8,000 each to settle their claims. Walczak said the remaining 13 plaintiffs are still pursuing claims.

In the same case, the city filed a motion yesterday asking Fischer to block the plaintiffs' Feb. 14 request that the city search its computer systems for electronic communications that contain any of 33 words or phrases that would indicate the communication had something to do with the arrests.

The plaintiffs should have requested the information a year ago, and the city doesn't have the time and resources to conduct the search before the court's July 3 deadline for each side to answer the other side's information requests, the city said in a brief supporting the motion.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me