📧 to OSU Resolution atty
This is a settlement communication under FRE 408 and ORS 40.190, as you confirmed on October 15. If you disagree, please say so.
I'm writing to confirm what we discussed by phone this morning, October 28, from about 10:00 to 10:15 AM. Please correct anything that doesn't match your understanding.
- Documentation. You asked me to provide medical records, bills, and related documentation. You said OSU's view is that the figure I gave is very large, and I pointed out that OSU may already have better access to some of the documentation. I told you I am not producing documentation at this stage. I pointed you to OSU's own dashcam video from Officer Beeton’s vehicle.
- The figure. I did not give a new number. I restated that the figure I gave on October 15 is my opening position, and that the Garza v. City of Salem verdict was the benchmark I used. That is already in writing.
- Non-monetary terms. I said we can take up the non-monetary terms once the monetary terms are closer, since you asked for them before addressing the nonmonetary terms. I have not withdrawn or subordinated them. They remain part of any resolution, as stated in my October 1 email. You did not address them on the call.
- Authority and process. I again asked who at OSU has authority over the monetary and non-monetary terms, and I did not receive an answer.
- Timing. I asked when I could expect to hear from you, and you said within one week. I am treating that as November 4, 2026, and relying on it as a date you personally commit to. If that date will not hold, please tell me before then, in writing, with the reason.
