Melendres # 803 141120-1 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 803 - Transcript - Nov 20 2014 Hearing

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 66
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
Phoenix, Arizona
na
November 20, 2014
1:35 p.m.
OG
10
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
S
Manuel de Jesus Ortega

Melendres, et al.,
BO
.C
OM
11
EF
12
13
TH
14
REPORTER'S
OF PROCEEDINGS
RT 'S TRANSCRIPT
RTE
TR
TRAN
16
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
OF
15
17
(Status
- Sealed Proceedings Omitted)
t us Conference
Confe
nf
18
ND
19
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Court Reporter:
Co
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription

CV07-2513, Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., 11/20/14
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
For the Defendants:
11
16
17
18
ND
19
OF
For Defendant Arpaio:

:
15
TH
13
14
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Timothy J
J.
. Casey,
Case , Esq.
Casey
E
James L.
. Williams,
Williams
illiams Esq.
SCHMITT,
SMYTH,
ITT
TT, SCHNECK,
SCHNEC
NE
CASEY
EY & EVEN
EVEN,
, P.C.
1221
E.
Road
22 E
221
. Osborn
Osbo
Suite 105
Phoenix,
Phoenix Arizona 85014-5540
(602)
(602
602)
) 277-7000
EF
12
BO
Andre Segura, Esq.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
BERTIES
ERTIES UNION
UNI
125 Broad Street,
t, 18th
18t Floor
Fl
Flo
New York, New York 10004
1000
(212) 549-2676
76
10
Annie Lai, Esq.

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, Arizona 85011-0148
14
148
(602) 650-1854
.C
OM
For the Plaintiffs:
OG
Thomas P. Liddy, Esq.

Th
Senior
Litigation Counsel
S
Deputy County Attorney
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Services Division
222 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 506-8066

P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
THE CLERK:
This is CV 07-2513, Melendres versus
.C
OM
Please be seated.
Arpaio, on for status conference.
13:35:45
Counsel, please announce your appearances.

.
MR. POCHODA:
For plaintiff, Dan Pochoda

oda for the
he ACLU
of Arizona.
awaiting admission, Your Honor.
OG
And on the phone, I believe,

e, is that
hat right, is for
12
MS. LAI:
That's right,
Honor.
ght, Your
ght
Yo
H
And I also wanted
to inform Your Honor that

t there's
there s a paralegal from the law firm
14
of Covington & Burling

phone.
ng
g on the
t
p
ph
15
Romanow.
16
line stays open

en for the duration of the call.
Her name is Julie
OF
She's on
phone
n the
t
hon just to make sure the conference
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
All right.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
IE
ND
S
18
TH
13
17
Tim Casey.
With
th
h me
m is my law partner, James Williams.
20
Tom Liddy from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
21
Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan is here.
FR
13:36:15
Thank you.
19
22
13:35:56
plaintiffs, Annie Lai and Andre Segura

Segura.
Segur
.
EF
11
BO
10
Assisting is Josh Bendor from the ACLU

ACLU,
A
, who's
Also is co-counsel
Also,
13:36:29
I would also like to point out in the gallery is the
2
23
county attorney, Bill Montgomery, who I just wanted to address
24
to the Court, I wanted to share with the Court Mr. Montgomery
25
is by law the appointing authority that can appoint and replace
13:36:49

counsel on cases in Maricopa County.

THE COURT:
2
3
Is that why you're here,
Mr. Montgomery?
MR. MONTGOMERY:
4
5
All right.
Yes, Your Honor.
.C
OM
I did not otherwise

erwise
wi
intend to appear.
13:37:01
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
I believe that last time we met I neglected

lected to
t inform
i
those persons who may be in the gallery, whether

members
of the
ether membe
m
public or members of the press, that pursuant

federal court
rsuant to
o f
BO
rule, we don't allow recordings of our proceedings.

proceed
procee
11
we don't allow you to record it on your cell

cel phone or anything
c
12
else.
EF
13
OG
10
I have modified that

hat rule.
rule
That means
To the extent that you
want to take notes on your laptop,

that's fine, as long as you
lapt
lapto
15
can do it unobtrusively.
siv y.
sive
16
proceedings you
ou will be removed and your device will be erased,
17
and so I just
people
to know that ahead of time so no one
u t want
w
pe
18
gets caught
aught
ught up in something that they don't expect.
TH
14
This afternoon, Mr. Casey, we're here both on your
20
application to withdraw as well as the matters that you've

applicatio
21
filed under seal pertaining to your arguments about redacting
22
the monitor's report pertaining to some of the investigations

th
FR
13:37:31
OF
But if you're detected recording the

Bu
B
IE
ND
S
19
13:37:17
2
23
the MCSO has undertaken.
24
argue that on behalf of the defendants before your withdrawal
25
so is that what you'd like us to take up first?
13:37:52
I don't know whether you intend to
13:38:19

MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, I intend to address with the
Court, obviously, in due course, whatever inquiries you have on
the motion to withdraw.
materials that I alerted the Court that would be reviewing,

I'm
g, I'
I
m
prepared to address that.
.C
OM
But in your order about additional
13:38:43
James Williams in my office is going to be

e addressing
addressin
6
7
your second paragraph, which is the redactions of the mon

monitor's
on
report.
also have in an advisory capacity, although

counsel of
ough not
no co
c
BO
And to the extent it gets particularly

we
larly
arly detailed,
detail
a
record, Christine Stutz, who also, as

s she
he did last time,
11
perhaps would be in a position to

o assist the
th Court.
OG
10
So I don't want to be presumpt

presumptuous, but it probably
pres
EF
12
would make some sense to go

o -- start
star
tar with that and perhaps end
14
with the motion to withdraw,

your preference.
thdraw,
thdraw
, whatever
wh
wha
TH
13
THE COURT:
T:
15
Here's
ere
e's what I intend to do.
I think to
the extent -- I think

to the extent your filing under seal
thin that
th
17
relates to the
generalities
of legal argument -- for example,
he
e genera
e
18
the scope
38-1101,
or any official documents privilege, or
ope
pe of 3
1
19
any
of legal
argument pertaining to the scope of those
y sort
so
l
20
statutes or privileges -- I think we need to and are obliged to
21
address it publicly.
addres
addre
13:39:15
IE
ND
OF
16
13:39:33
To the extent that you believe the application of any
FR
22
13:38:59
2
23
argument of redaction goes to any matter that at least so far
24
has been kept under seal, then I would propose that we postpone
25
the specificity of such an argument until we have handled all
13:39:53

the other matters and can proceed in a closed proceeding.

Do you have any objection to proceeding in that
2
3
manner?
MR. CASEY:
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. CASEY:
address can be in open court.
the lead on it, but he's alerting me that there

here is, as
a to
specifics between a connection and a specific

ecific investigation,
inve
nv
10
that he believes that that would need

done under seal.
ed
d to
o be do
d
13:40:16
Your Honor, the majority of what

hat we can
a
BO
Mr. Williams is going to

take
t t
OG
THE COURT:
11
That's fine.
.
going to do this argument?
13
MR. WILLIAMS:
14
THE COURT:
Williams, you're
So Mr.
Mr. W
Yes,
Yes
s, Your Honor.
H
TH
All right.
right
Here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to ask you

yo what
t I think are generalized questions.
16
If your answer
r gets into what you believe to be something that
17
you're asserting
to be under seal, then I'll allow you to
se ting
in needs
need
e
18
defer that
hat part
par and those parts of your argument until after
ND
S
I've
ve
e handled,
handled for example, other aspects of the motion to
20
as well as probably your application as well as

redact, a
redact,
21
to withdraw, and my questions to you pertaining to

Mr Casey's
Mr.
C
Ca
22
that application.
th
IE
19
FR
13:40:43
OF
15
2
23
13:40:32
EF
12
One minute, Your Honor.
.C
OM
13:41:01
Then we will close the courtroom and proceed
under seal.
24
Do you have any objections to that, Mr. Pochoda?
25
MR. POCHODA:
No.
13:41:18

THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Williams, since it's
basically your motion to redact, I'm going to let you go first,
and then we'll hear from --
.C
OM
Are you going to be doing the argument, Mr. Pochoda?

oda
a?
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
MR. WILLIAMS:
As an initial introduction, just to

the
o remind
rem
th Court,
13:41:27
Mr. Williams.
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor.
BO
Yes.
at issue is not the sealing of an entire

e judicial proceeding or
a transcript, as is the case with the
that Mr. Pochoda
he case th
tha
11
cited.
OG
10
Also not at issue is

sealing of an entire
s the forever
f
forev
EF
12
document to shield it from

public.
om the publ
ubl
Also not at issue is
14
the forever redaction of a document

to shield it -docum
cu
TH
13
THE COURT:
T:
Right.
Right
ht.
16
MR. WILLIAMS:
WILLIAM :
WILLIAMS
OF
15
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
18
13:41:47
13:41:59
-- from the public.
Right.
All of this is subject to being
opened up and it will be opened up at the appropriate time.

MR WILLIAMS:
MR.
19
That's correct.
And my point, too,
is they are initially simply reaction; it is not

Your Honor,
Hono
Honor
21
sealing of the entire document.

the se
th
s
20
THE COURT:
2
23
MR. WILLIAMS:
RI
22
13:42:10
That's true.
We tried to be very careful as we went
24
through to identify those matters that really did have some
25
pertinence to ongoing investigations.
13:42:20

THE COURT:
That's my understanding as well, but you
were here last time when I took pretty sharp exception to the
arguments made by Ms. Stutz as it pertains to 38-1101, were you

ou
not?
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
13:42:34
38-1101 doesn't have anything to do with

ith
litigation, does it?

MR. WILLIAMS:
8
9
Yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, whether -- I don

don't
n't believe
BO
.C
OM
it has to do with a litigation privilege.

e.
I believe
it does
beli
belie
have to do with the privilege, and that's

that
ha 's why we continued to
11
cite the Arizona state case that interprets

it that way.
interpre
Okay, but
ut let's
let' -- let's focus your
13
argument, and let me be specific

with you so you know where I'm
ecifi wi
14
coming from.
15
federal court at all.

al
all
16
policies behind
might not have application when you're
nd 38-1101
3838
-1101
1
17
trying to meet
compelling interest standard or the good
m et
t the co
18
cause standard
standard,
andard whichever standard is applicable, given the --
TH
I don't think 38
38-1101
has any application in a
8-1
That
hat does not mean that some of the
given
scope of the matter at issue.
ven the scop
MR. WILLIAMS:
M
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. WILLIAMS:
FR
IE
20
2
23
24
25
13:42:59
OF
ND
S
19
13:42:44
EF
THE COURT:
12
OG
10
Right.
All right?
13:43:20
Do you disagree with that?
I do not disagree with that, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
So to the extent that you're
asserting that 38-1101 would apply to keep the monitor's
13:43:27

report -- or to redact the monitors's report, it doesn't, does
it?
No, Your Honor.
I think the argument
.C
OM
MR. WILLIAMS:
was that in the absence of a controlling statute, as Your Honor

on
stated, the federal court should certainly at least look

ok to
t the
th
state law.
THE COURT:
And considerations of comity

ity and the
he --
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
Correct.
BO
-- and the considerations

rations of
o the reason
behind the state statute all can apply

ply reasons
reason that this Court
11
can evaluate in determining whether

her or
o not
no I think that the
12
good cause or the compelling interest

standard
is met, but the
intere
s
13
statute itself is not applicable.

plicable
icabl .
Your
I would agree with that as
ou Honor,
Ho
Hon
TH
MR. WILLIAMS:
:
to the Court.
I would
the Court, though, it still
wo d remind
wou
remin
emi
16
governs the defendants.

efendan .
efendants
OF
15
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
I completely understand that.
19
do is monitor
nitor your Internal Affairs investigations, you are
20
bound in your Internal Affairs investigations by whatever
21
privileges the statute gives it actually apply.

privil
privi
IE
ND
understand
that when one of the things that my monitor has to
tand
an tha
FR
13:44:04
And I
18
22
13:43:49
EF
OG
10
14
13:43:40
MR. WILLIAMS:
13:44:20
Yes, Your Honor.
2
23
THE COURT:
But now let's take a look at that.
24
38-1101 doesn't apply to -- 38-1101A, anyway, only
25
applies to trigger certain rights of an officer who's being
13:44:38

CV07-2513, Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., 11/20/14 10
investigated whether or not an official investigation has
begun, right?
I believe so, Your Honor.
I apologize,
e,
.C
OM
MR. WILLIAMS:
3
4
I don't have it in front of me, so if we're going to go word

ord
d
for word, that might be something that Ms. Stutz could help
el
with.
designed to cover investigations of identified officers

officers.
officer
.
think it's a little broader than that, but we

that
we've
ve argued
argue
g
and you've found to the contrary before.

.
BO
But I believe that's the case, that the statute

tute is
i
THE COURT:
And I will again,

you.
in,
in
, I promise
promi
rom
11
MR. WILLIAMS:
12
THE COURT:
OG
10
13:45:03
That's not
surprising, Your Honor.
ot surprisi
surpri
EF
38-1101 says
least -- and I may have
says,
, at l
an old version here, because

you know, they don't give us
ause
se I -- y
14
the update -- we can't

the
updated versions, but if an
t afford
affo
t
th
15
employer interviews
officer and the employer
ws a law
w enforcement
e
en
16
reasonably believes
lieves that the interview could result in
17
dismissal, demotion,
emotion
motion, or suspension, or if the law enforcement
18
officer
probation
officer reasonably believes the
r or
o prob
pro
t
13:45:19
IE
ND
S
OF
TH
13
19
investigation
vestigation could result in a dismissal, demotion, or
20
suspension, then it gives certain rights for the law

suspension
21
enforcement officer to request legal assistance -enforc

enfor
MR. WILLIAMS:
FR
22
13:44:50
2
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. WILLIAMS:
25
THE COURT:
13:45:36
Yes, Your Honor.
-- essentially, correct?
Yes, Your Honor.
And that applies totally independent of
13:45:45

whether or not you've begun an internal investigation or not.
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
I would agree with that, Your Honor.
All right.
But just because you've begun

n
.C
OM
an internal investigation doesn't mean that any question would

ul
qualify under that privilege.
last time, and I think to the extent that she still

l makes
make a
contrary argument, I think she's still wrong, that whe

in fact
when i
clear policies allow officers to do what they

hey
ey do
do, the
h mere --
there is no basis for suspension, demotion,

anything else
ion, or any
ion
an
13:46:17
The other statute I think

you
rely on that
nk that
th
y
yo
11
gives -- the other section of

38-1101, that gives
f the statute,
statu
s
13
rise to what you would call

protection if not a
all
l a particular
parti
14
privilege is a protection
ction
tio for
f
a particular law enforcement
15
officer's personnel
el file.
le.
TH
EF
12
MR. WILLIAMS:
WILLIAM :
WILLIAMS
OF
16
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
13:46:39
Yes, Your Honor.
And when there is an administrative
investigation,
igation
gation,
, certain materials during the course of that
ND
S
18
13:46:00
BO
involved, but we'll let that -- we'll

ll
l set
et that
tha aside.
OG
10
As I went through with Ms.

. Stutz
ut
ongoing
investigation, which, as Ms. Stutz and I, I think,
goin inves
going
20
agree on goes through the end of an appeal, if there is an
21
appeal, then you can't get certain information that you

appeal
appea
22
otherwise might be able to get out of a law enforcement

ot
13:46:53
FR
IE
19
2
23
24
25
officer's personnel file.

MR. WILLIAMS:
Correct?
I would agree that that's the language
of the statute, Your Honor.
I think it's perhaps not drafted
13:47:09

perfectly to -- to state that the -- that information is not to
be disclosed, period.
disclosing it would be by virtue of producing the employee's
personnel file.
All right.
.C
OM
THE COURT:
And I think that the primary means of
And so even though you

ou might
argue for a broader interpretation in the state court,

urt, doesn't
urt
does '
doesn
work in a federal court, right?
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
BO
I understand that, Your Honor,

yes.
Honor
o
All right.
And the
thing that I
e other thi
th
guess I would say is as a general rule,

are narrowly
ule
le,
, privileges
privi
privil
11
interpreted because they operate in derogat

derogation of the truth,
derog
12
right?
MR. WILLIAMS:
14
THE COURT:
that's true, Your Honor, yes.

I believe t
TH
All right.
right
And so are there any other
provisions of 38-1101
that
provide any other substantive
11
110
at p
16
protections in
settings?
n any other
o
OF
15
MR.
R LIDDY:
LI
LIDDY
:
17
19
subsection
L, then I don't think there are any other separate
bsection
section L
20
sections
sections.
ND
IE
21
FR
24
25
Provided it's in
about an
investigation is in subsection L.
n invest
inves
2
23
13:47:48
I believe the reference to information
18
22
13:47:34
EF
OG
10
13
13:47:23
THE COURT:
13:48:05
I think you're right, but I won't hold to
that.
th
MR. WILLIAMS:
Whatever section that is, I think that
provision also has some applicability.

THE COURT:
All right.
But it doesn't -- it talks
13:48:12

about a law enforcement officer's personnel file, right?

MR. WILLIAMS:
2
3
Again, Your Honor, I believe that the
language could be strictly construed to say that, yes.

THE COURT:
All right.
.C
OM
So to the extent that you

u want
wa
to argue that maybe there's stuff in the monitor's report

port
t that
at
I shouldn't let out because you're still conducting

g good faith
fait
ait
investigations, I appreciate that and I appreciate

iate its
validity.
BO
I also appreciate that that leaves

aves it up to me to
decide whether or not you are conducting

cting good
ood faith
11
investigation, and if in fact the

e material
materia that you are seeking
12
to redact would really make any materia

material difference in the
mat
13
investigation that you've

e identified.
identifie
Do you have any disagreement
with that?
dis gr
disagre
15
MR. WILLIAMS:
IA
IAM
TH
14
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
All right.
MR WILLIAMS:
MR.
ND
THE COURT:
T
20
13:49:00
Then I'm ready to move on from
you have anything you want to say?

Do yo
y
38-1101.
1.
19
think that's the central issue, Your

I th
t
OF
Honor.
17
18
13:48:46
EF
OG
10
16
13:48:27
No, Your Honor.
All right.
Then as it pertains to any
official documents privilege, that also requires a similar

offici
offic
22
balancing test, not unlike the compelling interest standard

ba
FR
IE
21
13:49:07
2
23
which governs the Ninth Circuit and federal courts.
24
Would you agree with that?
25
MR. WILLIAMS:
And I think we perhaps have some
13:49:21

agreement as to what the compelling interest standard governs,
but I would agree with you regardless the official documents
test there is a balancing standard.
address that as an even balancing; I've seen some courts
address that as a balancing slightly tipped in favor of

f
disclosure.
exactly which of those applies.
.C
OM
I appreciate that.
But
case, that
t in any
y c
BO
13:49:35
And I haven't seen the Ninth Circuit weigh in on
THE COURT:
I've seen some courts
balancing is going to require me to take

account
lots of
e into acco
cc
different things about whether or not
conducting the
ot you're
you e c
11
investigation competently in good

or not it's
od
d faith,
fai , whether
faith
wh
12
designed to obscure or reveal

accomplish
the purpose for
l or
o acco
ac
mp
13
which an Internal Affairs

division exists,
s investigation
investiga
14
correct?
TH
15
MR. WILLIAMS:
IA
IAM
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
one.
18
discuss?
s?
15:08:11
So I think we agree with that
Are there
privileges that you would like to
t ere
re other
oth
MR WILLIAMS:
MR.
19
would agree.
I wo
w
All right.
OF
17
13:49:47
EF
OG
10
I think the only other privilege issue,
is the -- the general common law privacy interest

Your Honor,
Hono
Honor
21
Armendariz with respect to his medical issues, and

of Deputy
De
Dep
22
for the purposes of this being an open hearing I'll leave it at

fo
2
23
that.
15:08:11
RI
20
24
25
But I think that's the only other separate issue.

THE COURT:
You have -- I appreciate that that -- that
does come into accounting, but do you have any authority that
15:08:11

would suggest that it isn't also a balancing test?
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
.C
OM
So when Deputy Armendariz has passed away

y
and there isn't any way we're going to investigate him because
cause
us
there's no purpose in it, and you didn't give me any authority,

authority
hority,
although there may be authority that suggests that his former

form
employer can invoke the privilege to prevent the

disclosure of
he disclosu
information, isn't that -- aren't those all factors

I have to
fact
take into account in determining whether

information
r or not
no the
t
th
11
BO
can or ought to be disclosed under the balancing

test?
balanci
balanc
MR. WILLIAMS:
OG
10
I think
thin in our search for support
13
supporting that position I couldn

couldn't
couldn'
't find any with a post -- a
14
postmortem privilege in that

ha respect.
re
res
TH
EF
ought to take into account.
However, I also
don't think that the idea that the
so don
do
statutory carve-out
veve
-out that a claim for invasion of privacy, that
17
tort claim as carved

carve out by statute doesn't foreclose it,
18
either,
, which is the only authority the plaintiffs had that
IE
ND
S
19
other
around.
her way aro
20
balancing the public's interest versus the interest of his
21
family at least in those being disclosed.

famil
22
think the Court can understand why we wouldn't want to

th
FR
15:08:11
OF
16
2
23
15:08:11
I think that those

os are factors you
12
15
15:08:11
So I believe it squarely does fall into

15:08:11
And certainly I
voluntarily disclose that information.
24
THE COURT:
Has his family come forth here?
25
MR. WILLIAMS:
I'm unaware of that, Your Honor, no.
15:08:11

THE COURT:
Okay.
Now, I suppose that, really, the
nub of what we're getting to in your argument is:
compelling interest standard apply or does the good faith test

t
apply?
with me?
Or is there something else that you wanted to address

ress
s
15:08:11
No, Your Honor.
I think addressing
ddressing
MR. WILLIAMS:
Does the
.C
OM
that issue and then whether that standard is met

obviously
et is obvio
the Court's determination.
reasons and the good cause standard is met

met.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. WILLIAMS:
BO
OG
sense to address that next.
think it makes
I thi
th
All right.
ahead.
Go ahead
ad.
Your Honor
every case that I've seen
Honor, eve
applies the compelling reasons

standard
to the sealing of an
easons
sons stan
tan
14
entire judicial record

of dispositive motions
d and the sealing
s
15
and documents attached

thereto.
ach d there
her
16
those in this case

case.
.
We don't have either one of
There
a case that we cited for you that said
h re
e was also
al
17
when you
ou
u have
ave tangentially related matters, and I understand
19
the
plaintiffs have a different argument as to how tangential
e plaintiff
20
relation is, but from our discussion there was no internal

the relati
21
affairs proceedings whatsoever -affair

affai
IE
ND
18
FR
15:08:11
OF
TH
13
22
15:08:11
EF
10
I think there are

compelling
re both
bo
c
com
THE COURT:
15:08:11
Let me ask about that for a second, and I
2
23
think that at least to the extent that we have unsealed
24
everything that we did in this courtroom in May, we've had some
25
discussion that is on the record and in the public domain about
15:08:11

what was found at Deputy Armendariz's home during the execution
of the search warrant or after his death, I don't remember
which it was.
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
.C
OM
But we've already discussed that, right?

Yes, Your Honor.
And so you're not going to make any sort

t
of assertion that the facts pertaining to the items

s found
foun
are under seal, are you?
10
that were found.
It's the next step after

ter that
tha as
a to how those
items got there, et cetera, that begins

gins to
t get
ge into -THE COURT:
11
OG
Not the facts pertaining

aining to the
th items
BO
MR. WILLIAMS:
All right.
13
significant number of persons

-- who had Latino
rsons
ons who were
w
14
surnames, right?
15
Armendariz's service,
could
ic
ice
uld be possibly members of the
16
plaintiff class
correct?
ss here
here, co
EF
recall, is a great number of identifications

of at least a
identi
identifica
OF
TH
And thus could

ul be -- because of Deputy
MR.
R WILLIAMS:
WILLIA
WILLIAMS
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
15:08:11
I believe so, Your Honor.
And we also had videotapes that
18
15:08:11
what we have, as I
But so wha
w
12
17
15:08:11
Deputy
took in his eyeglasses and videotapes from
puty Armendariz
Armend
rmend
20
that showed that he had a camera mounted on at

his eyeglasses
eyegla
21
least one of his patrol cars, and again the dates were not
22
certain, but seemed to go back for a number of years, these

ce
15:08:11
FR
IE
ND
19
2
23
recordings, is that correct?
24
MR. WILLIAMS:
25
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
And I think, and, you know, to deputy --
15:08:11

well, it wasn't just Chief Deputy Sheridan, but to his credit
he came and told me, and those who were with him, that they'd
only been able at that point in May to review a very few, but
they had reviewed a very few of those videos, and in some of

f
them Deputy Armendariz was engaging in behavior which I believe

believ
you labeled as problematic, correct?
I think that would be fair

fair, Your Honor,
yes.
THE COURT:
All right.
BO
In some
videos it also
e of the
th vi
v
appeared that at least once Deputy Armendariz's

Armendariz' supervisor was
Armendariz
11
present during the problematic behavior,

ehavi , and
ehavior
an again that was in
12
the few numbers that you had reviewed

to
review
t that point.
MR. WILLIAMS:
14
THE COURT:
Yes,
Yes
s, Your Honor.
H
TH
All right.
right
Now, you would acknowledge
15
that part of problem

lem I think
hin we had in that discussion was
16
plaintiffs had
MCSO for all videotapes or recordings of
d asked MCS
17
stops that occurred

during the relevant period to this lawsuit
ccurred
curred d
18
and they
ey
y have -- they have indicated since that time that that
19
would
for part of the periods that may or may not
uld
ld be at least
l
20
be covered by what Deputy Armendariz did.
FR
22
OF
15:08:11
ND
IE
21
MR. WILLIAMS:
15:08:11
I'll have to think through that
statement for a second, Your Honor, but I think that's true.

st
2
23
believe there was a discovery request that defined documents in
24
a way that would have included recordings.
25
15:08:11
EF
OG
10
13
15:08:11
MR. WILLIAMS:
.C
OM
THE COURT:
All right.
And I will tell you that it's
15:08:11

my recollection -- which is not always flawless, but you were
here, too; you can dispute it if you want -- that in
determining the scope of the supplemental injunction which I
entered in this action and which was entered after I'd given
ven
n
you both -- both of you parties a substantial opportunity

nity
y to
work things out, you weren't able to work everything

ng out but
bu
you worked a lot of stuff out, and then we had an almost
all-day hearing where I went through it all and asked

e questions
as to the matters that I was unsure on, and as

recall, I
a I r
.C
OM
BO
refused to enter a number of sections

ns
s of
f the
he disputed
d
11
injunctive relief based on the evidence

that was introduced at
viden
vidence
t
tha
12
trial, correct?
13
MR. WILLIAMS:
14
THE COURT:
Yes,
Yes
s, Your Honor.
H
TH
Now if
Now,
i in fact what is demonstrated by
what was found at Dep

Deputy
Armendariz's apartment and the
D
ty Arm
Ar
16
allegations made
it are true, then there might be a whole
ade about
abo
i
17
different scope
deprivation that the
s ope
pe of constitutional
co
18
plaintiff
iff
ff class
clas suffered here that was not disclosed to
ND
S
Your Honor, may I address Your Honor?
21
THE COURT:
No.
22
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, my under -- with all --
THE COURT:
Did you understand me to say yes,
IE
MR. CASEY:
M
FR
plaintiffs
to the lawsuit occurring, is that not correct?
aintiffs prior
pr
20
24
25
15:08:11
OF
15
2
23
15:08:11
EF
OG
10
19
15:08:11
15:08:11
I mean --
Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
No, Your Honor.
I apologize.
15:08:11

THE COURT:
I don't mean to be -- I don't mean to be
smart-alecky.
I do think we need to give Mr. Williams the
opportunity to make the argument since he's been designated.
.C
OM
And if, Mr. Williams, you would like to consult with

th
4
5
Mr. Casey to find out what he would like to say and if you
ou then
he
think he can say it better, I'll defer to Mr. Casey.

y.
right?
MR. CASEY:
MR. WILLIAMS:
Your Honor, I do think

hin Mr. Casey could
OG
10
BO
All
Al
I'll give you a minute.
address these issues better.
12
the May 15 hearing, and so to

we're talking about
o the extent
e
exten
13
those issues -THE COURT:
15
MR. WILLIAMS:
IA
IAM
enough.
Fair enough
enoug
Mr. Casey.
And the redactions are certainly my
OF
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
All right.
Mr. Casey.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
Your Honor, as I understand, your question
19
is whether or not I think we are getting -- is will there be
20
additional -- could there potentially be additional remedies
21
Court would order based on the findings?

that the
t
FR
22
15:08:11
issue, Your Honor.

onor.
onor
IE
ND
S
18
I was
out of town for
wa actually
actua
actuall
TH
14
17
15:08:11
EF
11
16
15:08:11
THE COURT:
Yes.
15:08:12
Additional remedies based on what --
2
23
I mean, I'm not sure that it's true, but at least there was
24
clear evidence of a lot of possible deprivation suffered,
25
maybe, by members of the plaintiff class that related to
15:08:12

evidence that plaintiffs arguably wouldn't have had prior to
the trial.
MR. CASEY:
Let's assume that that's accurate.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CASEY:
And because the -- the proverbial jury

ur is
.C
OM
still out because we don't know.
there are videotapes that clearly were called for by
plaintiffs' counsel in their discovery between

and
ween that date
da
the discovery cutoff date that exist; we're

e're still trying to get
BO
our hands around that.
OG
10
As I represented to you,
yo ,
you
15:08:12
But let's assume all that's

true.
at's
at
s true
ue.
11
15:08:12
The allegations in
this complaint were a Fourth Amendment

improper detention,
Amendm
13
lengthy detention; Fourteenth

Amendment on Equal Protection
eenth
nth Amend
14
Clause.
15
We have a theft, we have

extortion; I'm just making these
ve ext
ex
16
things up --
EF
12
15:08:12
OF
TH
So assuming all those t

things turn out to be horrible:
17
Sure.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
-- hypothetically.
18
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
THE COURT:
Sure.
MR. CASEY:
M
We have a theft of narcotics, we have a
ND
19
20
Sure.
theft of ID, we have a theft of stereo, whatever it is, I have
22
difficulty seeing how the complaint framed by the plaintiffs

di
FR
IE
21
15:08:12
2
23
24
25
under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment -THE COURT:

short and ask you:
Well, let me ask you, let me just cut you

During the period of discovery, if they
15:08:12

would have asked for these things, couldn't they have amended
their complaint?
Absolutely.
Other than specifically an
.C
OM
MR. CASEY:
3
4
individual plaintiff, I'm unaware of them being able to do

o a
class action for conversion or theft.
equitable remedy.
heard this, because I saw it being beyond Armendariz

ndariz redaction
reda
issue for the monitor's report, what I'm sharing

haring
aring with
t you, if
we assume --
Conversion's an
15:08:12
Well, I'll tell

l you
you,
, and maybe we'll get
OG
THE COURT:
10
BO
So I guess what I'm suggesting to you when

I
h
back to this, but when I'm looking

monitor's report, and
ing
ng at the
he m
12
I think Mr. Williams phrased it correct

correctly, I'm looking at
cor
13
whether or not the report

t itself
itsel is --
EF
11
15:08:12
What's the word,

ord, Mr.
ord
M . Williams?
Mr
W
Wi
15
-- collateral
-te
ter
to
o -
16
MR. WILLIAMS:
WILLIAM :
WILLIAMS
OF
TH
14
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
15:08:12
Tangentially related.
Tangentially related to the litigation.
It seems
two ways that it's not tangentially
ms to
o me there's
h
19
related
the litigation.
lated
ate to th
20
been discussing.
discu
21
part of
o the cure that I imposed based on the violations that I
22
did find.
di
The first is the item we've just
And the second is that the report itself is
15:08:12
FR
IE
ND
18
2
23
I imposed a monitor.
I required him to make reports
24
pertaining to the cures or lack of cures or lack of standards
25
that were being implemented to the Maricopa County Sheriff's
15:08:12

Office.
Both of those matters make it seem to me that this
matter is not tangentially related to the underlying litigation
and, hence, if I'm applying Ninth Circuit law, you must meet a
compelling interest standard to achieve the redaction.
Do you understand what I'm now saying?
MR. CASEY:
I do understand
it.
rstand it
t.
don't agree, however, because if we assume that

t all the
th
evidence is in that area that it would alert

t -- amend
n the
complaint, assume there's valid causes of action,

action we have to
operate, instead of on the hypothetical,
think we have to
ical,
ical
, I thi
th
11
operate on what the facts were here

allegations here
ere and the
t
12
and the remedies that you have.

ve.
ve
15:08:12
EF
OG
10
The primary concern

cern
rn that I see real quick, Your Honor,
13
is this.
And here I'm

to the brass tacks as I see it.
m getting t
15
If we disclose it,
we disclo
disclose
a playbook to people who are
, w
scl
16
being interviewed.
ewed.
ewed
15:08:12
OF
TH
14
17
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
I completely get that.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
Yeah.
18
THE COURT:
ND
19
And maybe we want to discuss that under
seal.
seal.
15:08:12
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
22
THE COURT:
To the extent that you have disclosed
IE
21
FR
BO
20
15:08:12
I understand, yes.
.C
OM
2
23
particular administrative investigations with specificity, I'm
24
glad to hear you.
25
instances you might be able to make -- you might be able to
But it seems to me that in individual

15:08:12

meet the compelling test.

But there's one other aspect to it as I -- as I relate
that, and, you know, if you want me to discuss this with you at
sidebar, and I don't know if you want to turn this back over
ver
r to
Mr. Williams, but is it not true that subsequently what

t I
ordered you to do, what I ordered your client to do,

o, and what
h
actually happened, is also in the public domain,

n, is it not?
no
.C
OM
15:08:12
MR. CASEY:
Talking about the investigations?

estigations
stigation
THE COURT:
Yes.
BO
I'm not talking

ing about the
t
investigations in general; I'm talking

what happened on
ing about w
11
May 14th after I put the original

seal.
al
l thing under
und
u
OG
10
MR. CASEY:
It is in
domain.
n the public
p
publi
13
THE COURT:
All right
right.
ight.
.
EF
12
15:08:12
So I also have a concern, and
with all due respect to Chief

Deputy
Sheridan, who is here, he
hi
D
De
15
may well -- and there

he
here
may
y be
b a basis on which he can assert his
16
good faith, but

ut ther
there is also certainly a basis, based on the
17
actions that
happened, and I can't tell what happened yet
a happened
happen
18
because
e there hasn't been any specific clarity, but I can tell
19
you,
if I misstate something you are here, you tell me I'm
u, and
a
20
put everybody in this courtroom under seal.

wrong, I p
wrong,
21
nobody discuss this with anybody outside this courtroom and we

nobod
22
are going to quietly now go and get from each officer who has
ar
2
23
recorded material, we're going to just quietly get that
24
recorded material so nobody knows and is pre-warned that we're
25
now collecting these recordings that have never been cataloged,
15:08:12
OF
TH
14
15:08:12
RI
I said
15:08:12

or except by the MCSO.
Am I right about that?
MR. CASEY:
You're accurate.
THE COURT:
All right.
It's a matter of record.
So I also said that the plan
.C
OM
had to be approved by my monitor and my monitor would go meet

et
with the MCSO folks at 2 o'clock that very afternoon about

bout
ut two
hours later and you would get an approved plan.
the time that you left this courtroom and you began meeting
meeti
with my monitor two hours later -- when I say

"you"
ay "
y " I don't
you
mean you, but I mean your client, Chief Trombi,

Trombi or
o Captain
BO
And
nd in between
betwe
t
Trombi, or --
15:08:12
OG
10
MR. CASEY:
Chief.
12
THE COURT:
-- whatever
rank was at that time, was
ever his
hi ra
EF
11
instructed to announce by
e-mail
to all the commanders
y that e-ma
ma
14
under his command -- which was,

was I counted them once; it's a
15
great number -- were

er advised
ere
dvised
ise that we were going to now collect
16
all of these recordings

recordings, and one of those commanders happened
recordi
17
to be one o
of the
that was present when
th commanders
comm
o
18
Deputy Armendariz
engaged in what was called problematic
Armenda
ND
S
19
behavior,
isn't that correct?
havior
avi , isn
20
MR. CASEY:
M
I can't avow to that last part.
know that.
t
22
assumption is that is accurate but I can't avow to it.

as
FR
IE
21
24
25
15:08:12
OF
TH
13
2
23
15:08:12
I don't
15:08:12
But as to whether that supervisor was present, my
Otherwise, everything you say is accurate.

THE COURT:
All right.
And so now I'm concerned that
in fact, the administrative investigative process is being
15:08:12

subverted by the MCSO rather than promoting the truth.
have to take that into account in doing my weighing, and that
certainly isn't a matter that is tangential to this litigation

n
or to my order, is it?
MR. CASEY:
And I
.C
OM
No, sir.
But I have trouble understanding

erstanding
tandin
how the disclosure of certain information in the monitor's

onitor's
onitor
report promotes your interest in making sure there's

here'
here
's integrity
inte
in the process that --
BO
THE COURT:
Well, and that clearly

arly is the
th case.
is very much such an interest.
But I have to
Bu
11
balance that against the public's

s right
rig
t know and I have to
to
12
balance that against any concern

cer I have that the investigation
cern
13
is not being competently administer

administered
by the MCSO, don't I?
dminister
MR. CASEY:
15:08:12
EF
OG
There
is.
re
e is
s.
There
10
Honor, maybe I'm missing it because I

Your Honor
You
TH
14
15:08:12
hear what you said

about
d a
ut the
th interest.
What we're talking
16
about is a public
disclosure, and if the -- if the interest is
blic disclo
di
17
making sure
in that process, the public
e there's
there
he 's
s integrity
i
18
disclosure
sure
ur of what I call the playbook, I'm having trouble
15:08:12
ND
S
OF
15
understanding
derstanding how that public disclosure -- I'm not talking
20
Court; to the monitor; to the plaintiffs -- how

about to the
t
21
the interest in having a good faith process with

that promotes
p
22
integrity because -in
15:08:12
FR
IE
19
2
23
THE COURT:
Well, I see your point, but I will tell
24
you that to the extent I'm concerned that the MCSO is not
25
implementing a good faith process, then perhaps the only remedy
15:08:12

is a public disclosure, is it not?

MR. CASEY:
2
is.
become.
I'm not an expert like Christine Stutz or James has

But let me tell you -THE COURT:
5
6
And let me with you what the concern
Well, if we're back to where Mr. Williams

lliams
ought to be arguing, let's get him up here.

MR. CASEY:
15:08:12
Well, I'm not sure it is yet,

yet, but,
but Your
Y
Honor, the concern I have is another thing.
cause is:
Compelling
or good
Compell
Compellin
BO
What do we do under state law

of that
w at the
th end
e
en
investigation?
If we release the playbook

layboo -laybook
-
15:08:12
OG
10
.C
OM
No.
THE COURT:
Well, I'll tell you

-u what
wh
12
MR. CASEY:
I'm sorry.
ry.
ry
13
THE COURT:
I'll
l tell you
ou what I've got.
14
MR. CASEY:
sir.
Yes sir
Yes,
s
.
15
THE COURT:
T:
I've
thought about this quite a bit.
've
e th
t
TH
EF
11
And
in my order today
I've
an order ready to go and I'm going
oday I
've got
g
17
to wait and
that you say or anything that the
d see
ee if anything
an
18
plaintiff
my order.
iff
ff says changes
h
19
go which
think will set forth the procedure by which we are
whi
I th
20
in this matter, and I have tried to balance

going to proceed
p
21
right and the obligation that MCSO has to be faithful to

the r
ri
22
the state statute in its investigations with my obligation to

th
But I have an order ready to
15:08:12
FR
IE
ND
OF
16
15:08:12
2
23
be sure that that process is not abused.
And I propose in my
24
order, at least as it now stands, my draft order, that if
25
you -- that we're going to proceed under that protocol for the
15:08:12

time being, but I set a hearing, I believe it's December 4th,
in which you'll be free to come and address concerns we have
with proceeding under that protocol.
believe we need to proceed and proceed with some diligence

e and
an
for reasons that you can understand.
it's, you know, there's an emergency that you need to raise

raise,
you'll have the protocol set out in front of you.

ou.
ou
.
writing and you can address that.
.C
OM
in
It' i
It's
Your Honor, the only

ly point
poin I was making,
in the protocol I would -- this is what

wha I was
as thinking, Your
11
Honor.
12
is still allowed to exercise discipline

if it's violated
discip
13
Rule 38 even by court order?

der
r?
14
reveals something --
OG
10
EF
TH
For example,
if our investigation
e
Well,
let me just be clear.
Well
l, l
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Yes, sir.
Yes
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
To the extent -- in my protocol I make a
17
distinction
three things.
ction
tion between
be
MR CASEY:
MR.
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
T
MCSO's initiated administrative
ND
19
20
investigations.
invest
inves
22
court under seal the identified administrative investigations

co
IE
21
FR
15:08:12
OF
THE COURT:
T:
15:08:12
One of the reasons why I made you file in
2
23
and their targets is I want a clear record of what you are
24
investigating and what you're not investigating.
25
15:08:12
Is there a mechanism by which under

state law my client
nd
15
18
15:08:12
And if you feel like

ke
BO
MR. CASEY:
But in the meantime, I
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
15:08:12

THE COURT:
We now have that in court.
Okay?
By
which it can be evaluated by me and eventually by the whole
world.
protocol that as long as the monitor, in his evaluation, is
convinced that you are proceeding in good faith and with

th
diligence and you're meeting adequate professional standards,

standard
standards
neither he nor this Court will conduct a separate

ate investigation
investi
but will allow you to proceed under his observation

and
ervat
ervation
an
evaluation.
10
applicable.
.C
OM
If you commence that investigation, I propose in my
BO
OG
And then all rights pursuant

state law are
nt to the s
abused, you are not proceeding

faith, or you're
ng in good
g
13
otherwise inadequate, then

immediately notify you that
en he can i
im
14
he believes that's the

e case,
case
se,
, and
an if he wants to undertake his
15
own independent investigation,

he comes to me.
nv
nves
igatio
ati
TH
EF
12
MR. CASEY
CASEY:
:
15:08:12
What was the last word you said,

Wha
OF
16
"inadequate"?
te
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
18
20
"Independent."
MR CASEY:
MR.
Independent.
THE COURT:
T
He comes to me and I either authorize it
ND
19
I see.
Thank you.
or I don't.
d
22
you have gathered in your own administrative investigation or I

yo
IE
21
FR
15:08:12
If, however, he determines

nes that
t the
th process is being
11
17
15:08:12
15:08:12
And I either authorize him to use material that
2
23
don't.
And we can take up those questions in a very then
24
factually precise manner relating to an individual
25
investigation.
15:08:12

But I also set forth in that protocol, and you'll see
1
2
this, too, the fact that the monitor, under the order, has an
independent right to undertake his own investigations.
if he believes that you are not investigating matters that

t
should be investigated, can undertake his investigation

on
independently.
.C
OM
And he,
e,
15:08:12
I've sealed off -- I've made provisions

ns to seal off
any members of his team that are assisting your internal

intern
e
investigators or evaluating it, any information

that
ormatio th
ormation
t
BO
independent investigation might undertake

absent other
ertake
rtake abse
abs
11
compliance with the order, but if

doing
an internal
f he's
he
do
doin
12
investigation, he is not the employer

of the investigating
employ
o
13
officer and there is no state

privilege that is then
ate privi
14
applicable.
15:08:12
TH
EF
OG
10
Further, I have
ave the
th right to enforce compliance with
15
my own orders and to make

mak inquiries into that, and I fully
17
intend if I find
in it's
it
t's appropriate to exercise that right.
18
if I need
eed
d to
to,
, and
d I think it's my intention at this point to
19
bring
and to put them on the stand under oath and
ing in officers
offi
20
ask them questions, I will do that.
And
ND
OF
16
IE
21
FR
22
15:08:12
15:08:12
I don't, by doing that, intend to waive any of their
rights under the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution, Garrity,

ri
2
23
any other state privilege; they can assert those rights fully
24
and completely.
25
authority to investigate the MCSO's compliance with my own
But I have the right and the inherent

15:08:12

orders, and so I have independent authority, I have independent
authority I can delegate to my monitor to do that.
independent authority under the order, but he also has the
obligation to monitor your own initiation of Internal Affairs'

airs
rs'
investigation.
.C
OM
It's somewhat detailed.

detail .
detailed
15:08:12
So I've set it all forth.
He has
Take a look at it.

MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Or maybe you won't be taking a look at it,
BO
but MCSO, your client, can be taking

g a look at
a it and they
11
can -- I'll make provision on the

what you have to
e 4th
4th to hear
he
12
say.
13
make, that to the extent that

is investigating
hat the MCSO
M
14
something in good faith,

have to comply with the state
th, they h
th
ha
15
privilege law.
16
to a personnel
l file and to questions asked to officers; that's
17
all 38-1101
1 does.
does
oe .
OG
10
TH
EF
But that is my balancing

obvious
point that you
ng of the
t
o
I don't have anything else, Your Honor, to
mention,
ntion
tio , and I don't think it's probably productive for
20
to come up any more.

Mr. Williams
Mr.
Willia
ND
19
IE
FR
22
THE COURT:
All right.
We'll await your order.
15:08:12
Are we ready, then,
Mr. Pochoda, to address anything that I've just said?

Mr
2
23
All right, Mr. Pochoda.
24
MR. POCHODA:
25
15:08:12
OF
But
state privilege law only applies
ut again,
gain
n, the
t
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
18
21
15:08:12
Go ahead.
Thank you, Judge.
and then I'm available for questions.
Just a few comments
We appreciate the
15:08:12

Court's thoroughness in looking into the contours of the state
law.
month stating that clearly and accurately, that in this court
it is the federal law that will control.
some reason because it's not fully defined do we look to the

t
state law.
the defendants go back and basically start off by staying state
law is what is controlling here and we disagree

agree
gree with
h that.
t
they provide only one case to this Court,

t, it's
it'
it
's in Exhibit B of
.C
OM
We still agree with this Court's order of the 4th of this
And only if there's

re's
s
And indeed, the only -- in its present submission,

submission
BO
And
their present submission, which not only is th

the case concerning
t
11
the scope of --
13
Yes, the
from the superior
e minute
minut entry
en
court.
MR. POCHODA:
15
THE COURT:
T:
16
MR. POCHODA
POCHODA:
me?
Excuse m
Excu
TH
14
Is
s that
tha the minute entry --
OF
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
15:08:12
Yes.
Y
-- from superior court?
MR.
MR
R. POCHODA:
P H
18
Yes, it is.
It sort of "doubles" state
law,
Judge.
w, if
i you will,
w
20
definition of a public record under the state public record

the defini
21
law,
law
la
, so
s it's little, if any, relevancy to anything that's going
22
on in this court.
IE
ND
19
FR
15:08:12
EF
THE COURT:
OG
10
12
15:08:12
It's Section 38 and Section 9.
It's
15:08:12
There has been no showing that the federal
2
23
law is not adequate here and should presumptively control as
24
this Court has already ordered, and I don't believe defendants
25
seek to address -- have addressed that at all in their present
15:08:12

1
2
submission.
A couple of other just observations.
Obviously, the
need for public disclosure, the importance and the reason why
it requires a compelling or even a good faith reason to
overcome is not because -- and the disclosure itself may help
the investigation, although in fact I think it's been

shown
een sh
show
n
many times that the absence of transparency has

s in fact
fac
fostered improper actions by public officials

ls and abusive
abus
ab
actions, whether it's in the sheriff's department,

department a mayor's
.C
OM
BO
office, or prison system, so I think

k it would foster but that's
11
certainly not the test.
OG
10
The issue is whether

r there
there's a compelling reason to
overcome the presumption of
f public disclosure and the
14
importance of public disclosure of court proceedings and the
15
public's right to know

and
such information.
k
kn
nd access
a
16
we find -- and
we'll
discuss some of this later on, as the
d we
we'
'll dis
17
Court said -- there i

is absolutely nothing to balance that
18
compelling
good faith reason against: no articulable facts
ling
ng or g
And here
IE
ND
S
19
showing
significant harm, prejudice, or divulging
owin any s
owing
20
confidential information here in defendants' submission.

confidenti
21
we can
ca go through that.
FR
15:08:13
OF
TH
13
22
15:08:13
EF
12
15:08:13
And
15:08:13
There are, as this Court, again, ordered on the 4th,
2
23
the -- it requires both that legal showing and the factual
24
showing of specific articulable facts, and as the Court stated
25
on the 4th and remains equally as relevant to the present, a
15:08:13

redacted document, there is no such showing.
There are some
generalized assertions, but nowhere near what is required to
balance whether their harm, alleged harm, is sufficient to
overcome the presumption of disclosure.
.C
OM
And I would just say, finally, in terms of some

me of the
th
comments made before, that it's clear to plaintiffs

s that
defendants cannot have it both ways.
the reasons that we're here is because of the

of
he failures
failur
defendants to meet their obligations during

ring this litigation,
l
BO
As the Court
ourt pointed
pointe out,
the failures to provide the requested

to assess
ed information
informat
nforma
11
whether such information existed in the

sheriff's agency,
t
s
she
12
including all the personnel in that age

agency as a lawyer is
13
required to do, as the agency

required to do.
gency
ncy is
i re
14
to turn over requested

information that was clearly relevant
ed
d informati
informat
15
not only to deprivation

suffered by plaintiffs -- and, of
va
vati
n suff
suf
16
course, this is a class

of persons who are stopped in vehicles
cl
17
and all of this

to do with stops in vehicles -- even if
his
is had
d t
18
some of
and Mr. Casey may well be citing some
f the information,
in
19
that
lead to other types of wrongs than aren't part of
at
t would le
20
this case that has no relevancy as to whether any of it was a
21
part of
o this case, and indeed even as to, for example, the
22
failures of defendants to properly monitor their people, to

fa
OG
10
15:08:13
The failure
15:08:13
15:08:13
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH
EF
15:08:13
2
23
take action when there are sufficient complaints against a
24
particular officer, that clearly would have been another factor
25
that would have been revealed had we had this information, and
15:08:13

those failures inevitably lead to and led to the deprivations
that the plaintiffs suffered in this case.
discussion.
If you have any specific questions, I'm available.

lable
bl .
THE COURT:
MR. POCHODA:
materials in response to this.
your motion.
Thank you, Mr. Pochoda.

Pochoda
ochoda.
Which were also placed under

upon
unde seal
e
So again, at some point they

hey wil
will be
b -- at some
appropriate point they will come out

t of seal
seal,
, but not right
11
now.
OG
10
Did you have rebuttal,

Casey?
al, Mr
al
Mr. Cas
13
MR. CASEY:
Yes,
, Your Honor.
Hono
ono
14
THE COURT:
Okay
Okay.
15
MR. CASEY:
Y:
It's
actually, after talking to
t's
s ac
a
15:08:13
TH
EF
12
15:08:13
co-counsel, Your
-our Honor
Hon
OF
16
15:08:13
We would also rest on our written

ritten
BO
THE COURT:
I don't have any.
.C
OM
Those are just some comments I had on the prior
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
17
Let me ask, I'm sort of jumping ahead, but
is Mr. Liddy go
going to be lead counsel if I allow your
g
19
withdrawal?
thdrawal
hdrawal?
?
ND
18
MR. CASEY:
M
20
I can't speak for that because it's a
decision, my understanding, between Mr. -- really, Mr. Liddy's

decisi
decis
22
employer, the elected county attorney, Mr. Montgomery.

em
FR
IE
21
15:08:13
2
23
THE COURT:
I do take it there isn't going to be any
24
down time.
I'm going to deal with Mr. Liddy if that's all
25
that's appointed, and I don't mean to suggest any offense,
15:08:13

Mr. Liddy; we've dealt with each other for many years now.
MR. LIDDY:
None taken, Your Honor.
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, and I say this with great
.C
OM
respect, because I don't want it taken any way, but is it not,

not
ot,
perhaps, premature, without any finding from the Court,

, to have
av
what I've understood you to relay as an order coming

ng out of
f
simple redact -- I argue simple redactions of sections of the
monitor's report that seems now all the sudden

-den - and
n again,
maybe I'm not understanding exactly what

but it
t you've
you'
you
've
v said,
s
sa
BO
seems to me that what you're doing is

s opening up the
11
opportunity for the monitor to take

ake over investigations.
in
13
has that authority.
14
order.
Oh, you bet I

I'm
that, but he already
' doing
'm
do
He has
in the initial
s that
tha authority
au
MR. CASEY:
Y:
Okay.
kay
y.
16
THE COURT:
COURT:
And --
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
Just for clarification, do I understand it
15:08:13
OF
15
17
that my
y client is still responsible for the investigations
19
until
til
il there
ere is
i some determination by your monitor and this
20
Court that the monitor needs to either do a parallel or take
21
over?
over?
IE
ND
18
FR
15:08:13
EF
THE COURT:
TH
12
OG
10
22
15:08:13
THE COURT:
15:08:13
Well, that is partly correct, but as you
2
23
will see in the order, I am also pointing out that wholly in --
24
that if in fact you have an investigative order in place and
25
the monitor believes that you are adequately pursuing it, the
15:08:13

monitor has no authority to initiate an independent
investigation.
.C
OM
If you have an investigation already in place and the

e
3
4
monitor believes that you are not pursuing it either adequately

uately
te
or in good faith, then the monitor has the authority to

to
o come
co
t
me after having notified you and say:
pursuing it in good faith.
I don't believe
they're
ieve they'r
they
I want to take it over.

over
I will then decide whether or not you're

it
you'
you
're
r pursuing
pu
purs
BO
8
9
in good faith or whether or not I will allow the m

monitor to
take it over, and if I will allow him
im
m to
o take
ake it over, I then
11
decide whether or not I will allow

ow him
hi in any independent
12
investigation to use information

has been uncovered in
tion that
th
h
13
your administrative process.

ess
s.
15:08:13
EF
OG
10
However, that
from the monitor's
t is
i separate
separ
separa
15
independent authority,
ri
rity
which
hic exists both under the order and by
16
my delegation to him of my authority to see that my orders are
17
enforced, to
-- to begin his own independent
t indicate
indica
18
investigations.
igations
gations
15:08:13
OF
TH
14
ND
S
And we will clearly have on file, according to
my order
order,
what you are investigating and what you are not, and
ord
, wha
20
he doesn't
doesn'
doesn
't have to, nor do I, take and offer to you matters
21
aren't investigating that I believe or that he

that you
y
22
believes are relevant to this investigation.

be
IE
19
FR
15:08:13
15:08:13
He is free to
2
23
begin his own investigation of things you are not
24
investigating, topics you're not investigating or subjects
25
you're not investigating, and he need not offer it to you
15:08:13

first.
this matter, but there is ample evidence in the record, and I'm
citing some of it in my background, to demonstrate that there
is reason to believe whether or not, and there is also,
perhaps, reason not to believe, but there is reason to believe

elieve
that at least some people at the MCSO are abusing and misusing
misusin
this process.
BO
you and allow them, if you aren't already

investigating them in
dy investig
investi
good faith, and allow them to be misused.
sused
used.
.
11
not misuse the interim period, I've

sent to him a
v already
ve
alrea
12
number of items that I think need to

t be investigated and that
13
on which he will begin investigation.

nvestigatio
estigatio
14
whether or not you now

subsequently notice up those
ow
w subsequen
subseque
15
investigations unless
determines that you're pursuing it in
le
les
he det
de
16
good faith and

no reason for him to independently
d there's
there
n
17
pursue it a
and
I'm
convinced by that.
d I
'm con
c
EF
TH
And it won't matter
15:08:13
Your Honor, I guess at this point I would
ND
like
to preserve our ability to make objections.
ke
e -- I'm
I'm going
I'
g
THE COURT:
T
20
in the
th order.
22
It's December 4th.

It
IE
21
Well, you certainly have it and I put it
15:08:13
I welcome your comment and I've set a hearing.
2
23
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
24
THE COURT:
You can set out all day, because I may
25
15:08:13
OF
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
18
FR
And just so you will

An
OG
10
19
15:08:13
So I'm not going to require him to clear

things with
clea thin
th
8
9
Because there is ample -- again, I'm not prejudging
.C
OM
also be using it to conduct my own investigations, and I say
15:08:13

2
3
4
that in the order, too.

MR. CASEY:
Well, Your Honor, what I would ask for is
if there will be an investigation -THE COURT:
.C
OM
If there will be an investigation, I will

il
give you timely notice of who I require to be here.
I will
i
also give them notice that they have the right to counsel
counse that
t
tha
will be independent of you and the MCSO, because

doesn't
se it doesn
seem to me that in many of those cases your interests

interest will be
coterminous with theirs, and that if they

counsel,
ey can't
can'
can
't afford
a
af
BO
they can apply to this Court for such

for the
ch
h appointment
appoint
appointm
11
limited purpose of the investigation.

ation
tion.
The investigations,
is the Court prepared
estigat
estigations
to share where in the Court's

urt
t's eyes it's civil or criminal in
14
nature, or both?
TH
13
15
THE COURT:
T:
Well,
Well
l, I mean, that is one of the
interesting things
at.
hings I'm
I m looking
I'
l
17
I have, although
lt ough
ug I'm
I'
'm going to listen to plaintiffs on this
18
point, is
to hold the MCSO in contempt for its
s the authority
t
IE
ND
S
OF
16
20
contempt.
criminal c
21
difference, and sometimes it's pretty blurry, and it may be

the di
th
d
22
that matters are appropriate subjects both of criminal and

th
FR
violation
olation
lation of my orders.
24
25
15:08:13
The only authority I think
19
2
23
15:08:13
EF
MR. CASEY:
OG
10
12
15:08:13
There is civil contempt and there is
And I'm trying to look and understand now
15:08:13
civil contempt.
So I don't want to -- I mean, I don't really -- I
don't want to infringe anybody's rights.
That's why I've put
15:08:13

in the order that my investigations or the monitor's
investigations, everybody has all the rights they have and I
want to make sure that everybody feels free to exercise them.

MR. CASEY:
.C
OM
Your Honor, let me put on the record,

,
respectfully, an objection to holding any evidentiary or
investigatory questioning at December 4th.
that it is.
Today is the date

a
THE COURT:
Well --
MR. CASEY:
We have a week -- may I at least

-- I
l
le
OG
just -- I'm sorry, Your Honor.
BO
10
15:08:13
THE COURT:
You may finish.

ish.
ish
.
12
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor,
nor, a week from today is the
nor
EF
11
15:08:13
Thanksgiving holiday.
Most
businesses, including the MCSO,
ost
t busines
14
people are taking vacations.

ations.
ations
15
that the Court is dis

discussing
d
ussing
sin for December 4, I believe it is
16
insufficient time under

the due process, for individual
un
17
deputies that
may or may not identify to secure counsel,
h t you m
ma
18
prepare,
counsel and attend this hearing on the 4th.
e, and
nd c
If
I in fact it is the magnitude
15:08:13
OF
TH
13
seem to me, respectfully, that the things

It would
w
ND
19
identified in terms of protocol are perfectly

that you have
h
21
timely on the 4th, but an investigation in which the Court or

timel
22
your agent questions MCSO employees does not allow them

yo
15:08:13
FR
IE
20
2
23
sufficient time under due process and other considerations to
24
prepare.
25
I just wanted to make my record.

THE COURT:
Today is the 19th of November.
15:08:13

MR. CASEY:
Yes, Your Honor, and a week from now is
Thanksgiving, and we know the time at this time of year is very
difficult.
THE COURT:
4
5
.C
OM
Well, thank you for your objection.
You've placed it on the record.
15:08:13
MR. CASEY:
MR. LIDDY:
Your Honor, for the record,

d, it
it's
's the
he 20th
of November.
THE COURT:
Oh.
BO
Well, thank you

ou for the
he corrections.
What did I say it was?
11
THE CLERK:
The 19th.
12
MR. LIDDY:
The 19th.
h.
13
THE COURT:
I apologize.
pologize
logiz .
14
As I've said,
, I'll
I ll give
iv timely notice to everybody to
TH
20th of November.
obtain counsel, and

nd if they
hey need counsel and can't afford it,
16
then I'll appoint

counsel and I will make sure that counsel are
oint counse
co
17
fully apprised
that I think may impinge on the
ri ed
d of anything
a
any
18
rights,
rights of people I'm going to question.
, the individual
in
19
But
you're,
t yo
you
're
re, of
o course, free to make the objection whenever you
20
want to and
an to repeat it.
15:08:13
ND
OF
15
15:08:13
But I would also point out, Mr. Casey, that it seems
22
to me that in this case I have given your client opportunity
FR
IE
21
15:08:13
EF
OG
10
2
23
after opportunity after opportunity and that opportunity has
24
been not always subverted.
25
record that when I attended the training that was done to
I would like to again state on the

15:08:13

individual deputies I was impressed by its quality.

So there have been some good things that your client
has done, at least as far as I have observed.
to repeat for you opportunity after opportunity after
opportunity where your client has either violated the law,

law
w,
violated my express orders, and at least apparently,

y, I'm
I'm not
o
saying they have, but they've apparently subverted

rted my -- or the
investigation that I've ordered for their own

wn potential
potentia
potent
benefit, and to keep matters under -- and

the
nd maybe
mayb abused
a
ab
BO
15:08:13
process; maybe they're not.
15:08:13
OG
10
But I don't need

ed
.C
OM
But I think it was pretty

tty
ty clear at the last hearing I
11
am trying and I will continue

e to
t try
tr to give your client the
13
respect that he is due as

elected by the
s a representative
represe
14
people of Maricopa County.

ounty
unt .
15
sure that my own orders

or
ord
s and that the Constitution of the United
16
States are enforced,

even by the sheriff of Maricopa County.
forced,
forced
, eve
EF
12
TH
OF
ND
S
having given yo
you many opportunities, your client many
y
opportunities,
portunities I am not going to be tolerant any more.
20
proceed with all dispatch.

going to p
21
will do
d it.
22
going to do if you do it in good faith.

go
FR
IE
19
2
23
15:08:13
And
fulfill that obligation and I will, after
n I will
l f
17
18
But
ut I have an obligation to make
We are
My monitor will do it.
15:08:13
I will give you the opportunity to do what you're

But if you don't, I am
not any more giving you any second chances.
24
Do you understand my position on this point?
25
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, for the record, I understand
15:08:13

your position.
I make objection to some of the
characterizations, but I do understand your position.

THE COURT:
Are we ready now to take up
your application to withdraw?
MR. CASEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
15:08:13
You know, I really

me
y -- let
l
All right.
.C
OM
just say, and I don't know if we can net this out

let me
out,
, but le
just say I don't -- in light of your clarifications,

icati
ications
, I realize
that plaintiffs have some legitimate objections

you
jection because
jections
b
be
BO
have been valuable to the process in

n terms
term of the cooperation,
11
the training I've mentioned, and some other

things, as has
th
12
Mr. Williams, as has Mr. Liddy.

dy.
dy
13
least on the training, and

that well, and
nd you've
you
you'
've
e implemented
i
im
14
your continued participation

cipation
ipation is valuable to them.
15
of the basis that you

have
clarified for your withdrawal, I
y
ve c
16
really don't think there's

any way I can compel you and keep
t
there
17
you in this
s lawsuit.
lawsuit
awsuit.
But in light
determination.
termination
ermination
20
investigations, just let me share with you a couple of things I

investigat
21
think I can ask you today and a couple of things that I may
22
have to contemplate asking you in the future and bringing you

ha
FR
15:08:13
OF
TH
EF
You
have cooperated and -- at
Yo ha
19
But in light of my determination to pursue
2
23
back in here so you are aware and you have the full opportunity
24
to consider and brief these issues.
25
15:08:13
of course, hear Mr. Pochoda before making that

I will,
wil
IE
ND
S
18
OG
10
First, I think I can ask you today, you indicated
15:08:13
15:08:13

after the last hearing that additional materials were found.
don't think I need to characterize them any further.
want to -- well, I'll characterize them a little bit further,
but I want to preserve your opportunity and my opportunity

y to
make sure that these materials are fully investigated.
.C
OM
I don't
And let me just say that as I've said before,

ore, I
ore
appreciate your candor to this Court, your vigorous

orous
representation of your client, and I'm not trying

tryin to
o cast any
aspersions on you, Mr. Liddy, or plaintiffs'

counsel,
iffs'
iffs
' couns
coun
BO
certainly.
But you fully -- you, I think

think, in the interest of
11
full disclosure, indicated that after the

last hearing
he l
12
additional materials were found

may be relevant to this
und that
tha ma
13
lawsuit.
14
you or Mr. Williams would

expertise to know, whether
oul have the
ould
t
15
or not any of those

-- you indicated that some of
se materials
terial
ria
16
them may have been copies

of materials that were intended to be
c
copie
17
disclosed t
to the
in the underlying action.
th plaintiffs
plai
l
the
e materials that have been found since the last hearing, all
20
materials -- were any of those materials provided to the

of the mat
21
plaintiffs in this case?

plaint
plain
22
MR. CASEY:
Some.
FR
IE
ND
19
THE COURT:
Which ones were provided to the
25
15:08:13
OF
TH
I think that I can

you, and I believe that either
an ask yo
Were
ere any of those materials -- and I'm including all
18
24
15:08:13
EF
OG
10
2
23
15:08:13
15:08:13
plaintiffs?
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, I, candor, it is impossible to
15:08:13

tell because there is a substantial amount of material.
personally went through earlier this week the evidence storage
under the supervision of Sergeant Fax.
appears that we have audio and video of interviews, a mix of

f
photographs and audio interviews that appear to me to be either

eithe
human smuggling traffic load vehicles or identity theft issue

issues.
sue
Those videos on the CDs range from 2009, '10, and '
'11.
11.
11
.
have a bunch of CDs that have DR numbers on it that

t
apparently -THE COURT:
What is a DR number?
umber?
umber
?
Departmental
report?
De
Dep
11
MR. CASEY:
Either an accident
report number or
ccid
ccident
r
rep
OG
10
department report number that

make it into inventory and
t didn't
didn' ma
13
evidence.
I will share with you

that
some of the incident
y
t
15
reports, some of the

th traffic
raffic
ffi reports that I saw, I mean,
16
there's substantial
volume and it is -- it will be a sizeable
antial volu
17
undertaking,
share with you that as to the traffic
ng but
bu I will
wi
18
reports,
did produce to the plaintiffs in 2009, I think it
s, we
e di
19
was,
of our CAD database that produced literally
s, a mere
ere image
im
20
of traffic stops from 2005 to whenever that

tens of thousands
th
21
date was.
w
22
there was produced -- my guess is it's going to be a yes and no

th
ND
IE
FR
25
15:08:14
OF
TH
14
24
15:08:13
EF
12
2
23
15:08:13
We also
W
BO
.C
OM
I will tell you that it
15:08:14
I cannot represent to you that the universe that's
answer on a case by case.

I will also share with you that there are some things,
cell phones, Miranda cards, vehicle license plates, those --
15:08:14

THE COURT:
Think we had purses, maybe.
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
Your Honor, there also -- and if
the Court is interested, on November 3rd of this year PSB
member Sergeant Dave Tennyson was at the enforcement support

ort
t
building which historically housed HSU.
interviewing on another matter.
down and handed him some stuff which included a steno pad,
pad a
little one that would look like a reporter's

or
s notes
not
o a
deputy's notes, four ID cards that appeared

ared to be foreign
.C
OM
He was there for

r
15:08:14
BO
An MCSO sergeant hailed him

im
national cards, one CD case that was

empty,
CD case that
s empty
empt
, one
o
on
11
did contain a music CD.
12
think it's a foreign CD based

d on
o the
th --
OG
10
EF
I know we know
name of the CD.
kn
t
the
15:08:14
THE COURT:
In the
Hispanic language?
e Hispani
14
MR. CASEY:
recollection it was.
My recollec
recolle
15
THE COURT:
T:
Okay.
kay
y.
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
On November 5th, to his credit, Jerry
OF
TH
13
15:08:14
17
Sheridan im
immediately
ediately
diatel had the captain, the head of PSB conduct a
18
thorough
search
gh
h searc
earc of that entire building.
ND
S
It had been done --
my understand
understanding it was prophylactically done before, but
20
that search on November 5th in a locked locker, like a

during tha
21
locker, had a lock on it, inside of it were two

high school
s
22
purses.
pu
FR
IE
19
And there are some ID cards, one ID card.
15:08:14
There were
2
23
keys, a cell phone.
There is apparently a DR connected to both
24
purses, and there were apparently involved -- and again I'm
25
telling you my understanding after communicating --
15:08:14

THE COURT:
Well, let me just say, and I appreciate
your desire to go through and be fully forthcoming, it sounds
to me like there's some things that clearly were not turned
over to plaintiffs.
the reports are massive, and a number of them don't look

ok like
they would have been turned over to plaintiffs if they were
never entered into the system, some of them may

y well have been
turned over to plaintiffs, but you haven't been able to

t make
that assessment yet.
.C
OM
There are some reports, and I gather that

ha
BO
No.
There is one other area,

Your Honor,
a
OG
MR. CASEY:
10
that I don't know, unless your monitor

onitor ha
has reported, on the
12
10th of this month a deputy provided

provide to PSB 53 identity cards
13
that were in his possession.

ion
n.
14
cards.
TH
Another
one had 111 identity
Anoth
THE COURT:
T:
These
two separate deputies?
hese
se are
a
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Two separate deputies.
OF
15
15:08:14
One deputy was
17
using them for

purposes; the other deputy was
or
r training
traini
i
18
basically
conduit to turn it over to PSB.
lly
y a co
19
cards.
rds
ds.
Either of these deputies ever belong to
22
MR. CASEY:
Yes.
FR
ND
There's 164 new ID
THE COURT:
T
2
23
THE COURT:
Did both of them belong to HSU?
24
MR. CASEY:
Yes.
20
15:08:14
HS ?
HSU?
IE
25
15:08:14
EF
11
21
15:08:14
there to Sergeant Fax.
And I'm referring in the corner over
I will tell you I looked through the ID
15:08:14

cards.
THE COURT:
2
3
Were either of them interviewed by
Sergeant Tennyson?
MR. CASEY:
No.
THE COURT:
Was anybody interviewed in connection

tion
on with
it
MR. CASEY:
7
Fax?
SERGEANT FAX:
9
10
My understanding is not yet.

et.
et
.
BO
THE COURT:
Sergeant
Sergea
They haven't at this time

time, sir.
still conducting the --
11
We're
13
on the record?
16
17
TH
the MCSO.
THE COURT
COURT:
:
15:08:14
Thank you.
Tha
SERGEANT
FAX:
E GEANT
EA
F
FAX
Sir, in reference to the ID cards with
the two
separate DR numbers, those are still currently being
o separat
separa
IE
ND
S
18
Again, just
Again,
us for record, Sergeant Fax of
OF
15
EF
but could you come to a microphone

we can be sure we get you
ophone so w
MR. CASEY:
19
cataloged
taloged and research is beginning to run them through the
20
different databases that we have, the CAD, JWI, all of those,
21
potentially log scans in the future.

potent
poten
FR
22
2
23
24
25
15:08:14
You know, Sergeant

Fax, I appreciate it,
ergea
F
Fax
12
14
15:08:14
these ID cards?
OG
And the -- the cards --
.C
OM
15:08:14
Deputy Gandara, as Mr. Casey stated -THE COURT:
You know, I appreciate your desire to be
forthcoming, but please don't use names.

SERGEANT FAX:
I apologize.
One of the deputies, Your
15:08:14

Honor, as he said, was just the deputy who impounded those
items; the second deputy actually identified as being having
those items.
THE COURT:
impounded items that he obtained from another deputy.
SERGEANT FAX:
THE COURT:
MR. FOX:
15:08:14
From a box when -- when a --
All right.
-- cleaning was going on those

located.
thos were
e
BO
So one of the deputies
All right.
.C
OM
He was instructed to place those into evidence.

vidence.
vidence
The second deputy, based on

states that he
n the record,
recor
eco
OG
10
was in those -- he had those IDs in his

possession
for his
h
p
pos
12
tenure and was -- then placed

into evidence.
d those items
ite
EF
11
13
THE COURT:
14
SERGEANT FAX:
:
15
THE COURT:
T:
So
o how many ID cards is this?
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
On the November 10th, 53 plus 111, so
Thank you, Sergeant Fax.

Th
TH
Yes,
sir.
Yes
es, sir
si
15:08:14
we've got 1
164
4 new
n
I cards.
ID
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
And the position of MCSO is that all 164
18
of these
the
were used for training purposes?
ND
19
All right
right.
ight.
.
OF
17
MR. CASEY:
M
20
No.
The only information I can represent
to the
th Court right now is that one of the stack, the 53?
22
111 were training purposes.

11
FR
IE
21
what reason they were kept, confiscated, and used for.
24
a new development.
THE COURT:
15:08:14
The
And the other 53 we don't know
2
23
25
15:08:14
That is
And do you have -- have you done any
15:08:14

research yet, Sergeant Fax, perhaps, on the allegation that 111
IDs were used for training purposes?

Sir, we're currently putting some
.C
OM
SERGEANT FAX:
3
4
further detectives together so that we can start running those

os
IDs through those databases.
THE COURT:
SERGEANT FAX:
We have just --
15:08:14
Do you have any idea where they

ey came from?
fro
f
The 111 we are assuming
g at this
thi point,
p
and it is an assumption, Your Honor, is that

from
at
t they came
ca
operations that occurred while that deputy

uty was
wa in HSU.
Well, let me ask
sk you,
you the
th deputy who
turned them in was at HSU.
12
ever at HSU?
13
SERGEANT FAX:
14
THE COURT:
15
SERGEANT FA
FAX:
F
Was the deputy

deput he got them from
No, sir
sir.
What -W
TH
know?
Or do you
y
k
Let me clarify, sir.
The 53 that we're
talking about,
they were doing a cleanup effort in that
, while the
17
building, s
several
reports were found in a box and those 53 ID
veral
er
r
rep
18
cards were
r in that box unknown how they got there, whose they
19
were,
them, or who placed them there.
re
e, who
o confiscated
con
20
and placed into the property room.

were collected
colle
ND
IE
FR
22
15:08:14
OF
16
21
15:08:14
EF
11
OG
THE COURT:
10
BO
Those
15:08:14
The 111 a deputy has self-admitted he had those and
that he placed them into the property room.

th
So the
2
23
investigation in reference to the 111, sir, will attempt to
24
determine what operations he had those, why he had those for so
25
long, and why they were not put in the property room.
15:08:14

THE COURT:
Thank you.
SERGEANT FAX:
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
.C
OM
Your Honor, just in case there's another
question on that, I'm going to ask Sergeant Fax to stay within

ithin
hi
arm's length of me.
THE COURT:
You can go sit, though, in Mr.

Casey's
. Casey
Case
's
s
MR. CASEY:
THE COURT:
It's a nice chair.
10
MR. CASEY:
I broke it in for you.

yo .
you
11
Your Honor, the other item

wanted
-- I felt was
tem I wante
an
BO
chair.
OG
15:08:14
important because it came up,

the Court to it
, I alerted
ale
13
earlier, 35 license plates,

MCSO currently is
es, 14 of
f which
w
14
unable to determine how

ow it
t came
e into the possession of those.
15
21 of those -- there
another 21.
er was ano
ere
an
16
Armendariz.
TH
EF
12
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
Are those 13 --
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
Of the 21.
18
total
tal
al of 35
35.
20
them.
we got the
ND
19
IE
15:08:14
There's 14 we -- there's a
14 we can't connect, we don't know where -- how
THE COURT:
15:08:14
The 13, did they come from
Mr. Armendariz's home?

Mr
FR
22
13 are related to Charley
able to link those to either -We ve been

We've
b
OF
17
21
15:08:14
2
23
MR. CASEY:
No.
24
THE COURT:
How many came from Mr. Armendariz's home?
25
MR. CASEY:
I don't -- I'm not pre -- I don't know
15:08:14

that, Your Honor.

THE COURT:
2
3
Are you saying that 14 more came from the
offices of HSU?
MR. CASEY:
.C
OM
What I'm saying is that that is what we

e
were -- that's what we did find over there was 35 additional

tional
on
license plates.
THE COURT:
And how did you connect them

Sergeant
hem to Serg
Armendariz?
MR. CASEY:
BO
My understanding is
my
s that -- just
j
understanding is that we were able to

those plates.
o run
un thos
tho
11
linked either in showing a CAD entry

or a DR
ntry by Armendariz
A
Arm
12
initiation or authorship by Armendariz

Armendariz.
Armenda
SERGEANT FAX:
THE COURT:
T:
The 13
Well,
did you search any deputy's CAD
Well
l, d
OF
data?
SERGEANT
FAX:
E GEANT
EA
F
FAX
17
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
18
EN
D
We did, sorry.
Based on the data we had, the initial
20
background separation was out of those 35 we ran every deputy
21
been in HSU since its existence which we do have CAD

that had
h
22
data for.
da
2
23
to a deputy; several more hit to other deputies.
24
the 14 that were unaccounted for.
RI
15:08:14
So you did an open search.
SERGEANT FOX:
SERG
19
25
15:08:14
that were from Armendariz

when we searched his CAD data.
ari hit
ariz
h
w
wh
15
16
That's
Your Honor.
That
at's
s correct,
corr
orr
They
TH
14
EF
OG
10
13
15:08:14
15:08:14
I can tell you that three hit to a deputy; two hit

We then have
Since Mr. Casey and I spoke, two of those have
15:08:14

actually come back to a leasing company that the county uses,
so it is believed at this point for two of those, those would
have been take off -- taken off of a lease vehicle when the
vehicle was issued out to the person.

THE COURT:
.C
OM
Have investigations been done of the

e
15:08:14
license plates that were confiscated from Deputy Armendariz's

rmendariz's
rmendariz
home as to their source?

SERGEANT FAX:
THE COURT:
And do they all relate

late back to
t
Deputy Armendariz?
SERGEANT FAX:
11
15:08:14
OG
10
Yes, sir.
BO
Off the top of my h

head, Your Honor, I
can't tell you yes, Your Honor,

I don't remember that.
or, because
or
bec
13
But I can tell you that we have lin

linked items to other personnel
14
that are not linked to

and those are being
o Armendariz,
Armendar
Armendari
15
investigated separately.
ra
rate
y.
TH
EF
12
THE COURT
COURT:
:
All right.
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
In addition to Armendariz there are one,
OF
16
17
15:08:14
Thank you.
two, three,
four, there's three individuals that were in HSU.
hree
re , fo
19
Each
single plate.
ch
h had
h
a si
20
guy who testified here at trial had three plates.

Another g
21
obviously it's going to be investigated.

obviou
obvio
22
is MCSO policy this goes into property and evidence, and
FR
IE
ND
18
2
23
One other guy had two plates.

And
15:08:15
The bottom line is it
obviously it was not in property and evidence.
24
And that is the extent of my report, Your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
Thank you, Mr. Casey.
15:08:15

MR. CASEY:
Thank you.
THE COURT:
I appreciate that.
MR. LIDDY:
Your Honor, could I make one
clarification?
.C
OM
Now, let me just --
THE COURT:
Sure.
MR. LIDDY:
The MCSO protocol for the license

ense plates
plat
15:08:15
would be to process them to go back to the motor

or vehicle
vehicles
s
division, not into property and evidence.

THE COURT:
MR. LIDDY:
OG
any reason to believe that was done?
11
12
But in any case,

case there isn't
15:08:15
The fact that

were found indicates it
hat they w
wer
was not done.
EF
10
All right.
BO
THE COURT:
Yes.
you.
Thank yo
14
MR. CASEY:
apologies for not -My apologie

apologi
15
THE COURT:
T:
That's
hat
t's all right.
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
did know that; I forgot it.

I d
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
Let me just explore with you again, I'm
15:08:15
OF
TH
13
17
going to let
Mr. Pochoda talk, but, Mr. Casey, as I said, my
et M
19
inclination
clination
lination is
i to withdraw and to acknowledge -- well, is to
20
withdraw.
let you wi
21
investigates and as MCSO investigates the scope of what is now

invest
inves
22
opening up ahead of us, it seems to me that there may be a

op
But as I investigate and as my monitor
15:08:15
FR
IE
ND
18
2
23
couple of things I come back to you for.
24
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
25
THE COURT:
And I just want to alert you to them in
15:08:15

advance, and I want to alert you to my tentative thoughts on
them in advance -MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
-- so that you can be fully prepared,

, and
an
.C
OM
if you're going to assert due process violations on behalf

half
l of
f
others, you won't be able to assert them on behalf of yourself.

yours
yoursel
Because I'm going to give you full -- I think you've

you ve made
efforts to be forthcoming with me, I'm going

same -ng
g to be the
t
do the same to you.
BO
There may be issues now that

going to require me
at are
re goin
goi
OG
10
to come back and ask you, I give you -- I will not come back
12
and ask you if there are other

er ways
ays to find them out, because I
13
recognize that there is an attorney

attorney-client privilege that is
14
substantial and you also

obligations to your
lso have ethical
et
e
15
client, and I want

you some things that I may be asking
t to
t tell
ll y
16
you about so that yo

can consider whether or not you have an
you ca
17
obligation to
o assert
asser such matters if in fact I ever do ask you
18
about them
them.
he .
15:08:15
15:08:15
IE
ND
S
OF
TH
EF
11
19
think that either of those things are

I don't
do
20
compelled by asking you, and I think you're the person with the
21
knowledge, maybe Mr. Williams also, but you both filing the
knowle
knowl
22
motion to withdraw and your firm, I don't think it's an ethical

mo
FR
15:08:15
2
23
obligation, and I don't think that MCSO would have -- Sheriff
24
Arpaio would have any objection to you completing an evaluation
25
as to what materials you have recently found and what materials
15:08:15
15:08:15

you found before -- when I say "before," there's a whole trove
of materials that after May 14th have been found that were
never disclosed.
the County and for this Court to determine what if any of that
ha
was disclosed is to have you and Mr. Williams make that

t
evaluation.
No, Your Honor.
And I can
n represent to
this Court that I have shared with Mr. Liddy,

the
request
dy,
dy
, with
wi
t
that it go up his chain of command, I've

Jerry
e shared
share with
w
wi
BO
Sheridan and the sheriff that I will

available to review
l be
b availab
avail
11
that and help out in whatever way

and
ay
y in a transition
tr
tran
12
subsequently, because there are some

that I can probably
som things
th
13
identify more cost effectively

tively
vely than
han a successor counsel, and
14
I'm prepared to do that.

at.
at
TH
THE COURT:
T:
16
that.
17
I'm --
THE COURT:
ND
19
I'm going to ask you to do
And I guess I'

I'm
going to order you to do that.
I
m g
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
18
right.
All rig
ri
OF
15
I obey orders.
I'm going to allow you to withdraw from
representation of the defendant and defendants in this

the repres
21
matter, but it is my expectation that you will complete that

matter
matte
22
obligation.
ob
IE
15:08:15
But
20
FR
15:08:15
EF
OG
10
2
23
15:08:15
Do you disagree?
MR. CASEY:
.C
OM
I believe that the most economical way for
15:08:15
It's also my expectation that the County will
reimburse you for it.
24
The second thing I want to talk to you about, and as I
25
said, there may be other things, but it occurs to me that if in
15:08:15

fact, and it appears to me to be so, you haven't contested it,
plaintiffs provided you with the dis -- your client with the
discovery that they did during the pendency of this lawsuit,
much that they requested was not turned over.
in the course of litigation -- and I'm not necessarily

y
expecting you to answer this now, but I'm going to tell you
u so
s
that you're aware that I'm going to inquire, perhaps,

erhaps,
erhaps
, if
f in the
course of litigation, normal litigation, the

e interrogatory
interro
interroga
requests would have been served on you and you would

have
wo
wou
.C
OM
I presume that
at
BO
15:08:15
transmitted them to your client, this

previously
is
s was
as an
n issue
i
11
in litigation.
12
of processing those litigation

requests,
but if I can't find it
on requests
equ
13
out because there are lapses

memory or other things, it is
pses
es of mem
14
my impression that the

attorney-client privilege applies to
e attorney
15
communications in wh
which
h your
you client is communicating with you
16
seeking your advice and to communications that you are making
17
to your client
advice, but it does not apply to every
i nt
t giving
vi
18
communication
lawyer and client.
ication
cation between
t
OG
10
15:08:15
15:08:15
ND
S
OF
TH
EF
I intend to find out who

o at MCSO was in charge
19
MR CASEY:
MR.
No, sir.
20
THE COURT:
T
So I'm not sure that the attorney-client
privilege would cover me asking you, if I have to, to whom you

privil
privi
22
sent the litigation -- or the interrogatories, and I may at

se
FR
IE
21
15:08:15
2
23
24
25
some point come back and ask you to answer that question.
MR. CASEY:
Well, Your Honor, I appreciate it, I make
no decision because I have, obviously, ethical duties, but I
15:08:15

think we crossed that -- we had a similar issue earlier in this
case in which you did -- if you remember --
I have the affidavit in front of me now
.C
OM
THE COURT:
but I am not presuming that that affidavit is applicable -MR. CASEY:
No.
What I was suggesting there is we

w did
di
disclose to you, without waiving privilege, e-mail from counsel

couns
u
to client to address issues the Court had at that

and the
hat time,
time a
client as well as counsel, even though albeit

it former counsel,
despite some of the things that have been

en said here
her today my
he
10
clients believe in complying with this

Court's
his Court
Court'
's order in good
11
faith with good intent.
OG
BO
15:08:15
15:08:15
In fact, one of the things I wanted

to mention to you
w
EF
12
is in follow up to your October

tober 28th
28t
28
t hearing, the sheriff has
14
undergone the training

ng
g that was
s ordered of him in the order on
15
the 28th.
15:08:15
THE COURT
COURT:
:
am glad to hear that.

I a
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
And he found it to be a very useful and
OF
16
TH
13
17
valuable
le time
ime that he invested in it, and that is an order
19
that's
with, obviously, in spirit and letter.
at
t's been
een complied
c
ND
18
And so I guess my Irish, long-winded explanation for

A
20
it is I can tell you that my client is interested and will
22
comply with the letter and spirit, and counsel will work with
com
co
FR
IE
21
15:08:15
2
23
24
25
the Court on those issues.

THE COURT:
All right.
Well, let me tell you one
other thing that you might consider.
In your meeting on May
15:08:15

14th, apparently there was a meeting at which you appear to
have been present -MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
-- at which direction was given to
.C
OM
Chief Trombi by somebody, at least the tentative information

I
mation
ti
have been given is that Chief Trombi doesn't remember

ber who
wh told
t
tol
him and nobody else remembers who told Chief Trombi

out
rombi to send
se
that e-mail blast to all of the commanders of the

th MCSO.
MCSO
C
BO
Again, I don't intend to come back and ask

as you that
a
information if I don't have to.
But
strike me that
t it does s
11
what you may have heard in a meeting

you were not
eting
ting in which
w
whi
12
seeking -- in which legal advice

not sought from you and in
vice was
wa no
13
which you were not giving

is not necessarily
g legal advice
adv
14
covered by the attorney-client

privilege, but I want to give
ney
ey-client
lient p
15
you the opportunity

ty to brief
rie that.
TH
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
15:08:15
We may be able to handle this right now if
OF
16
you give me
e a minute.
minut
minute
THE
HE COURT:
C R
All right.
18
(Pause
in proceedings.)
(
Pau
ND
19
MR. CASEY:
M
20
I'm authorized to -- by Chief Deputy
Sheridan to tell you that he authorized Trombi to send out the

Sherid
Sheri
22
e-mail.
e-
FR
IE
21
2
23
15:08:15
EF
OG
10
17
15:08:15
15:08:15
Thank you.
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
Well, you don't
24
have to worry about that one, then.
There may, however, and I
25
don't have any to give you right now, there may, however, be
15:08:15

other issues that will come up in the course of running all
these matters to ground, and I will try to avoid getting you or
Mr. Williams involved, both out of a courtesy to you and
respect for the law, respect for valid privilege, and it may
y be
that MCSO will not -- will be forthcoming and we won't need

ee to
come to you.
desire to be forthcoming, memories fail, and if

doesn't
f it doesn
doesn'
' --
if it isn't covered by the attorney-client privilege

privilege, I may
come back and ask you.
.C
OM
15:08:15
And I understand
that.
nd that
tha
.
OG
MR. CASEY:
10
BO
But there may be instances where, despite

spite their
eir
And
Your Honor, I
A
did bring counsel here, ethics counsel

Karen Clark in the
ounse here,
ounsel
he
here
12
front row of the gallery, because,

cause,
cause
, you know, it's not often
13
that you need such advice.

e.
14
anything, I will have counsel

so I make sure, because I'm not
couns
s
15
the holder of the pri

privilege,
p
vilege
ege Mr. Arpaio and his office is the
16
holder of the privilege,

and I am duty-bound by those
privil
privilege
17
confidences
privilege,
and to the extent I'm authorized and
s and
nd privi
i
18
my counsel
tells me that I'm authorized, then I will be more
nsel
e tel
19
than
an
n able to assist.
EF
11
15:08:15
15:08:15
ND
OF
TH
But if in fact the Court needs
THE COURT:
T
20
All right.
Thank you.
I think we need to
Mr. Pochoda before I make a determination as to your

hear from
f
22
application.
app
ap
FR
IE
21
15:08:15
MR. POCHODA:
2
23
Thank you, Judge.
Just briefly on this
24
matter.
We would like to say, plaintiffs' counsel, that
25
Mr. Casey and Mr. Williams and others in his firm have been
15:08:15

involved in this matter for some six years, and in a difficult
and sometimes charged case they have always performed in a
straightforward and professional manner, both in court and out,

t,
and certainly in all dealings with plaintiffs' counsel.
.C
OM
Having said that, we, of course, were privy to

o the
th
need to withdraw at this time and cannot comment on

n that.
that
We
are concerned, and we were concerned even before

re some of
f the
more recent disclosures have occurred, that the withdrawal

does
withdr
h
not prejudice plaintiffs nor unnecessarily

with the
ily interfere
interf
interfe
BO
progress on compliance, things that they

intermittently
they've been
b
be
11
involved in, including the setting

ing
ng up of the
th training that Your
12
Honor mentioned, thereby continued

tinued need for some input,
13
probably, on the supervisory

that has not yet begun
sory
ry training
traini
14
and that defendants have

provide
the initial template for,
ave to prov
ro
15
and certainly some

that's gone on there will be
e of
o the
e lessons
le
l
16
helpful on that,
at,
at
, and,
and of course, the other matters today.
17
did want to
clear for the record.
o make
ak that
h
TH
OF
15:08:15
We
it is obviously very troubling to hear

In
n addition,
ad t
DS
18
20
15:08:15
EF
OG
10
19
15:08:15
about
out
ut the new disclosures and, of course, not knowing how many
disclosures will be coming out in the future.

other disc
It's
something that obviously cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal

someth
somet
22
manner, and so we appreciate the Court's taking greater

ma
2
23
interest and control as it has all the way through in this,
24
because there is, obviously, a human tendency on all of us to
25
not disclose actions that, at a minimum, demonstrate a failure
RI
21
15:08:16
15:08:16

to meet clear obligations to this Court and to the plaintiffs
in this litigation, and some of which may be illegal under the
criminal laws of this state.
.C
OM
So we just very much encourage these new disclosures

ures
es
to be folded in, and then the other new ones, to the more
ore
e
comprehensive approach the Court is now seemingly adopting and

an
necessarily adopting, and we find great gaps in

n what has
occurred so far, as I think any reasonable person

in
perso would
woul
o
terms of the types of investigations, the

he failures
failure to properly
BO
investigate that have gone on so far

r based
base on the publicly
11
available materials that we have seen

seen, so we very much
12
appreciate the Court's involvement,

involvement at
vement, necessary
vement
nec
13
this time.
16
17
EF
TH
All right.
right
Thank you.
Mr. Pochoda, I
do -- well, did you

ou want
nt to speak again, Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
For
plaintiffs' counsel, thank you for their remarks,
o plaintif
plaint
but in my noti
notice to the Court, and I put it on the record here
19
again,
ain,
ain
, is
s the new materials that came up that were found, as
20
unpleasant as it is to find new things, when it happens, the
21
MCSO is
i absolutely committed to full and prompt disclosure.
FR
22
15:08:16
Briefly
on one issue I think is important.
Bri
IE
ND
S
18
THE COURT:
15:08:16
OF
15
OG
10
14
15:08:16
15:08:16
And I realize we have to prove that to the Court, but
2
23
it is committed to that.
I hope there's not a lot, but if
24
there is, they're going to learn about it, and I have -- the
25
plaintiffs will have the ability, not just for Tim Casey, but
15:08:16

there is nothing that's in there that's privileged, to be able
to look at ID cards, look at videos, and do that independently.
So even though I will do that, they have the ability to also do
that, and the MCSO was prepared to do that.
.C
OM
So they don't have to just rely on my client or
counsel or my successor counsel.
If things come up
p in the
t
future, to the extent that there is not some administrative

dministrati
issue it will be disclosed, made available, not copies

copies,
but
i
made available.
BO
So ironically, one thing

to
ng I did
di forget
f
fo
mention is during the review, the Court

that we had
ourt may recall
r
re
11
some issues earlier in the litigation

ago over stat
gation
ation years
year
ea
12
sheets.
THE COURT:
Yes.
14
MR. CASEY:
stat sheets from individual

I found
foun some
so
som
TH
13
15
officers, so not -- maybe

ybe
e 30
3 or 40 of them, dated January 9th
16
and 10th.
17
share that there

there's no hiding these things.
here
er -- t
18
open and
plaintiffs
can look at it and I hope they reach
nd
d the pl
p
i
19
whatever
conclusion they reach.
atever
tev
conc
20
not able to
t determine what impact they have on their case, but,
21
in any
an event, it will be available for them.
15:08:16
OF
And
didn't
d I didn
did
't look back at the year, but I wanted to
ND
IE
FR
15:08:16
EF
OG
10
22
15:08:16
THE COURT:
All right.
They're
But quite frankly -- well, I'm

15:08:16
Thank you.
2
23
Mr. Casey, with the caveats that I have indicated on
24
the record, your application, Mr. Williams' application, your
25
law firm's application to withdraw is granted.
15:08:16

Mr. Liddy, you're lead counsel and we are going to
proceed apace.
Mr. Montgomery, if you're going to engage other
.C
OM
counsel, know that we are proceeding apace and take that into
to
your evaluation.
anything?
I can speak for plaintiffs,

Honor.
intiffs
ntiff , Your
Y
You
BO
MR. POCHODA:
8
9
Do we still need to proceed under seal with

th respect
respec to
6
7
15:08:16
We're happy to rest on our written submissions.

issions.
issions
MR. CASEY:
One moment, Your

ur Honor
Honor.
11
12
MR. CASEY:
OG
10
I apologize.
EF
Your Honor,
nor, may
nor
ma we -- I apologize.
This
is your note.
Your Honor,
I'm
going
r, I'
I
m goin
oin to request that we alert
14
the Court to a matter,

, but unde
under seal or closed regarding what
15
I think you may have

to earlier as the Korean stop.
av referred
ave
eferre
err
TH
13
THE COURT:
COURT:
All right.
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
Your Honor, before we close, the county
17
attorney
the Court to know that he's already
ey
y would
ould like
i
19
selected
counsel to be lead counsel in this litigation but did
lected
ect
coun
20
her pending whether or not you -- how you were going

not name h
21
rule on the motion.

to rul
ru
IE
ND
18
FR
22
2
23
15:08:16
OF
16
15:08:16
THE COURT:
Is she here?
All right.
15:08:16
Do you want to name her now?
You may.
24
MR. MONTGOMERY:
25
THE COURT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Good afternoon.
15:08:16

MR. MONTGOMERY:
We'd already selected successor
counsel.
It's Michele Iafrate, who has consented to be
appointed and take over as lead counsel in this matter.
my direction, both she and Mr. Casey had already begun
communicating for that transition.
on doing anything was out of deference to the Court

t and the
e
fact that you had set this hearing.
determination, we were going to move forward

d from
fro there.
ther
h
All right.
.C
OM
Pending your
our
Thank you.
you
Ms. Iafrate has been in this

and she
is court before
b
be
11
knows how to enter an appearance,

as soon as you've
, an
and
d so
o a
12
taken care of that I'll expect

she'll do so.
ct that she
13
MR. MONTGOMERY:
14
THE COURT:
Yes, Your
Yes,
our Honor.
TH
you.
Thank you
y
.
What I propose to do is give
my court reporter a break

and take a break and we will clear
eak
k an
a
16
the courtroom,
I'll take what -- what else you have to
, and then
t
17
disclose under
n er
r seal.
seal
l.
OF
15
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
ND
under separate cover and are sealed by order the Court.)
IE
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Thank you.
(Page 65, line 20, through page 77, line 15, are filed
20
21
Thank you.
(Recess
taken.)
(
Rec
19
15:08:16
EF
OG
10
18
15:08:16
The only reason I held

ld off
ff
BO
THE COURT:
And at
15:08:16

1
C E R T I F I C A T E
.C
OM
3
4
5
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly

dul
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter

for
Repor
p
the United States District Court for the

e District of Arizona.
BO
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
OG
10
a full, true, and accurate transcript

all of that portion of
script
cript of
f al
12
the proceedings contained herein,

in the above-entitled
rein, had
rein
h
i
13
cause on the date specified

ied
d therein,
therein and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my

y direction and control.
TH
EF
11
16
DATED
Arizona, this 25th day of November,
A ED
D at Phoenix,
P
Pho
17
2014.
ND
19
18
OF
15
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres # 803 141120-1 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 803 - Transcript - Nov 20 2014 Hearing

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Melendres # 803 141120-1 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 803 - Transcript - Nov 20 2014 Hearing

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 66

For Defendant Arpaio:

Andre Segura, Esq.

Annie Lai, Esq.

For the Plaintiffs:

Thomas P. Liddy, Esq.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 66

This is CV 07-2513, Melendres versus

Arpaio, on for status conference.

Counsel, please announce your appearances.

For plaintiff, Dan Pochoda

awaiting admission, Your Honor.

And on the phone, I believe,

And I also wanted

to inform Your Honor that

of Covington & Burling

line stays open

Her name is Julie

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Tom Liddy from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan is here.

plaintiffs, Annie Lai and Andre Segura

Assisting is Josh Bendor from the ACLU

I would also like to point out in the gallery is the

county attorney, Bill Montgomery, who I just wanted to address

to the Court, I wanted to share with the Court Mr. Montgomery

is by law the appointing authority that can appoint and replace

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 66

counsel on cases in Maricopa County.

Is that why you're here,

Yes, Your Honor.

I did not otherwise

I believe that last time we met I neglected

those persons who may be in the gallery, whether

public or members of the press, that pursuant

rule, we don't allow recordings of our proceedings.

we don't allow you to record it on your cell

I have modified that

To the extent that you

want to take notes on your laptop,

This afternoon, Mr. Casey, we're here both on your

application to withdraw as well as the matters that you've

filed under seal pertaining to your arguments about redacting

the monitor's report pertaining to some of the investigations

But if you're detected recording the

the MCSO has undertaken.

argue that on behalf of the defendants before your withdrawal

so is that what you'd like us to take up first?

I don't know whether you intend to

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 803 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 66

Your Honor, I intend to address with the

Court, obviously, in due course, whatever inquiries you have on

the motion to withdraw.

materials that I alerted the Court that would be reviewing,

prepared to address that.

But in your order about additional

James Williams in my office is going to be