Beginning on March 28, 2013, investigations were initiated, or allegedly threatened to be initiated, against plaintiffs Charles Antuna, Robert Tubbs, Kevin Herbert and Louis Duran, all captains with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; and against plaintiffs Rocio Martinez, a custody assistant; David Waters, a commander; Robert Wheat, a lieutenant; and Casey Dowling, a sergeant. The officers claimed that claimed that the investigation was initiated by Sheriff Lee Baca in retaliation for them supporting Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who was planning to run for sheriff against Baca. Antuna (as lead plaintiff), Tubbs, Herbert, Duran, Martinez, Waters, Wheat, and Dowling sued Baca; Sheriff John Scott; and their employer, the county of Los Angeles. The alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation. Scott was ultimately let out of the case and granted attorney fees. The matter then continued against Baca and the county. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that on March 25, 2013, a Los Angeles Times article cited “numerous individuals close to Tanaka” and indicated that Tanaka was considering a run for sheriff in 2014. The article also claimed that Tanaka-based sources asserted allegations that were completely opposed to the official line promulgated by Baca and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Waters claimed that he spoke to the Los Angeles Times about the Baca-Tanaka relationship and that on March 28, 2013, Baca and his supporters initiated a criminal investigation against him in retaliation for his comments to the newspaper. The subject matter of the investigation was previously investigated by Internal Affairs and lower-level employees. However, in the Watch Commander’s Service Report, Waters was cleared of any wrongdoing. Duran, Wheat and Dowling were also subjected to Internal Affairs investigations against them, often with criminal allegations. In addition, Herbert and Tubbs were subjected to an investigation based on administrative claims, and Antuna and Martinez were allegedly threatened with similar investigations. Eventually, Waters, Duran, Wheat, Dowling, Hebert and Antuna were all cleared of the allegations against them. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that after the plaintiffs were cleared of the allegations against them, Baca promoted an unqualified officer to the position of Assistant Sheriff because the officer was a Baca supporter. Counsel contended that the new assistant sheriff, at Baca’s direction, began compiling a ‘hit’ list, which was comprised of actual or suspected Baca supporters, and that Antuna, Tubbs, Herbert, Duran, Martinez, Waters, Wheat, and Dowling were all named on that list and subjected to retaliatory actions in violation of their First Amendment Rights under 42 USC § 1983. Defense counsel argued that none of the plaintiffs were retaliated against and that there were legitimate business reasons for their transfers. Counsel contended that the plaintiffs were sent to some of the most important locations in the department and that while most of the plaintiffs were not promoted, it was only because there were many qualified employees eligible for promotion. Defense counsel also contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a promotion, as most employees cannot be promoted. Shortly before trial, the county of Los Angeles promoted Hebert to the position of Commander, one of the highest possible positions in the department. Hence, defense counsel argued there was no retaliation against him. However, Herbert claimed that he was only promoted after being transferred and after several of the very top employees in the department were promoted to Chiefs and Assistant Sheriffs from the same position., Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that Herbert, a captain, had been with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for 25 years; Tubbs, a captain, had been with the department for about 30 years; and Duran, a Latino captain, had been with the department for more than 30 years. Counsel also noted that Waters, a commander, had been with the department for more than 30 years; Wheat, a lieutenant, had been with the department for 27 years; Dowling, a sergeant, had been with the Sheriff’s Office for 25 years; and Martinez, a Latino custody assistant, had been with the department for 16 years. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the officers were transferred to less prestigious assignments that impacted their promotional opportunities. Antuna claimed that after he went on a fishing trip with Tanaka, he was removed as Captain of the Inmate Reception Center and transferred to a job that increased his daily commute by 100 miles. He alleged that in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, such a transfer is commonly known as “freeway therapy.” Thus, the plaintiffs claimed that the lack of promotion and the retaliation against them caused each of them emotional distress. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiffs were earning over $200,000 per year and had not suffered any lost earnings. Counsel also contended that there was no change in the plaintiffs’ material terms and conditions of their employment. In regard to the plaintiffs’ alleged emotional distress, defense counsel contended that none of the plaintiffs had seen a therapist until shortly before trial and that the plaintiffs then all saw the same doctor. Thus, counsel argued that there was no evidence of any psychological disorders. In addition, defense counsel argued that if there was significant emotional distress, the plaintiffs would not be allowed to carry a gun or work, and yet they were all working.