15-72440 # 12 - Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion To Stay

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 133
No. 15-72440
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his official capacity as Sheriff
of Maricopa County, Arizona
Defendant/Petitioner
and GERARD A. SHERIDAN
Specially appearing non-party/Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Respondent Court
and MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, et al.
Plaintiffs/Real Parties in Interest.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2:07-CV-02513-GMS
The Honorable G. Murray Snow, United States District Judge
EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3
PETITIONERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT
COURT PROCEEDINGS
John T. Masterson, Bar #007447
Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434
Justin M. Ackerman, Bar #030726
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 263-1700
jmasterson@jshfirm.com
jpopolizio@jshfirm.com
jackerman@jshfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendants/Petitioners Joseph M. Arpaio in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County and Gerard A. Sheridan
4486372.1
Michele M. Iafrate, Bar #015115

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 North Second Avenue
Telephone: 602-234-9775
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants/Petitioners Joseph M. Arpaio in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County and Gerard A. Sheridan
A. Melvin McDonald, Bar #002298
Telephone: (602) 263-1700
mmcdonald@jshfirm.com
Specially appearing counsel for
Petitioner Joseph M. Arpaio in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona
4486372.1
CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE

In order to avoid irreparable harm, Petitioners request this Court rule on their
Motion to Stay prior to the resumption of contempt proceedings before Arizona
District Court Judge G. Murray Snow on September 22, 2015. In the alternative,
Petitioners request that this Court grant a temporary stay of the September 22,
2015 contempt proceedings until it can rule on Petitioners Motion to Stay.
(i)
The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addresses of the

attorneys for the parties:
Stanley Young, Esq.

Michelle Morin, Esq.
Hyun S. Byun, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
650- 632-4700
syoung@cov.com
mmorin@cov.com
hbyun@cov.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tammy Albarran, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-591-7036
talbarran@cov.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
4486372.1
602-650-1854
dpochoda@acluaz.org
Jorge Martin Castillo, Esq.
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
213-629-2512
jcastillo@maldef.org
Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-343-0775
cwang@aclu.org
Anne Lai, Esq.
401 E. Peltason Dr.
Law 4800-P
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949-824-9894
alai@law.uci.edu
Andre Segura, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212-549-2676
asegura@aclu.org
4486372.1
Mark Kappelhoff
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Judy Preston (MD Bar, no numbers assigned)
Timothy D. Mygatt (DC Bar No. 1021564)
Edward G. Caspar (MA Bar No. 650566)
Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar No. 4141636)
Paul Killebrew (LA Bar No. 32176)
Puneet Cheema (CA Bar No. 268677)
Matthew J. Donnelly (IL No. 6281308)
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
601 D St. NW, Suite 5200
Washington, D.C. 20004
202-514-2000
edward.g.caspar@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States
Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
602-234-9775
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
Richard K. Walker, Esq.
WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2236
rkw@azlawpartner.com
480-483-6336
Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona
(ii)
Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed emergency.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Stay with the district court, asking that court to
stay further contempt proceedings until this Court could decide whether Judge
Snow should have recused himself from the proceedings. This motion was denied.
4486372.1
The same six discrete arguments made in that Motion and in Petitioners currently
pending Motion to Stay in this Court demonstrate that Judge Snows continued
participation in these proceedings violates 28 U.S.C. 455 and requires his
recusal. 1 Thus, Judge Snows continued presence over these proceedings presents
both a substantial risk to the Petitioners constitutional rights and endangers the
publics perception of an impartial judiciary.
Petitioners request emergency relief now because the district courts
contempt proceedings will resume on September 22, 2015, thus increasing the
exigency of this matter. Judge Snow is set to make evidentiary rulings, witness
credibility determinations, and issue further orders on or before September 22,
2015, which will cause Petitioners irreparable harm. When Petitioners first filed
their Motion to Stay on August 20, 2015, Petitioners hoped this Court would have
accepted mandamus review and granted relief before resumption of the September
22 contempt proceedings, given the expedited nature of writs of mandamus.
Because, this has not occurred, Petitioners now request this Court to, at the very
1
These grounds are: (1) the Motion for Recusal was timely, (2) Judge Snow
and his spouse are material witnesses in this action, (3) The injection of MCSOs
internal investigations and expansion of the Monitors powers was a violation of
petitioners due process rights and demonstrates bias by the court, (4) Judge Snow
improperly engaged (and continues to engage) in an extrajudicial investigation of
disputed facts, (5) Recusal was mandatory because Judge Snows brother-in-law is
a partner at Covington and Burling, and (6) An objective, independent observer
would have found recusal necessary under 455(a). As noted, below, these six
reasons relate only to the ongoing contempt proceedings. See infra II(C) at p. 12.
4486372.1
least, grant a temporary stay of the district court proceedings, set to resume on
September 22, while the Court considers Petitioners Motion to Stay and Petition
for Writ of Mandamus.
(iii) When and how counsel for the other parties were notified and whether
they have been served with the Motion.
Petitioners contacted opposing counsel on September 14, 2015, notifying
them that they have requested emergency review. Petitioners also provided all
parties an electronic PDF copy of this Motion contemporaneously with their filing
of this Motion with this Court. In addition, prior to filing this Motion, Petitioners
notified the Clerk of Court that they will be requesting emergency relief pursuant
to Circuit Rule 27-3(a).
4486372.1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

I.
INTRODUCTION
The ACLUs 2 Response to Petitioners Motion for Stay reads like an
improperly authorized Answering Brief, attempting to inject entirely irrelevant

facts and issues that have absolutely no bearing on whether this Court should grant
a temporary stay of the district courts contempt proceedings to decide Petitioners
Writ of Mandamus. For the foregoing reasons, a stay is warranted.
II.
A STAY IS WARRANTED UNDER THE FOUR NKEN FACTORS

The ACLUs Response fails to acknowledge the proper standard for a stay
on appeal. In order to justify a stay petitioners need not demonstrate that it is

more likely than not that they will win on the merits. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640
F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2011). The court in Leiva-Perez, while addressing the
Nken factors, recognized that [t]here are many ways to articulate the minimum
quantum of likely success necessary to justify a staybe it a reasonable
probability or fair prospect, . . . a substantial case on the merits, . . . or, . . . that
serious legal questions are raised. (quotations omitted). Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at
967-68. Regardless of how one expresses the requirement, the idea is that in
order to justify a stay, a petitioner must show, at a minimum, that she has a
substantial case for relief on the merits. Id. at 968. Thus, Petitioners need only
Petitioners refer to Plaintiffs-Appellees collectively as the ACLU.

1
demonstrate that they have a substantial case for relief on the merits in order to
be entitled to a stay.
A.
Petitioners have a substantial case for relief on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, none of the arguments in the ACLUs Response
has diminished the fact that Petitioners have a substantial case for relief on the
merits demonstrating that Judge Snows failure to recuse himself was clearly
erroneous for six discrete reasons. Id.
1. Petitioners Motion for Recusal was Timely.
The ACLUs Response commits the same error that the Court did when it
ruled that Petitioners Motion for Recusal was untimely the basis for recusal did
not arise in 2012, 2013, or even 2014 it arose on April 23, 2015 when Judge
Snow injected irrelevant and unrelated issues into the contempt proceedings. First,
Petitioners never argued that the grounds for recusal arose out of the
Grissom/Montgomery investigations themselves.
It was the Courts improper
inquiry into these matters during the April 2015 contempt hearings that injected
these irrelevant investigations into the proceedings and ripened their grounds for
recusal. See, Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) (Recusal
motions are timely, even if filed a year or more later, where the grounds for recusal
do not arise until later); Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256, 257-58 (7th Cir. 1996) (same).
Second, the Courts subsequent order directing that the Monitor be given
2
4486372.1
unfettered access to investigate these and other irrelevant matters did not occur
until May 14, 2015. The recusal motion was filed within a week of that, on May
22, 2015. Therefore, the recusal motion was timely.
2.
Judge Snow and his spouse are material witnesses in this

action.
The ACLU incorrectly claims that Judge Snow and his spouse are not
material witnesses because Petitioners: (1) failed to explain how the Grissom
statements would make either the Court or his spouse a material witness in the
contempt proceedings, (2) chose to disregard the Grissom statements, and (3)
allegedly argued that the facts underlying the Grissom investigation did not relate
to the contempt proceedings. [ACLU Response at 12]. First, Petitioners clearly
asserted that under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(iv), uncontradicted evidence existed that
Judge Snows spouse told the Grissom family that he was biased against Sheriff
Arpaio and that he would do everything in his power to ensure he was not reelected. [See Doc. 1117 (Exs. 5-8), Ex. 8]. Furthermore, the Courts subsequent
orders directing the Monitor to investigate into these matters only further cements
the Courts material witness status. Second, Petitioners did not disregard the
comments made by the Grissoms, rather, out of respect for the Court, Petitioners
declined to further investigate into these matters (despite confirming they were in
fact substantiated) and would never had raised them if the Court did not inquire
into them. Finally, the ACLU ignores, because they must, that once the Court
3
4486372.1
injected the Grissom investigation into the April 2015 contempt proceedings, this
not only violated Petitioners due process rights, see infra 3, but also made these
issues relevant and ripened Judge Snow and his wife as material witnesses to the
proceeding. 3
Accordingly, through no fault other than his own, Judge Snow made himself
and his spouse material witnesses in this action. See United States v. Alabama, 828
F.2d 1532, 1545 (11th Cir. 1987) (disqualification required when judge forced to
make factual findings about events in which he was an active participant.).
3.
The expansion of the Monitors powers was improper and

violated Petitioners Due Process Rights.
The ACLU claims that the Court also possesses broad equitable authority to
modify the monitoring and compliance tasks it delegates to the Monitor but cites
absolutely no authority to support that proposition.4 [ACLU Response at 16-18].
Moreover, when directly questioned whether the Court felt the Grissom
investigation was relevant to the contempt proceedings, the Court failed to state
that the Grissom investigation was not relevant to the contempt proceedings. [See
8/21/15 RT at 59:8-60:14]. Even if it did, however, it cannot now un-ring the bell.
4
The ACLUs citation to Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367,
380-81 (1992) and Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978) do not support this
proposition either because neither of these cases involved the expansion of a Court
appointed monitors duties. Moreover, these cases discuss the Courts authority to
issue a new order or modifying an existing order in light of compliance issues,
which was never done in this case, further demonstrating the Courts bias and its
abuse of Petitioners due process rights.
4
4486372.1
Regardless, the ACLU conflates Petitioners violations of prior Court orders

(the topics of the contempt proceedings) with the sufficiency of its internal
investigations, neither of which are interrelated. Again, the Order to Show Cause
only states three distinct areas of inquiry for the contempt proceedings, none of
which involve inquiry into MCSO internal investigations. To date, the Court has
never modified or issued a new order to show cause identifying that MCSOs
internal investigations are one of the grounds for the contempt proceedings.
Moreover, Petitioners opportunity to be heard during future contempt proceedings
is not a sufficient corrective measure to the Courts surprise, improper inquiry into
these matters because it does not permit defense counsel adequate time to prepare a
defense to the Courts ever expanding scope of ad hoc issues it deems related to the
contempt proceedings. 5 Finally, even the Court has retreated from finding these
matters relevant to the contempt proceedings (despite continuing to investigate
them as part of the contempt proceedings). [See 7/24/15 Tr. at 21:6-10, Ex. 16;
7/31/15 RT at 44:16-21, Ex. 13]. Thus, the Court was not well within its power
to inquire into these areas via its Monitor. See Little v. Kern Cnty. Superior Court,
5
Indeed, this Court set contempt hearings to resume on September 22, 2015.
The Court permitted the ACLU to request 26 depositions from September 3rd to
the 21st, giving Petitioners counsel less than one day to prepare for the continued
contempt proceedings the topics of which are still unclear to Petitioners. These
stringent deadlines are only demonstrative of the continued bias Petitioners face
from this Court, are not conducive to the preservation of Petitioners due process
rights, and would not be tolerated in any other circumstance.
5
4486372.1
294 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2002) (notice of the contempt charges and of the
contempt hearing must be explicit in order to conform to the requirements of due
process.).6
Accordingly, the Courts continued insistence to investigate into
MCSOs internal investigations (with the assistance of its Monitor) as a basis for
finding Petitioners in contempt is a violation of Petitioners due process rights and
patently demonstrates the Courts bias, requiring its recusal under 455(b)(1). 7
4.
Judge Snow improperly engaged (and continues to engage)

in an extrajudicial investigation of disputed facts.
No argument contained in Petitioners Motion to Stay (or its Writ of

Mandamus for that matter) asserts that the Court could not speak with its Monitor.
Rather, Petitioners argued that certain ex parte communications between the Court
While the ACLU is correct that a judge may question a witness, and a
witness does not have a right to advance notice of every question, the Court cannot
inquire into matters entirely unrelated to the current proceeding, and which
directly implicates the Courts impartiality. See United States v. Wilson, 16 F.3d
1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1994).
7
The ACLUs reference to Petitioners failure to produce emails and the

existence of additional identification documents recently discovered does not
demonstrate the Court has authority to expand the Monitors authority into
MCSOs internal investigations because this information has come out long after
the Court began improperly probing into MCSOs internal investigations.
Moreover, Petitioners have complied with the Courts request to produce these
emails on a rolling basis to the ACLU and have made additional identification
documents available as soon as they became aware of them. [See 8/28/15 RT at
31:19-32:21, attached as Ex. A]. Finally, Petitioners failure to object to the
Courts line of questioning does not waive their arguments now. The ACLU cites
no authority for this proposition and nothing under 28 U.S.C. 455 requires an
objection to be raised the moment it occurs during the proceedings.
6
4486372.1
and its Monitor are impermissible.8 These include those communications which
give the Court personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
Contrary to the ACLUs arguments, there are limitations on ex-parte

communications between the Court and its Monitor. In the Courts appointing
order setting forth the Monitors powers and duties, pursuant to F.R.C.P.
53(b)(2)(B), it was required to state the circumstances, if any, in which the
[Monitor] may communicate ex parte with the court or a party. Courts have
clearly applied Rule 53 to a Court appointed Monitor. See e.g., United States v.
Apple Inc., 787 F.3d 131, 139 (2d Cir. 2015); Howe v. City of Akron, 17 F. Supp.
3d 690, 692 (N.D. Ohio 2014). Moreover, Courts have traditionally limited ex
parte communications between a Court and its monitor to regard logistics, the
nature of his activities, and other appropriate procedural matters. See e.g., Satyam
Computer Servs., Ltd. v. Venture Global Eng'g, LLC, No. 06-CV-50351-DT, 2007
WL 1806198, at *6 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2007); In re Oral Sodium Phosphate
Solution-Based Products Liab. Action, No. 1:09-SP-80000, 2009 WL 2601395, at
*2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2009). This limitation complies with the commentary to
Rule 53. See Rule 53, 2003 amendment, cmt. b. (Ex parte communications
between a master and the court present troubling questions. Ordinarily the order
should prohibit such communications, assuring that the parties know where
authority is lodged at each step of the proceedings.) (Emphasis added).
As such, most Courts have strictly instructed their Monitor to not
communicate with the Court on any substantive matter the Monitor learned during
an ex parte communication between the Monitor and any party. See Howe v. City
of Akron, 17 F. Supp. 3d 690, 692 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (The Monitor shall not
communicate to the Court any substantive matter the Monitor learned during an ex
parte communication between the Monitor and any party.); see also Case v.
French Quarter III LLC, No. 9:12-CV-02518-DCN, 2014 WL 6971019, at *2
(D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (same); Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 298 F.R.D. 683, 68687 (D. Kan. 2014) (same).
While the Courts appointing order in this case clearly permits ex parte
communications with the Parties and its Monitor, it is entirely silent regarding ex
parte communications between the Court and the Monitor. [See Doc. 606 at
129, 119-159]. Therefore, because the appointing order is silent regarding ex parte
communications between the Court and the Monitor, their ex parte
communications should be limited, at best, to logistical and procedural matters.
7
4486372.1
contempt proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1). Accordingly, the Courts ex parte

communications with its Monitor are limited under Rule 53 and 455(b)(1).
Therefore, when Judge Snow proceeded to conduct an ex parte discussion with the
Monitor, outside of the contempt proceedings, that regarded the very issues at the
heart of the contempt proceedings, the communication was not authorized under
Rule 53 and violated 455(b)(1). See Price Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia Gear Corp.,
629 F.2d 444, 446-47 (6th Cir. 1980) (noting that gaining information from a law
clerks independent investigation of disputed facts would be a violation of Canon
3(c)(1)(a) and 455).9 Given this communication, and that the Court continues to
communicate ex parte regarding the Monitors investigation into other contested
factual issues, 10 Judge Snows failure to recuse himself was clearly erroneous as a
matter of law.
5.
Recusal was mandatory because Judge Snows brother-inlaw is a partner in Covington & Burling.
The ACLU argues that [t]he district court correctly concluded that the
authorities did not create a per se rule of recusal, but only recognized that
circumstances may require recusal when the partners interest in the proceedings is
9
Again, nothing in the Courts existing judicial orders gives the Monitor a
duty to advise the Court regarding the accuracy of testimony given during the
contempt proceeding. [See Doc. 606 at 126 (Setting forth the Monitors duties)].
10
See e.g., 7/31/15 RT at 10:17-18, 18:22-19:4, attached as Ex. B; 8/7/15 RT

at 16:15-18:15, 30:12-17, Ex. 14; 8/11/15 RT at 24:17-22, 51:22-52:3, 52:14-16,
53:5-10, Ex. 15.
8
4486372.1
substantial, which is a fact sensitive inquiry.
[ACLU Response at 9].
However, the ACLU ignores that after Judge Snows ruling, many of the grounds
for his fact sensitive inquiry in 2012 have changed. In Judge Snows June 2012
order, he noted that recusal was not required at the time because there was only a
remote possibility that Plaintiffs would be awarded attorneys fees (and if they
did it would be very small); thus it was speculative whether the Courts
brother-in-law had a financial interest in the outcome of the case. [Doc. 542, Ex.
23]. As of 2015, however, Covington & Burling has been awarded nearly $3.5
million in fees and costs [Doc. 742, Ex. 20], and have requested nearly half a
million dollars more in fees and costs for the appeal of the bench trial. 11 This is
hardly a very small amount, making it no longer speculative that Covington &
Burling has a financial interest in this litigation. See Canon 3(C)(3)(c) (holding
that financial interest means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however
small ) (emphasis added). 12 Finally, Judge Snow never indicated he wrote to
11
See Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-16285, 13-17238, Dkt. 89, Ex. E.
12
In addition, the June 2012 Letter sent by Covington & Burling to the
Court and counsel states that Judge Snows brother-in-law retired from Covington
& Burling. However, as of September 7, 2015, he is still displayed as an active
member of the firm. [See attached Ex. C, Bio of Keith A. Teel]. Moreover,
decisions published as recently as June 8, 2015 note that he is still practicing on
behalf of Covington & Burling. See AstraZeneca LP v. Breath Ltd., 603 F. App'x
999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Keith A. Teel representing plaintiff on behalf of
Covington & Burling); United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. CV 992496(GK), 2015 WL 3549622 (D.D.C. June 8, 2015) (representing defendants).
9
4486372.1
the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, as Judge Wake did in Fiore v. Apollo,
2015 WL 1883980 (D. Ariz. Apr. 24, 2014). Importantly, in response to Judge
Wakes inquiry regarding Judicial Advisory Opinion No. 58, the Committee
reiterated that a categorical rule of recusal exists when a relative within the third
degree of relationship is an equity partner in a law firm in the case,
notwithstanding his residence in a different office and the lack of any involvement
or effect on his income.
Both of these developments constitute significant changed factual
circumstances that have occurred since the issuance of Judge Snows June 2012
Order on this issue, and should have been raised by the Court, at the very least,
before instituting the contempt proceedings against new parties. However, the
Court failed to do so, despite previously recognizing that, as the ACLU states, any
party could have requested the Court to recuse himself. [ACLU Response at 10].
6.
An objective independent observer would have found

recusal necessary under 28 U.S.C. 455(a).
In light of all of the foregoing arguments, an objective independent observer

would have found recusal necessary under 28 U.S.C. 455(a). The ACLUs
arguments to the contrary, which are largely based on assertions that Petitioners
The record is therefore devoid of evidence that the courts brother-in-law did not
receive some financial benefit (either directly or indirectly) from this substantial
award, regardless of the June 2012 letter sent to the Court from Covington &
Burling.
10
4486372.1
manufactured their basis for judicial disqualification, are not grounded in any facts
and are rank speculation. It is a disguised attempt to distract this Court from a
simple and undeniable truth Judge Snow injected each and every one of the
aforementioned issues into these proceedings. Defendants did not once raise any
of these issues as an affirmative defense (or at all) during the contempt proceedings
in fact, they admitted contempt. As such, an objective independent observer, in
light of all the issues raised above, would find that recusal was necessary under
455(a). See Fairley v. Andrews, 423 F. Supp. 2d 800, 821 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (all of
this Court's statements and interactions with Defendants in this case, taken
together, may give pause to a non-legal observer, not versed in the ways of the
courtroom and the risks of litigation.).
B.
Petitioners will be irreparably injured absent a stay.
It is curious that the ACLU argues that the injured class right to monetary
compensation outweighs Petitioners due process rights. It is axiomatic if Judge
Snow is precluded from sitting on this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, his
continued participation in the contempt proceedings and compliance phase of this
action endangers not only the Petitioners rights, but also the appearance of the
Courts fairness and impartiality to the public. As such, it is understandable that
this Court has recognized that a denial of a Motion for Recusal is exactly the kind
of exceptional circumstance that [a writ of mandamus] was designed [for].
11
4486372.1
Cement Antitrust Litig., (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1982).
Moreover, given that this case is in the remedial stage of litigation, the district
court will not be issuing a final order that can be appealed. Thus, absent
mandamus relief, Petitioners will be prejudiced in a way not correctable on later
appeal.
C.
Issuance of the stay will not substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding and will favor the public interest.
The ACLU argues that a stay would substantially injury Plaintiffs by

further delaying compensation to those who were detained in violation of the
December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction because it will be unable to locate
those victims. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping the ACLU from
locating the alleged victims of Petitioners violation of the December 23, 2011
preliminary injunction. In fact, a stay will give the ACLU additional time to do so.
As such, a stay will actually favor the ACLU.
The ACLU also presumes that Petitioners compliance efforts would not
continue with the existing permanent and supplemental injunctive orders if a stay
were granted. This is an incorrect assumption. Petitioners unequivocally assert
that if this Court granted a stay, MCSO will continue to implement corrective
action pursuant to the Courts permanent and supplemental injunctive orders.
Petitioners only seek to stay all matters associated with the ongoing contempt
proceedings. Petitioners also reiterate that the right to a neutral and detached
12
4486372.1
judge in any proceeding is an integral part of maintaining the publics confidence

in the judicial system. See Ward v. City of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62
(1972). Accordingly, the public interest greatly favors a stay.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioners request this Court stay the district
courts contempt proceedings pending resolution of their writ of mandamus.
13
4486372.1
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of September, 2015.

By /s/ John T. Masterson
John T. Masterson
Joseph J. Popolizio
Justin M. Ackerman
Attorneys for Defendants/Petitioners
Joseph M. Arpaio in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County and
Gerard A. Sheridan
By /s/ John T. Masterson (w/permission from)
Michele M. Iafrate
Attorneys for Defendants/Petitioners
as Sheriff of Maricopa County and
Gerard A. Sheridan
By /s/ John T. Masterson (w/permission from)
A. Melvin McDonald
Specially appearing counsel for
as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona
14
4486372.1
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1.
2.
This
brief
complies
with
the
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because:
type-volume
limitation
[X]
this brief contains 3383 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
[]
this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains ___ lines of text,
excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This
brief
complies
with
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) because:
the
typeface
requirements
of
[X]
this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using

Microsoft Office 2010 14pt Times New Roman, or
[]
this brief has been prepared in a monospaced spaced typeface using

Microsoft Office 2010 with ____ characters per inch (insert name of
font style here) __________________.
Signature
/s/ John T. Masterson
Attorney for
Defendants/Petitioners Joseph M. Arpaio and

Gerard A. Sheridan
Date
September 14, 2015
15
4486372.1
of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Petitioners Reply
in Support of Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings with the Clerk of the
Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the
appellate CM/ECF system on the 14th day of September, 2015.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by
the appellate CM/ECF system:
/s/Karen Gawel
16
4486372.1
E,XHIBIT A
status Conference 8-28-15.txt

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
2
3
Manuel
et al.
de Jesus Ortega Melendres,
pl ai
6
7
nti ffs
NO. CV 07-25L3-PHX-GMS
phoeni x , Ari zona

August 2 8, 201_5
9: 38 a.
vs.
:oseph M. Arpaio,
et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
10
11_
L2
1_3
t4
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
L5
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
L6
G.
MURRAY SNOW
(status conference)
L7
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
s
1_
court Reporter
cary
uo'1
401 tl. washi ngton

Phoeni
Street,
x, Ari zona 85003
SPC #38
(602) 322-72 63
proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter
Transcript prepared by conputer-aided transcripton
cv07-2 51-3 , Me] end res v. Arpai o , 8/28/L5 Status Confe rence
APPEARANCES
eage
4
5
6
7
I
9
1_0
1_ 1_
L2
1_3
1,4
1-5
16
L7
18
1_9
20
27
22
For the
status Conference
plaintiffs:
American civil liberties union Foundation
rmmgrants' nghts eroject
By: cecillia o. wang, Esq.
39 orumm Street
san Francisco, california 94IL]American civil t-iberties union Foundation
rmmi grants' R ghts eroject
By: And re segu ra, Esq . - rel ephon'i ca1 1y
125 sroad street, l-8th Floor
New York, New York 10004
8-28-15.txt
covi ngton & surl ng, LLP
By:
By:
albarran, Esq.- feleph oni cal I v

E . eed'l ey, Esq . - rel e phon'ica llv
1 Front street, 35th rloor
Tammy
Lau
ren
san Francisco,
california
941-11
cov ngton & surl i ng, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: l,li chel I e t-. Mori n , Esq . - rel ephoni cal'ly
333 rwin oolphin orive, suite 700
nedwood shores, california 94065
For the oefendant :oseph v. arpao and ltaricopa county

sheri ff's offi ce:
rafrate & Associates
By:
i chel e tr. Iaf rate , Es.
649 ru. 2nd Avenue
Pho eni x , Ari zona 85003
Jones, skelton & Hochui, PLc
By: n. uelvin l4cDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: :ohn t. Masterson, EsQ.
By: :oseph r. eopo'lizio, Esq.
2901- N. central Avenue, Suite 800
phoeni x, Ari zona 8501-2
- relephon'ically
23
24
25
cvOT-2513, Me]endres
1-
v. Arpaio, 8/28/15 Status Conference
APPEARANCES
For the oefendant tt4aricopa county:

walker & eeskind, PLLC
By: nichard K. \^/alker, Esq.
By: Charles w. Jjrauch, EsQ.
sGA Corporate Center
l-61-00 N. 7th streer, sui te 140
phoenix, Arizona 85254
ror the Movants christine Stutz
4
5
eage
and Thomas
t-i ddy:
status conference 8-28-l-5.txt

Broening, oberg, woods & trrllson, Pc
Byr Terrence p. Woods, Esq.
P.o. eox 20527
13
For the N4ovants tvtarcopa county Attorney's

county Attorney t^/illiam Montgomery:
Ridenour Hienton, PLLC
By: Ernest calderon, ESQ.
chase Tower
20L N. Central Avenue, suite 3300
1,4
For the rntervenor united States
l_0
11
L2
1_6
1-8
1_9
20
America:
united states Department of Justice - c'ivi] nights

G. caspar, Esq.- felephoni4lly
By: Edward
sy: paul rillebrew, Esq. - -relephonically
950 eennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
15
17
of
office and varicopa
washington,
D.c.
20530
For Deputy Chief Jack Maclntyre:

oickinson wrght, PLLC
By: ttitesh v. Patel , Esq.
1850 North central Avenue, suite
For ch ef oeputy Gerard sheri
dan
l-400
uitchell stein carey, Pc

By: Lee D. Stei n, Esq
21,
1 Renai ssance Square

2 ruorth central Avenue, Suite 1900
22
23
24
25
+
cvO7-2513, Melendres
v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status conference
APPEARANCES
l_
2
3
For Executive Chief erian
Sands:
sgaard & smi th ,

Greg S. Como, Esq.
2929 tr. central Avenue, Sui te l-700
Lewi s , Bri sboi s , e'i
By:
phoenix, Arizona
85012
For Lieutenant :oseph sousa:

oav'i d r senbe rg , PLc
By: oavid r senberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd street, suite 4003
A1
6
7
1_0
1- 1_
LLP
so present:
'
chief nobert warshaw, Monitor - relephonically

commander :ohn Gi rvi n, Deputy Moni tor- rel ephoni ca1 1 y
chief Raul Martinez, Deputy Monitor - relephon'ically
chief Deputy Gerard sheridan
'ly
wi chel I e Mo ri n , Esq . - rel ephoni cal
eage
Status Conference 8-28-15.txt

o. Gomez, Esq. - relephoncaly
Raphael
72
l_3
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
?
cvOT-25L3, Melendres
PROCEEDINGS
1
2
3
THE COURT: Please
THE CLERK:
6
7
8
9
10
11
72
on
for status
be seated.
This is cv 07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio,
conference.
counsel, please announce your appearances.

MS. WANG: Good morn'ing, Your Honor. cec'i'l'i a wang of
the AcLU for the plaintffs.
THE couRT: Good morning.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your
covi ngton &
su
THE
rl
'i
ng
couRT:
fo
pl a'i nti
Good
mo
ffs
Honor. stanley
Young,
rn'i ng .
T4
Honor. lichele
rafrate on behalf of sheriff nrpao and the unnamed alleged
15
contemnors.
13
16
MS. TAFRATE: Good morning, Your
MR. MASTERSoN: Good morn'ing,

eage 4
:udge.
John Masterson
Status Conference 8-28-l-5.txt

L7
and Joe eopo'l i zi o
for
sheri
ff
nrpa'io.
THE COURT: You know,
18
Mr. Masterson, I just have a
20
question: Are you just appearng for sheriff nrpao?

MR. MASTERSON: No, :udge. We're the same as
2t
Ms.
19
rafrate. r just
22
23
24
25
+
to
make
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l_1
L2
1_3
1.4
15
1_6
t7
18
19
20
because
clear.
MR. I/ALKER: Good morning, Your
and charles Jirauch on behalf

cVO7-2513, Meendres
1_
it
-THE coURT: r know, t appreciate that. r just wanted

shortened
Honor. Richard walker
of uaricopa county as defined in
v. Arpaio,
8/28/1,5 Status
conference
previous appearances and fi'lings with the court.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Walker, f saw that you filed
something early this mornng; r haven't read it yet.
Just for clarity's sake, it does seem to me -- r read

maybe, like, the first paragraph -- just for clarty's sake for
any party that may wjsh to respond, jt does seem to me that
Marcopa county'is a party and has a rght to separate
representation. But you are a party to the extent that you are
the jural ent'ity that needs to be sued when the sheriff's
office is
sued.
r'm not sure that you have a status here as

vtaricopa county only representing certain aspects of its
organization, for what that's worth. That's why it troubles me
when you take a pos'ition that is substantively different than
the sheriff, sheriff's pos'ition.
nnd r don't know, because r haven't read your motion.
r just barely got it. r, like, ganced at the first page. r
don't know if you address that or not, but that's really what
'l-l j ust tel'l you that and then we'l I move on
concerns me . r'
MR. WALKER: okay. rhank you, Your Honor.
So
eage
2I
THE
22
MR.
23
representi
24
I
25
ng
MR.
status conference 8-28-1-5. txt

couRT: Al I ri ght . rhanks .
coMo: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como
Brian sands, who has waived his appearance today.
wooDs: Terry woods for Lutz and -- for stutz and
t-'iddy.
cv07-2513, elendres
THE
1_
coURT:
v. Arpajo, 8/28/L5 Status Conference
AlI right. thank
You.
STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Lee ste'in,

spec'ial1y appearing for chief oeputy sheridan, who s present.
MR. EISENBERG: GoOd morning, Your Honor. Oavid
eisenberg, specially appearng on behalf of t-ieutenant sousa.
2
3
MR.
for th'is day only.

AlI right. rhank You.
would excuse h-is presence

coURT:
THE
MR. CALDERON: Good morning, Your
l-0
l_L
calderon on behalf
of
MR. PATEL: Good mOrning, Your
13
Maclntyre.
L4
THE COURT: Who do we have
15
CHIEF WARSHAW:
1_8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Ernest
and
his office.
oickinson tltright, specal1y appearing
L7
Honor'
county Attorney w'illiam wontgomery
L2
1-6
YeS.
GoOd
Honor. itesh Patel,
for
Deputy ch'ief
on the
Phone?
morning, Your Honor.
are two deputy monitors: chief Raul

N4art'i nez and Commander :ohn ci rvi n.
THE couRT: Good morn'ing.
MS. ALBARRAN: Good morn'ing, Your Honor. on behalf of
plantiffs, from Covington you have Tammy nlbarran, Lauren
eed'ley, and vichelle uorin; and from the ACLU, Andre segura.
chief warshaw, and with
me
THE COURT: Good mornng.
Honor. el wlcOonald
making a special appearance on behalf of sheriff :oe Rrpa'io.
MR. MCDONALD: Good morning, Your
THE COURT: Good mornng.
eage
Status conference 8-28-15.txt

cV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/75 Status Conference
1_
2
3
4
5
Honor. paul
rillebrew and rd caspar for plaintiff-intervenor united states.
MR. GOMEZ: Good morning, Your Honor. naphael Gomez
from civil oivision, u.s. Department of:ustice.
THE COURT: Is that everyone?
MR. KILLEBREW: Good mornjng, Your
1-5
to you a1l.
Ms. Wang, I instructed -- or I asked you last week if
you would please -- we went through last week the status of
product'ion of documents. Ms. rafrate had produced many things
to you. There were a few things that were outstanding. r
handled the th'ings that they hadn't t'imely produced by denying
their motion. rhey jndicated they understood, and r entered
that in my order.
r al so asked you, though, to confi rm that Ms. rafrate
had g'iven you everythng that she had gven you. can you
16
confi rm that?
!7
I do have that update, Your Honor.

rhere are a couple of outstanding issues. rhe first
is that -- and r should mention first that we noticed after
last week's status conference that there is a discrepancy
between documents l-203 and 1208 on the docket. 1208 is Your
Honor's order setting forth the dates for document producton
and there appears to be a typographical error in jt. There are
two categories that are repeated.
rhe missing category that had been set forth 'in
cv07-2513, uelendres v. Arpao, 8/28/LS Status Conference 9
6
7
I
1-0
l-1
L2
1_3
L4
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
All right.
cood morning
MS. WANG:
rafrate's filng, which was document L203, related to

documents having to do with detentions in violatjon of the
Ms.
eage

prem'inary njuncton order --
THE COURT: YES.
MS. wANG:
smugglng
unit units of
MCSO.
we have continued
to
meet and confer
with us. rafrate
22
this issue. Defendants'position -- and, of course, I'll

let pts. rafrate speak for herself -- is that they are unable to
do that search.
rheir post'ion is that plaintiffs should look at the
cAD database that was produced and identify such detentions in
violation of the preliminary'injuncton order by non-HSU
deputes, identify the stops at issue, and then they will
search for documents.
pla'intiffs' position is that they should undertake a
reasonable search for documents. w, for example, suggest that
there may be documentation of contacts between non-HSU deputies
and federal immigration officials such as Border patrol or rcE.
rf such contacts were made, that could indicate that there was
such a detention by a non-HSU deputy, but we may be at an
impasse on whether that search should be conducted by the
23
defendants
24
r believe the only other issue that we need to raise

with the court right now is that last week there was a question
cv07-2513, welendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference l-0
8
9
10
LL
t2
1_3
t4
15
16
L7
1-8
1_9
20
2L
-- by non-Human
25
l2
3
4
5
6
7
on
about whether there was a comp'lete production
of the internal
investigation files relating to any potential discrimination

against members of the pantiff class gong back to 2008. rn
fact, Ms. rafrate, upon meeting and conferrjng with us after
last week's status conference, djscovered there were six files
that had not been produced.
-rhose were produced to us r beleve yesterday?
eage
Status Conference 8-28-1-5.txt

Yes, yesterday.
THE
l-0
11
!2
13
THE COURT: YES.
-- hard drive?
THE coURTr Yes. rhe chief rnight hard drive that
MS. wANG:
16
L7
was holdng
18
acki ewi cz.
23
24
o
-t
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
10
11
that
was my understanding he
MS. wANG:
l-9
22
what about the trackiewicz
drive, whch vts. rafrate was gong to do a prvilege

review and g'ive you a privilege log, has that been provided?
MS. WANG: That was the -- do you mean the chief
rnght --
15
2L
All right.
hard
1,4
20
couRT:
r don't think
he
got from Detective
we've gotten
that priv'iege
log.
THE
coURT:
All rght. But as far as you know, that's
the status of everyth'ing outstandng?

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. You're already aware of
the issue with the psr files. Those are being produced on an
ongoing bass. And we are meeting and conferring with
cv07-2513, uelendres v. Arpaio, B/28/15 Status Conference 1-1
Mr. walker and trr. Masterson about the SO-hard-drive issue.
THE couRT: All right. we'll raise that probably
later to see where we're at on that.
t'4S. WANG: Al I ri ght .
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, just to supp'lement, there is
one document product'ion issue which relates to defendants as
well as to their former attorneys, Mr. casey and the attorneys
at the McAo, and it relates to the scope of Your Honor's May
L4, 2015 order finding a waiver of privlege and work product
as to communications relating to the prelim'inary njunct'ion
violation. we are conferring about that now. we've had some
eage
L2
13
L4
15
1_6
useful discussions this morning.
to let Your Honor know that if we can't

reach agreement on that, we may be bringng certain prviege
'logs to you next week to resolve those issues prior to the
depositions that we want to take.
r
THE COURT:
L7
l_8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
do want
That makes sense.
rafrate, did you want to be heard on this?

MS. IAFRATE : Yes , p'l ease.
Your Honor, regardng the non-HSU deputies, this was a
conversation that r had w'ith plaintiffs' counsel many, many
months ago regarding how best to capture this jnformation. rt
was plaintjffs' suggestjon that we do a cAD data dump so that
they could review the cAD to determine what stops they want to
look at. r was attempting to make certajn that they get what
cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpao, 8/28/15 Status Conference t2
Ms.
they
need.
rhe jdea of doing some sort of search, one of the

reasons that we're here, Your Honor, 'is because MCSO did not
track these types of stops, and, therefore, there is no
documentation that would adequately satisfy plaintiffs'
request. therefore, the cAD areas that they were 'interested in
looking at have been provded to p1antiffs' counsel so that
when they determine which stops they want to look at, we can
to them.
there's no way for us to do a search regardng non-HSU
individuals that may have had contact with the plaintffs'
class. rt just wasn't tracked that way back then. rt js now.
Regarding the chief rn'ight hard drive -THE COURT: Before we move on to the Chief -provide those documents
15
MS. TAFRATE: Okay.
16
THE
couRT: -- rnght hard drive, are there

eage 10
any

L7
1-8
1_9
records kept
of contacts
between Mcso deputies and Border
patrol or rcE operatives or agents?

MS. TAFRATE: r don't know the
answer
to that
2L
question, Your Honor.

THE couRT: All right. could you determine the
22
to that
20
23
24
25
+
l_
answer
quest'ion?
MS. TAFRATE:
could.
to so, and if there are, provide

such records to the plaintiffs.
cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference
THE COURT: Please
MS. TAFRATE: very well.
couRT: Similarly, because, as I recall, there

something that operated -- we referred to -- what was the
pol i cy, LEAR po1 i cy? r thi nk we cal I ed i t the lenn po'l'i cy?
MS. TAFRATE: That was the federal government's
policy. rt
2
3
7
8
L0
LL
L2
1-3
I4
1_5
16
L7
1_8
l-9
20
13
THE
was
was
called --
Right. nnd t referred to it as LEAR. But

it seems to me that in the operative directives underlyng
trial, there was a directive for agents to contact their
supervisors andlor -- r guess there wouldn't be any 287(g)
folks after r entered the prelimnary injunct'ion, but would you
please check to see if there's any way for agents to con -- or
any procedure by whjch agents contacted their supervise -deputies contacted their supervisors if they wanted to make
nrnrigration holds or arrests, and if there was, provide that
information to -MS. TAFRATE : Okay.
THE COURT: -- Ms. Wang.
MS. IAFRATE : Okay.
THE couRT: Ms. wang, will that be satjsfactory?
THE
coURT:
eage 11
status conference 8-28-1-5.txt

Honor. thank
2I
MS. WANG: Yes, Your
22
THE
couRT: All rght. thank you.

Now, the lackiewicz -- or the rnight hard drive, or
23
24
the ackiewicz hard drive, or whatever it is that -MS. TAFRATE: YES,
25
+
you.
cv07-2513, Melendres
v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference L4
13
couRT: -- we're talking about.

MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, I was actually doing -- I
received the hard drive from the monitors, and r've been
workjng w'ith commander ci rvn regarding the uackiewicz -- we1l,
r have to call it the chief rnight hard drive.
THE couRT: That's fine.
MS. TAFRATE: okay. So the chief rnght hard drive is
actually a subset of the hard drive that was provided to the
monitors on the day that you requested that they go over and
get the information. t'lot only were they provided the relevant
information on that hard drive; they were also prov'ided the
relevant information on lackiewcz's H drive.
THE couRT: Are we talking about the rcnight hard drive
L4
now?
1_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1_0
l-
1-
t2
THE
MS. TAFRATE:
1_5
16
No. Okay. I'm
gong
to start over
so
that r don't --
18
r No , no . tracki ewi cz has hi s own access to

the H drive, which is the generally shared drive within the
19
MCSO?
1.7
20
21-
22
23
24
25
THE
COURT
All of that went onto a hard drive that

was ultjmately provided to the monitors on that day.
THE couRT: t gotcha.
MS. TAFRATE:
the rnight hard drive was a subset of

what was provded -- there's actualy more on the hard drive
that was provided to the monitors.
MS. IAFRATE: So
eage
L2
status conference 8-28-15.txt

cvO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/15 Status Conference
story short -- or short story 1ong, whichever -the monitors, r believe yesterday, or today, agreed that they
do not need to look at what we're cal'ing the rnight hard
drive. r was looking at that for relevance, not for priviege,
Your Honor.
1
2
3
Long
THE COURT: Okay.
15
it out w'ith the monitors;

r've not yet worked it out with plaintiffs' counsel. r thought
that r would start with the monitors because they were the ones
that were in possession of it.
THE couRT: All right. chief cirvin, is that
accurate, as far as you're concerned?
CHIEF GIRVIN: Yes, Your Honor, it is.
THE COURT: All right. thank you.
Anything else you wanted to say on that, on these
16
issues, Ms. tafrate?
I
9
10
11
L2
1_3
L4
MS. TAFRATE: so
worked
MS. IAFRATE: No, Your Honor.
L7
20
couRT: All right. thank you.

Rs it pertans to the 50 hard drives -- r don't know
whethelit's you or Mr. Masterson -- were you ab'le to arrive at
2t
sti
l_8
1-9
22
23
24
1-5
25
THE
pul
ati
ons?
MR. MASTERSoN:
Actually, :udge, r probably
should
have sent someone ese up here.
letter yesterday afternoon concerning

a proposal with respect to the 50 hard drives. Just prior to
cV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/75 Status conference 16
Ms. Wang sent a
l- that, an hour or two, Mr. waker sent a letter

2 resolution, so maybe they should talk about it.
eage
13
proposing
can work
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1_l-
L2
13
L4
1_5
1_6
L7
18
l-9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
with either side and agree-in the middle or agree to either

one, so we are working on the protocol and how we're gong to
go about it; we just haven't reached a final agreement yet.
THE COURT: okay. r did think, you know, you ponted
out -- r just have a thought. Let me sort of throw t out
there as long as folks are talking about stuff. vou did pont
out to me 26(b)(2) and the 2006 amendment, and r read that, and
it seems to me that what it talks about js access, and you
-- wel, r guess let me start back.

r want to make sure, and t don't mean to be offensive
here, but f want to make sure that we now have everything that
relates to the Montgomery invest'igation or that Montgomery
provded to the Mcso. Has that either been disclosed or is it
jn the court's -- or is it in the court's possession?
MR. MASTERSoN: To my knowledge -- we'll, if we're
talking to what vontgomery had, r think it's all on the
hard drives, wh'ich now are in the possesson of the marshals.
THE COURT: All rght. With respect to 50 -- r'm
sorry. r just want to make clear as we go po'int by point, and
excuse me foli nterrupting, those 50 hard drives, or
approx'imately 50 hard drives that the monitor has, are the
hard drives that Montgomery gave to the Mcso.
had
MR. MASTERSON: COTTCCt.
cvO7-2513, Melendres
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
v. Arpaio,
8/28/1,5 Status conference
L7
All rght. nnd you're not aware, at least

as you stand here today, that there is any otherinformation
that Montgomery prov'ided to the Mcso.
MR. 4ASTERSoN: That is what r don't know. rf there
is ndependent documentation -- notes, anything ike that -that, r don't know.
May r confer with pts. rafrate for a minute?
THE
coURT:
eage 14

8
THE COURT] SuTe.
(pause n proceedi ngs. )
22
the best I can tell you is we think

everything we have has been disclosed or the court, through the
marshals, has taken possesson, except there's one document
which we received this morn'ing. The court made an inqury
yester -- excuse me, not yesterday -- last week of me about
whether we retained experts to take a look at the materials. r
was not certain about that. r thought that we had two
individuals look at it; whether they were retaned experts, r
d-id not know.
r've gotten a little further information on that.
They weren't retained experts, what they were is former ruSa
employees, and the hard drives were provided to them, and we
received this morning a two-page memo, r'11 say, about those
23
hard drives.
24
r can't tell you what

exactly'i t means, but r can tell you what r read jt to mean'is
Cv07-251-3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference 1-8
1_0
11
L2
13
t4
15
L6
L7
18
1_9
20
2L
25
?
MR. MASTERSoN:
Not being a computer guy,
there's basically nothing here; that whatever Mr. Montgomery

told you was here isn't really -- that's not what this is. nd
we wi'l prov'ide that document to the court and the plaintiffs.
THE coURT: When was that document prepared, do you
remembe
1-
2
3
6
7
8
9
l-0
11
r?
(eause
proceedings.)
I'm told November 20L4.

THE COURT: Okay. I guess I'm just going to ask you,
and r appreciate you're being as forthright as you can be, but
r'm going to ask you to check and make sure that everything
that the monitor's asked for that r've otherwise ordered has
MR. MASTERSON:
eage 15
status conference 8-28-l-5.txt
L2
13
14
15
16
17
l_8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
+
1_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
L3
L4
15
16
far as you know, and to confirm that for me

next week. nnd you don't need to wait to produce the document
to plaintiffs and other part'ies that you've just identified.
Is that okay?
been disclosed as
MR. MASTERSoNT
That's absolutely fne,:udge.
All right. Now, being that you just told

me what you to'ld me, that may make this a lot eas'ier, but -oh. o'id you have anythng else you wanted to say
before r go on to my thoughts?
MR. MASTERSoN: well, not till later, so -THE coURT: That's all right. on the 26(b) thing, 'it
seems to me that you have had -- or your clients have had
access to these documents for years. rhey d"id have,
apparently -CV07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/1,5 Status Conference 1-9
THE
couRT:
were the NSA guys vcso employees,
or were they outside
consultants? or outside people.

MR. MASTERSoN: outside people.
THE couRT: nnd were they pad?
MR. MASTERSON: I don't think so, but, again, I don't
know the answer to that.
All rght. rt just seems to me that to

the extent that ptcso might want to preserve any right to say
that there was information in those hard drjves, or anything
else provided to you by Montgomery, that would have -- that you
believe would have allowed Mr. Montgomery to legtmatey
construct the k'inds of materials that we've seen in the record
and that r've prov'ided you this week that r saw that Ms. wang
prov'ided in conjunction with the motion to recuse, r guess it's
fair to say'identify that stuff, and there may be no issue, and
i f there's no i ssue, there's no i ssue. About that, at I east.
THE
couRT:
eage 16
20
2L
made.
18
19
and so you may be able
MR. MASTERSoN:
22
to
the stipulat'ions that we talked

about last week, and maybe then r just wait and see what kind
of stipulations, or how -- if you can resolve this within the
next week. rt sounds like at least there's movement beng
L7
make
r think so, ludge,
and
I think we can
23
get to the point of agreement, based upon the correspondence r
24
saw yesterday.
All right.
cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpajo, 8/28/L5 Status Conference
THE COURT:
25
1.
any disagreement with
MS. WANG: No, Your
4
5
6
7
that, us.
wang?
Honor. We'll continue to meet
L2
13
documents
L0
L1,
THE COURT: Okay.
1_5
MR. MASTERSoN: May

mi
nute,
and
1.4
16
and
confer on that issue.

THE couRT: nll right. h,as there anything wth
respect to the -- I think we must have resolved the new
identifications found last week. nnything wth respect to
that? Are we moving along? Have we resolved those issues?
MS. WANG: Your Honor, all the parties trouped down to
the uarshal's office after the status conference last week,

speak'ing for the pajntiffs, we have received cop'ies of the
identifjcation documents, at least the ones that were not
shredded, so we're followng up wth our revjew of those
20
p1
r consult with Ms. wang for
ease?
17
THE COURT: SUTC,
18
(pause n proceedi ngs. )
19
MR. MASTERSON:
20
MS. WANG: Your Honor,
thanks, Judge.
eage 77
should
c'larfy. lhe form in
which we got copies
22
scanned copy from
23
documents and
24
of those identification documents was a

the Marshal's office. there are some
2L
25
l2
3
-- actualy, there are some categores of

documents that are not very 1egjb1e on those scans, so we have
discussed getting a color scan or photograph of those
cvo7-25L3, Melendres v. Arpao, 8/28/L5 status conference 2L
identificat'ion documents, and we are following up on that'
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. casey's deposition date, r am informed, is
tentatively set for September 1-6th, is that correct?
MS. WANG: Yes, YOUr HOnOr'
6
7
I
9
1_0
l_1
couRT: My judicial assistant said, "You didn't

agree to go sit there during the whole depost'ion, did you?
Because we need you here throughout the day, and maybe f you
could just be consulted."
r said, tre'l, r think r kind of did agree to 9o sit
there. " rs that the parti es' understandi ng?
THE
MS. I^'ANG: Your Honor,
L2
di
dn't
have an understand'i ng
19
or the other. My understanding was that the court was

generally avalable to field any issues that would come up.
THE COURT: All right. r am generally avalable, and
f you want me to sit there, 1et me know in advance.
MS. WANG: r believe Ms. Clark may have expressed a
desire that Your Honor sit there, but she's not here, so -THE couRT: Do you have a pos'i tion on that,
20
Ms. rafrate?
13
I4
15
16
t7
1_8
one way
MS. IAFRATE: No, Your
2L
22
Ms.
clark to
Honor. f would leave it up to
her positon known.

couRT: Mr. walker?
make
23
THE
24
MR. WALKER: Your Honor,
25
may be speak'ing
out of turn
here, but r just wanted to throw out a suggestion. rf there

eage 18
CVO7-251-3,
1,
2
3
in the courthouse where the deposition could

conducted, that m'ight accommodate both the court and the
parties a little better.
THE couRT: Are you amenable to that?
were
room
MS. WANG: That would be wonderful.
THE
MS. IAFRATE: That would be
THE COURT: MT.
MR.
22
be
couRT: Ms. rafrate?
fine.
COMO?
coMo: rine with me, Your Honor.
1_L
All rght. r'll see if r can arrange

something. r would apprecate that, just in terms of trying to
L2
do my other business as well.
1_0
THE COURT:
(off-the-record discussion between the court and the
L3
L4
L5
L6
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24

Melendres v. Arpao, 8/28/LS Status Conference
25
t
2
clerk.)
question. It seems to me, as

we're trying to streamline and get to what is realy relevant
and eljminate what's not really re'levant, r did hear, r think,
certainly we had lieutenant sousa's testimony 'in the fjrst half
of the contempt hearing. all documents had not at that point
been provided, and r don't know whether any of the documents
shed any light on whether or not Ljeutenant sousa should remain
a party, or whether or not p'laintiffs wished to present any
nore test'i mony wjth respect to Lieutenant sousa.
r understand why that may be distinct, for example,
with chief ,tacrntyre, who pla'intffs have not yet called or who
CVO7-251-3, Melendres v. Arpajo, 8/28/L5 Status Conference 23
THE COURT:
I did
have a
if r've heard all the testimony

t-ieutenant sousa, in light of the prolonged nature of
has not yet been caled, but

regarding
nage 19
L7
this hearing and its continued prolongation, r must say,

without makng this a rung of any sort, that r did not hear
anything that would suggest that Lieutenant sousa's conduct
rose to the level of civil contempt.
rf paintiffs desire to present additjonal evidence
with respect to Lieutenant sousa, then r guess r would like to
know it, and r would like to know what doc -- or if you had
testimony that you'd intended with respect to Lieutenant sousa,
r guess r'd just lke you to think about that so that we don't
keep parties in here that we don't need to keep if there isn't
really a basis to keep them any longer.
nnd t guess, although r understand your desire to
proceed with chief Macrntyre, we ought to be flexible, too, to
the extent and notion that once we've heard from him, once
we've heard your ev'idence, you can let me know jf you think
1-8
you've presented your evdence on him.
4
5
6
7
I
l_0
l-1
12
l-3
L4
l-5
1_6
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
that goes for the other parties, too. r

don't know if the -- I don't know if any of you have anythng
you want to have said on that, but r would like, with respect
to Lieutenant sousa, at least, since we've heard his testimony,
and t think we've heard all the testimony -- t don't know what
testimony you intend to produce, but heard a lot of test'imony
about what t-'ieutenant sousa's role was and what he did and
cv07-25t3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/1,5 status conference 24
nnd
suppose
didn't do, r at least would like to entertain the possib'lty

of, if there's an early dspos'ition for hm, tak'ing it, or
makng t.
Mr. Como, do you have anything to say on that?
MR, COMO: r have no postion on that one way or the
other, Your
1.
2
3
Honor.
THE
COURT
tttr.
wal ker?
eage 20
Status Conference B-28-15.txt

MR. wALKER: r also have no post'ion on
9
1_0
tme, Your Honor.

THE couRT: Ms. tafrate?
M5. TAFRATE: Yes, Your
11
Honor. r would like to
15
include some discussion regarding any evidence whatsoever

regarding chief laactntyre as it relates to civil contempt. so
'if you ' re enterta'i n ng Li eutenant Sousa possi bl y not be ng a
defendant for civil contempt, r would also urge chief Macrntyre
1_6
as well.
L2
13
74
THE
L7
L8
19
coURT:
well, as r just said,
we haven't heard
from chjef acrntyre; we have heard from Lieutenant sousa.

Certanly, once we hear from chief Macrntyre, once we've got
24
the case presented, p'lantiffs' case with respect to chief

Macrntyre, if r don't think there's a basis for civil contempt,
r'm open to dismissing him early, too, at that pont.
Mr. r'i senberg , you' re spec'i al I y represent j ng
Lieutenant sousa. Do you have anything to say on that one way
25
or
20
2L
22
23
it at this
another?
cv07-25t3, tt4elendres
v. Arpa'io, 8/28/L5 status conference
MR. ETSENBERG:
25
would be delighted with the court's
decision to eliminate him from this case, Your Honor, but I

understand that that isn't a decision you're prepared to make
today. r'll confer -THE coURT: You need to have a microphone in front of
you.
2
3
8
9
1_0
11
confer with the p1a'intffs, Your

Honor, and determ ne what more, 'i f anyth'i ng, they need, and
perhaps r can help this process along.
MR. EISENBERG:
I'll
couRT: All rght. thank you.

Those are my matters. Ms. Wang, anything more you
THE
eage 21
Status conference 8-28-l-5.txt
rai se?
wanted
13
Honor. With regard to

Lieutenant sousa, we'll take it under consideration, but
obviously would want to reserve any decision pendng the
producton of the remaining est files. nd t'd also po'int out
that he may still be needed as a witness one way or the other.
THE couRT: well, my excusing him as a named possible
contemnor does not preclude his testimony.
L4
l-5
1_6
L7
1-8
l-9
MS. WANGT No, Your
20
MS. wANG: understood.
2L
Your Honor, can we have a date by which defendants
of
22
should produce the two categories
23
detentions by non-HSU personnel?

THE couRT: Ms. tafrate?
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor,
24
to
!2
25
1-
you have a date next
MS. IAFRATE: YES.
know what
or is not, so r would ask till

THE COURT: Can
I don't
relating to
there iS
Cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/I5 Status Conference 26
documents
week?
couRT: nnd so you can consult wjth Ms. wang, and

f you can agree on a date, fine; if not, we can take'it up
next week.
THE
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
YES
Okay. thanks.
10
other issue, Your Honor. We served

some of the interrogatories and requests for admission that
1_ 1_
Your Honor perm'itted us leave
L2
we requested
13
L4
15
16
MS. WANG: one
to
propound
last
week yesterday.
that the defendants respond on a shortened

time line of 1-4 days to accommodate the continuation of the
hearing on the 22nd, and we don't have a pos'ition from the
defendants yet. we tried to confer this morning before court
but weren't able to get an answer.
eage
22

THE couRT: Ms. lafrate? or Mr. Masterson? r don't
17
1_8
know.
1_9
MR. MASTERSON: One moment, pease, Judge.
20
THE COURT: SUTC.
2L
(pause 'in proceedi ngs . )
22
MR. MASTERSoNT The answer
23
24
25
?
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1_0
1_L
L2
13
L4
1-5
16
t7
18
l-9
20
just got
to that question is,
Judge,
last night. t have not even reviewed them. r

j ust d'i scussed i t wi th Mr. eopol i zi o. we' re not goi ng to
request, obviously, the full tjme allowed by the federal ru1es,
cv07-2573, Melendres v. Arpa'io, 8/28/15 Status Conference 27
we
them
but we wjll work on them irnmediately. nnd we're talking wth

pl a'i nt'i ffs ' counsel about a I ot of di fferent thi ngs , so r wi I l
consult with Mr. Young and Ms. wang about that as well, and
hopefu'ly, we can reach a satisfactory date to respond to that
discovery request.
THE couRT: All right. oid you have any issues,
Ms. rafrate and Mr. Masterson, yor wanted to raise?
N4R. MASTERSON: I have a coup'l e, or a few.
Number one is -- and'it's possible r mjssed something.
-rhe complaint
in intervention submitted by the oepartment of

Justice along wth their motion to intervene included an order,
and t forgot to bring t with me thjs morning but jt said
something along the lines of, "rf you grant our motion, Judge,
w'i'11 you deem our complaint in intervention filed?" or
someth'ing aong those lines. rhe court -THE couRT: r don't know whether r did that at all.
MR. MASTERSoN: You did not. nnd so r don't want
to -- r don't thjnk the complaint in intervention has been
filed, but r wasn't positive about that, and r didn't want to
get defaulted by the clerk, so -eage 23
2L
22
23
24
25

No. thank you.
r just granted the motion to intervene, and r didn't
do -- or at least r don't recall taking any action w'ith respect
to the complaint in intervention. There's no objection to the
THE COURT:
fi'l'ing of the comp'laint in intervention, is there?

cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpajo, 8/28/15 Status Conference
28
MR. MASTERSON] ThCTC iS NOt.
1_
couRT: All rght. So r wjll now order that the

complaint in intervention be filed, and your time is running.
MR. MASTERSoN: rhank you. Just wanted to clear that
up.
2
3
THE
THE COURT: Thank You.
MR. MASTERSoN: Number two
8
9
10
is the court inqured
about
the possbility of resolving ths matter with the ACLU last

rriday, and r just want to keep the court up to date on what's
transp red si nce then.
77
All right. r guess that's fine, but we've

had a couple of different objections here about talking about
the content of settlement discussions.
MR. MASTERSoN: r'm not gojng to talk about settlement
suggestions, their specjfics. r'm just going to say that r did
reach out to Mr. Young and ts. wang yesterday and we've talked
about it, and hopeful'ly we'll continue those discussions as we
1-8
move forward.
11
L2
13
1.4
15
16
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
THE
coURTr
THE COURT:
All right.
I did
discuss with wr. Young and s. wang the possbiIity of asking
the court to seek the assistance of a magistrate with
settlement discussions. Rnd the question we all talked about
was we're on a very short fuse here with respect to moving
forward with the contempt proceedng, so taking a bunch of time
MR. MASTERSON: There was some concern, and
eage 24

cvO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference
if we don't know we're going to get

somewhere, mght not be time well spent, but obv'ious'ly, if we
were to reach an agreement, it would be time well spent.
But if we feel we're getting somewhere, would we have
any hope of getting mag'istrate assistance on such short notice?
THE couRT: r'll tell you what. r w'ill just sort of
do a genera-l blast, if the parties approve it, today to the
magistrate judges, saying: Are any of you available on short
noti ce?
1_
2
3
4
5
6
7
for settlement
dscuss'ions,
l-1-
But do you have any idea what kjnd of time range

you're lookjng at so r can -- you know, if r say that, they'l'l
L2
say, well,
1-0
1_3
L4
L5
16
t7
18
1_9
20
2t
22
23
24
29
25
when?
Yeah. r don't,:udge. what r'm

hopng to get from plaintiffs' counsel in the next week or so
is a proposal for resolution which, of course, will be proposed
rernedi es o r addi ti onal 'i n j unct ve rel'i ef . r 'm hopi ng that we
can get some proposals on that, and then r'll have the
opportunity to sit down with everybody involved and then get
back to them in short order.
So right now, today, r can't tell you, but hopefuly,
maybe by next rrday.
THE coURT: That would be good. r do think -- you
know, the magistrate judges here try their best to be very
he'lpful, and r'm sure that they would try to be available, but
they have schedul es , too. They' re pretty busy.
cvOT-25L3, Me'lendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/75 Status Conference 30
MR. MASTERSoNT
MR. MASTERSON: UNdCTStOOd,
THE
coURTr But I'm sure

eage 25
that f, you know, any of

things or whatever, r expect, based on
past performance, they'd do a'll they could to be of any
them could rearrange
their
hel p.
6
7
I
9
MR. MASTERSoN:
this last week and r just did not, and

that's my fault, is r was talking about seeking the bi'lling
records of the monitor and the court said: rile your motion.
should have asked you
couRT:
10
THE
1_1
MR. MASTERSON:
L2
13
L4
l_5
r_6
L7
l_8
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
understood. Another issue is -- and t
um-hum.
that confused me when t got back to

typically r would submit a subpoena, and --
the office, because

THE couRT: Yeah.
-- then if
got a beef -THE coURT: why don't we do -- r'm sorry. Let me let
MR. MASTERSoN:
somebody's
you f ni sh.
MR. MASTERSoNT
rf
somebody's
can move to quash the subpoena

THE
couRT:
got a beef, then they
or seek --
Yeah.
-- some relief.
THE couRT: nd r was just th'ink'ing we'd do that by
motion. r think -- and, you know, if you want to do it
expedted, expedte it, but to the extent that you're talk'ing
about areas that may or may not have some privilege attaching,
no privilege that r've seen s absolute, so you may well be
cvO7-25L3, Me]endres v. Arpaio, 8/28/1,5 Status Conference 31MR. MASTERSoN:
able to overcome the prvilege, in light of the circumstances,

but the tests in the case they gave you last week and several
others , they' re sort of I ai d out.
so r guess what t was shorthanding is f you're gong
to ask for thngs that r would at least think might be
priv'leged, r wou'ld ask you to set forth what it is you want;
why you want it; and why you think, to the extent the prviege
eage 26
11

m'ight apply, that you're entitled to receive it.
r don't mind doing those ex parte, but r think that
t's probably wise we be as clear as we can and -- when r said
"ex parte" r didn't mean "ex parte." r don't mind doing those
L2
expedi ted
8
9
l-0
13
L4
1_5
1-6
t7
18
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MR. MASTERSON:
night.
to be as clear as we
can so that everybody knows what the basis of my rul'ings are,
what the basis of your request is, and so we can proceed
in clarity.
MR. MASTERSoN : ra'i r enough
I've got one more that r hate to brng up but r have
to: somewhere between 61 and 65 more ros showed up.
THE COURT:
But
I think
we need
THE COURT: Okay.
rA number's been pulled' rhe

investigation has been started. r believe the monitors have
been informed. copes of the rDs have been made and will be
provided to plaintffs either by the monitors or by counsel'
cvOT-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 status conference
MR. MASTERSoN: An
32
into it, at this point r know one

person has been nterviewed as of wednesday afternoon' r
haven't follow up since wednesday afternoon to see where the
investigation was headed from there. r know one other person
to be interviewed was out of townr not available till next
Monday. so r can't g'ive the court any further information
other than that the ros showed up, we've got them, we've made
copes, we've given information to the monitors, and we're
gong to g'ive that to plaintjffs either through the monitors or
directly, and an rA has been commenced on the jssue.
THE couRT: rhank you. were any of them 'invov'ing
The investigation
eage 27
L2
of the
status Conference 8-28-1-5.txt

pl a'i nt'i
ff
cl ass?
L7
r certainly can't tell you whether

there are members of the p'laintiffs' class. r can tell you
that r have been informed -- t have not seen any of them, and r
have not even talked to anyone who has seen them, but my
information is that there are a number of tos with Hispanic
1_8
L3
L4
15
L6
L9
20
2L
22
23
members
MR. MASTERSoN:
ast
names
couRT: All rght. thank you. r appreciate

expect your forthcomingness in this -- in this matter and
others, but apprecate it.
MR. MASTERSoN: and that's a wrap for me, Judge.
THE couRT: All right. thank you. lr. walker?
THE
24
MR. WALKER: Nothing
25
THE COURT: MT.
cvOT-25L3, Melendres
THE COURT: MT.
6
7
8
10
1-L
L2
1_3
t4
1-5
l_6
COMO?
33
coMo: r have nothjng further, Your Honor.
MR.
further, Your Honor.
v. Arpaio, 8/28/75 status conference
I
3
and
YOUN9?
Honor. On the issue of

settlement, Mr. Masterson did accurately recite the course of
our discussion. r should note that we are certain'ly ntendng
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your
further discussions on whether we can agree on some

remedies, although r would note that we have been receivng,
and continue to rece'ive, a lot of information that will be
highly relevant to the issue of what type of remedy we think
ought to be put i nto pl ace.
rhe internal investigation process is certainly very
mportant. we've recenty been getting a number of tn
documents that are hghly relevant to the issue of a remedy. r
think we're continu'ing to get them. we've heard just now that
there will be some more coming. we'll want to look at those in
order to be able to propose a remedy to try to prevent the
to
have
eage 28

L7
18
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1_
kinds
of
abuses
that
have occurred.
rn additon,
the 16,000 documents comng

out of the psT archives of the people who are high'ly relevant.
we did receive several hundred of those last onday, Monday
this week. r understand that we'll be receiving a bunch more
today and Monday, but we don't know when we'll get the last of
we do have
those. nnd genera'l1y speakng, at least'in my experence, one

is in the best pos'iton to figure out what a settlement is when
one has the information that is relevant to the case and to the
Cv07-2513, uelendres v. Arpa'io, 8/28/L5 Status Conference 34
proposed remedy, so
we'll
do our best.
couRT: we1l, r understand that, and r, you know,

do not expect you to settle this basis -- settle this case on
any basis other than one that you can find acceptable after
be'i
2
3
THE
ng f u'l'l y i nfo rmed .
1-0
rafrate, un'less r misremember,

that even had r granted your motion for an extension, which r
didn't do, you woud have provded all of that information
prior to the next time we have a status conference, so r assume
they're gong to have it, plaint'iffs will have it prior to the
11_
next status conference.
6
7
B
T2
L3
L4
15
16
L7
1_8
1_9
20
rt
does seem
to
me, Ms.
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your
working on
it full
Honor.
We
have
six
peope
time.
THE COURT: Thank
you very
much.
you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's see, is the next status
conference next rriday?
MR. YouNGr r believe it is.
THE CLERK: Yes, Judge.
MR. YOUNGT Thank
THE CoURT:
We'll see you then. rhank

eage 29
you.
status Conference 8-28-1-5.txt

MR. KILLEBREW: YOUT HONOT? YOUT HONOT, this iS
27
22
rillebrew for the united states.
23
THE COURT: YES.
24
MR. KILLEBREW: Could we
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l-0
1-1-
L2
1_3
L4
15
16
17
1-8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
raise a couple of issues with
the court?
cvO7-2
1_
PAUI
51-3
Mel end
res
v.
Arpaj
, 8/28/t5 Status Confe rence
35
THE COURT: YES.
you. First of all, on discovery

matters, we just want to be sure that the parties are provd-ing
discovery to the united states when it's provded to the
p1a'intiff class as well. nnd related to that, there's some
d'iscovery that was prev'ious'l y provi ded to pl a nt'iffs' cl ass
MR. KILLEBREW: Thank
under an attorneys'-eyes-only designation.

we've worked on getting as much information as we can'
but the p1a'intiffs would prefer us to make a request drectly

to the defendants for those kinds of materials. trle would like
to do that, but it may require -- we don't know if discovery is
gong to close on september 22nd at the start of the hearng.
THE couRT: well, that is -- discovery, hopefully,
will be closed well before then, but it seems to me -- and
agai n, r don't i ntend any cri ti ci sm by thi s comment, but
Mr. Masterson, in candor, has come forth and identified 65
additional documents, or 65 additional identifjcations today,
and so r'm not going to remove defendants from any obligaton
to continue to provide relevant information that they d'iscover.
But r will take them at their word that as far as they know,
they have provided all the information they had, except to the
extent they have identifjed that they haven't provided it for
some reason, or that they're in the course of provding t'
So yes, r expect all discovery wl be well closed
prior to that, but r'm not going to remove any obligat'ion that
eage 30
cvO7-2513, Me]endres
36
to continue to prov'ide relevant information,

and t assume they're doing that to the best of thei r abi-l'ity.
MR. KILLEBREW: Your Honor -- oh, I'm sorry.
THE couRT: r'm sorry. There wouldn't be any
object'ion to providng all the information you're prov'iding to
pl a'inti ffs to the pl ai nti ff-i ntervenors i n thi s case, wou'ld
there, Ms. tafrate?
l2
3
4
5
defendants have
10
TL
T2
r believe that
MS. TAFRATE: No, and
THE
coURT:
okay.
nnd about the attorneys'-eyes-on1y
designation, do you have any concern if the oepartment of

Justice contacts you directly about receiving that information?
L4
THE
1_6
L7
l-8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
2S
12
we are doing
that.
1_3
1_5
v. Arpaio, 8/28/15 status Conference
coURT:
All rght.
Does
that take care of
your
concerns and issues?

MR. KTLLEBREh,: Yes, one
an additional one related

THE COURT:
of
them, Your Honor.
have
to dscovery as well.
All rght.
the possiblity of
retaining an expert. rn recogn'ition that the court is going to
be considering additional njunct'ive remedies, we believe an
expert's testimony could be very hepfu1, and espec'ia1ly in the
area of internal accountab'ity of expaining what kind of
remedies may be appropriate or would prevent future violations
of the law. But to do so, we thnk that that will not be
cv07-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status Conference 37
MR. KTLLEBREW: we are considering
especially if the defendants would

want to depose the expert, as we expect they wou1d. we also
conrp'leted by septenrber 22nd,
eage
31-
think the expert would probably be best suited to do hs work

after the monitor has filed hs report on the rA investigations
resulting from the nrmendariz suicide.
so we just wanted to flag this for the court and also
get the court's guidance on the tming of when an expert could
come i n.
4
5
10
11
L2
1-3
L4
15
16
t7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
I
25
couRT: Do you have any reaction to that

immediately, Mr. Masterson? Ms. tafrate?
MR. MASTERSON: well, my injtial reaction js no. rf
it is allowed, then we're going to have to deal with
THE
(s)
ti ons -THE couRT: you know, r must say initially my reactjon

was the monitor's kind of the court-appointed expert on this
issue, and that's what the report is related to, anyway. and r
assumed that we were all gong to go forward with the monitor's
report based on our discussion last week.
So that doesn't mean r'm gong to tell the Department
of:ustice no, but my inclnaton, r share some of the sane
concerns you have, Mr. Masterson. why don't r let the parties
think about it this week, talk about it, and then we can decide
next week how we intend to approach it.
26(a) (2)
reports
depos
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.

MR. KILLEBREW: -rhank you, Your Honor.
CvOT-25L3, Melendres
v. Arpaio,
8/28/1"5 Status Conference
vR. GoMEZ: Your Honor, this 'is Raphael Gomez from

1
2 civil ovision. r wanted to rajse one matter wth you.
3
THE couRT: nlI right.
4
MR. GoN4EZ: Your Honor, wth respect to the 50
5 hard drives, the united states -- and r understand there was
6 some proposal, though r didn't hear what it was from
7 Ms. wang -eage
32
38

THE COURT: Do you know what, Mr. Gomez? The Court's
audio here tends to distort people, and so you're starting -MR. GOMEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
10
11
72
13
T4
L5
23
Honor. fhe united States, with

respect to the 50 hard drives, n terms of reviewing them, is
proposing that a small sample be pulled from the 50
hard drives; that a forensic copy be made by a vendor there, a
cleared vendor there in the phoenix area; and that that sample
be reviewed by the government wth respect to whether there's
any classified information, you know, in the 50 hard drives,
and hopefully, that could be resolved through a review of the
24
sampl e .
16
T7
18
19
20
2L
22
couRT: -- you're starting to slur in a way r

can't quite understand you; and t'm not saying you're slurring,
but it kind of comes across a little unclear.
Could r have you speak very slowly, distinctly, and
loudly, so we can understand you, please?
THE
25
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, Your
THE
Cv07-2513,
1_
All right. why don't you provde the

l,telendres v. Arpaio, 8/28/LS Status Conference
coURT:
parties with the specifics of your proposal, and t'll either

approve it or not next week, or hear object'ions to it.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
All right. Anything else?

Al I ri ght. we'l I see you next week, then.
(proceedings concluded at 10:23 a.m.)
coURT:
8
9
10
11
eage
33
39

L2
L3
L4
1_5
l_6
L7
l_8
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
+
cvO7-251-3, Melendres
v. Arpaio, 8/28/LS status Conference 40
CERTIFTCATE
2
3
4
5
13
certify that r am duly

apponted and qualified to act as official court Reporter for
the united states D'istrict court for the oistrict of Arizona.
r FURTHER CERTTFY that the foregoing pages constitute
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
I4
was prepared under my direction and control.
8
9
1-0
11
!2
I,
GARY MOLL,
do hereby
15
L6
eage
34
status Conference 8-28-L5.txt

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 2nd day of
L7
18
2015
19
20
2I
s/cary
22
23
24
25
eage
35
t'ol
September,
E,XHIBIT B

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
3
4
de Jesus Ortega Melendres'
ManueI
et al.
Plaintiffs,
No. CV 07'25I3-PHX-GMS
Phoeni x, Ar
l7c
Joseph M.
Arpaio, et f.,
Defendants.
o
10
11
I2
13
I4
15
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
I6
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
LI
1B
Status Conference
G.
Vo1ume
MURRAY SNOW
1, Pages 1-70
(Sealed Proceedings Omitted)
7.9
2.0
2T
22
23
24
25
i- z
July 3I, 20r5

2:03 p.m
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by compuLer-aided transcription
ona
CVOT-2513, Meendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
49IEB\qEq
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
For the Plaintiffs:
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants' Rights Proj ect
By: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
39
Drumm
Street
San Francisco, California
94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immi-grants
r Rights
Pro j ect.
By: Andre Segura, EsQ. - Telephonically

I25 Broad Street, lBth F loor
New York, New York 10004
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
I6
L1
1B
19
20
2I
22.
ZJ
24
25
American Civil- Liberties Foundation of Arizona

By: Daniel J. Pochoda' EsQ.
By: Joshua David R. Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box IlI48
Phoenix, Arizona
85011
Covington & Burling, LLP

TeJ-ephonicaJ- ly
By: Tammy Al-barran' Esq.
By: Lauren E. PedleY, Esq
1 Front Street, 35th FIoor
941II
San Francisco, California
Covington & Burling, LLP
By: Stanley Young, EsQ.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
94065
Redwood Shores, California
For the Defendant MaricoPa CountY:

WaIker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, EsQ.
By: Charles V. Jirauch, Esq.
SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio:
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, JY', Esq
By: Joseph T. PoPoltzio, Esq'
290I N. Central- Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 850I2
cvo7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
APPEARANCES
1_
3
4
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office:
Iafrate & Associates
By : Michel-e M ' Iaf rate, EsQ
649 N, 2nd Avenue
.
5
o
1
o
U
10
11
For the MovanLs Christne Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

Broening, Oberg, Woods & Vrlilson' PC
By: Jathan P. Mclaughlin' Esq.
P. O. Box 2052'l
For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and
County Attorney Wil-Iiam Montgomery:
Ridenour Hienton' PLLC
By: APril M. Hamilton' Esq'
Chase Tower
I2
13-
I4
1tr
IJ
lb
I7
1B
T9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
2OI N' Central Avenue, Suite

Phoenix, Ar j- zona 85004
3300
For Deputy Chief Jack MaclntYre:

Dickinson Wright / PLLC
BY: GarY L. Birnbaum, Esq'
1B5O North Central Avenue, Suite
Phoenix, Ari zona 85004
For Chief DePutY Gerard Sheridan:
Mitchell Stein CareY, PC
BY: Lee D. Stein, Esq.
1 Renaissance Square
2 North Central- Avenue, Suite
1400
1900
For Executive Chief Bri-an Sands;

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith'
BY: Greg S. Como, Esg.
2929 N, Central- Avenue, Suite 1700
For Lieutenant JosePh Sousa:
David Eisenberg, PLC
By: David Eisenberg' Esq.
2102 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003
LLP
Marj-copa
cvoT-2513, Merendres v' Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status conference
EqEBNgg
1
2
J?
For Timothy J.
CaseY:
Clark, PC
By: Karen CIark, Esq.
520 E. Portland Street
Phoenix, Ariz:na 85004
Adams &
4
tr
J
6
"7
10
11
I2
13
T4
15
I6
I1
1B
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
Also present:
Girvin, Deputy Monitor - Telephonically

Chief RauI MartLnez, Deputy Monitor Telephonica Ily
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Chief DePutY Gerard Sheridan
DePutY Chief Jack MacIntYre
Lieutenant JosePh Sousa
Commander John

CVO7
-2513, Melendres
Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
sBggEE!-!Ngq
1
1
THE CLERK:
Civil- case number 01-25L3t Melendres and
others versus Arpaio and ot-hers. This is the t.ime set f or
status conference.
MS.
6
1
of the
ACLU
YOUNG:
or l-he plaintif
10
MR.
11
for plaintiffs.
T2
MS.
13
Good
afternoon, Your Honor' CecilJ-ia
Good
afternoon, Your Honor. Stanley

afternoon.
Josh Bendor of the
BENDOR:
Good
PEDLEY:
Lauren Pedley of Covington & Buring for
ACLU
1.4
:03:28
1'7
plaintiffs.
MS. TAFRATE: Good afternoon, Your Honor' Michele
L_-
Iaf ral-e on behal-f of defendant.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Joseph
I1
Popolizio on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio'

MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Richard
19
20
walker of walker & Peskind on behaf of that portion of
2I
Maricopa County government embodied in the Board of
22
Supervisors, the county manager, and the employees reporting to
23
them.
25
:03:
f s.
1
)J
24
14
Young
MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda of Lhe ACLU for plaintiffs,
1B
:03:06
Wang
T4
T6
14
for the plaintiffs.
MR.
WANG:
Counsel, please announce for the record.
I 4 : 03:
MR. COMO: Greg Como on behal-f of Brian Sands, who is
present in the courtroom today' Your Honor.
I4:03:55
CVQ7-2513, Mefendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference

MR. McDONALD: Good afternoon'
MR. JIRAUCH: Charles Ji-rauch of Vl]alker & Peskind on
behalf of Maricopa
CountY.
MR. STEIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Lee Stein on
tr
J
Mel McDonald, speciaJ-
appearance for Sherj-ff Joe Arpaio.
3
4
MR. BIRNBAUM: Good afternoon,
Your
Birnbaum on behalf of Jack Maclntyre, and Mr
present in the courtroom as wel-l.

Good
MR. McLAUGHLIN:
10
Mclaughlin on behalf of
Thomas
Good
MR. EISENBERG:
T2
Honor.
Gary
Maclntyre'
afternoon, Your Honor.
E senberg
14
courtroom in the
74:04:25
afternoon, Youi Honor. David
ga
J-
lery
MS. HAMILTON:
Good
afternoon, Your Honor, APril
Hamilton, Ridenour Hi-enton, on behal-f of the Maricopa
L1
Attorney's Office and Maricopa County Attorney Will-iam
1-B
Montgomery.
20
.lake
Liddy and Christine Stutz
I6
I9
on behaff of Lieutenant Joseph Sousa, who's in the
1J
15
14 :04 : 10
behalf of Jerry Sheridan, who's presenl in the courtroom.
11
14 :04 :38
CountY
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Judge. Karen Clark,
ethics counsel for Tim CaseY.
2I
THE COURT: Do we have
22
DEPUTY MONITOR
14:04:50
monitors on the line?
GIRVIN: Here, Your Honor. Deputy
Monitor Girvin on the l-ine.

24
25
DEPUTY MONITOR MARTINEZ:
And good afternoon, Your
Honor. Raul- Marti,nez, deput.y monitor, on the line
'
14
:05:06
CVO7-2513, Melendres v
Arpaio, 1/37/15 Status Conference

on the line?
THE COURT: Do we have anybody el-se
MR. SEGURA: Andre Segura of Covington & Burling on
behalf of plaintiffs.
MS. ALBARRAN: Good afLernoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
AII right.
Ve
14
:05:32
14
;05:51
18
settl-ed that other
case this week so I no longer have a confl-ict.

THE COURT:
Al1 right.
Let me just say I'm going to

going to hold the
I2
ask the parties to hold
13
dates because we need flexibility.
T4
dates, or dates for the resumpti-on of the hearing
15
think
I6
me
l1
thi-nk we need the monitor here to have the hearing; he has key
1B
members
I9
did strike me that to the extent we are having hlm evaluate the
20
MCSO
2I
this lawsuit, the monitor may well- need --
22
want him to testify
23
set additional hearing dates.
.E
:05:
Good afternoon.
MR. COMO: Yes, Your Honor.
11
24
14
Mr. Como, Vou filed with me a -- sort of a protective

concern about tral date. Have you resol-ved that?
10
Tammy
Afbarran from Covington & Burling on behalf of the plaintiffs.
6
1
we
some dates and wetre
After I
can hold those dates, at feast
that he wil-l be unable to
make any
announced
trial
and I
the monitor informed
of those dates.
I don't
that are perfectly adequate to cover for him. But it
sel-f*j-nvestigations and to Lhe extent that is an issue in

at
some
somebody may
4:
06:
'10
well
pont, so we're going to need to
Further, I't going to raise some addtional issues,

which may require
or at least- wil-l- give the parties the
I4:06:?-5

CV07
-2513, Melendres
Arpai-o
/3I/15 Status Conference
option to explore differenL issues if they wish to.
And I do
not want to continue this hearing forever, I suspect no party

wants to continue this hearing forever, So I'm going to throw
out
some
you
to bring your calendars
work
dates rlght now and ask you to hold them -- I
asked
and if you know that those won't
In addition to september 22nd through september

and september
11
Oct obe r
I will te]] you that the monitor s not availabfe
on
those dates, either, but if we need them we can have them, if
15
they're available, so I'll- have everybody hold those dates.

october 13 and 14, the monitor is availabl-e on those
16
dates, if in fact his testimony is going to be needed in thls
I'1
matter.
objections.
Seei-ng no
I9
And then we could also go the 21 through the 30th.
20
However,
2I
t.hrough
14:07:18
Does that work for everyb'ody?
1B
before
and fook at that.
Before I discuss the 21th
23
the 30th, we coufd also go November 2nd through the 6th

and the 12th and 13th. But I already have a firm trial- set Qn
that date. I've checked with the Parties, and they have no
2,4
obj
25
through the 30 dates of October, the end of October
22
:07:00
T2
I4
14
4 L
29lh through october 2nd, which were the dates
10
13
:06:
25Lh
that I aready totd everybody to ho]-d, can people hold the Bth
and 9th of October? Any probtem with the Bth and 9th of
14
for you, please tell me now.
1
B
ection to giving up those dates if theY
can have
the
1.4
:07:39
21
14;08:00

CVOT
-2513,
Mef
endres v. Arpa-io, 1/31/15 Status Conference
So I would ask the Parties to hold the 13th through

the
October Bth in addit.ion to the dates already held: B,
13, I4, 21 through 30,

November
L2, and 13
dates, please fet
me
November
2,
If anybody
3,
4, 5, and 6, November
has any problem
9,
10,
holding those
know right. now.
1.4
:,
0B : ?.2
As soor as I can -- as soon as we can get preferences'
as soon as I go through what I intend to do today, we will try

to free up the dates for you so you're not ust sitting on
those dates; I realize you're all busy people. But I afso
intend -- this wontt be a surprise to anybody -- to hold status
conferences fairly regularly, al-most every week, so that we can
14:08:37
make adiustments as we go along
The other thng that occurred to me i-s that even

though Mr. Warshaw is not ava i labl
on some dates, so we'J-l
have to hold some dates out of the current trial- date, it
14;08 r 53
occurred to me, after considering some of the things that

Mr. Masterson said l-ast week, that reafly there may be whole
areas, after the monitors do the interviews they're now doing

and after they provide you with transcripts of those
i-nterviews, there may be a whole host of areas we can eliminal'e
by stipulation that won't requi-re a l-ot of t.rial testimony.
14:09t1?.
For example, and maybe I'm misremembering th-s, but j-f

the material- provided by Mr. Montgomery, the database that he
supposedly took from the CIA that included the 50 hard drives
that I had taken -- or that the sheriffs provided under
my
14 : 09:36

CVO7
-2513, Melendres
Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
10
order Iast week, if in fact Lherers a stipulation by all sides

that that materiaf l_s junk, then I don't see why we have to
spend a whofe Iot of time on other issues t-hat may invofve the
50 hard drives but don't refate to this lawsuit.
It does
seem
to me that they refate to the lawsuit to the extent that they

are lunk and to the extent they were t.old -- or Mr. Montgomery
was told -- or told the
using them for.
MCSO
14:09:56
what they were and what he was
But we don't have to
if there's
stipulation by aIJ- sides that they're junk, we don't have to

waste a whol-e lot of time messing around with stuff like that'
I offer that merely as an example; I don't offer it
l4;10:ll
as
a mandate. It may wel-l be that when we Look in the 50

hard drives there is something that's rel-evant, although t'hat
js a huge amount of material, so it seems to me that would
one area where we couJd just sort of eliminate a lot of
be
14 :
10:30
problems.
It seems to me, too
and I received a summarY from
the monitor that I think you all heard last week. I haven't
looked at the investigations or seen the transcriPts, but as I
said last week, the transcriPts are avail-able to any PartY or
spe ci a.I l- y appearing partY who wants them, But it occurs to me
that other issues that come fort.h in the transcripls may not
seriously disputed by any side, and if we can just arrive at
stipulations,
considerably.
14:10:49
be
we may be abl-e to shorten the resumed hearing
I iust offer that for what j-t's worth.
'].4 :
11:0
CVOT-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/37/15 Status Conference
And so with that being said, I did notice that
Office filed this week a
Maricopa County and the Sheriff's
Statement- For Proposed Deadtines Re DocumenL Production.
Now, l-et me ask/ it is more convenient for
schedule, because I usually do criminaf matters on Monday, I
triafs
Friday open for my civil
me
10
11
my
do
Tuesday, vednesday, Thursday, sometimes Friday, I keep
dates, it's
much more convenienL
for
to do regufar status conferences on Fridays/ and you have

set the deadl_ines, Ms. Iaf rate, Ms . vrlalker yourve set the
dead-Lines for document productions on Friday'
14:11:49
11
I'm wondering if we can move them one day earlier,
I2
that when I have the status conference, I can get a report
so
as
74
to whether or not you produced the documents that were due the
day be f or:e , so that we don'L have a whol-e lot of s-ippage that
15
I tolerate in terms of the document productions,
13
Do
71
MR
1B
MS. IAFRATE:
1"9
THE COURT:
2I
14: 12:04
you understand what T'm sayi-ng?
76
20
14:11:30
WALKER: Yes, Your Hono::,
you've suggested '--
Yes
ls it. possj-ble to take the deadlines that
and
T'm not
1-4:
12: L5
I I ll- hear f rom you, Ms. Wang, j n terms of whether or
any concerns about that, but I'm just
22
not/ you know, you
23
asking if it's
24
day earlier so that the very next day I'l-I be here,
25
whether you've produced the documents.
have
possible to take those deadlines
and move them
I'lf
f you haven' t,
know
vve can
I4:I2:21
CVOT-2513, Melendres
v. Arpaio, 1/3\/15 Status Conference
12
deal with the matter.

MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, that's fine today with the
deadl-ine for certain documents and they have been provided, so
wit.h the exception of today's deadine, you're asking that the
ones 1n t-he future be moved back one day.
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
MR.
10
I4: 12:4I
Right.
Thatrs fine.
TAFRATE:
From Friday to Thursday.
And the County has no objection, e-ther,
hTALKER:
Your Honor
14:f2:48
THE COURT:
11
AIl right.
Does the plaintiff
have any
I2
concerns with that or with the proposaf generally offered by
13
the County and the sheriff and the

MS.
I4
WANG:
MCSO?
No, Your Honor. And we appreciate the
15
production before each status conference; that makes good
T6
sense.
THE COURT:
I1
All- right'
14 :
.l
3:00
So let me just say that
not last week but l-ast status conference, which
1B
Iast
19
about cl-oser to two weeks ago, we discussed both Mr. WaIker's
20
and Ms. Tafrat.e's objection and motion Lo the class defj-niLion'
2r
I indicated that f wasn't going to rule on that at that
22
so for those of you who look at your docket. and you're worried
a1
about outstanding little
24
not going to rufe on that until we decide what is necessary for
reparations to those who were harmed by the viol-ation of
was
t-
ime
gavels that show I haven't ruled, f
my
14:13:.26
rm
14 :
13:50
CVOT-25L3t Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
I don't see any need to do that.
preliminary in;unction.
stilJ
it's
you are incorporating that in your schedule, Ms. Iafrate,
Mr
13
It's
an open issue/ except to the extent that I did rule thaL
relevant and needs to be turned over/ and I assume that
Va.L
ke
14 : 14
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, that is in the schedule as
6
1
it refates to item 6, so a deadline has been set, subject to
our objections that you already heard last time.

THE COURT:
c)
All right.
So document 1085 as well,
10
which is the motion to compel production of Internal- Affairs
11
reports, looks to me l-ike that is afso taken care of in
I2
defendants' statement re proposed deadlines.
13
Ms,
1-4
Ms. Iafrate, did you want to address that?
15
MS. IAFRATE: I
I4 r74;24
Vriang?
h/as
j ust gor_ng
to sy, Your Honor.
we
L6
met and conferred regarding all of the outstanding motions to
I7
compel.
1B
outstanding request for the IA has been addressed in our
19
recommended
issues
as
wel-l as the
documenL
requests, andr
4:
I4:39
ys the
deadline.
20
THE COURT:
21
MS, WANG: Your: Honor, there's one outstanding issue
MS
'
14:14:51.
WANq?
23
that we' re currentl-y meeti-ng and conf erring o and that is

to j,imit t-he definition of items, Inte rna l Affairs
24
investigations going back to
25
item in your list,
11
:09
but
2008.
how
That may be a different

I4:15:09
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 status conference I4

THE COURT:
No, o. That is an item that is in
defendants' proposed deadl-ines. I think it's,
or number
10.
MS
like, number
. WANG: Right .
Ve
have agreed
in principle,
to limit that request, and Ms. fafrate's
think, on
requested that we reduce that to writing for her, and werre in
the process of doing so.
how
All right.
Now, let
THE COURT:
Oh. Go ahead, Ms. Iafrate.
me
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, I think that in response to
10
11
your previous quesEion of me, it's
T2
that tal-ks about the
13
spin-off IAs, the remaining 19 or 20,
I4
originally
1E
IJ
has been addressed in the deadline.
I6
I1
14:15:13
number
essentialJ-y'
whatpJ
B on the deadlines
we were cal ling
us the Lwo that
wer:e
sent to Mr. VogeI and then returned, so that also
THE COURT:
14:15:51
Yes, it seems to me that 7 and B address
the matters you've just addressed, both 7 and
B'
1B
Yes, Mr. Eisenberg.
19
MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I don't mean to interrupt
2T
the flow but frve checked my calendar. I do have a case in

this courthouse starting November the 3rd, United States versus
aa
Aceves-Rivera. Itts a mul-ti-defendant case, but T can avow to
20
24
the Court that it wilt actually go on thal- date.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I appreciate your polnting it
25
out.
23
I'Il
I4 : 15:34
keep it in mind and remember you pointed it out, but
14:1.6:04
14:I6'.21
v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
to the extent that we get next bilJ-ing, I want nexL billing
case that case goes away.
MR. EISENBERG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Letts take uP, then, Mt. Casey's objection to
All right.
in
Thank You'
l4:16:32
number 10, Ms. Iafrate.
Ms. Clark, are you here to address that?
MS. CLARK: I'm here, Your Honor, for any guestions
l-5
you may have.

THE COURT:
10
Well, it does seem to me, Ms. Iafrate,
I4;16:46
If you have the
11
that. Ms, Cl-ark's object-on is wel taken.
I2
documents, if you're asserting the privilege,
1?
that Mr. Casey ought to be obliged to assert the privilege of
T4
his own time and expense.

MS. IAFRATE: Understood, Your Honor.
15
responsive to discovery requests
then I'm not sure
I provided
1.4 :
asserted the
I6
documents
I7
pri vilege as it. rel-ates to the subset of documenls that I
1B
that invofved Tim Casey. Then there was a subpoena
I9
tecum and a subpoena that went to Tim Casey and his counsel.
20
They provided me their documents that they gathered'
2.1
through it for a priviJ-ege, created the privilege log, and then
22
sent j t back to
23
24
to her that these documents woufd be responsive to ' f've

already done the privitege identification and created the log
25
on behaff of my client.
Ms
and
1'7:00
have
deuces
I went
. Cl-ark, because lt' s the subpoena that
1.A:I'l:19
gloes
I4:1.1 :36
CVOT-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/37/15 Status Conference I6
Att right.
Ms. Clark?
THE COURT:
MS. CLARK: Yes, Your Honor.
to add to the objection that we filed.
withdrawn from this malter in
tr
J
a dispute between Parties.
6
1
B
10
11
THE COURT: Let me
Ms. Iafrate just told
December
I don'L really have
I mean, Tim Casey was

of fast year and this is
just see if I understood
me' because maybe
your privilege
Mr
Casey to Lurn
documents
that are listed
assert my client's
privilege
THE COURT:
and
Att r-ght.
4:
18: 13
that has been done.

So those documents can be
t5
provided immediately as wel as the priviJ-ege log can
I6
provided immediately.
be
L1
Is that correct, Ms. Iafrate?
1B
MS. IAFRATE: They were senl back to Tim Casey's
.l
counsel for Lhat purpose.

THE COURT:
Okay. So you have no object.-on if
22
Mr. Casey produces all document-s that- Ehey provided -- l-haL

they identified to you that are not contained in the priv-ilege
23
log you sent back to
2I
18:03
MS. IAFRATE: That is correct of the documents that
13
20
14 :
i-n
1og?
were provided to me bY his counsel, I went through them to
19
I'1 :49
what
I2
T4
14
I didn't.
Ms. Iafrate I are you authorizing
over every document except for the
much
14 : 1B:25
them.
24
MS. IAFRATE: Correct.
25
THE COURT: And you have
no probl-em if they provide
14 : LB:38
cvOT-2513, Melendres v' Arpaio, '7/3I/15 Status conference I1
the privilege log.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE
Can you do that immediately,
COURT:
Atl right.
CLARK:
Judge, I can get that done on MondaY,
COURT:
A1I right.
Ms. Clark?
MS.
tr
J
I would assume that. they would'
August 3rd.
Thank
THE
Is that satisfactory to the plaintiffs?
MS. WANG: Your Honor, the production on the 3rd is
10
14:18:46
satisfact.ory.
I just want to fJ-ag two issues for the Court.
We have
11
You
raised two issues about Tim Casey's production

both with Ms. Clark
1_2
in response Lo our subpoena duces
13
and with
T4
search for the documents was inadequate,
15
from the defendants that shoul-d be in Mr. Casey' s possession.
I6
For example, if theytre e-mails that
I1
produced or listed in his privil-ege log that was provided from
1B
Ms
Ms.
14 : 18 r56
tecum,
First, we believe that Mr. Casey's
Iafrate.
went
We
have documents
I4: 19:19
to him that were not
. Clark.
also befieve t-hat there are
some
19
Second,
20
issues remaining.
21
that.
22
production on August 3rd, but I afert the Court just
We
we
Privilege
We're still- meetingt and conferring about
intend to take that up ag'ain once
we
get the
14 : 19: 37
new
because
there may be some additional mat-ters we want to take up with

24
25
you'
THE COURT':
Let me just suggest, then, that in
l4:19:51

you serve
1B
addition to the subpoena that you serve Mr,
document production request to the defendants that encompas s es
Casey
those same subpoena matters, and then to the extent that- the
defendants have maintained or have matters in t'heir file that
Mr, Casey has not retaned, they will have to assert
additionaJ- prviJ,ege log.
)J
Is that a fair suggestion?
MS. WANG: That certainly
s.
an
14:20:05
I believe we already
have done sor but we will doubl-e-check that.

THE COURT:
10
l,
11
wel.
I2
Mr.
AII right.
you represented, I
Casey
Because I assume, Ms. Cl-ark
I4:20:).1
think, in your pl-eading, that
had revewed everything that- he had retained.
13
MS. CLARK: That's correct, Judge.
I4
THE COURT:
Okay. So if you have that issue,
L6
Ms. Wang, You can act as you deem best fit, but you'Il provide
what you have on August 3rd together with the privi]-ege log
L1
given you b,y Ms. Iafrate?
15
1B
MS. CLARK: Absoute1Y, Judge.
I9
THE COURT:
20
Yes. Ms.
2I
MS. WANG: No, Your Honor
22
THE COURT:
23
.>A
.E
/,J
I4t20:30
AII right.
Wang,
anything else?
AII right.
Ve
I4 :20 : 4L
Thank you.
do have i-ssues/ of course/
that ar:ise from the documents that came to ight last week,
I guess before we take those uP I rm going to check wth the
monitors as to any developments this
week
in terms of
new
and
1.4
:21 :05

CVO7
-2513, Melendres
Arpaio, 1/3I/1,5 Status Conference
documents found, a concern about whether or not we've got all
the documents or tried t.o gel all the documents that were
identified fast week, and any oLher issues of pot-ential
cooperation,
19
there? Do you hear
tr
Are you
DEPUTY MONITOR MART]NEZ
Chief Martinez, dePutY monitor,
fine in the courtroom afso.
and
7.4:21:23
me?
Yes, Your Honor.

hopefuJ-ly you can hear
Yes, we do have a couple of issues to bring
10
THE COURT: Chief?
11
I2
THE COURT: Chief?
1a
DEPUTY MONITOR
L4
THE COURT: Ve can
me
up
14:21:33
-- to the Court
'
MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.
hear you here, but the speakerphone

And so the court reporter
15
always provides a bit of distortion.
16
can get down everythlng you're saying, I't1l qoing to ask you to
r1
speak as slowly and distlnctly
1B
hear you, please.

DEPUTY MONITOR
19
I4
:21. : 43
as possible so that we can all
MARTINEZ: Yes, Your Honor. We do have
20
a couple of issues to bring up to the Court's attention, the
2I
first
22
went to
23
taking a look, our first
74 :21 : 58
one being last Friday, the 24Lh, Chief Warshaw and myself
PSB and met.
with Lieutenant Kratzer, wherein we were

look at t.he I45g sfash 15oo TDs.
24
During that meeting with Lieutenant Kratzer'
25
question was asked if there were any other insLances of found
a
I4 :22:2I
CVO7-2573t Melendres v. Arpai-o, 1/3I/75 Status Conference 20
IDs, cases with IDs, Lhat was not mentioned at the
briefing with PSB, not to
mentioned yes, that there was one additional instance where
additional
one of the sergeants, and that they had opened an IA case
the IA number 15-0475.
IDs were
inc.l-ude
Monday
the 1500. Lieutenant KraLzer
found in the training kit that beJ-onged to

on
Our concern is neither the order of the 24Lh that
42
filed about the hard drives nor the order of the 27th has the
two DR numbers which match the casing that
10
Monday
covering those 42 IDs.
12
DEPUTY MONITOR MART]NEZ
of those IDs just fast week, just
I4
where f Ds v,/ere -- hrere gathered.
All rigitt.
that
13
I6
:22:
41
on
I4:23:15
All right.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
informed us
Thatr s one of t.he concerns
11
15
you
PSB
AS
vve
need to get ahol-d
the other two
DR numbers
If you have other concerns/
I4
: ?-3
'.
29
hang on Lo them for a second.
71
Ms. Iafrate?
1B
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, I do believe that thaL IA
L9
number and the information was provided to Lhe monitors during
20
2I
reports because
22
to be
2.3
of
24
the
25
encompass
weekJ-y
They might be backlogged in their weekJ-y
report.
stay
we
So
issued a -- or you issued what we perceived

once the stay was lj-ft.ed, we pushed out al-l
t.he back wee kl y reporLs,
weekJ-y reporL.
t.his
DR,
1A')-1 .A
and I believe that that case is in
But if you wanL to issue another order to

I can go back and make certain that it.
was
I4 :24 :06
CVOT-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/f5
ndeed previously provided.

THE COURT:
2
3
correctly,
an IA number --
it's
MS. IAFRATE: It is.
THE
MS. IAFRATE
with it,
If I understood the chief
do that.
I'fl
't
StaLus Conference 2I
not a
COURT:
DR number.
14:24:I1
It is, but a l-ot of IAs have
DRs going
yes.
THE
COURT:
Atl right.
The only thing I want to
make
all the identifications
sure of is that we get the plaintiffs,
class, to the extent that's still
10
of members of the plaintiff
11
possible, that are roaming around anywhere in the MCSO. So if
1-2
t.hese haven't been provided, I witl
13
you to provide them. If you can determine that they've al-ready
I4
been provided pursuant to my other orders, then please identify
15
which ones they are.
issue an order directing
l4:
T6
MS. IAFRATE: VerY wel-1.
I1
THE COURT:
1B
DEPUTY MONITOR
43
MARTINEZ: Yes, Your Honor. Just one
Iast sLatement about this Lieutenant Kratzer instance.
20
doubting what Ms. Iafrate is saying. There's a lot of
information that was dumped in the
22
the stay period, but I want to make sure that theY
23
THE COURT: You know what?
2.4
Chie
?q
?.A :
Okay. Chief, anything efse?
I9
t.
I4:24'.21
Chief .
Chief .
You'
were
re starting to
too fast and we can't follow you. You have to qo
14:24:56
or after
during the
Chief.
I'm not
sJ-ow-y
go
1.4:25:09

cvO7
-2513, Melendres v' Arpaio,
'1
/3I/15 status Conference
AII right, sir'
22
apoJ-ogize.
all right.
It's
THE COURT:
DEPUTY MONITOR
MART]NEZ: I WANI tO MAKC SUTC thAT
what we're asking for is not just a copy of the IA number, but
copies of those 42 IDs.
1
B
THE COURT:
will direct,
just because f 've -- the monltor's now -- I'm
10
11
have them in one central location
13
Will that meet Your concerns, Chief?

DEPUTY MONITOR MARTINEZ: Yes, sir, it would
I4
And if
I2
14..25..34
I maY, there are a couple of other issues that

. IafraLe that she has informed
us
that ls involved with those issues,
so
TE
l_J
we have communicated with
I6
of some confidentialitY
1_1
she may want to address the Court before we sPeak about it.
Ms
I4 : ?.5:54
Ms. Iafrate.
1B
THE COURT:
19
MS. IAFRATE: Your: Honor, the monitors and I discussed
2I
this j-ssue this morning. I asked them to please not present

this issue in oPen court, as it would potentiallY compromise
)9
investigation
20
18
Right.. veII, I think that what the order
sorry, not the monitor, the marshal is now hoJ-ding those IDs'
I'f I just direct that the IDs be given to the marshal and so we
14:25:
14:26:)I
an
I don't know if Your Honor woufd be amenabfe to
clearing the courtroom regarding this issue or if we coul-d

24
it up some other
25
is a confidentialitY
way
Lake
rather than in open court, because there

issue that f'm concerned about regarding
L4:26t
34

CVOT
-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio , 1/3I/1,5 Status Conference
one of the monitor's requests.

THE COURT: What
is the conf idential-i-ty issue?
Pursuant to what statute or privilege?

MS. IAFRATE: Itrs a concern regarding compromising
23
cri.minal prosecution.
I4 :26:
right.
Let
me make
this suggestion'
THE COURT: AIJ-
I'm going to go through everything else that we have
to go through, and then at the end I will- hear you under seal
on your representation that you believe that there

taken up under seaf.
10
issues t.hat shoul-d
11
there is no reason to seal, then I ' l-l
be
I2
WilI that
13
MS. IAFRATE:
I4
THE COURT:
15
maY be
If I determne thal
MS. WANG:
You?
That's fine, Your Honor.

Att right.
Does anybody
No
obj ect
efse have any

14 :21 : ?-3
excuse me. No obection, Your
Honor.
All right'
Chief, anything
1B
THE COURT:
I9
el-se?
Yes, Your Honor. There
20
a second document that we are waiting for Ms. Iafrate to
2I
release.
It had to do with
some minutes
was
23
24
conversation with her as to whether it's
25
in full or
r/'/e are
Lo
I4:21 :34
of a meeting,
Ms. Iafrate stated she was reviewing it for any priviJ-eges,

we have not received any -- any response since our last
22
L4:21:7I
the transcript.
object.ion to proceeding in that fashion?
L6
L1
acceptable to
be
open
49
and
going to be a rel-ease
going to get a redacted version of that
1,4"21 :59
CVQ7-2513, Melendres v, Arpaio, 1/37/15 Status Conference
document
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate
Atl right.
And that request was made to
when?
DEPUTY MON]TOR
MARTINEZ: II was made in writng
interview t-hat
conducted, and we had a
yesterday aft-er
conversation about this document tiris afternoon.

THE
an
we
Can you identify
COURT:
the document at all,
I4t28:08
like
who was the author, and what it was prepared in
who
conjunction with?
10
Yes, Your Honor. During
11
interview of Lauren Sanchez, who is, I believe, an analyst
r2.
assigned to PSB for the Maricopa County Sheriff's
13
she was the scribe at the Friday, JuJ-y 17th, meetjng with
T4
and counsel in preparaton for the monilor's visit.

THE COURT:
15
I6
24
Atl right.
Office.
an
:28 : 29
And
PSB
And you're reviewing that for
I4 :28: 49
Ms. Iafrate?
attorney-cl-ient privilege,
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor. Actually, I received
L1
1B
the request after-hours Iast night; I didn't see it until this
I9
morning.
THE COURT: No
20
prob,lem. I'Jl- gfve
you a::easonable
If' you are gong to redact any of it,
t-ime to review it.
22
you please f1e a privilege
23
it.self
may
indicate these actions, but just if you're go-ng to
24
redact
any
of it,
atr
7.A
MS
l-et us
log indicating
or the
14:?9:00
woufd
document
know.
. IAFRATE: Very weJf.
I4:?-9:I?,
CVOT-25L3, Melendres
THE COURT: AnYthng
DEPUTY MONITOR
Commander
ese, Chief?
MARTINEZ: Your Honor, I bel- j-eve
Girvin has an item.

All, right.
THE COURT:
Jtr
DEPUTY MONITOR
Chief Girvin?
GIRVIN: Yes, Your Honor. Can you hear
THE COURT:
Chief Martinez, you need to speak slowJ-y, because there is
distortion because of the speakerphone.

DEPUTY MONITOR
10
GIRVIN: Yes, Your Honor, I will
do
of a hard drive which we received from MCSO pursuant to our
I4
initial
documenL
request in the wake of the ApriJ- hearings.
We
16
received that hard drive from Chief Knight. Chief Knight was
designated by the defendants as our point of contact for these
I7
document requests
20
2I
aa
LJ
24
tr
t 33
As you're aware, Your Honor, that we are fn possessron
13
19
I4:29
some
rhat.
I2
1B
?.1"
Yes, we can hear you. But again, as with
l-f
74l.29:
me okay?
11
25
I4:29:50
'
chief Knight was interviewed this past week by our

monitor and during the course of that interview it was reveafed
provided to us, which is
that the hard drive that was initially
14:30:11.
purported to have the Montgomery investigation material, is

actuaf ly a compifation of mat-erial- from a couple of different
sources.
The first
source is a hard drive that apparently
Detective Mackiewicz brought into chief Knight's office when he
14:30:33
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, "1/3I/15 Status conference 26
responded to Chief Knight's request that he provide, you know,
the rel-evant documents.
Chief Knight's office, he asked Chief Knight and was granted
access to his office computer so that Detective Mackiewicz
could access the department's H drive.

The
And when
drive is really
Detective Mackiewicz was in
shared drive that every

can get to and use to store
employee in the office wi-11 let
documents, so it functions like a hard drive, but it's
la rge
drive l-hatrs maintained by the offj-ce and you have to log into
So Detective Mackiewicz was all-owed to log into his
10
it.
11
section of the H drive on Chief Knight's computer.
T2
14:30:56
'1.4:31:16
So we were informed that the contents of the
13
hard drive which we were provided immediateJ-y after the April
I4
hearing is actual-ly a compil-ation of material- that Detective
15
Mackiewicz had on the personal hard drive which he brought to
1f)
Chief Knj-ghE's office and materj.al which he downloaded to
I1
from the H drive.
1B
was provided to us, and the other we were tofd was provided to
I9
Ms. Iafrate.
20
That was down-l-oaded to two hard dri,ves:
14:31:36
One
During quest-ioning then Chief Knight. vofunLeered that
2I
he still- has in his possession, and has had since that meeting,
22
Lhe orig.nal hard drive that DetecLive Macklewicz brought to
a'>
his office.
24
possession of that. hard drive, which is realJ-y the source
25
material oI supposedly the source material, for a copy that
14:31:56
So we are requesting that we be allowed to take
we
I4:32: l6
CVOT-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 7/37/f5 Status Conference 21
were provided i-n APr11.

THE COURT: Let me
ask you some questions to make sure
I understand. Detective Mackiewicz brought in a hard drive, or
the material from the
drive was downl-oaded to the hard dri-ve?

He
DEPUTY MON]TOR GTRV]N
brought in a hard drive,
separate external- hard drive, and he afso brought in three
binders' worth of paper which we needed and are now in
possession of
THE COURT:
We1l, again, I got you said that
he
10
brought in a hard drive, and then I thought I heard You saY he
11
brought in three binders' worth of paper material?
T2
DEPUTY MONITOR
G]RVIN:
HC
did.
with the externaf hard drive and three binders' worth of paper
I4
And the paper we're not questioning; we believe we have
15
received copies of that pursuant to our request

THE COURT:
1B
have been downtoaded by Detectj-ve Mackiewicz?
2T
:33:
14
:33:33
15
DEPUTY MONITOR
GIRVIN: ThC hATd dTiVC
may
WhiCh WC hAVC
in our possession is alJ-eged to contain the contents of the

original hard drive that Detective Mackiewicz went into
ZJ
Chief Knight's office with, and whatever materiaf Detective

Mackewicz added to that hard drive that he felt was responsive
24
and pulled off of the H drive
25
THE COURT:
14
Okay. But. you don't have the original
hard drive, and you don't know what was on the H drive that
20
:32:58
'
'
I1
I9
14
He entered the office
13
L6
14:32:44
'
All right.
Ms. Iafrate
'
4:33:52
cvO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 status conference

Do you know whether or not we've
Let me ask first:
received the copies of these three binders, Lhe material in
these three binders?
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor
THE COURT: Do
you
if it has been designated
know
material- from the three binders provided by Detective
Mackiewicz ?
10
as
that
Honor, but f assume that it was labeled to be identified
14:34:14
way.
Okay. Can you check on that for
:l 1
THE COURT:
I2
MS. IAFRATE: Yes.
13
THE COURT: Do You have
me?
any objection if I order the
T4
marshal-s to take Possession of the hard drive that is in
15
Chief Knight's possession?
I4:34 :22
I6
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor.
T1
THE COURT: And
1B
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, this hard drive not
I9
contains information regarding the Montgomery case, but it also
20
conl-ains other material-s.
21
I4:34:04
MS. IAFRATE: I don't know how it was labeJ-ed' Your
28
Vhat
what is that objection?

onJ-y
I4 :34 :33
Chief Knight and Sergeant Mackiewicz -- or
aa
z-
Detective Mackiewicz attempted to do was be responsive to your
23
requesL during that hearing to provide everything that
24
responsive as to the
25
not only did theY not stoP with the paper or the hard drive;
MontgomerY
investrgation.
was
And that is why

t4t34'.52
they afso searched the H drive to ensure that they had t.he
comprehensive amount of documents responsive to your request '
So that's why they went the
THE COURT: And
4
tr
1 ''q ' q
MS. IAFRATE: You know, Your Honor, that Chief Knight

was not aware of those 50 hard drives.
THE COURT:
50
hard drives?
6
1
they provided everything but the
I don't know anything. And I'm
accusing him of anything.
noL
I haven't seen the contents of the

But I
at this
10
interview, and that may be welf what he said.
11
point not prepared to take anybody's word for what was what-.
r2
Let
13
29
me propose
this and see if it's
am
:35:20
acceptable to you'
I'm going to order the marshal-s to take possession of

I'm going to, as I have in the past, order
I4
that hard drive.
1tr
IJ
them to let nobody have access to it till
I6
made. And then I will give you first
I1
review it and claim as prvijeged or nonresponsive materjaJ
1B
that's in the hard drive.
a forensic copy is
14:35:40
access so that you can
19
Is that accePtable to
20
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor. Could I provide these
2I
myself to the marshal-s rather than having the marshals go over
22
and seize
23
You?
14:35:56
t.hem?
THE COURT:
Well, first
off, I reafize that it
24
characterized places as a seizure.
25
was in response to my order.
was
I just want to say that it
I provided an order last week. I
L4:36:
12
CVO7'2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 St-atus Conference
have no basis to bel-ieve that
me
30
and the marshal-s have informed
that there was no resistance from the
MCSO'
And so I believe that part of the reason I issued the
is
had chain of custody concerns and
order, Ms. Iafrate,
they v,/ere very valid,
And
concerns Itm gofng to have the marshals receive the hard drive
directly
you
and
I think I put that in the order, too.
from Chie f Knight.
characterLzrng it as a response to my order, which i-s what I
11
believe last
week wasf too.
1.4:36:46
Is that satisfactory?
MS. IAFRATE: Well' I woufd still
I2
object to the
process, Your Honor, but f understand what you're saying.

The other problem t.hat- I have ls this hard drive is
I4
15
a secure l-ocation, and Chief Knight is the custodian of it
1"6
because he received it
I1
is not in today. Could
1B
marshals can come MondaY, seeing that it's

THE COURT:
19
Wel
make some arrangements
Friday
MS. TAFRATE
t)
THE COURT:
14:37:00
Chief Knight
from Detect.ive Mackiewicz.

we
i-n
so that the
a
fternoon?
l. I'm going to order that t.he marshal-s
contact you today.
2I
)4:31
:?.0
l4:3'l
:32
Thatrs fne
And that if they receive assurnces that
23
noLhing's going to hap
24
it's
1E
30
to avoid any possible chain of custody
so iust to not
10
2.0
:36:
But I'm not charactertzinq it as a seizure, f'r
13
14
they receive adequate assurances that
in a secure focation, then we

MS. IAFRATE: VerY well.
can have
it on
Monday.
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference

THE COURT:
2.
31
If they don't, I'ITt going to send them over
to get it.
MS. IAFRATE: Understood.
THE COURT:
DEPUTY MONITOR
Al r-ght.
Anything else, Chief Girvin?
GIRVIN: Just on that topic/ one more
requesL or observation, Your Honor. If you could direct that
that. hard drive from this point forward not be plugged into
computing device whatsoever. You indicated that you're going
to order
l4:3'/:40
any
forensic copy be made, so we're just concerned that
10
any -- pJ-ugging into any computer device at this point- would
11
alter the metadata on the hard drive.

objection to that, Ms. fafrate?
L2
THE COURT: AnY
:13
MS. IAFRATE: No, Your Honor'
T4
THE COURT:
15
Are those your issues, Chief Martinez?
16
DEPUTY MONITOR
L1
THE COURT:
1B
DEPUTY MONITOR MARTINEZ
19
THE
All right.
l4:38:15
GIRVIN: Yes, Your Honor.
Al1 right.
COURT: All right.
Yes, sir.
Irm gorng to address something
t week and some of
20
that pertains to the material seized
2r
Chief
22
t.hat caused him concern and caused him to call- for the
ZJ
emergency hearing which resulted in my order directing the
24
acquis j-tion of the 50 hard drives, which I take it you're not
25
contesting were materials Montgomery provided to the
Warshaw
74:37'.59
-las
what
14 : 38
:29
characterized as the contents of the interviews
MCSO, and
14:38:51
CVO'7-2513, Melendres
v. Arpa i.o, 1/3I/1.5 Stat-us Conference
the identifications.
I wrong about that staLement, Ms. Iafrat'e?
Am
MS. IAFRATE: That we're not contesting that they
tt
5
6
1
B
10
11
I2
13
I4
were
THE COURT:
That the 50 hard drives contain materiaf
t.hat Montgomery provided to the
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, we still
have not evafuated
that issue.
AII right.
MS. IAFRATE: So j-t' s non-answer t-o you. I do not
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
That's fine.
In any case, I directed
their confiscation and they were provided, as I said, without.

incident.. And I have not read -* and as far as I know, they
I1
don't know what their contents were,
1B
everyone has a right to be heard before any decisions are
TO
and I expect that I will- provide that.
2T
14 : 39: 14
have an answer for You.
I6
20
14:39:03
MCSO.
haven't even been transcribed -- some of the interviews that

Chief Warshaw described to me last week. And so I obviouslY
15
32
But
and
Irm going to lay out a lit-tle
14;39:30
I recognize that
made,
bit what my concerns
14:39t52,
were about some of those issues so that everybody i.s aware of

what my concerns were, and are, and what I intend to do about
24
those concerns and what I woutd propose that we do '

The very first injunctive order that T ent.ered in this
25
maLter back in October 2OI3 says: DefendanL shall- ensure that'
t5
I4:
40:
?,5
CVOT-2513, Mel-endres
Monitor has timel-y, full and direct access to afI
that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out its
duties , I45.
documents
And then in 146 it specifies that t.he defendants
or data protected
may
tr
J
withhotd from the Monitor
t.he attorney*client privilege, acknowfedging that that
privilege does exist, but, of course, if
decline to provide that access/ they have to give a privilege
log, and that's in
any documents
33
by
146.
representatives
11
Defendants shall ensure that Plaintiffs'
12
their consuftative experts and agents shall have full
13
direct access to all of DefendanLs' documents upon reasonabl-e
14
notice.
14:40:57
and
and
We, as I've set forth before and don't have to qo nto
15
if the defendants
And in I47 it says -- paragraphs, I'l referring to
10
14:40:,1
l4:41'. I6
have encountered severaf circumstances whch
I6
in great detail,
T1
have required adjusLment of the monitor's authority,
1B
when we
I9
matters itself
discovered -- including when the
MCSO
including
efected to handle
that arose from the Armendariz-Perez
alleqations; and further, when we discovered that the
14:4I:3
2I
pr:eliminary injunction order had not been complied with at all.
22
And I set forth an order on November 20th, 2014, which said:
23
"An adequate internal affairs divison must be wilting
24
engage in thorough examination and, in appropriate cases/
,/.3
aqency exposure t.o discipline
and painful public
to
14:41:55
cvoT-2513, Mel-endres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
Of course, to make an appropriate
34
accountabilitY.
of whether
necessarily have compl-ete access to Defendants' internal-
affairs investigations.
manner in which MCSO pursues an investigation
or
continuing scope in light of the information the investigat-ion
uncovers. the performance of the investigators, and the kind of
discipline
admin
so acting, the Monitor
PSB is
MCSOTS
must
This incfudes familiarity
j-strative in nature
assessmenL
with
t.he
-- be it criminal
the investi gation's init'ia1
and
if any -- ultimately imposed at ts conclusion."

There's a number of other provisions in that order
10
11
which relate to the requirement that the monitor have ful-l
I2
complete access to documents, b,oth in the Internal Affairs
13
Divi s ion and of the MCSO, as \^/as the first
T4
that
1E
IJ
we I re
16
I'm going to a.Llow you to raise objections and complaints.
I1
1B
November
order.
I4 : 42:5I
and I want to read that -- part of that wrth you.
" Rega
Thank You, Your Honor,
rding the November 20th order/ on page 16 where
2I
you're talking about orders concerning ongoing
22
investigat.ions --rr
1tr
However. on
you did, in the December 4th hearing,
And Ms. Iafrate,
20
LJ
and
going to operate under this order from henceforth, but
"Ms. Iafrate:
24
I4 : 42:30
2Oth order I provided it to all parties and said
I9
23
I4 : 4?.: 12
And I say:
tr
-- at
l-
1.4:43t0'
te5.
ine 10 it specifically
tafks about this
and PSB deaJ,ing with the constiLutionat rights of the
case
members
4: 43:19

CVOT-251,3, Melendres
of the plaint.iff
cl_ass are guaranteed by MCSQ going forward
And I say:
And you say:
35
ft
"Yes. "
"And, of course,
MCSO
woul-d agree with
that, that that was the structure of this litigation.
"
And t.hen we make sure that we're talking about the
order and so you say: "So at page I1 of the November
1.4:43:33
20t.h
same
order you talk about the monitor must necessarily have complete
access to defendants' Internal Affairs investigations.

And I said:
"Um-hum. "
And you said:
10
"
"Our concern' Your Honor, is that
some
11
internal investigations do not deal with the underlying
T2
I-tigation in this matter so Ird ask that that be curtailed
t3
T4
ever so sl_ightly to coincide with what you wrote on page 16,

where it deals with investigations of MCSO personnel as it
I6
relat.es to either compliance with the order, meaning your

injunctive order, QY the constitutionaJ- rights of members of
T1
the plaintiffs'
15
about.
4:44:06
cfass. "
And I tell
1B
I9
14 : 4 3: 50
you: "Show me what l-ine you're talking
"
20
And you say:
2I
And I tell
I'm talking about page I7, Iine 14."
I4;
44 : IB
you: "How about 1f I do this, Ms. Iafrate?
of the thrngs we've discovered,
LL
a1
One
23
discovered it,
24
this case and to thr
25
Affairs investigal-ions,
and
I think we've al-l
is that there's lots of things that relate to

s
to this suit in terms of fnternal

PSB investgations'
That doesn't
mean
4: 44:34

CV07
-251-3, Melendres v. Ar:paio, 1/3I/15 Status Conf erence
36
that everything does; I acknowledge that.

"How
I donrL want to limit
about if I put in here
the moniLor's right to have complete access to the
you don't
know what
you don't know until
PSB because
you know it.
But I
will put in here the right for You to obect, saying that the
moniLor is investigating matters that can have no refation to
ths l-awsuit and raise the matter to
me.
"lrJou]d that be acceptable to you?"
And you say:
10
t1
12
13
I4
15
"That. would be acceptabJ-e.
"
And that, in fact, is precisely what I did in documenL
note that upon the recommendation of your parties I'm going to

change my order, and I say: "In its Order, the Court indicated
that the 'Monitor must necessarily have complete access to
Defendants are
Defendants' internal, affairs investigations.
l4
T1
1B
investigative processes as bearing no relation to the Monitorrs
19
evafuation of whether the Professional- Standards Bureau
20
operatingt in compliance with the Supplemenl-al- Permanent
2I
Injunction or other Orders of this Court/ or as other:wise
LL
aa
exceeding the power vested in the Monitor by the court.
23
go on; I'm noL going to read it.
24
25
.1.4:45:08
825 filed December 9, 2013. I reference our colloquy and I
further authorized to file ob;ections with the Court if and

when they dispute the Monitorrs involvement in particular
76
I4:44 :54
: 4 5 : 30
i-s
)4:45:44
"
fn Eebruary of 2015 I entered an order requiring

expedited discovery t.hat says :
"Copies of identification
14:46:01.
documents seized by
Plaintiff
v' Arpaio, 1/3I/15 status conference
MCSO
personnel from apparent members of the
Cfass" must be provided."

and again, I donrt mean to
Now, we had
37
and it wasn't under oath, but it was
mischaracterize it,
characterization of the monitor about what some of the
witnesses said theY were informed in a Friday meeting prior to
the monitor's visit
found that did contain members of the plaintiffs'
not to be discussed with the monitor, or something to that
10
that certain identifications
a
1.4:46:2I
focated
class
and
were
l4:46;39
effect.
13
That violates my orders, and it does so in a direct

way. It viol-ates my orders bot.h about what had to be
dlsclosed, and it violates my orders about the access that the
T4
monitor has, and should be given, to information in
15
Internal Affairs Division.
11
I2
I6
t.he
l4
And i-f in fact there is any effort
by the
MCSO
1B
I9
to do so, that is in fact even a
20
violation of my order.
Irm not saying that happened,
21,
again, everybodY has
opportunity to be correctJ-y heard.
an
more
serious and gross

and
24
As it Pertains to the 50 hard drives that aPParenLlY

or at least there was also some information in
were also
interviews that Lhere was 50 hard drives that were provided by
25
Montgomery/ and not only was there informat.ion provided in the
22
a'>
6:59
to
subvert those orders by lying to the monitor or telJ-ing him

less than the truth, or informing or inst.ructing their PeoPle
I7
:4
I4t47:1.8
14t4l:45
CVOT*2513, Melendres
3B
interviews, but I noticed when I lifted
under seal that
to compel, I noticed that a number of those documents discussed
50 hard drives of downoaded material received from
tr
Mr. Montgomery.
t)
Ms
Wang
the documents from
provided in her response Lo the
motj.on
14
And we received some information t-hat such materiafs
existed and we found 50 hard drives, and again, Ms' Iafrate,
I'm not representing what they are one way or the other,
recognize that they may not be hard drives provided by
10
Mr. Montgomery. Even if they are, T believe, aL least b,ased on
T2
the testimony f've heard, and it is at least suggested by the

e-mails that Ms. vrTang provided, that they may be junk, and they
13
may noL be what Mr. Montgomery represented to the MCSO they
14
were. J don't know that, either.
.LJ
kinds of possibilities
11
I6
out there.
7.4
But. I witl point out that in the sheriff's
to the exlent
:I B
that you have any control over any funding records' over
19
report-s/ over any coinmunicati.ons, over any overt-|me records,
20
travef documenl,ation, V e-ma j.f s of any and al-l people
2L
involved in the threat assessment unit or anywhere else
22
communications from and to Montgomery, any computers or phones,
"...
:48 t 41
testimony
on April 23rd I directed him very directly:
any
l4 t 49:02
trY
24
ceII phones or other information that in any way is rel-evant or

related to this investigation, I want you to direct your people
25
io put a hol-d on it immediate1y and preserve iL.
a')
).4:48:22
I recognize therers all
r1
LJ
:48:03
And t'hat
1.4:49:lB
39
incfudes any documentation or numbers that would refate to

Mr. Montgomery's confidential status
"You understand that?"
"Your Honor/ are you referring to

this i-nvestigation with the monitors and *-"
And the sheriff:
And I said:
"No, o. J'm referring to the
investigation that Mr. MontgomerY

Mr. Mackiewicz,
staff,
Mr.
14:49:31.
was
undert-aking wi th
AngIin, Mr. Zullo, anybody else from
Your
anybody else from the MCSO, o anyone el-se from the
posse. I want all records that in any wy refate to it, al

el-ectronic dat.a or anyEhing else, or the financing, funding of
14:49
4'l
that operation, atl phone records, e-mai1s, reports, I want it

all preserved. "
"And I think I will
send the moniLor to begin taking
possession of those records and we'll do it confidentialJ-y'
imminently, But I don't want in the lnterim any of
14
:50:03
t-hose
records fost, i-nadvertently or otherwise'"

The next day, chief Deputy sheridan was testifying
and
ran rnto a snafu. We'd agreed on a procedure whereby you could

have folks over there, and you did.
Ms. Iafrate,
You cooperated.
14 :50 t 23
You had attorneys over there do-ng rushed review,
because that's what I'd ordered that you do, And we ran into
prob,lem where folks were not providing my monitor with the
documents, and they wouldn't provide thlm until
you l-ooked at
then, approved them, and Bates stamped them, and I told
them
14:50;40
CV07
-2513, Mefendres v Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
that under the circumstances, that is not what I ordered,
you wil-l- remember that I set. out a separate procedure.
on the stand, and so
Chief Sheridan was still
40
and
said -- we went thr:ough the objections and I saj-d: "And so I'm

going to require that those documents be released -mmediately.
I mean, not without your review, whoever your designated
attorney is, get over there and review them. We'Jl make
sort of a list
then we can -- we can match them up when you Bates stamp
10
of the documents that have been provided,
But I want. those documents provided.
some
and
them.
14 :51 : I4
"
13
"Do you have an issue with that, chief, that we need -- that
need to discuss or concerns that you wanted to raise that I
T4
should consider?"
we
"No, sir."
1_5
And he said:
T6
And then I said:
)1
And he said:
1B
Then you may remember that. after the lunch break
l4:51:26
"Okay. fs that okay with you?"
"Yes, sir.
"
20
"Before we begin, aPParentlY there's been a

miscommunication. Chief, I know you hIe re over trying to
2I
facilitate
22
as soon as you left,
LJ
documents until
24
they were Bates stamped, which I think we already resol-ved
25
pr-or to lunch. "
I9
58
And t_hen I turned to Deputy chief Sheridan and I said:
11
I2
l4 : 50:
said:
or getting those documents over the noon hour,

foJ-ks i ndicat.ed
they
woul dn'
Ms. Iafrate had a chance to
14:51:38
and
t give the
revl-ew them and
14: 51:53
CVO7-25L3, Mel-endres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/t5
Status Conference 4I
"Is there anyt.hing you can do to facilitate that

productlon right away, Chief? Who is the captain that said
woufdn't give them?"
And then there ws an indication that it
4
tr
J
was
l4:52:02
Chief Knight.
And then I said:
'/
he
"I'm real-ly trying -- the thought
occurred to me over lunch, Chief.
f'm not trylng to use these
today. There's goi ng to be too much other st'uff
do think it's
to hold to that order, unfess you have
gor.ng
11
Chie
I2
of the history of the case, that we get the
13
today. It
f, why f shoul-dn't. I think it's
And then, Ms. Iafrate,
But I real-ly
So I'm stil-l
important to secure the documents.
10
\4
'
some
reason/
I4:52:14
very important, in Iight
You said:
documents
in a set
"From whaL I
15
understand, Your Honor, at one point there were three requests,
I6
and now I think that there are way more requests --tr
I1
And I said:
1B
You said:
1,9
I sad:
20
"Yeah."
"-- so it's
a moving target."
"Yeah, it woufdn't surprise me if the
requests are coming in fast and furious, because my folks want
22
to get this arms around everything today. so that may be partl

of the confusion. But frm sure I was cJear, and T suspect that
23
the chief deputy went over to try to facilitate
24
must be some confusion, so if you'J-1 cal-I Chief Knight and
2.5
we'
2I
Il wat for
I4l'52:25
You,
"
You cal
that,
and
14
;52:35
there
led Chief Knght and tofd me that
I4:52:50
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/I5
there
was
Stat-us Conference
42
t.hat the issue was resof ved.

I issued two more orders in the next week in response
document 1032 and document
to your objections and concerns,
L046, indicating that I expected the immediate production of
all such documents. And then --
thjs, buL if they don't, I have it here
every party a copy -- Chief Knight provided to you,
Ms. Iafrate, and to the Monitoring Team,
request, of his response to our request for those documents.
and
I believe all parties
responsef request by
Therers a lot them that relate to the documents, but
10
the
one
I2
it's
my
13
documents to everybodY.
I4
15
in the drop box and theY went to everybody. If theY didn't, I

don't see why theY shouldn't go to everybody, but that is their
I6
understanding.
1B
1.9
:53:30
understanding from the monitor that you provided these
Not just to the monitor; You Put
them
I4 ;53:
49
So if that's incorrect and there's some reason I
shoul-dn't read from this, can you tel-f me that

MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, T cannot
20
to the ptaintj-ff,
2I
that document.
now?
avow
but there's no problem wlth
that they
went
you r:eading from
23
AII- right ' So one of the many requesls

that the monitor asked for you to immediately prov-de is "the
24
work product of Dennis Montgomery, including memoranda,
tr
Z,J
reports, notes, photographs from the SeaLtle, Vilashington
22
1.4
and by the wy,
that I'm most- concerned about today
11
I1
14 :53 t07
I'm going to give
and
have
14
:54:00
THE COURT:
'l.4:54:1.1.
CVOT-2513, Mel-endres v. Arpaio, 1/31/f5 Sbatus Conference
referred to in the article
and activities
43
by
investiqation,
Stephen Lemons in the Phoenix New Times dated June 4th, 2014."
And the response from Chief Knight is:
Deputy
"
in t.he possession of
Mackiewicz delivered all- files
provided by Dennis Montgomery on an external hard drive. This
informati-on was transferred to another external hard drive
provided to monitor Anders and counsel Michele Iafrate on April
24th
10
and
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, could you telf
and
me the
number of that
THE COURT:
r2-
Mq
14:54:43
You know what.? It's
not Bates
numbered.
No, or no. Didn't he say -- didn't
IAI-RATE:
Chief Knight indicate what request he's responding to?
I4
THE COURT:
15
I'IJ
L6
THE COURT:
[to
ITR 9.
Thank you.
]AFRATE:
Number
14:54:51
. But in this document,
I1
Ms. Iafrate, which, again. I think you provided to
everYbodY,
1B
there's a number of requests that relate to that.
I'm onlY
19
reading one, because I don't want to refate them all'
20
thi-nk that covers it.
2I
L4 :54 :28
April 21Lh, 2015."
11
13
MCSO
because I
14
;55:05
So after last Friday, when I went home and turned on
)2
the news and I saw a report in which
23
next to Chief Sheridan and Chief Sheridan said they didn't
24
provide these documenls because Ehey'd never been asked fot, I
1q.
reaf ized that I didn't
Mr. PopoJ-izio was standrng
share that view. That he may
be
14:55l'20
CVO7
-2513, Melendres
Arpaio,
correct, he certainly has an opportunity to be heard, but I
thought that it was well- that I point out my concerns about
what is happening, in light of the attorney-client
that's been invoked I have concerns about what is happening
who is giving the direction not t-o discuss to the monitor.
44
privilege
and
1.4r55;43
But again, you have a legitimate right to
attorney-cl-ient privitege at some leve] which -- which is lost,
and I'm not saying that you gave that. advice, I don't make that
assumption, but I have all of those concerns '
Now, let me tel-l- yor-r what- I propose to do about it.
10
56: 00
that members of the plaintiff
11
do not want to offset the relief
I2
class are entitled to, nor do I want to delay anY longer
13
corrective action t.hat I think must occur within the Maricopa
T4
County
15
order, if tirat ought to
Sheriff's
I4:
Office and revisions to the injunctive rel-j-ef

haPPen.
1.4:56118
I6
Further, I recognize that. this is a civil
I1
hearing that rel-ates to three matters that I have directly
1B
forth, and these Lwo what I view as direct violations of
T9
order
20
direct viol-ations of my order
2I
contempt- hearing.
contempt
set
my
and I'm not sure that they are, but they appear to
be
arenrt noticed for this civil
22
But I think I've made it very plain, which is why we
23
have special-ly appearing counsel here, that if I determine at
24
the end of the civil
25
a need to refer any or all of these matters for crjminaf
I4:56:4I
contempt hearing that there is a basis and

)4:56:56
cvO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/31/15 status conference
contempt, I will do
45
so
It afso seems to me that these matters, even though
they cannot and should not, in and of themselves, be the
subject of civi I contempt, are relevant to the civil
hearing in terms, as I've sad all
the necessity and the extenL of the
sought by the plaintiff
(]
that were not provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
prior to the trial- in this matter, so here is what I
10
a1ong,
contempt-
about the need
and
11
cl-ass for material-s and other matLers
woul-d
14t51:32
I'm nol going to adjust these civil
contempt hearings
I2
to incorporate those matters which I believe may have been but
13
I do not
T4
going to view them necessarily as irrelevant '
t5
whether the attorney-cl-ient privilege may have been waived,
L6
based on the content of the intervi.ews; I haven't even seen the
I1
content of the interviews.
1B
contempt hearing concerning them. even though I'm not going to
19
find them irrelevant to the present civil
2.0
Nor do I make a representation that they wil-l not possibly
2I
t-he subject of a future criminal contempt hearing if I
22
determine at the end of these hearings that civil
1. -7
cannot serve the purposes that are required by the nature of
24
the contempt itself.
25
:57:
required that may be
remedy
propose.
11
14
know \^/ere
direct violations of my order, but I'm not

I don't
know
14
:57:48
14
:58:06
But Irm not going to hol-d a civil

contempt hearing.
be
cont.empt
That is how I propose to proceed. Is there
any
I4 :58:26
CVQ7
-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio ,
concern or comment by the parties
-l
/ 3I /
15 Stat.us
Conf
erence
MS. IAFRATE: I have nothing to add, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay
MS
Mc
46
Wang?
. I'I]ANG: Your llonor, we had intended to inform the

were going to f1]e a motion
Court and defendant today that
for a new order to show cause
be held in contempt for what appears to
withholding of documents n violation of this Court's orders
and after consufLation with counsel. It r/as our intent to f i le
\^/e
why de
.4:58:49
fendant Arpaio should not.

be
the del-iberate
10
that motion early next week, but Your Honor has now stated
11
proposal to proceed otherwise.
14:59;1'1.
I think we do agree with the Court that there are
1
IL
74
issues relating to these new facts that we have l-earned from

the Monitor Team j-nitial-ly last Friday that would be related
15
Lo. and overlapping wjth, the ongoing civjl
I6
proceeding. But we do believe tha[ there are new grounds for
I1
cjvil
1B
contempt proceeding, which, of course, would be in the Court's
19
sole discretion to refer for investigation by the United States
20
ALtorney's Office or a special prosecutor.
13
2T
contempt
contempt proceeding, and quite potentially
14:'->9:31
for a criminal
14:59:54
But I offer t.hat, Your Honor, because it had been our
22
intent to inform the Court, because it coufd have a bearlnq
a')
the scheduting and the scope of the ongoing proceeding.
24
25
THE COURT:
on
Well, you know, Ms. Wang, I do not want to
preclude you from any remedy that you may choose to seek,
and
15:00:
12
CVOT-2513, Mefendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/75 Status Conference
consder that.
I just put t.his forth
a proposal
I'l-l
that we could expedit.e matters t.hat currently exist.
as
so
I believe that Mr. Birnbaum and oLhers have repeatedly
3
4
said that there may be people who are not involved here that
shoul-dn't be drug along in Lhe context of a civil
hearing, raising to a possible criminal contempt hearing,
longer t.han necessary.
contempt
about providing prompt and immediate relief
trY
t-he pla j ntif f class, and so
11
frankly, have been we need to get this first
I2
isn't
13
necessary --
mY
and reparation to
concerns/ and I will say it
:l 0
is
any part, if I determine that a criminal referral
(Beeping sound on telePhone ' )
15
THE COURT:
I6
DEPUTY MONIT'OR
11
THE COURT:
Okay. Did anybody join the call?
1B
There isn't
any part of anything that I want
Are you stil-l there? Chief Martinez?

MARTINEZ: Yes, sir,
15:01 :00
I'm here.
19
because I haven't yet determined that a criminal- contempi:
20
citation
21
considered that it's
LL
aa
bound myself , if
23
necessary, to limiting
2.4
civil
is necessary' f haven't ordered one; I still

necessarY.
15:00:48
part over. There
T4
25
1.5:00:32
I also, frankly, as I'm sure you do, have concerns
41
haven'L
15:01:19
But I cert-ainly also have not
I determine t.hat a criminaf referral is

it only to the three matters of this
contempt.
And it does seem Lo me that if any criminal contempt
15:01.:37
CVO7-2513, Mel-endres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
4B
proceeding is desirable, I don't want to piecemeaf out t.hat
criminal contempt hearing; I want to just. do one, as I've
')
indicated before.
reasons, and justified
tr
enforcement process that pertains to this injunctive
I have every intention of referr:ing out not only to the United
States Attorney
but that
intention of piecemealing one out to
wou-ld
I do bel-ieve i-t's important, for l-ots of
any
that I stay
the civil
on
hearing and the

order, but
crimina conLempt thaL may be necessary/
go to a different
j udge
one
So T don't have any
judge/ one out to
10
another judge, because, aS you know, these matters are randomly
11
drawn.
r2.
1.5:02;
11
So all the parties can consider what I've ust said as
if you want to do anything
13
you consider how to appropriate
I4
with respect to it,
15
respect to any sought relief,
16
proceed and setting forth my concerns/ my inclinations,
I1
that's how we're going to proceed.
1B
15:01:52
T'm not trying to limit
any party with
but I'm just proposing how we
15:02:?,4
and
Again, to the defendants, to the extent you want to
I9
i-ntr:oduce evidence in this matter, because I do think, as it
20
seems Lo me
2I
a maLter of civil
22
contempt hearing, so Irm not going to presume to try to prevenL
23
you from introducing evidence that you may want to introduce in
24
this action pertain-ng to it.
2.5
r:egular status conferences, these are matters that f hope
today, it's
relevanL, although it's
not an item or
15 t 02:
4l
contempt, it is relevant to the civil
But as I proposed that we have

we
15:02:58
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 7/3I/15 Status Conference
49
can address and adjust. in conjunction with the deadl-ines and
dates that we have.
the trial
And before I'm through t.oday, I do wish to set stal-us
conferences on a fairlY regular basi-s.
I'm going to talk to the monitor here
one of the t.hings
again in
15:03:
19
second. I think that their investigations may be
coming
And let me suggest that
know that they still-
have to talk to Chief Olson
I'm not sure if Chief Ol-son's around. I think they have some
other interviews that they want you to arrange, Ms. Iaf rate,
but I think that those requests are going to
rapidly.
If you respond pretty rapidly'
be made
Lhose
15:03:40
will be over/
and it seems to me that one of the things that might
profitable
pretty
be
for the parties to do is, as I've said earlier,
if based on those intervlews you can arrl-ve at certain

stipulat.ions that obviate the need to sPend a l-ot of time
see
on
15:03:59
lrrelevant things.
MS.IAFRATE:YourHonorrwehavegonethroughone
round of interviews related to these new investigations.
ust got an e-mail- right before I walked in here requesting

approximately 20 more interviews. So we are scheduling them as
15:04:16
quickly as we possibly can. we've done round 1 and round 2'

The Chief Olson interview is separate and apar.t from these
interviews that they provide us with an e-mail and say: Please

schedule these interviews.
THE
COURT
Al-
I right
15:04:36
CVO7
-251,3
, Mel-endres v. Arpaio ,
MS, IAFRATE: So
THE COURT:
we I re
As far
as
/ 3I /
t5 Status
Conf
erence
50
working through both of those

I rm aware, at feast as far as
you've
cooperative, in the
the monitor's indicated to
Iarge main, in scheduling the interviews, and I anticipate t.hat
tr
J
you'11 continue to be so.
always ask for an emergency hearing, as
it's
ffie
And
been
if therers a problem, you

WE
can
15:04;48
had last week, if
necessary/ after we set the status orders.
I received sugtgestions from Maricopa
AIl right.
County and from the pJ-aintiffs on suggested revisions to the
I looked at them both.
10
supplemental- permanent injunction.
11
don't know if either party wants to address them. I must say I
I2
thnk something more simple along the lines suggested
:t 3
Mr. MasLerson is what I'm going to do, but if plaintiffs
1A
Lo be hear:cl on their a little
15
and restriction
T1
being in l-ine with the Ninth Circuit authority, the Ninth
1B
Circuit authority did not consider in its appeal any of the
I9
supplementa adjustments made to the monitor's authority'
2O
those still
as
and
all go forward.
15:05:56
Or not Ms. Iafrate,
I 'l sorry.
27
Ms. Iafrate?
22
Ms
MS.
24
Your Honor, the reason we've presented what I think
35
bit more expansive suggestion.
even if I accept Mr. Masterson's definition
WANG:
l5:05:
want
I6
Vang,
18
by
I do want to make it cfear, though, to defendants that
15:05:
did you want to be heard?

Sure, Your Honor,
you ust characterized
as
briefly.
a more expansive language for the
two
15:06:
10
CVOT*2513, Melendres
v. Arpaiot 1/37/15 status conference
51
paragraphs in the supplementa injunction j-s that I t.hink it's
become
case, that
investigations and the way that complaints are handled and that
tr
And
limiting
need to get a handle on MCSO's Internal Affairs
MCSO
15: 06: 33
the language to fourth and fourteenth

Let
me make
a suggestion to You, Ms'
MS. WANG: Yes, slr.
11
THE COURT:
I2
MS
13
THE COURT:
15
-- what you think about this
I feel myself bound by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, for some strange reason, and the Ninth
T1
It seems to me that Mr' Masterson's
my
15:06:54
and
1B
Mr. popoizio's suggestion does that pretty cJ-early, but
I9
I've indicated, that does not change the adjustments made to
20
2I
the monitor's authority in light of intervening events.

If you believe that inte::vening events require this
'))
cour:t to again adjust the monitor's authority upward, let
23
suggesL that I would be more inclined to ad;usting the
25
VANG: OkaY.
16
24
:06:
Circuit indicated that I needed to limit the scope of

inunction t.o matters invoJ-ving the plaintiff class.
15
Vang,
and see
10
I4
Personnel.
the concern we have, Your Honor, is that simply
THE COURT:
we
discipline is meted out to
given the more recent events in this
clear, particularly
as
15:07:09
me
monitor's authority upward in Iight of intervening events

rather than curtailing my original injunctive order, which I
15:07:33
b,el-ieve the Ninth Circuit has already indicaLed I need to
narrow sli-ghtly.
MS. VANG: Understood, Your Honor. And but separate
and apart from the intervening events, we befieve ust on the
record through the t.rial,
6
1
B
1_0
t_1
and in light of the Ninth Circuit's
limited to the plaintiff
class as the Ninth Circuit- directs,
but would also encompass violations of agency policy that coul-d

l-mplicate the r,ghts of the plaint.iff cl-ass that do go i-o the
13
I4
in the hands of
15
wi-thin the ambit of a Fourth or Fourteenth
MCSO
Amendment
violat.ion.
I1
1B
of the charged viol-ations in Internal-
19
Af
22
agency pol-cy, in this case of
LJ
manuaf, and not necessarily expl-citly involvng violations of
24
the Constitutron.
32
So, in other words, from what we have seen and from
2T
/,J
15:08:
fairs investigat'ions.
standard law enforcement practices, I think that Internaf

Affairs investigations often are focused on volations of
20
15:08:05
to classify a particufar matter as falling
our language is only sl-ghtty more expansivef and I would

submit discusses poticy violations, which are often the focus
L6
15:07:46
order, the language that Mr. Masterson has proposed doesn't

capture the fult range of activ-ty. That is limited to the
js
plaintiff
class. ve think that our proposal captures
issues of discriminatory poticing/ and, Your Honor, T think

this point has been discussed before in court, don'L leave it
T2
52
MCSO's
15:08:51
poJ-icy and procedures
I therefore think that the }anguage that we've
15:09:
09
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Stat-us Conference
53
proposed, setting aside intervening events and based sofely
the t.rial record and not in J--ght of the Ninth Circuitrs
opinion, would capture a much more limited category of material
than what Your Honor first
woufd be limited to the plaintiff
has ordered.
THE COURT:
l'l-I
on
ordered in October of 2013, but

cl-ass as the Ninth Circult
consider that, Ms. Wang, but doesn't
of that go to a possible remedy, if in fact I find that
some
the materal that you were deprived and should have received
10
indicates that their Internal Affairs problem has processed --
11
or their Interna-l-
L2
complaints from t-he pubJ-j-c have problems and everything e,se,
13
and that that material would have
I4
wi-thhetd woul-d have provided you with that information so that
15
you coufd have presented it at trial-,
I6
finding first?
I-l
15:09:2't
Af
I5: 09:
fairs process has problems, and that their

or the material that
was
don't I have to make that
MS, WANG: Your Honor, I think that as you noted,
l5:10:04
we
rel-ief after the
1B
coul-d be seeking additional and different
19
outcome of the ongoing proceeding. I'm just speaking based on
20
the t-riaf record.
2\
order, opinion that said that the original paragraphs 136I
,)
and J v{ere not limited to the plaintj-ff
23
out: proposed }anguage is limited to the plaintiff
24
go-ng to capture the disciplinary
25
complaj-nts in the way that they are categorized and c.lassif ied
I think what we have is a Ninth Circuit

c}ass.
We
l5:10:21
think that
class, but is
outcomes and misconduct

'].5:1.0:43
CVO7-2513t Melendres v. Arpaio, -l/3I/15 Status Conference
in a normal
MCSO
54
Internal Affairs proceeding'
Just to be clear, because I'm not sure I was, I think
or now PSB, files are kept'
that the way that Internal Affairs,
what's normally charged, in terms of misconduct aJ-eged against
tr
a deputy, is a violation of agency poJ-icy.
that many files that explicitly
violated the Fourth and the Fourteenth
Constitution.
j-s both necessary, and is limited in the
10
haven't
al-lege that a deputy

Amendments
seen
15: 11.:04
has
of the
That's my main point in why I think our language

way
the Ninth Circuit
ordered.
1.5: I
11
THE COURT:
I2,
MS.
13
THE COURT:
I4
We
WANG:
All right.
I folow you, Thank You.
Thank you.
Mr. Popolizto, do you want to be heard on
this?
15
Or is it you, Ms. Iafrate?
I6
MS. IAFRATE: It's
I7
THE COURT: Okay.
1B
MS. IAERATE: I don't have anything to add to oul:
19
proposed language, Your Honor. The way that we proposed it
20
we went back to the Ninth Circuit' s langtuage and incorporat.ed
2I
that into our proposal. Therefore, 1t tracks the Ninth
22
Circuit's
23
I :25
15:']..1 :30
me, Your Honor'
was
15:11:3-/
mandate.
THE COURT: You woul-dn'
t contest
Ms
Wang'
s point,
24
though, that if agency poicy has been violated with respecL to
25
the members of the ptaintiff
cfass, that wouldn't viofate the
1.5:
11:52
CVO7
-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio ,
Ninth Circut's
Status Conference
order
I mean, the Ninth Circuit's
THE COURT:
back saying you need to limit
members
const itut ional- viofations.
it to activities
mandate to
involving
15:12:00
MS. IAFRATE: Correct, Your Honor, it doesn't have to
be just constitutional
violations,
but the way that plaintiffs
10
have worded their proposal, it expands it much further than
11
what you just posed to

THE COURT:
I2
1-4
I should make sure that Lhe issues are refated Lo members of
15
the plaintiff
I6
are entitled to the benefits of
11
other citizen is entitled to the benefits of
1B
Lhey not?
I9
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
with Ms.
)t
Vangrs
But the members of the plaintiff

MCSO
class
1R. 1t,
rO
poJ-icy just like every

MCSO
policy' are
Yes.
Okay.
So you wouldn't have any dispute
15: 12:42
fj-nal point there.
MS. IAFRATE:
23
the language that
24
she said.
THE
14
I agree, but I do agree, I think, with
Ms. Wang's supplemental- point, which is that it does requi
class.
15: 12:
me.
13
25
me
of the pJ-aint-ff class. so it doesn't have to be just
2I
55
order.
/ 37 / 15
MS. IAFRATE: It woufdn't violate t.he Ninth Circuit
2
3
'/
The
she posed
COURT:
Okay
point that. she makes, I would agree

does not say the final point that
15: 12:
51.
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference 56
MS. IAFRATE: I think that it's
THE COURT:
No, I agree that the Ianguage she proposed
was more expansive than that, and I t Il
enter an order this
take a look at it and
week.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
more expansive
Very wefl.
AII right.
We
have responses to
here, and does he wish to be heard?
Is
Alt right.
he
He's not here.
let
Now, f'm not
me
10
just say that I told him that I would give him a ful-f
11
opportun-ty to reply if
I2
and the time hasn't run for his reply so I'm not going to rufe
13
on that today.
I4
wishes to and appear at the next status conference and ar:gue
15
that he shoul-d be admitted to pro hac vice status.

I
10
am
he
wished to.
15:13:..3
And he hasn't replied,
I ' Il al-low him to appear
file a repJ-y if
he
l5:13:31
going to note t.he plaintif fs have opposed his
I1
admission for reasons that I raised with him last week, which
1B
is he has signed -- he signed all- of Mr. Moseley's appli-
79
well, he didn't sign them, but he was on the block, on the
20
signature block, and on t.he -- he's in the same aw firm.
21
don't see that there's any different
22
me
23
him being a witness.
25
qq
Mr. Klayman's motion for admission pro hac vice.
24
\. 12.
that the confl-ict. is still
15: 1.3:54
anafysis, and it- seems to
the same. Irm concerned about
And as f've said before, I'm also concerned that his
motion ta intervene as it pertains t.o the ability
to cl-aim
5:
14 : 0
CVO7
-2573, Mefendres
Arpaio,
rights in Mr. Montgomery's property is not wel- taken because
wetre not adjudicating Mr. Montgomery's rights to his
property in this proceeding. But those are the matters, if
Mr. Klayman gets a copy of the transcript,
about, and we will- let him address it at that time.
am concerned
1.5 t
Mr. Walker, Iast week I think you indicated t'hat
you
really don't have any right to substantively argue anything

than the sheriff,
because while you have no power to
10
different
11
control the sheriff,
I2
Maricopa county is bound J-egalty and l-iabitity-wise
13
actions.
I4
opposition to the admission for pro hac vice of Larry
15
when the sheriff
I6
other.
L5: 14 :38
and you may or may not agree wit.h him,
And you filed
a different
by his
you filed a substantive

Klayman
explicitJ-y took no possession one way or the
15: 15:04
J don't know that you have any aut.hority to do that,
T1
1B
I4 :23
Maricopa County, and by that I mean Mr. Walker.
own
I do have one concern that I wanL to share with
that I
57
do you?
MR. WALKER: Yes, Your Honor, I think that I do, and
I9
though I may have left the Court with
20
it. sounds
2I
misimpression the ]ast time we spoke ab,out this issue.
as
Let me
aa
try to be cl-ear,
What You and I were
the last sLatus conference had to do with
ZJ
discuss ing
24
25
or:ders coming out of this pl:oceeding. And the point I
ciL
1.5:l5:14
inancial- responsibility
for the costs related to remedial

was
15:15 r 40
CVOT-2513, Mel-endres
v. Arpaio,
'/
/31/15 Status Conference
5B
trying to make is therers an Arlz:na statute that requires the
board of supervisors to provide funding for reasonabfe
necessary activities,
sheriff.
tr
J
extent that we're not talking about willful
t.he County has a financial
has been acting --
And that, we interpret
THE COURT:
Jaw enforcement activiti.es,
and
of the
as requiring, at least to the

that
violations,
obligation under that statute
Well, T understand that'
15:16:08
and
Let me geL right
to the point.
10
MR. WALKER: Okay.
11
THE COURT: What
16:22
1.5:
I6:
point -- what argument, as I think I
72
read the Ninth Circuit opinion, and f ' l go back and reread it
13
:efore we meet next week, I'm noL going to prohibit you from
I4
being a party here because you're providing and you're
1tr
IJ
responding to document production requests. You clearly are
I6
party.
11
because you're going to be liable for any judgment/ not because
1B
you have any substantively different
15
But as I read the Ninth Circuit order, you're a party
Can you identify
I9
15 :
legal right Lo protect.
for me what substantiveJ-y different
20
legal right the County has to protect in defending tself
2I
against liability
22
you?
that is incurred by the sheriff but not
ZJ
MR. WALKER: Certainly, Your Honor. The Board of
24
Supervisors/ and the portion of the county government that
25
operates under their direcl supervision and direction,
15:16:52
by
has
15: 17:09
CVQ7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference 59
to the taxpayers of this county to
dj,rect fiscal responsibility
ensure that the tax revenues are used in appropri ate ways.
sheriff has no independent responsibiJ-ity with respect to that,
so in that sense, the interests are very different.

As Your Honor I wouJd imagine is well aware, it is not
for the Board of Supervisors and t.he sheriff to be
unconmon
opposite sides of litigation,

THE COURT:
here is not based
But the liability
so T don't know that you have
11
a party here because you're going to be liable for the
L2
udgment, but I don't know that you have any ability
13
any l-iabil-ity argument separate from the sherif f .
to
15; I7: 58
make
don't you consider that, because f don't want to
15
deprive you of that right if you've got it;
L6
that you have it,
1B
done
I mean, I think you're
at all,
L1
on
on
anything that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has
Vhy
15: 17:3B
and --
10
14
The
I just don't
MR. WALKER: Could I just speak very briefly
know
15:18:15
to the
Klayman motion?
10
IJ
THE COURT: To what?
20
MR. VALKER: The KlaYman --
z.L
THE COURT:
15: 18:25
No. And the reason I'm not going to let
1,2
you speak to the Klayman motion isnrt because IIm not sure that
23
I wontt let you be heard on it;
24
here. We're not going to take up that motion because I tol-d
25
him I would qive him a chance to reply, and the time for repl-y
it's
that Mr. Klayman is not
15:18:37
CVO7-251,3, Melendres
has not yet run so that may b,e why he'
But if I decide that you
it,
I I i-l- let you
be
have
not here.
a right t.o be heard
on
heard when we take up the Klayman motion.
Okay?
Jtr
MR.
VALKER
THE
COURT:
The Department of Justice has fil-ed a motion to
Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
15: 18:51.
Thank you, Mr. Wal-ker,
jntervene.
a moljon. Ar:e the defendants golng to oppose the motion?
The plaintiffs
have filed a non-opposition to such
The time hasn't runf so if you're going to oppose the
10
11
motion, I think you have, Iike, two or three days left to file
T2
an opposition if you're going to.
13
yourre going to.
74
the motion.
I think that it's
If you're not going to, I'm going t-o grant

t.ime'
Oh, is it?
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE: That was my calendaring,
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
I didn't- counL it.
IrlJ accept your
representation,
15:19:24
2I
MR.
VI]ALKER:
22
THE
COURT:
As would the County, Your Honor.
Okay.
V,/hy
don't we set status
these may need to be adjusted, buL right
conferences,
24
why don't we set status conferences for August 14th at.
z5
9:
and
15:19:14
August 6th.
I1
20
15 ; 19: 03
I just want to know if
MS. IAFRATE: Your Honor, we woufd like the full
1tr
IJ
I6
60
00 .ffi. August 2l.st at 10:00 .n., August. 28th at 9:30,
now
15:19:35
CVQ7-2573, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference 6I
September 4th at 9:00 a.m.
I, unfortunately' already have a matter al-l Friday the
so I woul-d like to set it
or September 10th at
llth,
9:00 .., and September 1Bth, which will just be four
before the hearing resumes, at 10:30.

dates, Your Honor. I will be in trial
August 2l-st.
Ms. Iafrate?
MS. TAFRATE: Well, Your Honor, f will
10
11
with one of those
THE COURT: Do you have anybody you cou-ld send,
days
15:20:00
MS. IAFRATE: I do have a conflict
6
1
see if I
can
THE COURT: How
13
Set those dat.es,
about we do this?
13
everybody put down those dates, and just tell- me if you've got
74
a problem, and we'lf see if we can make adjustments at. the next
1
IJ
status conference.
15:20:32
I6
MS. IAFRATE: Very wefI.
I7
THE COURT: Does
1B
MS. WANG: It. does, Your Honor,
T9
side,
20
avai labl
2r
i-hat
that
work?
On the plaintiffs'
already know Lhat none of plaintiffs'
we
on August 14th.
We
counsel are
could be available the Monday of
15:20:38
week.
THE COURT: "The Monday" meaning
22
foflowing
25
5:20:
work
I2
24
what? You mean the
Monday?
MS
VANG:
Monday; either
one
No, the previous Monday, oy the foJ-lowing

T think.
15:20;53
CVO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3f/15 St-atus Conference
Sorry. The previous
Oh, wait.
THE COURT:
MS.
THE COURT:
Jtr
MS. /ANG: -- get the cal-endar in front of me.
THE COURT:
MS
THE
VANG
Let
Monday.
I'm Lerrible.
So that would be
I'm sorry.
WANG:
me
Would that be the 10th?
: The 1Oth . August 1Oth
COURT: All right.
schedul-e one on the 14th.
T will maybe
vve vvon'L
I will look at setting one on the
10th, but. I will tell you that normally my Mondays are
11
completely filled
T2
either very early in the morning, very late.
I4
15:21:03
That woufd be August 10th?
10
13
62
with criminal matters, so it's
going to
I5:21:09
be
And hopefully, it
won't be of this extent, because I simply won't have this time.

But I thi nk we've resol-ved a lot of things here today, I hope
L5:21 :26
15
I6
Mr. Birnbaum.
I1
MR. BIRNBAUM: Yes. Thank you' Your Honor.
1B
Your Honor, f
I9
THE COURT:
20
MR. BIRNBAUM: Let me PuJ J. on one.
21
THE COURT: You can approach
22
MR. BIRNBAUM: Oh. Thank You.
I need to have you speak in a microphone.

'l
5:21:35
the podium.
Your Honor, just on -24
25
THE COURT: T need
Mr. Birnbaum
to have you speak at a microphone,

15:21:40
CV07
-2513, Mel-endres v. Arpaio,
'f
/ 3I /
15 Status
Conf
erence
MR. BIRNBAUM: Your Honor, just on the scheduling
issue, f'r sorry to take your time, I just want to advise the
Court that I teach at the AStl Law School
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. BIRNBAUM: -- Fr-day morning from B:30 to l-1:30.
Is not a problem. I will have somebody from my office attend
the status conferences
specifically
likely
10
15 :2L t 52
But it is likely that unl-ess something
is agendized that
-invof
ves Mr. Maclntyre, it is
I will not attend any of those conferences personally,
with the Court's permission.
15 :22 : 15
it.
Thank you, Mr. Birnbaum.
11
THE COURT: You have
I2
MR. BIRNBAUM: Thank you.
13
THE COURT:
I4
MS. CLARK: Judge, just briefly,
15
Ms, Wang to ask her if she's aware whether there'
I6
an issue for a status conference that is going to involve
T1
Mr.
Casey,
Ms
C]-ArK.
lyou know, Mr. Casey's

)
19
THE
reasonable.
I had reached out
t-o
going to
be
that she l-et me know ahead of time
]B
20
63
so I
1(,
)?,1Q
1.5
:22 : 47
can here.
COURT: That seems to me to be perfectly
Is everybody okay with that?

CLARK: So I will
2T
MS
22
THE COURT: Everybody
not
has nodded their assent. let.
me
sLate for the record.

Let me just say
24
25
ntent to
don't think the monitor has any
I may be wrong about this, I may be competely
15:22 t 55
CVO7-2573, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status Conference
64
\^Irong, so maybe I ought to shut up, but I do think that I
haven't precJ-uded the parties, jf they want to do depositions,
from doing depositions.
the clearance of the monitor first.
I've onJ-y said you need to talk -- get
I think the monitorrs pretty much given to Ms. Iafrate
5
6
the interviews that he wants to do, so if you want to
people that aren't on that list,
begin depositions, and f know there may be an issue with that
with respect to Mr.
Casey.
depose
check with him and you can
Otherwise, I think we ought to not
. Cl-ark to be here every time, and we shoufd do her
10
requi.re
11
the courtesy of let.ting her know in advance if there's going to
T2
be an issue that invol-ves Mr.
Ms
Any problem with that?
I4
MS. WANG: No, Your Honor, not from plaintiffs.
15
T6
MR.
I1
MR. COMO: I have no objection, Your Honor.
1B
MS. CLARK: Thank you, Judge. Mr. Casey just asked
: That ' s f ine, Your
15:23:35
Honor
T9
to raise two issues regarding his deposition, his potential
20
deposition, and that is just since it's
21
motion to stay, that he's hoping that Your Honor is going to
22
present for his deposition.
.)a
back for repeated depositions.
.J
24
25
It's
15:23:24
Casey.
13
VALKER
I5:23:09
He
me
been a while with the
doesn't want to have Lo
15:23:48
be
come
such a unique case and such a unique deposition
of the defendant's former counsel, there will be constant
15:24:08
CVO7-25L3, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/31/15 Status Conference
privilege,
65
and perhaps other issues,
issues of confidentiality,
that woufd -- he's going to need a ruling on in order to
abl-e to answer questions.
efficiently
Court, he's again reiterating
to be present for his deposition.
be
And to get this done timely and
for Mr. Casey, as well as the parties and the

that he very much woul-d like
you
7.5:24:24
Secondly, he is just concerned that productron issues,
1
B
privilege issues concerning production, obviously all
resolved prior at his deposition.

THE COURT:
10
All rlght.
be
Well, I think werve tried to
11
undertake steps towards that today. Counsef probably will
I2
in touch with you
13
t.rylng to coordinate that deposition, and it isn't
an ex parte
74
contact for counsel and you to contact my judicial
assistant to
15
try
1,6
t.here.
I1
that would be optimal.
1B
wjth all due respect, so we'l have to do what we can do.
and
counsel wilJ- probably
be
I think we've already discussed that if I
MS. CLARK: Yes, Judge.
20
THE COURT;
27
MS. CLARK: Yes, Judge. Thank you.
t)
And finally,
you
L^
l5:25:05
TJC
coul-d
But I afso have a schedu1e,
I9
: 4O
be
in touch with
find a date that's going to convenient for me to
15:24
Ms.
CJ.a
r k,
But I will try to be there.
15:25;
l.B
the last point is we will- be producing
)1
the documents as discussed earl,ier on August 3rd.
I will
24
out of the country and unavailable August 4th through the 14th
25
So if there are other production issues that come up during
be
15 :25 : 28
cvO7-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 1/3I/15 Status conference
thaL t.ime, I'fl
17rh.
have to be handling them when I get back on
THE COURT:
Happy vacat ion
MS.
Thank you
tr
J
THB COURT:
CLARK:
f therers nothing else, then I am, as I
indicated I would, gorng to take the matter that Ms. Iafrate
asked be addressed under seal under seal.
Are there other matters to be raised?
MS.
One
15:25:39
other issue we wanted to flag for Your
10
Honor because it could bear on the scheduling of the actual-
11
hearing.
12
with the defendants about a process for making whole the
13
victims of the preliminary injunction viol-ations.
L4
know yeL whether we're going to come to any agreement
15
Lhe
WANG:
66
15:25:53
We've been in the process of meeting and conferring
VrTe
don't
'
It may be necessary for us to put on some testimony
on
I6
that subject, and Ms. Pedley. my co-counsel from Covington,
71
been taking the fead for us in that meet and confer process and
1B
can alert the Court, l.f you wish, as to the staLus of those
L9
conversations and what the issues may be.
20
2T
22
THE COURT:
Al-l right.
Ms
. Hedley,
pJ.
l5:26:08
has
ease approach -*
15t26:2-l
either grab a microphone or approach the podium, please.

MS. PEDLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. As my co-counsel
23
mentioned, we have been meeting and conferring.
24
reommend
25
reach consent on that issue, Lhe advantage of t.hat being they
that
vve
We would
use a claj-ms administration firm.
Ve
hope to
15:26:
43
CVO7
-2513, Mefendres v Arpaio, 'l/31/15 Status Conference
61
can handle many of the issues, includingt notice and evafuating
cfaims and processing those cl-aims.
If we are unabfe
MR. WALKER: I have to object.
We
talked about this
before this status conference began, and my undersLandng
that t-he Court was going to
,1
engaged
1.5:27:01
informed that we have been
in meet and confer, and continue to be, without gettinq
into the substance of those discussions.

That's fine.
THE COURT:
10
be
was
subst.ance, then,
MS.
11
Ms.
PEDLEY:
Let's not get into the
Hedley.
15:21:19
Absolutely, Your
Honor .
We just wanted
I2
to afert the Court that if we are unabfe to reach an agreement
13
as to the process,
I4
that process we would advocate l-ook like.

THE
15
we
will- have to put

Alt right .
COURT:
L6
to me to be an issue.
I'7
to ref i-ne issues,
f 'm
on
a\^'are
testimony as to
of that.
That
what
seems
If we can stipulate and sofve
them,
h/e I
t 32
re
I9
20
everyone.
15:21:46
2I
MS
PEDLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
22
THE
COURT: Anything else? Mr. Eisenberg.
aa
MR
EISENBERG: Your Honor,
L)
:2'l
I think from now on werre gorng to try
going to el-minate them. And we will refine this until we have

a very hopefully, efficient and succinct hearing available for
1B
).5
to the extent that this
seafed hear:ing, I feel- very secure it
24
next portion is
1, -)
probably doesn't pertain to my client and I woul-d ask that. I
be
15:28:00
CV07
-2513
, Melendres v.
Arpa-o
/ 3I /
15 Sl-atus
Conf
erence
permitted to be excused.
be excused if you wish to be.
THE COURT: You may
Anybody else who wishes to be excused may be excused
excepl for plaintiffs

sorry.
You'
suppose
if you asked to be excused/ you can be
excused.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, with respect to what
10
Mr. Walker jusL said, and I was lhe one that had the
11
conversation prior to the hearing and I apol-ogize if there
T2
a misunderstanding, I think my thought was that we weren't
IJ
going to discuss the substance of the conversations t.hat
T4
h,een
15
Court of what we were thinking, at feast on our side, the Court
I6
should order.
T1
having, but.
we
was
had
we
on my part. to communicaLe
to what we intended to say, my apologies to Mr. Walker
19
Ms. Iafrate.
THE COURT:
)q
wanting to inform the
were, certainly,
So if that vvas a failure
I R. tO,
1B
20
15:28:11
re separately representing.
WefI, I
1
B
and defendants.
And, of course, you, Mr. Como/ can't be excused. I'm
5
6
68
as
and
I think M::. Val,ker acted prompt.ly in order
27
to defend his cl-ient's rights, and if
2,2
f.urther about it,
he
15 :28 t 40
15t2B:52
wants to do anyt-hing
he can/ and we'ff take it up from there, but
I understand your correction.

24
z3
AIt right
to ask everybody
who
The hearing is
now
under seaf.
I 'm going
is not a party to this fawsuit or not
15r29:09
CVO7-251,3, Melendres
specially appearing party to be excused.
(The courtroom is cl-ea::ed.
(Sealed proceedings omitted.
5
6
1
B
I
10
11
I2
13
74
15
16
I1
1B
19
20
2I
22
ZJ
24
25
69
CVO7-2513, Mefendres v. Arpaio,
10
CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
5
6
T,
'7
GARY MOLL,
do hereby certify
that I
am
duly
appointed and qualified to act as Offj-cial Court Reporter for
the United States District

I
10
FURTHER CERTIFY
Cour:t for the District
of Arizona,
that the foregoing pages constitute
11
a full-, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
I2
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
13
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
I4
was prepared under my direction and control.
15
L6
I1
1B
DATED
at Phoenix, Arizorrat this 3rd day of August,
2015.
19
20
2I
22
ZJ
24
25
s/Gary Moll
EXHIBIT C
COVINGTON
Keith A, Teel
Partner
Covington & Burling LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Tel: +1 202 662 5501
kteel@cov.com
racti ces
lntellectual Property
Patent Litigation
Litigation
lnsurance Coverage Litigation &

Arbitration
Pulic Policy & Government Affairs
Product Liability & Mass ort

Defense
Congressional & Federal Agency
Advocacy
Represe ntative Matters
Food & Drug
Counsel for name-brand pharmaceutical manufacturers in

Hatch-Waxman litigation and trials, and for other product
manufacturers in patent litigation involving various kinds of
technology.
lndustries
Keith Teel litigates patent and product liability cases. He

emphasizes trial work, but has also argued in various appellate
courts, including the U,S. Supreme Court. He has extensive
experience developing and overseeing the enactment of state
legislation focusing on liability issues, and is highly experienced
in handling issues involving sensitive political or public policy
considerations. Mr. Teel co-chairs the firm's patent litigation
practice group.
Life Sciences
Representation of major pharmaceutical manufacturers in

product liability litigation and related insurance coverage
disputes.
Education
Represented all of the major U.S. tobacco manufacturers

their disputes with state attorneys general that culminated
in the November 1998 Master Settlement Agreement,
taking the lead in discussions with elected officials
throughout the United States,
District of Columbia
Developed and oversaw the enactment in over forty states

of state legislation relating to liability standards and
litigation procedure, involving issues such as product
liability reform, consumer protection reform, appeal bond
limits, and punitive damages legislation, and class action
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
procedures.
University of Virginia School of Law,
J.D.,
1981
Virginia Law Review
Washington and Lee University,

B.S. (Chemistry), 1978
magna cum laude
Bar Admissons
I
I
in
National coordinating counsel for product liability litigation

involving the Tobacco lnstitute.
COVINGTON
r
Coverage counsel for policyholders in disputes with insurers
over product liability claims, environmental disputes, and

other liabilities.
Briefed and argued in the United States Supreme Court on

behalf of petitioners in Traynor v. Turnage,485 U.S. 535
(1988), which determined that administrative decisions of
the Veterans Administration could be appealed in the
federal courts and led to the creation of the Court of
Veterans Appeals, and which also considered the
applicability of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the
Veterans Administration.
Representation of death row inmates, including serving as

lead counsel in a case that resulted in the release in
February 2012 of an Alabama prisoner who had spent the
preceding seventeen years on death row.
Honors and Rankings
t
t
I
r
I
Washington D.C. SuperLawyers, Product Liability Defense
Besf Lawyers in America, Product Liability Defense

Euromoney's Guide to the World's Leading lnsurance and
Reinsurance Lawyers
Various Who's Who
American Tort Reform Association, Legal Reform

Champion

15-72440 # 12 - Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion To Stay

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

15-72440 # 12 - Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion To Stay

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 2 of 133

Michele M. Iafrate, Bar #015115

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 3 of 133

CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE

The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addresses of the

Stanley Young, Esq.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 4 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 5 of 133

Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed emergency.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 6 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 7 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 8 of 133

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

improperly authorized Answering Brief, attempting to inject entirely irrelevant

A STAY IS WARRANTED UNDER THE FOUR NKEN FACTORS

on appeal. In order to justify a stay petitioners need not demonstrate that it is

Petitioners refer to Plaintiffs-Appellees collectively as the ACLU.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 9 of 133

Petitioners have a substantial case for relief on the merits.

It was the Courts improper

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 10 of 133

Judge Snow and his spouse are material witnesses in this

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 11 of 133

The expansion of the Monitors powers was improper and

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 12 of 133

Regardless, the ACLU conflates Petitioners violations of prior Court orders

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 13 of 133

Accordingly, the Courts continued insistence to investigate into

Judge Snow improperly engaged (and continues to engage)

No argument contained in Petitioners Motion to Stay (or its Writ of

The ACLUs reference to Petitioners failure to produce emails and the

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 14 of 133

Contrary to the ACLUs arguments, there are limitations on ex-parte

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 15 of 133

contempt proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1). Accordingly, the Courts ex parte

See e.g., 7/31/15 RT at 10:17-18, 18:22-19:4, attached as Ex. B; 8/7/15 RT

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 16 of 133

substantial, which is a fact sensitive inquiry.

[ACLU Response at 9].

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 17 of 133

An objective independent observer would have found

In light of all of the foregoing arguments, an objective independent observer

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 18 of 133

Petitioners will be irreparably injured absent a stay.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 19 of 133

The ACLU argues that a stay would substantially injury Plaintiffs by

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 20 of 133

judge in any proceeding is an integral part of maintaining the publics confidence

courts contempt proceedings pending resolution of their writ of mandamus.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 21 of 133

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of September, 2015.

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 22 of 133

this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using

this brief has been prepared in a monospaced spaced typeface using

/s/ John T. Masterson

Defendants/Petitioners Joseph M. Arpaio and

September 14, 2015

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 23 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 24 of 133

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 25 of 133

status Conference 8-28-15.txt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT