Upload
jack-ryan
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
1/79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
Daniel J. Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys
for Plaintiffs listed on next page)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,
et al.,
)
)
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
Plaintiff(s), ) COMPEL TESTIMONY RE:
) JULY 17, 2015 MEETING
v. ) AND MCSO’S NONDISCLOSURE
) OF THE “1500 IDS”
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., )
)
Defendants(s). )
)
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
2/79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington, DC 20004Telephone: (202) 662-5996
Facsimile: (202) 778-5996
Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
Telephone: (949) 824-9894Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)
Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling LLP333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley
[email protected] ( Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
3/79
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs hereby move to compel Defendants and members of the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) to respond to Plaintiffs’ questioning about (1)
discussions that occurred between MCSO personnel and counsel on Friday, July 17,
2015 regarding approximately 1,459 identification documents that had been turned in
by Sergeant Jon Knapp (hereinafter the “1,500 IDs”); and (2) any other discussions
MCSO had with counsel regarding nondisclosure of the 1500 IDs to the Monitor team
in the lead up to the Monitor’s site visit on July 20-24, 2015. Counsel for Defendants
have instructed MCSO witnesses not to answer questions about this subject on grounds
of attorney-client privilege. Any privilege that may have existed in those
communications, however, has been waived.
I. Factual Background
On or around July 8, 2015, MCSO personnel in the Professional Standards
Bureau (“PSB”) learned that Sergeant Jon Knapp had attempted to turn in a very large
number of identification documents to Property and Evidence, apparently for
destruction. Rough Dep. of Steve Bailey, Lai Decl. Ex. 1 (“Bailey Dep.”) at 161:2-21;
Dep. of Kimberly Seagraves, Lai Decl. Ex. 2 (“Seagraves Dep.”) at 89:22-92:21.
Given the history of problems involving the handling of identification documents by
the MCSO in this litigation, Captain Bailey believed that the Monitor would want to
know about this incident. Bailey Dep. at 164:6-15, 225:11-16, 235:19-25. Further, this
Court had issued an order on February 12, 2015, of which PSB personnel were aware,
that required Defendants to produce “[c]opies of identification documents seized by
MCSO personnel from apparent members of the Plaintiff Class.” Doc. 881 at 2. See
Seagraves Dep. at 117:4-119:1 (testifying that she was aware of the order when shelearned of the 1500 IDs and believed, under the order, that IDs needed to be produced
to Plaintiffs), 121:22-123:19 (order was discussed at July 17 meeting); Bailey Dep. at
236:6-19. Captain Bailey of PSB began an initial investigation into Sgt. Knapp and the
1500 IDs, but then, at the direction of Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan, suspended the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
4/79
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
investigation. Bailey Dep. at 171:21-172:13, 224:25-225:4, Interview of Captain Steve
Bailey by Chief Donald Anders, Lai Decl. Ex. 3 (“Bailey Monitor Interview Tr.”) at
WAI 17014:7-17016:14.
On July 17, 2015, MCSO held a meeting to prepare for the Monitor’s site visit
scheduled for July 20-24, 2015. Bailey Dep. at 181:7-14 (characterizing meeting as a
“rehearsal meeting” for site visit), 183:2-12. Chief Deputy Sheridan, Captain Bailey,
Lieutenants Seagraves and Kratzer, Sergeants Bone, Sparman, and Bocchino, PSB
administrative assistant Lauren Sanchez, and Defendants’ counsel Michele Iafrate
were present at the meeting. Bailey Dep. at 181:7-9, 181:15-182:12; Seagraves Dep. at
104:7-12. During the meeting, the subject of the 1500 IDs was discussed. Bailey Dep.
at 181:7-9, 207:2-14, 210:5-212:18; Seagraves Dep. at 106:14-109:18.
Subsequently, on July 20, 2015, MCSO, together with Ms. Iafrate, met with
members of the Monitor team. Seagraves Dep. at 111:12-21. After discussing two
other cases involving identification documents, Chief Sherry Kiyler of the Monitor
team asked if there were “any other identifications that had been discovered.”
Seagraves Dep. at 88:11-25 (describing other ID cases), 111:22-112:13 (describing
colloquy with Kiyler on July 20). Captain Bailey responded no. Seagraves Dep. at
112:14-20, Bailey Dep. at 224:10-11. Lieutenant Seagraves acknowledged in her
deposition testimony that this statement was not accurate at the time. Seagraves
112:24-113:6.1
Captain Bailey testified that he had been directed not to disclose the existence
of the 1500 IDs to the Monitor team at the July 17 meeting. Bailey Dep. at 199:10-16,
204:5-14. However, he stated that neither Chief Deputy Sheridan, nor the lieutenants
1 Captain Bailey testified at his deposition that Chief Kiyler’s question was whether
there were any other “pending” cases involving IDs. Bailey Dep. at 224:6-14. Hetestified that he stands by his answer to Chief Kiyler that there were none. Bailey Dep.224:17-225:22.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
5/79
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
present, gave the direction, and no one else at the meeting would have given such a
direction. Bailey Dep. at 198:10-202:18. When Captain Bailey was asked if Ms. Iafrate
had given the instruction during his deposition, defense counsel asserted privilege and
instructed Captain Bailey not to respond. Bailey Dep. at 204:15-28. Similarly, during
Lt. Seagraves’ deposition, she testified that a direction was given not to disclose the
IDs, but that neither Captain Bailey nor any other MCSO personnel gave the direction.
Seagraves Dep. at 115:23-117:3. Defense counsel instructed her not to answer
questions about the instruction and who gave it. Seagraves Dep. at 115:10-20.
At the close of Lt. Seagraves’ deposition, Charles Jirauch, who represents
Maricopa County, elicited the following testimony from Lt. Seagraves:
Q. Okay. And let me talk about one other issue that came up, and
that's the 1500 IDs and the conversation on July 17th among the
employees, the other deputies, and -- and sergeants, et cetera, about
those IDs. And then my question to you is, did you hear anything
from the sheriff's office suggesting that they wanted to hide or
destroy those, permanently hide or destroy those IDs?
A. No.
Q. Nothing at all?
A. No.
Q. So what you heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, is conversation
about, we don't know what we got here, and we got to figure it out.
Is that what you heard?
A. Yes.
Seagraves Dep. at 315:6-21.2
//
2 Though counsel for Maricopa County conducted this portion of the examination,
counsel for Sheriff Arpaio was also present and did not object.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
6/79
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Argument
The attorney-client privilege is “strictly construed” and the burden of proving
that it applies rests “with the party asserting it.” Weil v. Inv./Indicators, Research &
Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 24–25 (9th Cir. 1981). In this case, Defendants have waived
any privilege that existed as to communications about the 1500 IDs at the July 17,
2015 meeting—as well as any other communications with counsel about nondisclosure
of the IDs to the Monitor team—by voluntarily disclosing the content of counsel’s
advice and statements of MCSO personnel during the July 17 meeting.3
A. Defendants waived any attorney-client privilege by disclosing thecontents of counsel’s advice on July 17, 2015
It is well established that voluntary disclosure of privileged communication
constitutes a waiver of privilege, not only as to the communication that is disclosed,
but as to all other communications on the same subject. See United States v. Richey,
632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Voluntary disclosure of privileged
communications constitutes waiver of the privilege for all other communications on
the same subject.”); In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 980-981 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(disclosure of one of six documents related to same subject matter waived disclosure to
all). Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a) provides where that a disclosure made during a
federal proceeding waives attorney-client privilege, the waiver extends also to
undisclosed communications if “(1) the waiver is intentional, (2) the disclosed and
undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3)
they ought in fairness to be considered together.” Fed. R. Evid. 502(a); see also Chiron
3 By filing this motion, Plaintiffs do not waive any other arguments, based on positionsDefendants may take in the future or additional information that may come to light,including that Defendants have waived attorney-client privilege by relying on adviceof counsel as a defense, see Rock River Commc’ns, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc.,745 F.3d 343, 353 (9th Cir. 2014), or that any attorney-client communications on thissubject are discoverable under the crime-fraud exception, see In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
7/79
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1186 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“[T]he scope
of the waiver is governed by a rule of fairness.”) (internal quotation omitted).
As Defendants have attempted to do before in this lawsuit, they seek to gain an
improper advantage here through a selective waver. Both Captain Bailey and Lt.
Seagraves reported that they were advised during the July 17, 2015 meeting not to
reveal their discovery of the 1500 IDs to the Monitor team during the site visit meeting
on July 20. Supra at 2-3. They also reported that this direction did not come from any
other MCSO personnel. Id. The only other person in the room was Ms. Iafrate. Id.
Though Defendants continue to assert privilege over who gave the direction, the
identity of the speaker in an attorney-client communication is not itself privileged. For
example, courts have held that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), that when a party
withholds otherwise discoverable information on grounds of privilege, the party must
provide a detailed privilege log that “consists of a description of responsive material
withheld, the identity and position of its author, the date it was written, the identity and
position of all . . . recipients,” and other information. United States v. Union Pac. R.
Co., No. CIV06-1740FCDKJM, 2007 WL 1500551, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2007)
(emphasis added); see also Robinson v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, No. 2:12-CV-2783 MCE
GGH, 2014 WL 3845775, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014) (citing W.W. Schwarzer,
A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 11:1919). It is
instead the underlying advice that is privileged.
Defendants have effectively disclosed the core of the advice that Ms. Iafrate
gave MCSO during the July 17 meeting. Having opted to disclose the substance of
that instruction from her, Defendants cannot now obstruct Plaintiffs’ discovery into thedetails of what she said or what explanation or qualifications she might have
communicated in connection with her instruction by refusing to confirm that it was
Ms. Iafrate who gave the direction. There is no question here that the disclosure of Ms.
Iafrate’s instruction was intentional and that Plaintiffs seek to question MCSO
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
8/79
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
witnesses on information about the same subject matter as the communications that
were disclosed, i.e., whether the existence of the 1500 IDs should be revealed to the
Monitor team. As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, a party may not use attorney-client
communications “both as a sword and a shield.” Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974
F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992). Fairness also requires that the disclosed and non-
disclosed information be considered together.
B. Defendants waived any attorney-client privilege by selectivelydisclosing discussions with counsel about the 1500 IDs on July 17,2015
Attorney-client privilege has been waived for the additional reason that
Defendants have selectively disclosed statements made by MCSO personnel in Ms.
Iafrate’s presence during the July 17, 2015 meeting.
During Lt. Seagraves’ deposition, defense counsel elicited testimony from Lt.
Seagraves that she “did not hear anything” from her colleagues at MCSO on July 17
“suggesting that they wanted to . . . permanently hide or destroy those IDs,” only
statements to the effect of “we don’t know what we got here, and we got to figure it
out.” Seagraves Dep. at 315:6-21. The goal of that testimony was to imply that there
was no wrongdoing on the part of the Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Iafrate was present at the
meeting during this discussion. Though Defendants’ counsel had previously asserted
privilege over statements made by MCSO personnel about the IDs in the meeting
based on the fact that Ms. Iafrate was present and there to render legal advice, see, e.g.,
Bailey Monitor Interview Tr. at WAI 17018:22-17020:20; Seagraves Dep. at 109:6-16;
see also Bailey Dep. 201:7-184, during Lt. Seagraves’ deposition, counsel did not limit
4 During Captain Bailey’s deposition, taken five days later, counsel initially instructed
Captain Bailey not to answer any questions about statements made by MCSO personnel while Ms. Iafrate was present. Bailey Dep. 186:20-22. Counsel later revisedhis instruction to include just “communications made or between the witness and Ms.Iafrate and other persons present at [the July 17] meeting.” Bailey Dep. at 205:18-23.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
9/79
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
his questioning to statements made by MCSO not for the purpose of obtaining legal
advice. He specifically asked if she had heard anything from the Sheriff’s Office
suggesting they wanted to hide or destroy the IDs.
Defendants’ voluntary decision make representations about the entirety of what
was and what was not said by MCSO personnel during the July 17 meeting waives
privilege not only as to MCSO personnel’s statements, but all other communications
during the meeting. Fed. R. Evid. 502(a); Richey, 632 F.3d at 566. Defendants cannot
limit Plaintiffs’ discovery to only the portions of the discussion that they have self-
servingly sought to bring to the Court’s attention while concealing the other portions
behind the cloak of privilege.
III. Conclusion
In the effort to absolve themselves of wrongdoing, Defendants have disclosed a
great deal about the July 17 discussion of the 1500 IDs. “‘[W]hen [the privilege
holder’s] conduct touches a certain point of disclosure, fairness requires that his
privilege shall cease whether he intended that result or not. He cannot be allowed,
after disclosing as much as he pleases, to withhold the remainder. He may elect to
withhold or disclose, but after a certain point his election must remain final.’” Weil ,
647 F.2d at 24 (quoting VIII J. Wigmore, Evidence s 2291, at 636 (McNaughton rev.
1961)). For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion.
Dated this 10th day of September, 2015.
By: /s/ Anne Lai
Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)
Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)
Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
10/79
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)
Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)
Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley ( Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)
Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP
Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 10 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
11/79
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 10, 2015, I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice
of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic
filing system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
Dated: September 10, 2015Irvine, CA
/s/ Anne Lai
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319 Filed 09/10/15 Page 11 of 11
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
12/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
13/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
14/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
15/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
16/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
17/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
18/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
19/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
20/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
21/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 10 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
22/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 11 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
23/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 12 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
24/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 13 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
25/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 14 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
26/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 15 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
27/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 16 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
28/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 17 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
29/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 18 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
30/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 19 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
31/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 20 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
32/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 21 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
33/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 22 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
34/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 23 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
35/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 24 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
36/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 25 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
37/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 26 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
38/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 27 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
39/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 28 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
40/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 29 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
41/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 30 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
42/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 31 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
43/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 32 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
44/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 33 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
45/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 34 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
46/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 35 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
47/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 36 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
48/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 37 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
49/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 38 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
50/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 39 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
51/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 40 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
52/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 41 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
53/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 42 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
54/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 43 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
55/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 44 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
56/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 45 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
57/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 46 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
58/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 47 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
59/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 48 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
60/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 49 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
61/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 50 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
62/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 51 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
63/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 52 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
64/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 53 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
65/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 54 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
66/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 55 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
67/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 56 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
68/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 57 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
69/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 58 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
70/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 59 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
71/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 60 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
72/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 61 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
73/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 62 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
74/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 63 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
75/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 64 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
76/79
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 65 of 65
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
77/79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,
et al.,
)
)
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGPlaintiff(s), ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
) COMPEL TESTIMONY RE:v. ) JULY 17, 2015 MEETING
) AND MCSO’S NONDISCLOSURE Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., ) OF THE “1500 IDS”
)
Defendants(s). )
)
The Court, having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Testimony Re: July
17, 2015 Meeting and MCSO’s Nondisclosure of the “1500 IDs”, and for good cause
appearing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Testimony Re: July 17, 2015
Meeting and MCSO’s Nondisclosure of the “1500 IDs” is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and members of the MCSO shall
forthwith respond to Plaintiffs’ questioning about (1) discussions that occurred between
MCSO personnel and counsel on Friday, July 17, 2015 regarding approximately 1,459
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-2 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
78/79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
identification documents that had been turned in by Sergeant Jon Knapp (hereinafter the
“1,500 IDs”); and (2) any other discussions MCSO had with counsel regarding
nondisclosure of the 1500 IDs to the Monitor team in the lead up to the Monitor ’s site
visit on July 20-24, 2015.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-2 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
8/20/2019 Melendres # 1319 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_1319
79/79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1319-2 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3