Melendres # 1275 - 2015-08-21 STATUS CONFERENCE Transcript

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2
3
4
5
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
DS
19
Court Reporter:
IEN
23
24
FR
25
Phoenix, Arizona
August 21, 2015
10:03 a.m.
(Status Conference)
17
22
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
16
21
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 66
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Andre Segura, Esq.
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
7
8
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

By: Joshua David R. Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
10
11
12
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Tammy Albarran, Esq. - Telephonically
By: Lauren E. Pedley, Esq. - Telephonically
1 Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
13
14
15
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq. - Telephonically
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
16
17
19
20
21
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio:

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq. - Telephonically
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.
By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
IEN
22
For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Walker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.
SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
DS
18
23
24
FR
25
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/21/15 Status Conference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office:
Iafrate & Associates
By: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.
649 N. 2nd Avenue
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC
By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq. - Telephonically
P.O. Box 20527
For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

County Attorney William Montgomery:
Ridenour Hienton, PLLC
By: April M. Hamilton, Esq.
Chase Tower
For the Intervenor United States of America:
United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights
By: Paul Killebrew, Esq. - Telephonically
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights
By: Puneet Cheema, Esq. - Telephonically
601 D. Street NW, #5516
Washington, D.C. 20004
17
18
20
21
For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:

Mitchell Stein Carey, PC
By: Barry D. Mitchell, Esq.
1 Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900
IEN
22
For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:

Dickinson Wright, PLLC
By: David J. Ouimette, Esq.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
DS
19
23
24
FR
25
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:
David Eisenberg, PLC
By: David Eisenberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003
Also present:
Chief Robert Warshaw, Monitor - Telephonically
Commander John Girvin Deputy Monitor - Telephonically
Chief Raul Martinez, Deputy Monitor - Telephonically
Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
IEN
22
DS
19
20
23
24
FR
25
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
4
THE COURT:
Good morning.
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Civil case 07-2513, Manual de Jesus
Ortega Melendres and others versus Joseph M. Arpaio and others.
This is the time set for status conference.
Please announce your presence for the record.
8
9
MS. WANG:
11
10:03:31
Stanley Young,
Good morning.
Andre Segura of the ACLU
Good morning, Your Honor.
Josh Bendor of
MS. IAFRATE:
Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the unnamed contemnors.

MR. MASTERSON:
Good morning, Judge.
John Masterson
and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio.

MR. WALKER:
10:03:54
Richard Walker
and Charles Jirauch representing that portion of the Maricopa
23
County government embodied in the board of supervisors, the
24
county manager, and the employees working under their
25
direction.
FR
10:03:41
the ACLU of Arizona for plaintiffs.
IEN
22
DS
21
MR. YOUNG:
MR. BENDOR:
19
20
Good morning.
for the plaintiffs.
17
18
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
15
16
Cecillia Wang of
Covington & Burling, for plaintiffs.
13
14
the ACLU for the plaintiffs.
10
12
10:03:19
10:04:08
THE COURT:
1
2
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
week.
We intend to file it
All right.
Please have it filed by next
Greg Como on
behalf of Brian Sands, who's waived his appearance today.

THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. MITCHELL:
10
Barry Mitchell on
11
behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan, who's present today, specially
12
appearing.
THE COURT:
13
David
15
Eisenberg, specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.
16
He is present, but, Your Honor, he may have to leave on police
17
business.
MR. WOODS:
23
Did the phone people get taken off?

This is Mel McDonald, special
appearance for Sheriff --
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. McDONALD:
FR
April
10:04:51
MR. McDONALD:
IEN
22
Hamilton --
DS
21
Thank you.
MS. HAMILTON:
19
10:04:38
Thank you.
THE COURT:
18
10:04:28
Good morning.
MR. EISENBERG:
14
20
10:04:17
Thank you.
MR. COMO:
7
8
Yes, Your Honor.
next week.
5
6
You know, are you going to file the
memorandum which I invited you to file, Mr. Walker?
3
4
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

Excuse me.
Who's on the line?
Mel McDonald making special
10:04:58
appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

THE COURT:
Court.)
MS. ALBARRAN:
5
6
Do we need to reestablish a bridge?
(Off-the-record discussion between the clerk and the
3
4
Tammy
THE COURT:
Now, just a minute.
We don't have
everybody in the courtroom who's announced yet, but is
everybody -- and I'll call on you in just a second.

MS. HAMILTON:
10
April
11
Hamilton on behalf of Maricopa County Attorney's Office and
12
Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery.

MR. OUIMETTE:
13
THE COURT:
All right.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
16
David
Now, who's on the line?
Chief Warshaw, and with me are the two deputy monitors,
18
Chief Martinez and Commander Girvin.

THE COURT:
19
23
24
FR
25
Thank you, Chief.
You'll need
DS
You're a little bit faint.
MR. WOODS:
Terry Woods for non-parties Stutz and
THE COURT:
And you'll need to tone it down,
10:05:44
Liddy.
IEN
22
to speak up.
All right.
10:05:30
This is
17
21
10:05:18
Ouimette for Deputy Chief MacIntyre.
15
20
10:05:08
Albarran from Covington & Burling, on behalf of plaintiffs.
14
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

Mr. Woods.
You're a little bit strong.
MR. WOODS:
I've been told that lots of times, Judge.
10:05:57
THE COURT:
MS. PEDLEY:
MS. MORIN:
Lauren Pedley
Good morning.
10:06:11
Michelle Morin from
Covington on behalf of plaintiffs.

THE COURT:
Anyone else?
MR. McDONALD:
9
10
Honor.
11
Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
12
THE COURT:
13
Tammy Albarran from
from Covington & Burling on behalf of plaintiffs.
6
7
Good morning.
Covington on behalf of plaintiffs.
4
5
Do we have anybody else?
MS. ALBARRAN:
Was that Mr. McDonald?
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor, it was.
You know what, Mr. McDonald?
If you have
16
anything to say, you better really scream when you have to say
17
it, because we can barely, barely hear you here.

MR. McDONALD:
18
21
THE COURT:
23
24
FR
25
I will scream if I have
You clearly do.
10:06:58
Ms. Iafrate, I take it you're here; you don't need to
be excused.
IEN
22
All right.
10:06:36
I need to borrow Terry Woods' mike.
DS
20
anything to say.
10:06:24
I'm not sure who that was, but I could
MR. McDONALD:
15
I don't know if you heard mine, Your
Mel McDonald making a special appearance for
barely hear you.
14
19
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

MS. IAFRATE:
I got my verdict last night at 5:00,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, thank you for being
10:07:07
here.
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

I did tell you last week that if you wanted to address
2
3
Ms. Wang's arguments that she made on the supplemental -- the
modification to the supplemental permanent injunction that I
would allow you to do that this week.
10:07:21
Do you have anything you want to say on that point?
MR. MASTERSON:
I listened to
Ms. Wang's statements last week, discussed it with Ms. Iafrate
and I'm going to be handling this, but upon reflection, I don't
10
think I have anything to add.
11
briefed and discussed before and the Court had already ruled
12
upon the matters.
13
rearguing those matters which had been decided.

All right.
On the protective order submitted by the parties,
15
maybe I didn't read it closely enough, I have no huge
17
objection, but I do note that Mr. Como has a right to be
18
offended to the extent that he wasn't allowed to be a signatory
19
stipulating party, and I do believe he is representing
20
Executive Chief Sands separately from the other Maricopa County
21
defendants, so did you review that, Mr. Como?
DS
16
MR. COMO:
IEN
22
problem with the substance of it, but I think it would be
24
appropriate that it also governs Mr. Sands and --
FR
THE COURT:
10:08:05
10:08:26
I did, Your Honor, and I don't have any
23
25
10:07:46
I do object to plaintiff, in essence,
THE COURT:
14
I believe it was adequately
Yeah.
I don't know, I will tell you, I
10:08:41
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 8/21/15 Status Conference 10
took just a look at it.
Do all of you have it with you?
I don't know -- when you say "defendants will produce
2
3
documents," I don't know if you were including Mr. Sands in
that obligation.
documents.
I don't know to what extent Mr. Sands has
10:09:03
MR. COMO:
He does not, Your Honor.
addressed that in previous discovery issues.
documents.
THE COURT:
Well, let me just ask:
We've already
He has no further
Does anybody
10
object if I change "defendants will produce documents to
11
plaintiffs" to "defendants will produce documents to all
12
parties"?
MS. IAFRATE:
13
MS. WANG:
14
16
No objection, Your Honor.
No objection.
THE COURT:
15
And when we have "plaintiffs" throughout,
That takes care of most of my comments, except if
18
you'll go to the very end, which is, according to what I have,
19
subheading G, we have:
20
subject to the confidential" -- sorry -- "confidentiality
21
designation is submitted to this Court, the submitting party
22
shall file the document under seal."
IEN
DS
"If any document produced by defendant
Okay.
10:09:41
Can I just teach you all a little bit about
24
clerical procedure, which I'm not great on?
25
documents under seal.
FR
10:09:21
I'll just put "all parties" or something equivalent.
17
23
10:09:15
You do not file
You just simply cannot do that.
You can
10:09:59
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

lodge documents under seal.
So what we will say is, "The submitting party shall
2
3
lodge documents under seal" -- and then I want to add, and so
if you can listen carefully to see if you have any objection --
"You shall lodge documents under seal and explain in a separate
motion why the document does or does not comply with the
requirements set forth for keeping a document or documents
under seal.
Ninth Circuit cases on the legal requirements for keeping a
10
See, e.g., Kamakana, which is one of the principal
document under seal.
10:10:38
Does anybody care if I add that language to the order,
11
12
or wish to be heard on that?
13
MS. WANG:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
MR. COMO:
16
MR. COMO:
18
Honor.
DS
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
I have no objection, Your
Anything else that anybody wants to
say on the stipulated protective order?
22
it -- I'll try to enter it today.
IEN
21
23
MS. WANG:
10:10:49
I have --
MR. WALKER:
17
20
Your Honor, plaintiffs would agree with
that modification.
15
19
10:10:56
Otherwise, I'll enter
Your Honor, just a question about your
24
modification to change the production obligation to be made to
25
all parties.
FR
10:10:15
We just want to know whether that should include
10:11:16
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

the United States as an intervenor now, since that's -THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Okay.
THE COURT:
4
5
Yes --
-- the United States is an intervenor, and
that makes them a party.

All right.
10:11:29
I assume that what we need to do is get
started -- or make sure that we have all the prehearing
discovery, time for all the prehearing discovery that is needed
before we launch back into discovery.
And it seemed to me that
10
the best way to do that, there's a number of documents and
11
things outstanding, things that defendants were going to
12
provide, and I just thought it would make sense to review those
13
to make sure that -- we discussed a little bit last week
14
possible depositions.
15
this week.
10:11:50
I guess I want to discuss that again
10:12:09
I realize that before plaintiff begins whatever
16
17
depositions it wants, it may want to have these documents,
18
which I reviewed last night the order that I entered.
19
them should be provided by today, I think, by that review.
20
I just want to review them and make sure they have been
21
provided so that plaintiffs can do whatever they want to do,
22
and then we can discuss depositions, talk a little bit about
24
FR
25
So
DS
IEN
23
All of
10:12:26
that.
So by my order, e-mails that specified MCSO personnel
from archived PST files in the possession of Maricopa County
10:12:47
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

were to be produced on or before yesterday.
I did receive
early this morning, apparently filed yesterday evening, the
sheriff's motion for extension of time to disclose e-mails.

Do you want to be heard on that, Mr. Young?
MR. YOUNG:
Yes, Your Honor.
We oppose the motion.
These are documents that, in large part, should have
6
7
been produced in February.
indicates that we agreed on some search terms.
files belonging to key people in the MCSO whose actions
The motion that Ms. Iafrate filed

These are PST
10
relating to the noncompliance with the preliminary injunction
11
are key to the upcoming hearing.
13
2015.
14
about various e-mails that should have been produced and were
15
in the weeks following that.
16
April they were still not completely produced.
They were not.
There was a long series of discussions
But even as of the hearing in
18
is mentioned in Ms. Iafrate's motion were discussed throughout
19
the summer.
20
long ago; the review should have happened long ago.
DS
Our view is that the search should have happened
10:14:16
They have done the electronic search, as we understand
IEN
it, and they've come up with 16,600 or so documents which they
23
are reviewing.
24
subject of the search terms that were agreed to, they were
25
retrieved by use of those search terms, if they don't have time
FR
10:13:59
The PST files that are the subject of the search that
17
22
10:13:40
They were ordered to be produced as of February 12,
12
21
10:13:11
Our view would be that since those are the
10:14:38
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

now to produce them, to go through them, they should just
produce them to us, we'll look at them.
they -- that if there's anything privileged in there that there
would be no waiver, we wouldn't look at them once we determined
they were privileged, and we'd give them back.
us that that is a much better solution than to stall the entire
process and prevent us from proceeding with preparation for
depositions pending their requested delayed production time.
We would agree that
But it seems to
So we would oppose the motion and would suggest as an
9
10
alternative that if they can't review them, despite all the
11
time they've had, that they simply give them to us subject to
12
the conditions that I've described.

MS. IAFRATE:
13
14
Well, Your Honor, I apologize for the
I first received the PSTs last Tuesday.
My firm
16
started working on it immediately and has worked diligently.
17
We are not trying to delay the situation or stall it in any
18
way.
19
received the PSTs.
20
yielded 16,694 separate PSTs.
21
pages in length.
10:15:41
We were not able to do the review process until we
DS
The search terms are extremely broad and it

Some of those are up to 200
10:16:03
IEN
I have several people working on this nonstop to try
23
to accommodate the situation.
24
of the way through.
25
THE COURT:
FR
10:15:19
delay, but I have not been stalling or delaying since February.
15
22
10:14:57
We are approximately one-fourth
Do you have any objection to Mr. Young's
10:16:20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

suggestion?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Which is why?
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor.
Which is because I would like to review
these documents for privilege.
an issue in this case, and I would like to protect my clients'
privilege, as they have a right to that privilege, and that's
why I'm reviewing them rather than Maricopa County.

THE COURT:
The privilege continues to be
Have you engaged Mr. Masterson and
10
Mr. Popolizio's firm?
11
Mr. Popolizio; we have Ms. Diana Jean Elston, Eileen Dennis
12
GilBride; we have a number of people.
13
when I was in private practice I was across the mall from their
14
firm.
15
nothing more than to do privileged document review.
I note there's Mr. Masterson and
I know, I used to --
They've got lots of young associates who would love
MS. IAFRATE:
17
THE COURT:
18
10:17:09
I have not.
Well, I think you need to do that.
MS. IAFRATE:
19
DS
THE COURT:
Very well.
And I think what you also need to do is
you need to provide the documents -- I'm not going to give you
22
the deadline you've asked for.
IEN
21
10:17:15
I'm just going to hold your
23
feet to the fire; you're going to have to respond to me every
24
time.
25
cleared to the plaintiffs immediately as you clear them, sort
FR
10:16:47
Have you engaged their firm?
16
20
10:16:27
And I think you need to give the documents that you have
10:17:29
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

of in a rolling process.
or identifying them somehow.

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
4
5
I assume you're Bates stamping them
They are in a database, Your Honor.
You have it in a database.
Are they being
Bates stamped within the database?

MS. IAFRATE:
10:17:43
No, but we can batch them the way that
you're explaining so that we can give them batches as they're
completed.
THE COURT:
All right.
Then I'm going to require you
10
to do that.
I'm going to hold your feet to the fire every time
11
I see you until you can tell me it is completed.
What I think I'll do for you, Mr. Young, and I hope we
12
13
can avoid this, because I really do think we need to keep costs
14
down and try to be efficient, if you feel like you need to take
15
a deposition of somebody and you haven't yet got all of these
16
documents, I understand why you'd want to review them before
17
you take the deposition, go ahead and take the deposition.
18
then if you can convince me that you get documents that you
19
need to depose somebody about later, I'll allow it.

MR. YOUNG:
DS
20
Well, Your Honor, we'll do what we can.
22
testify here, and then got more documents and we'll get more
IEN
Obviously, we've already deposed everyone and had everyone
24
FR
25
10:18:10
And
21
23
10:17:54
10:18:25
documents still, so -THE COURT:
I understand that.
But, you know, we do
have to finally bring this matter to an end, and if we keep
10:18:39
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

getting documents, then we will bring the parts of it to an end
that we can bring to an end and the questions that remain open
we will limit to the questions that remain open and we'll take
them as we have to.
with appropriate remedies, if any are appropriate for the
delay, as they come along.
sanctions, you may do that; I'm not going to prevent you from
doing that.
And as I've already indicated, we'll deal
If you're going to move for
As I've already indicated, to the extent that Maricopa
9
10
County or any of the defendants are found in contempt, and I
11
think there isn't any issue that at least two of them have
12
already acknowledged their contempt, there will be an
13
attorneys' fees award for you that will cover all your time and
14
expenses.
15
appropriate, but if you want to add a motion for sanctions on
16
top of that if you feel like it's merited, I'll entertain one.
Honor, but we would like the documents.
19
has set a schedule which we are going to meet.
Obviously, Your Honor
DS
Am I to understand correctly that because about a
quarter of the documents have been reviewed that we will be
22
receiving some production out of that quarter immediately?
IEN
21
24
FR
25
THE COURT:
10:19:45
I don't think we'll do that now, Your
18
23
10:19:26
And so I don't know -- that are reasonable and
MR. YOUNG:
17
20
10:19:11
10:19:58
Well, that was my intention and that was
my understanding.
Is that also your understanding, Ms. Iafrate?
10:20:13
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

MS. IAFRATE:
Well, Your Honor, I need to have them
batched out of the database and then Bates stamped, so I would
request till Monday.
4
5
6
7
10
All right.
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
We have the current version of MCSO --
tracking the review of video recordings, including tagged info

for lieutenant review.
MS. WANG:
You have that?
We do.
have the most recent version.
13
THE COURT:
14
press conferences.
15
MS. WANG:
Do you have that?
THE COURT:
We have very recently gotten that and have
THE COURT:
19
They do, Your Honor.
All right.
Raw data from MCSO CAD system
DS
from 12-23 to present by August 6th.

MS. WANG:
IEN
THE COURT:
All documents relating to violations of
the Court's preliminary injunction by MCSO personnel not
24
assigned to the HSU?
FR
MS. WANG:
10:21:04
We do have that, Your Honor.
23
25
10:20:53
Do they have everything, Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
18
22
All recordings of press interviews and
not yet reviewed it.
17
21
10:20:40
Ms. Iafrate has represented that we
12
20
10:20:25
We have the current version of the MCSO spreadsheet
11
16
I think Monday's reasonable.
well, does anybody want to be heard on those documents?
8
9
THE COURT:
Just a moment, Your Honor.
10:21:17
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

(Off-the-record discussion between counsel.)
MS. WANG:
2
3
the defendants about that.

THE COURT:
4
5
All right.
That will be a topic for our
next status conference, then -MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
7
8
Your Honor, we need to meet and confer with
10:22:08
All right.
-- that I expect will be resolved one way
or another.
All documents relating to worksite detentions of
9
10
members of the plaintiff class by August 13 was the date for
11
production.
13
THE COURT:
Is that correct?
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
16
Yes, Your Honor.
All right.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
19
All documents pertaining to
DS
MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.
Okay.
Do you have all those?
Your Honor, Ms. Iafrate represented that
that production was made.
22
documents that Mr. Vogel prepared or correspondence between
IEN
21
10:22:41
We had been seeking any draft
23
Mr. Vogel and MCSO personnel.
24
there were no such documents, I believe, and so the defense has
25
represented that that production is complete.
FR
10:22:26
IA -- is that 14542 and 14543, Ms. Iafrate?
18
20
I believe that they've made that production
recently and we have not reviewed that yet.
14
17
Do we have that?
MS. WANG:
12
10:22:18
Ms. Iafrate represented that
10:23:05
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

THE COURT:
All right.
The 20 other IA investigations
that were a result of what we'll call, I don't know, the
Armendariz-Perez matters that were individually opened by MCSO,
have those been produced?

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
7
8
I believe we have those, Your Honor.
10:23:24
When did you get those?
I'm not sure it was before the deadline,
but it was --
MS. IAFRATE:
MS. WANG:
10
-- soon thereafter.
MS. IAFRATE:
11
THE COURT:
12
It was before --
10:23:37
-- the deadline.
Let me ask you, Chief Warshaw, one of the
13
things the defendants represented they might be doing is making
14
a request to depose you.
15
indicated that I thought that there were some issues of
16
judicial immunity or privilege.
discuss with you.
But it does seem to me that it is possible that to the
19
extent that there may be issues of fact, there may be issues
21
that are not really related to your judicial function for which
22
that they can take -- they may be able to take your deposition,
IEN
DS
20
23
I'm going to ask them to identify those so all parties can
24
deliberate on what would or would not be appropriate in light
25
of the case law.
FR
10:23:53
I've got some cases, Mr. Masterson, that I want to
17
18
They mentioned this last week.
10:24:11
10:24:31
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

But one of the issues that I think they expressed
1
2
interest in, or I talked about, was I had asked you as of
November of last year to evaluate the effectiveness of -- and
the adequacy of MCSO's self-investigation as their monitor.
And when this lawsuit came up, it just seemed to me that one of
the issues that might pertain to the injunctive relief that I
might order as a remedy, additional injunctive relief that I
might order as a remedy if a remedy was found to be
appropriate, would depend upon the extent to which there was
10
adequate MCSO self-investigative procedures in IA matters, and
11
so we were going to consider your report in connection with
12
this lawsuit.
13
investigations has had various deadlines beginning, I think,
14
last February, moved up to finally I now guess we have the
15
final resolutions in August.
As you'll recall, the completion of these
10:25:35
some questions for the parties.
18
Chief Warshaw has been preparing a report on the adequacy of
19
the individual investigations.
20
it to me all at once.
21
we were talking about this last week, and it was only a brief
22
discussion, on the fact that we still had 20 that he hadn't
IEN
DS
17
24
FR
25
10:25:15
I don't know when your report -- well, I guess I have
16
23
10:24:53
First off, I do think that
I think he had intended to give
I had not focused, Mr. Masterson, when
10:25:55
received yet or that MCSO hadn't completed.

How long is it going to take you, Chief, to -- and I
don't know whether there are other issues that pertain to your
10:26:12
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

investigation, but how long is it going to take you, if we have
you complete this report, for you to complete it?

CHIEF WARSHAW:
Your Honor, we have 60 investigations,
60 or 61 investigations, 41 of which we have completed.
We've
only recently received the last 20.
these files are extensive, and our efforts are labor intensive.
It's an arduous process,
So if I were to give the Court an assessment, I would
7
8
say that that would be approaching October 1st when we would
have the current ones that we're looking -- the remaining ones
10
we're looking at, and then after which time we would assemble a
11
report which represents our aggregate thinking on all 60 of the
12
investigations we would have looked at.

THE COURT:
13
another issue that we raised last week.
15
on the line, but I think Chief Martinez was on the line.
16
talked about the fact that Zullo showed up and wasn't
17
represented and wanted representation before he had an internal
18
monitor interview, and I guess Detective Mackiewicz showed up
19
and for whatever reason his interview did not take place.
And I know you weren't

We
DS
Mr. Masterson wanted to participate in the interviews,
and I didn't think that that was necessarily appropriate since
22
they were monitors' interviews.
IEN
21
10:27:26
10:27:51
But I did also think that
23
because Ms. Wang indicated she wished to take those depositions
24
anyway, that at this point it just might as well make sense to
25
have her take the deposition, and then if Mr. Masterson and
FR
10:27:03
Well, let me ask you this, and this is
14
20
10:26:34
10:28:13
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

anybody else wanted to participate, they could.
I didn't write down the list of people that Ms. Wang
2
3
said that the plaintiffs wanted to interview, but I don't know
if there are other people that you feel like at MCSO you need
to interview in connection with your investigation pertaining
to the adequa- -- or your report and assessment pertaining to
the adequacy of their self-investigative process if there are
other interviews that you feel like you need to accomplish at
the MCSO.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
10
No, Your Honor.
As it pertains to our
11
determination relevant to the adequacy and sufficiency of the
12
investigations undertaken by MCSO, we do not envision a need at
13
this time to interview any additional MCSO personnel.

THE COURT:
14
15
All right.
MS. WANG:
10:29:13
Your Honor, he isn't on the list that we
17
gave the defendants yesterday.
18
deliberations, we were considering him, and I would not rule
19
out adding him to our list.

THE COURT:
DS
20
All right.
Without revealing our internal
Well, if it's going to take
you till October, Bob, here -- I'll just throw out for the
22
parties, and then I'm glad to hear whatever you want to say, it
IEN
21
23
seems to me that there are a couple of things that might -- and
24
the parties may not be interested in doing this, and I
25
recognize that -- but there are a couple of things that might
FR
10:28:52
Did you say you were going to
depose Chief Olson, Ms. Wang?
16
10:28:37
10:29:29
10:29:48
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

expedite things that I'll just throw out for your
consideration.
One is to the extent that MCSO's, the adequacy of
3
4
their own investiga- -- the adequacy and integrity of their own
investigative procedures is at issue, it is at issue
principally, it seems to me, maybe not uniquely, but at least
to me it seems like it's principally related to the remedy that
I might impose for breach.
And so I'm not sure that we can't have the monitor
9
10
complete his assessment and file the report, if the parties are
11
still interested in it, and proceed with the hearing on other
12
witnesses, and then we've got a lot of dates that I'm having
13
you hold.
14
That's something I'd propose for your consideration.
Ms. Wang, Mr. Young, have the plaintiffs thought about what
17
kind of remedies you'd be asking for in light of the contempt?
18
And let's assume for a second that you can establish all the
19
recalcitrance, everything that you would like to put evidence
20
on pertaining to and you can establish that.
21
about what kind of remedies you're going to ask this Court to
22
enter?
IEN
DS
16
Have you thought
10:30:44
10:31:02
And by that, I mean remedies separate from the
24
compensation due to the individuals whose rights may have been
25
violated by the violation of my preliminary injunction order.
FR
10:30:24
We can just have a hiatus and resume if we need to.
The other thing that I would ask on this point,
15
23
10:30:02
10:31:18
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

Have you thought about those sorts of things?
MS. WANG:
We have, Your Honor.
It became clear to
us, even when the Armendariz issues first came to light last
year, that we would have serious concerns about MCSO's internal
accountability measures, including their Internal Affairs
investigations, which are now carried out under the new name of
the Professional Standards Bureau.
particular focus on new injunctive relief that would be geared
toward those internal accountability measures, including PSB
10
So we are looking with
investigations.
THE COURT:
11
10:32:04
I guess the one thing I would say is --
12
and I'm talking a little bit down the line here, I realize --
13
but as we proceed with this case, you might, to the extent that
14
you come up with what you're going to ask for anyway, run it by
15
defendants.
16
it might be worth discussing with the Court.
17
with, I'm sorry, with the defendants, and it might save some
18
time and be more expeditious.
And if we can stipulate to remedies, some or all,
10:32:16
Or might -- or
And by that I'm not trying to suggest that your
19
clients should forfeit any rights, nor am I trying to suggest
21
that MCSO or the defendant should forfeit any.
22
I -- and again, I don't think I'm speaking ahead of myself to
IEN
DS
20
10:32:38
But clearly,
23
the extent that the sheriff has taken the stand and
24
acknowledged, for example, that item of contempt number 2
25
relates to all of this material that should have been provided
FR
10:31:39
10:32:55
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

the plaintiff class before this lawsuit and it wasn't provided,
I'm going to have to come up with some sort of remedy if one is
indicated.
So it's something worth, I think, thinking about.
Any reaction to that by any of the parties?
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, we're willing to meet and
confer with the defendants to try to reach agreement on any
kind of remedy.
conferring on the victim compensation issues relating to
violations of the preliminary injunction order, and we would be
10
very interested in discussing other remedies along the lines of
11
injunctive relief as well.
Your Honor, if I might, I'd just like
to correct a previous response I made.
As it pertains to our review of the adequacy and
15
16
sufficiency of the investigations, we in fact may want to
17
interview Chief Olson.
18
no other parties with whom we had an interest in interviewing,
19
I would just stand corrected on that.

THE COURT:
DS
20
Well, I appreciate that, and I'm not
holding anybody to anything, because I realize as discovery
22
goes on, you might find other things that you feel like need to
IEN
10:33:47
So my earlier statement that there was
21
23
be questioned, although at this point I am trying to proceed
24
with the civil contempt proceeding.
25
need to be held, then they can be held, but we need to -- we
FR
10:33:33
All right.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
13
14
We have been engaged in a process of
THE COURT:
12
10:33:15
10:34:09
And if other proceedings

10:34:28
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

need to draw this to a close.
I just guess in conjunction with that, too,
2
3
Mr. Masterson, the case that I had in mind that you might want
to look at -- well, here's what my thinking is.
we proceed with the depositions that plaintiff is going to
notice so you can participate and, you know, that will at least
address one of the matters that you've raised, particularly as
it pertains to, like, Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, others.
My thinking is
I'm not going to deprive the monitor from saying, "I
9
10
still feel like I need to ask some questions," but we can all
11
talk about that after the deposition if he feels like he needs
12
to ask some questions.
13
here's another thought I have; I'm just going to throw it out
14
there:
15
questions for people relating to documents or other things that
16
the monitor may be aware of that he was going to ask about, I
17
don't have any problem if the monitor tells -- identifies those
18
documents to both parties so that they can be discussed during
19
the deposition and maybe take care of it just once, but I'll
20
just say that.
To the extent that the monitor may have particular
10:35:56
if we are going to deal with remedies issues, or at least
23
issues that mostly relate to remedies, we might have to take a
24
little gap to finish the report, do the evaluation, or
25
whatever.
FR
10:35:38
It seems to me we can proceed on that front, and then
IEN
22
10:35:16
And I guess to the extent -- well,
DS
21
10:34:52
We might want to at that point, if you still -- and
10:36:11
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

I don't know if you're still interested in deposing the monitor
but at that point if you are, we can also address what topics
you want to depose the monitor on and address this issue of
privilege he has, and let me just give you a case or two.
Gary W. versus State of Louisiana, 861 F.2d 1366, and Coleman
versus Schwarzenegger.
and there's some other circuit court cases that talk about sort
of the privileged role of a monitor.

MS. IAFRATE:
9
10
It's
There's a lot of district court cases,
Your Honor, could we have that cite one
more time?
THE COURT:
11
10:36:43
Sure.
861 F.2d 1366.
There's a lot of
12
other cases; I just give you that one.
13
at them in light of our conversation.
14
give some guidance to all the parties about, you know, your
15
need to establish a need to depose the monitor and the scope
16
and depth of his own privilege.
17
we move along to the extent that you might want to depose him
18
later.
19
can discuss limit, if necessary; maybe not limit.
20
on the factual setting that we get presented at that time.
21
That's what I propose to do.
23
24
FR
25
I just started looking
And I think that will
10:36:59
And just keep that in mind as
I'm going to ask you to identify the topics and then we
DS
Just depends
10:37:20
Did you want to have something -- do you have
IEN
22
10:36:28
something to say?
MR. MASTERSON:
A few things.
I don't know if this is
the time if the Court has more issues to discuss.
10:37:32
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
2
3
THE COURT:
Well, we'll see if I resolve them, okay?
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, let me comment on one thing
THE COURT:
Sure.
MR. MASTERSON:
discussed briefly.
-- that Ms. Iafrate and I had
And I wasn't involved at the time that the
10
parties initially tried to resolve the contempt issues with a
11
settlement agreement, although I was present in court during
12
some of that discussion.
13
plaintiffs' counsel that I've never had a case in my life where
14
I'm not willing to sit down and talk with the other side, see
15
if we can figure out a resolution short of trial or any
16
extended litigation, so we're certainly willing to do that with
17
plaintiffs at this time or any time, frankly.
And I'll tell the Court and
gave us a proposal -- as I understand it, and I could be wrong;
20
again, I was not involved at the time -- and their proposal was
21
accepted almost in its entirety, yet here we are.
DS
19
10:38:03
IEN
MS. WANG:
10:38:19
So --
Your Honor, I'd -- I'm sorry, I'd object.
23
Any discussions we had with the defendants about settling the
24
contempt issues were confidential under Rule 408, and as we
25
objected last time defense counsel brought this up in court, we
FR
10:37:46
I am a bit concerned, in that the last time plaintiffs
18
22
10:37:40
since I'm up here --
Well, why don't I sit down and wait
till you're done, then.
I do have more issues.
10:38:40
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

really do object to the recitation of any events that
defendants claim happened during those confidential settlement
negotiations.
make that clarification.

THE COURT:
THE COURT:
10:38:57
Judge, I'm not specifying any
discussions that were had.
8
9
I apologize for interrupting.
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
6
7
We did not reach any agreement, and I want to
I'm just telling you --
And you know, Mr. Masterson, I know that
you're doing your best to represent your client, and I realize
10
that you're fairly new to the case, but I don't know what
11
you're trying to say here.

MR. MASTERSON:
12
13
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
16
THE COURT:
18
Thank you.
And I'll sit down now and let you
DS
THE COURT:
-- ask to come back.
I will certainly before I'm through -- and
24
if I don't do this, remind me -- I'll give every party a chance
25
to raise new matters.
FR
10:39:30
Yes, and --
MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
23
Thank you.
resume, and then if I have further things to address I'll -THE COURT:
10:39:23
I just -- that's enough to say.
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
-- at any time.
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
22
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
15
21
What I'm trying to say is I'm happy to
sit down with them and discuss resolution --
14
20
10:39:09
10:39:39
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
But I am trying to track through what I
think we need to make sure gets disclosed so that we can
have -- we can all have some idea of what we're doing going
forward.
10:39:50
With the entry of the -- and I don't know, maybe it's
6
7
already been provided pursuant to the Court's order -- but with
the entry of the protective order, has IA -- is that 150034? --
been provided?
10
protective order?
10:40:10
(Off-the-record discussion between counsel.)
11
MS. WANG:
12
13
Or will it be provided with the entry of the
Your Honor, I believe that was produced to
us yesterday, but I haven't looked at the documents to -THE COURT:
14
MS. WANG:
15
THE COURT:
16
All right.
-- to confirm that.
10:40:45
Well, I assume -- I'm going to assume if
17
Ms. Iafrate tells me that it's been provided, that you'll find
18
that it has been, and if you find it hasn't, I'll require you
19
to raise it next week.

MS. IAFRATE:
DS
20
Your Honor, I would like today to
confirm that it indeed did go out yesterday.
22
trial all week.
IEN
21
23
24
FR
25
10:40:56
I've been in
So I believe -- it was processed, and I
believe that it went out, but I want to confirm that.

THE COURT:
All right.
Last week we talked about you
getting together to resolve practical procedures for access to
10:41:09
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

and resolution of issues pertaining to the 1500 --
approximately 1500 identifications and the 50 hard drives.

Were you able to do that, Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, as to the identification
documents, I believe we have a plan to get those.
them are in the hands of the U.S. Marshals Service and we
intend to pick those up today.
access their copies the same way we will.

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
10
THE COURT:
11
And I believe defendants will
Correct.
All right.
10:41:50
And do you have copies?
No, we don't, Judge, and I'm glad
13
Ms. Wang raised this so we don't duplicate efforts.
14
the time counsel's getting copies we could just have another
15
copy made of what she gets?

THE COURT:
16
MS. WANG:
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. WANG:
19
21
23
10:42:12
Any objection to that, Ms. Wang?
No, Your Honor.
Makes sense to me.
I believe the Marshals Service may have
10:42:19
MR. MASTERSON:
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
Maybe at
copies ready for us.
DS
20
THE COURT:
Even better.
We should double-check on that.

All right.
Well, if there's an issue that
24
requires my involvement, let me know; otherwise, I'll assume
25
you can handle it.
FR
10:41:34
Now, you're getting copies, right?
MR. MASTERSON:
12
The bulk of
10:42:30
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

MR. MASTERSON:
Here's where we are, Judge.
At least
my understanding with Ms. Wang is I sent an e-mail to her --
when did I send it, this week? -- this week, last week, I don't
remember, and we went back and forth, I think, a couple times.

What we're going to try to do is take a look at the
5
6
copies, and then if we can pare down the list of what we
actually need to look at as opposed to someone who's certainly
not a member of plaintiffs' class or an obvious fraudulent
document, we'll try to weed them out that way and then,
10
hopefully, we can sit down and agree on some protocol to go
11
forward and take a look at the ones that are relevant to the
12
issues in dispute.
THE COURT:
13
15
that?
MS. WANG:
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. WANG:
19
Ms. Wang, do you agree with that?
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear the last part.
It's all right.
I apologize.
MR. MASTERSON:
DS
20
You agree with
10:43:05
Or, sorry.
16
That we're going to do our best to try
to weed out the ones that clearly are not going to be relevant
22
to any issue in dispute, and once we find the ones that look
IEN
21
23
like they might be relevant, we'll try to come up with some
24
protocol to go through those.
FR
25
10:42:55
Makes sense to me.
Is that what you've done, Ms. Iafrate?
14
10:42:40
MS. WANG:
Sure.
We have been meeting and conferring,
10:43:13
10:43:20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

and we'll continue that process.
Our main concern initially is
just to get the full set, which we will do.
We'd just propose -- I think our plan is to go see the
3
4
marshals immediately after this conference today.
Mr. Masterson wants to do that together, then that's when we
should try to do it.

THE COURT:
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
10
If
You available, Mr. Masterson?
I'll see if I can be.
Thank you.
Your Honor, there is one set of
10:43:45
11
identification documents that I believe are not in the custody
12
of the marshals that are in the hands of MCSO.
13
frankly, am not sure whether they have been produced, so I'll
14
meet and confer with Ms. Iafrate or Mr. Masterson to chase
15
those down.
And on those I,
10:44:05
THE COURT:
16
All right.
Now, Mr. Masterson, I don't know if there is an
17
18
ongoing IA investigation or a new one relating to these
19
identifications.
20
know that there have been past internal investigations
21
supervised by the monitor as well as some other investigations
22
that I discussed with Deputy Chief Sheridan related to
I think I
IEN
DS
I do know -- well, I say "I know."
23
identifications because that's one of the things that was
24
raised by the Armendariz whole issue.
25
have initiated a separate internal investigation relating to
FR
10:43:34
10:44:21
So I don't know if you

10:44:43
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

now these additional identifications.

Do you know?
MR. MASTERSON:
3
4
I think there is, but I do
not know that for a fact.

THE COURT:
5
6
I do not.
All right.
Any information on that,
10:44:57
Chief Warshaw?
CHIEF WARSHAW:
Yes, Your Honor.
We made an inquiry
of Captain Bailey on July 23rd, and Captain Bailey advised us
at that time that he had been instructed by Chief Deputy
10
Sheridan to curtail any investigative effort as pertains to
11
those pieces of identification.
In an August 6th statement given to us by
12
13
Chief Sheridan he refuted what Captain Bailey had indicated to
14
us on the 23rd of July.
15
Chief Kiyler to communicate with Captain Bailey as to the
16
status of whether there was or was not an investigation.
17
spoke with him as well as e-mailed him and he indicated that he
18
would be checking with his superiors.
19
since August 10th.
21
23
24
FR
25
As recently as August 10th I directed
All right.
10:45:45
She
We have heard nothing
So Mr. Masterson, you'll let
10:46:10
us know?
MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
10:45:20
THE COURT:
I will, Judge.
And if you need access other than your
copies for the investigation, then just let me know.

MR. MASTERSON:
I certainly will, Judge.
10:46:20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Okay.
Your Honor -Yes.
-- I apologize.
status of the 50 hard drives.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
You also asked about the
10:46:27
Uh-huh.
That is a different matter from the
identification documents.
Pursuant to the Court's order last
week that those hard drives be made available for copying by
10
the parties, the deputy monitors convened a telephone call with
11
plaintiffs' counsel and with Mr. Masterson and Popolizio.
12
believe that took place on Tuesday.
During that call we reached an agreement about the
13
14
process for making a forensic copy of those hard drives.
15
was then an exchange of e-mails.
16
included in that initial telephone conference so we scheduled a
17
new telephone conference which happened yesterday, and went
18
over the same topic, and at that point both Mr. Walker and
19
Mr. Masterson raised a number of different objections to the
20
copying of the forensic hard drives.
Mr. Walker had not been
10:47:27
been raised with the Court last Friday during the status
23
conference when the Court made its order that the hard drives
24
be copied, or be made available for copying, and we left it at
25
that.
FR
10:47:03
We contended that those were issues that should have
IEN
22
There
DS
21
10:46:42
10:47:47
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

THE COURT:
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, maybe I'm looking at the wrong
part of the transcript, but what I'm looking at is page 35 of
the 8-11-15 status conference and the Court suggested that we
get together and discuss with the monitor protocols for
accessing the 50 hard drives and see if we could limit
disruption of the metadata and -THE COURT:
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
10
-- try to agree on a procedure --
So what --
MR. MASTERSON:
11
10:48:08
10:48:22
-- which -- here's the problem.
And
12
Mr. Walker, his client's paying for it, and I know he wants to
13
address this issue as well so I'll just generally give my view
14
here, is we have 50 hard drives of one or two terabytes of
15
information.
THE COURT:
16
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
Right.
-- hard drives.
And you and I have had discussions
23
about whether they're relevant or not, and maybe they're not,
24
maybe they are, we don't know.
25
and this is somewhat like -- I think we have -- what we have is
FR
10:48:49
Right.
MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
22
Right.
MR. MASTERSON:
DS
21
So we could have millions and millions
of documents on these --
19
20
Right, ton of stuff.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
18
10:48:39
The difficulty we have here -10:48:59
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

a 26(b)(1)(B) problem here with whether this is accessible
information.
THE COURT:
Well, it clearly is accessible.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Well --
Let me raise a proposal for all parties,
because I understand that Mr. Walker is concerned about the
expense, and you've raised a lot of concerns about the
practicality, and yet I do think that these documents, in light
of Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony, and in light of Sheriff
10
Arpaio's testimony, and in light of the fact that the
11
hard drive weren't turned over, may well be relevant, even if
12
it's not to major issues in this case.
this; I'm just offering this as another suggestion -- when I
15
looked at the documents that Ms. Wang's clients and Mr. Young
16
provided in connection with the motion to recuse me in their
17
response that appeared to be e-mails between Detective
18
Mackiewicz and maybe Sergeant Anglin, I can't remember, maybe
19
Mr. Zullo, and Mr. Montgomery, it seems to me that those
20
e-mails say something like, you know, We've hired experts at
21
the MCSO.
22
us it was.
IEN
DS
14
We've looked at this stuff.
10:49:46
10:50:17
It isn't what you told
And it seems to me -- and they go on.
And it seems to me if in fact that is the case and
24
MCSO is willing to stipulate that, Yes, these are the
25
hard drives Montgomery gave us; Yes, this is what he told us;
FR
10:49:33
But it also seems to me, frankly -- and I don't know
13
23
10:49:12
10:50:39
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

No, they don't contain any secure -- or, you know, any of the
information that he represented, we could go a long way to not
having to deal with these documents.
And it's my understanding -- it has been, as I've said
4
5
before on the record a number of times -- that nobody is
arguing the accuracy of the conspiracy that it appears may have
been constructed by Mr. Montgomery from these alleged --
downloads that are allegedly on the hard drive.
know all those things.
Again, don't
But it seems to me to the extent those e-mails suggest
10
11
that you've already done that research and that you're not
12
contesting any of that stuff, we could all save ourselves a lot
13
of time and money and effort.
14
prejudice the plaintiffs' rights at all.
16
make sense, Ms. Wang, Mr. Young, to wait until you've taken the
17
depositions of Anglin, Mackiewicz, and Zullo, and see if
18
there's rarely any issue that is going to require you to go to
19
the expense of looking at those hard drives.
And if there is, then you can look at them.
DS
20
But if
there isn't, or if you're willing to otherwise stipulate, I
22
agree with you:
IEN
21
10:51:35
10:51:57
There's no sense wasting a lot of time,
23
effort, and money, certainly as it pertains to this action, if
24
you're going to stipulate to the facts that I think are central
25
and that don't necessarily require looking at the documents at
FR
10:51:18
Or maybe so; I'm not trying to
So I guess if you don't want stipulate, it still might
15
10:50:59
10:52:15
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

all, since it appears that you may have already done that.
What do you think about that proposal?
MR. MASTERSON:
I'm not trying to score some points
here, but I think the idea of taking some depositions first is
one of the best ideas I ever heard on this particular issue.
My problem with a stipulation is that I cannot, in good faith,
tell this Court, or anyone else, what's on those hard drives -THE COURT:
I get that.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
10
THE COURT:
12
-- because I don't know.
I get that.
MR. MASTERSON:
11
10:52:52
And --
But the only point I'm making is, and I'm
13
not accepting it as true, but if in fact, as the e-mails seem
14
to indicate, MCSO already hired experts to look those, it's
15
just a thought that it may be something that you're willing to
16
stipulate to, and I'm not saying that you are and I'm not going
17
to hold it against you if you don't.

MR. MASTERSON:
18
20
agreement with the plaintiffs on a stipulation which would
21
alleviate the need to review any of that information.
DS
us to take a look at that and possibly we can reach an
IEN
THE COURT:
Thoughts about that, Ms. Wang?
24
MS. WANG:
FR
10:53:18
Okay.
23
25
10:53:04
I think that's a great idea, to allow
19
22
10:52:36
Mr. Young?
Your Honor, if the defendants aren't
prepared to stipulate along the lines the Court just suggested,
10:53:35
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

then I do think that our position is we should be able to get a
forensic copy of the hard drives prior to proceeding with the
depositions.
Your Honor, the question is not whether they're
4
5
relevant, but whether they're discoverable.
documents that we have seen so far that Mr. Montgomery provided
to the defendants -- or to MCSO, I should say -- we do believe
that there could be relevant material.
should be able to get those hard drives and do our own targeted
10
And given the
Your Honor, I think we
searches.
10:54:15
Mr. Masterson has objected on the ground that he
11
12
thinks it would be onerous and would drive up the costs of all
13
sides for anyone to go through all of the documents on those
14
hard drives, but obviously searching -THE COURT:
15
16
He's gotta be right about that, doesn't
MS. WANG:
Well, Your Honor, targeted searches could
be done, and, you know, I think that if plaintiffs want to
19
spend, I believe the amount was $7,500, to make a forensic
20
copy, then I think that it certainly is discoverable in our
21
view.
DS
18
10:54:47
IEN
One other thing we could do, if the Court doesn't wish
23
to -- wishes to go forward with depositions first, is we have
24
seen some e-mails indicating that MCSO engaged two consultants
25
to evaluate the material if there are other documents
FR
10:54:30
he, Ms. Wang?
17
22
10:53:54
10:55:05
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

containing analysis of those hard drives or materials that
Mr. Montgomery provided that would lead us in the direction of
the stipulation that Your Honor suggested we might consider,
then we may ask for those documents and make a decision.

THE COURT:
Yeah.
Do you think you might be willing
to indicate the two consultants who looked at those documents,
who looked at the hard drives?

MR. MASTERSON:
8
9
I'll have to talk with my clients.
I'm not sure what we're talking about here.
I think I know but
10
I'm not positive.
11
consultants to generally go through all of the hard drives and
12
lead us to a conclusion, but, again, that's something I'm going
13
to have to confirm with my client.
And I don't think we hired any independent
THE COURT:
14
It makes sense to me.
propose.
16
can't, Ms. Wang, I'm not sure that I'll restrict your access to
17
the hard drives; I think they are discoverable.
18
trying to get to this information in as practical and as
19
cost-effective a way for everyone concerned, and I think it's
20
worth all of you spending some time considering that.
23
24
FR
25
See if you can arrive at something this week.
If you
10:56:05
DS
I'm just
10:56:19
Because, again, I have no interest in this blowing up
beyond -- beyond this matter, which is a civil contempt matter,
IEN
22
10:55:47
Now, here's what I
15
21
10:55:29
and whatever other matters it may relate to are other matters.

MR. MASTERSON:
I agree, Judge.
And one thing I
suggested to plaintiffs in our two telephone conversations was
10:56:39
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

a situation contemplated in the comments to -- the 2006
comments to Rule 26(b)(2)(B), and that is a sampling of -THE COURT:
2006 comments?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Yes.
Okay.
Just let me make a note of that;
I'll take a look at them.
and I'm going to ask you to see if you can't negotiate some
sort of solution.
to be prepared in case you're not.
Because I'll look at that this week,
If you can't, I'll move forward, but I want
MR. MASTERSON:
10
So it's 2006 comments?
Yes, sir.
And it deals with a
11
sampling of information when we have vast amounts of data that
12
we would have to review for privilege, et cetera.

THE COURT:
13
14
Well, that might be something, though,
MR. MASTERSON:
Exactly.
The suggestion was, Let's
16
pick a hard drive or two hard drives, agree on some search
17
terms, run them and see what we get.
18
let's look further; if we get absolutely nothing, gibberish,
19
garbage, let's finish, let's be done.
If we get great stuff,
Well, do you need any more clear marching
MR. MASTERSON:
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. WANG:
25
THE COURT:
FR
10:57:20
10:57:34
orders than see if you can work out something this week?
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
21
10:57:06
like plaintiffs' targeted search, right?
15
20
10:56:52
I do not.
All right.
Do you, Ms. Wang?
No, Your Honor.

All right.
That's clear.
10:57:45
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

What about the transcripts of interviews that the
1
2
monitor has already done?
status of that is.
Have those -- I don't know what the
Have they been provided to the parties?
CHIEF WARSHAW:
I can address that, Your Honor.
We have 17 of I believe 19 transcripts.
Mr. Popolizio
communicated with us last night.
communication with Ms. Iafrate.
copied on that, those exchanges of inquiries, but we are
10
10:58:08
We did have some additional
The parties have all been
prepared to disseminate those transcripts somewhat imminently.

THE COURT:
11
All right.
Well, go ahead and do that,
12
then.
13
you may not wish to discuss order of depositions at this time;
14
you may not even know which ones you want to undertake.
15
discussed, though, proceeding with Zullo and Mackiewicz by
16
deposition.
I realize, Ms. Wang, Mr. Masterson, Ms. Iafrate, that
We've
about, and you don't have to disclose it at this point, but I
19
know, for example, that Ms. Clark requested that if we were
20
going to talk about the deposition of Mr. Casey, and I think
21
you said you might want to talk -- you might want to depose --
22
last week, I think you said you might want to depose Liddy and
IEN
DS
18
24
FR
25
10:59:00
The only other thing that I would ask you to think
17
23
10:58:30
10:59:16
maybe Stutz.
Mr. Casey's attorney apparently requested that I be
present to make any rulings during the deposition, during his
10:59:37
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

deposition.
it does seem to me that although there has been waiver with
respect -- although I have ruled that there has been waiver --
and I think Judge Boyle has ruled -- waiver with respect to the
attorney-client privilege on some issues, I haven't ruled that
there's waiver on all issues, so it seems to me like that would
be a problematic deposition that might require my presence, and
I would ask that you start thinking about, if you're going to
go through with those -- I don't know, somebody's here from
10
Maricopa County.
11:00:15
there if they're going to do Liddy and Stutz?

MS. HAMILTON:
13
Your Honor, I believe Mr. Woods will
14
probably be speaking to that.
15
THE COURT:
16
can be heard.
23
Your Honor, I believe Mr. Woods will
All right.
So tone it down, Mr. Woods,
and tell us what your position is.

MR. WOODS:
I apologize in advance for what I call my
I think, Your Honor, that the decision as to whether
24
your presence would be needed for the Stutz and/or Liddy
25
depositions would be largely determined by the way the Casey
FR
11:00:38
"field voice"; I'm a coach, you know.
IEN
22
Thank you.
THE COURT:
DS
21
11:00:26
probably be speaking as to that.
19
20
You need to come to a microphone so you
MS. HAMILTON:
17
18
10:59:56
Is it going to be your same position that you want me
11
12
I'm not sure if that's going to be necessary, but
11:00:55
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

deposition goes.
And that's why I have asked, and Stan Young
has told me that I can count on Casey going before my two
clients, because how the Casey one goes is really going to
answer that question for us.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
11:01:14
If that's correct, if you believe Casey's going to go
6
7
first, then we can take that up later.
need to include me, if you would be so kind, in a scheduling
decision for Mr. Casey.

MS. WANG:
10
11
But you're going to
Your Honor, this was actually on my list to
raise with the Court if Your Honor did not raise it.
We do intend currently to depose Mr. Casey, Mr. Liddy,
12
13
and Ms. Stutz, so should we confer with all the relevant
14
counsel on the other side and talk to the courtroom deputy
15
about availability, or how should we do that?

THE COURT:
16
And please, if you can give me several dates, and if you can
18
give me estimated times, because I have lots of things.
19
Sometimes I can move them to a morning or an afternoon,
20
whatever.
DS
I'll try and work with you.
do the deposition and hold the disputed stuff until the end of
23
the day or sometime, and then I will come, do what I can do.
24
But if I can be there, I will be there for the convenience of
25
the parties.
FR
11:02:04
If I can't be free then you're just going to have to
IEN
22
11:01:47
Well, yes, that's how you should do it.
17
21
11:01:30
11:02:20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

One other issue I might raise, I do not know -- and I
1
2
don't think this is likely to come up, but it might -- the
issue of the advise Mr. Casey gave concerning the Grissom
investigation is one that I view as terminated, and so I
don't -- but Judge Boyle -- well, Judge Boyle, prior to the use
of Mr. Casey's advice, or prior to the time that it became an
issue in the motion to have me recused or disqualified, had
ruled that there was -- although the attorney-client privilege
in the letter had been waived, there was still some work
10
product privilege immunity in the letter as it related to the
11
mental impressions of Mr. Casey.
12
because that became an issue, it waived any mental impressions
13
of Mr. Casey, but I'm not sure at all that as I see this suit,
14
that it remains relevant.
Mr. Boyle there to the extent that you might want to ask
17
stuff -- or ask -- or Judge Boyle, we might have to have him
18
rule on whether or not you want any other parts of that letter
19
unredacted, but as I see it, they don't need to be unredacted
20
because I'm not sure they're relevant to anything that hasn't
21
already been disclosed.
DS
16
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
Mr. Casey or anyone about anything having to do with
24
Ms. Grissom.
FR
11:03:26
11:03:48
Your Honor, we do not intend to depose
23
25
11:03:04
I'm not sure -- and maybe,
If you think it remains relevant, we may have to have
15
11:02:42
Relatedly, Your Honor, I need to -- Ms. Clark is not
11:03:58
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

here today but I've been meaning to contact her because she
seems to be under a misimpression that we had asked Mr. Casey
for documents relating to his investigation of the Grissom
allegation.
document request to him, and they corresponded with the three
charged grounds of civil contempt.
short, to go into the Grissom issues.

THE COURT:
8
9
We actually had covered only three topics in our
on that?
All right.
MS. IAFRATE:
10
THE COURT:
11
So we don't intend, in
Anything you want to be heard
No, Your Honor.
to be absent during certain dates.
13
only dates, although you've asked for a broad range -- and I
14
hope you're taking a nice vacation or something -- although
15
you've asked for a broad range, there were only two dates in
16
there that were dates that I'd asked people to hold, and that
17
is October 13th and 14th.
As I look at it, Chief, the
and 14th even if we're having hearing dates, does anybody have
20
any objection?
DS
19
MS. WANG:
11:05:06
No, Your Honor.
I think we can work around
IEN
that.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. COMO:
25
MR. WALKER:
FR
11:04:51
To the extent that you need to be absent October 13th
18
22
11:04:32
I have a request for Chief Deputy Sheridan
12
21
11:04:21
I don't have any object -- oh.

No, Your Honor.
No objection.
11:05:19
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
All right.
Your Honor, the only -- as long as
Chief Sheridan is willing to waive any arguments he might
otherwise make that his appearance was required for him to
participate fully in the hearing.

MR. MITCHELL:
THE COURT:
We would waive those, Judge.
All right.
Thank you.
I will say it seems to me, if I recall correctly, that
8
9
11:05:36
when we continued the hearing, or discontinued it pending its
10
resumption, Chief Deputy Sheridan was on the stand.
11
presume that any testimony that's going to be needed from Chief
12
Deputy Sheridan is going to be developed fairly early on in the
13
resumption of the hearing, and unless more information comes up
14
during the hearing, I wouldn't anticipate he would be recalled,
15
so --
17
18
20
21
Right.
Right.
All right.
That's my list.
Do you have anything
else, Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG:
I do have one -- two other issues, Your
One is that in following up on Your Honor's suggestion
23
that we try to streamline the proceedings by reaching
24
stipulations, we do think it might be helpful for plaintiffs to
25
be able to propound very limited written discovery, some
FR
11:06:21
Honor, briefly.
IEN
22
Or unless new documents are produced.
THE COURT:
DS
19
11:05:53
11:06:12
MS. WANG:
16
So I
11:06:41
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

interrogatories and requests for admission.
help us to narrow the issues for both the depositions and the
hearing, and perhaps to reach some stipulations with the
defendants, so we would ask for leave to do that.

THE COURT:
Your Honor?
THE COURT:
10
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
FR
25
It doesn't seem very limited, but we're
Well --
DS
MS. IAFRATE:
And they don't have to use all of them.
11:07:55
I guess I want to make that clear, too.

THE COURT:
IEN
24
11:07:49
willing to work with it.
19
23
That's fine, Your Honor.
All right.
MS. IAFRATE:
17
22
Your Honor, how about 20 interrogatories
MS. IAFRATE:
16
21
11:07:07
(Pause in proceedings.)
15
20
Other than your review, hopefully you've
and 25 requests for admission?
14
18
Hopefully.
now produced everything.
12
13
Would there be any way to set a limit,
Well, hopefully it's done, right?
MS. IAFRATE:
11:06:55
We're doing a lot of document production.
THE COURT:
11
Any objection?
MS. IAFRATE:
I think that may
If you wouldn't, I certainly would.
You
don't have to use all of them.

And it isn't document production requests, right?
It's just requests for admission and interrogatories.
11:08:10
MS. WANG:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, why don't you confer with
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
9
sorry.
Okay.
Do you want to go over there, Mr. Como?
Your Honor, I just had one -- oh, I'm
11:08:31
11
THE COURT:
12
Let me just suggest, as long as all
13
parties are conferencing, that you all conference on everything
14
that either of you might want to raise in the rest of the
15
status conference, so that if you -- we can get it all done,
16
all the conferencing done now, to the extent that's possible.

MS. WANG:
17
18
THE COURT:
We'll confer with
All right.
Thank you.
Your Honor, just one other issue.
pleadings questions about the scope of the ongoing hearing that
23
started in April, so I just want to confirm plaintiffs'
24
understanding of the topics that are being covered in the
25
ongoing hearing that's going to continue on September 22nd, and
FR
11:10:37
Defendants have raised at various points in various
IEN
22
MS. WANG:
DS
21
I apologize, Your Honor.
11:10:16
them, with the defendants, on dates and let the Court know.
19
20
11:08:17
defendants to see what's workable for them?
10
Your Honor, we're conferring about
proposing some dates.
5
6
Yes, Your Honor.
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

11:10:55
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

the associated discovery.
As we take it, the hearing is covering three grounds
2
3
of charged civil contempt in the order to show cause;
defendants' noncompliance with orders to produce documents,
which would include the newly identified identification
documents and the 50 hard drives; compensation for victims of
the preliminary injunction violations; and, as the Court, I
think, made abundantly clear in written orders and on the
record during status conferences prior to the April hearing,
11:11:15
10
additional remedies to secure compliance with the Court's
11
previous orders, including the supplemental injunction, which
12
could include the internal accountability system that we've
13
discussed already today and over the past months, and the
14
seizure, tracking, and disposition of property of members of
15
the plaintiff class.
16
matters are encompassed within the hearing and associated
17
discovery.
THE COURT:
18
20
Do you wish to be heard on that,
MR. MASTERSON:
I do.
Thank you, Judge.
And this was
actually the first topic on my list for discussion is:
22
are the issues going forward in the contempt proceeding?
IEN
21
23
11:12:16
What
And what I'm going to propose is that we have some
24
form of pretrial order so that we can set forth the issues, and
25
I would like to see lists of witnesses and exhibits from the
FR
11:12:00
Mr. Masterson or Ms. Iafrate?
DS
19
And so we want to confirm that all those
11:11:39
11:12:39
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

plaintiffs prior to commencing the continued proceeding so that
we know what witnesses we're going to be dealing with at the
hearing; we know what exhibits we'll be dealing with at the
hearing; we can address testimony, if necessary; motions in
limine, if necessary; exhibits, possibly we could stipulate to
exhibits, if necessary.
anybody's going to be using an exhibit, that it gets identified
before we come into the proceeding.
I wants to avoid surprises, so if
So what I'm going to suggest is that at some point,
9
10
and I guess I'll leave it to the Court to set a reasonable date
11
for the parties filing a joint pretrial order, but I think we
12
should do that, and I think the plaintiffs should have to
13
identify the witnesses and exhibits it intends to utilize
14
during the remainder of the proceeding, and that we identify
15
all of the issues in dispute that will be addressed at the
16
remainder of the contempt proceeding.

THE COURT:
17
18
All right.
11:13:33
Anything else you wanted to
I would just point out, Mr. Masterson, although I
don't -- I have asked questions throughout the first part of
21
the contempt proceeding, you're doubtless aware of that, and I
22
may ask questions in the second part as well.
IEN
DS
20
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
What I would ask the Court to do is if you're going to
FR
11:13:14
say on that?
19
25
11:13:01
11:13:50
I figured you probably would.
use an exhibit, that you let us know beforehand so we can take
11:14:05
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

a look at it.
examination, I believe, of Sheriff Arpaio -THE COURT:
3
4
I just had it for his reference to refresh
his recollection.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
6
7
The Court was referring to a document during the
Yeah.
That kind of --
11:14:20
I think Ms. Iafrate put it in the record,
but you want me to have copies for all parties?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
That would be helpful to us, Judge.
I think I did give you all parties a -- I
10
did give all parties a copy of that, but I'll certainly do that
11
again if I'm going to do it.

MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE COURT:
13
14
Let's see.
Let me ask, before you go on:
Any
objection to something like a final pretrial order, Ms. Wang?

MS. WANG:
15
16
Thank you very much.
No, Your Honor, and I think before April we
The only issue I would say is a logistical one because
the document production has been pushed so late by the
19
defendants, we have very little time between -- to do our
20
depositions before the hearing.
21
certainly need to complete the depositions before we're able to
22
exchange exhibit lists and the final witness list.
IEN
DS
18
And I think that we would
11:14:57
We could certainly exchange preliminary ones, or
24
tentative ones, but we already, I think, have a problem with
25
getting pushed very close to the hearing, the resumption of the
FR
11:14:40
did exchange exhibits and witness lists.
17
23
11:14:30
11:15:19
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

hearing on September 22nd.

THE COURT:
We have asked defendants --
You know what?
I agree that that may be a
problem, and I've suggested that maybe what we do is stage.
would rather not stage; I'd rather, like, just get it done.
But it sounds to me like that may be an option we should
consider.
parts of this, I'm going to be open to it.

MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MASTERSON:
10
The next issue I have down that I wish
11
to discuss with the Court is the depositions we're going to be
12
taking.
13
yesterday and I think there were 26 folks listed.
14
those people have already been deposed, and I just want to make
15
sure that we're not going over ground we already went over.
16
If it's a new issue that's come up since the first
Some of
deposition, great, let's talk about it, but we don't -- we
18
don't retrace our studies.

THE COURT:
19
DS
MS. WANG:
Any problem with that?
Your Honor, the reason we've included all
of the deponents who have previously been deposed is that
22
defendants still owe us documents.
IEN
11:16:09
I want to avoid that.
21
11:16:22
We had to take
23
Lieutenant Jakowinicz's deposition three times because new
24
documents kept coming to light during his testimony, and that
25
is the reason we have listed them.
FR
11:15:53
We got a preliminary list from the plaintiffs
17
20
11:15:35
So if we get down that road and you want to stage
7
8
11:16:44
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
2
3
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

Right.
We certainly don't want to rehash old
ground, and may not need to call them if the documents don't -THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Yeah.
-- point to a need.
11:16:52
Let me just make clear, and I think you
both already know, we're not going to rehash things that don't
have any need to be rehashed.
questions, then I'm going to allow them, or new information
If new documents require new
10
otherwise obtained requires new questions, I'm going to allow
11
them.
12
retracking what other people have said; let's use what they've
13
said before.
But otherwise, let us not be wasting a whole lot of time
MR. MASTERSON:
14
The next issue I have down in my notes
15
here, Judge, I think you might have answered it but I want to
16
make sure I understood correctly.
17
Grissom and Montgomery matters going to be at issue during the
18
contempt proceeding?
19
the Grissom issue is a dead one.

THE COURT:
DS
20
My question was:
And I think the Court just indicated that
Well, I think what I said is if you want
22
but I'm not precluding you from arguing somehow that it's
IEN
to raise it, let me know.
24
FR
25
11:17:27
Are both
21
23
11:17:06
11:17:42
I don't really see its relevance,
relevant.
If you're going to argue that it cuts to my bias, I
think that's already been ruled on and so I don't think that we
11:17:58
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

need to -- I don't think it's raisable for that purpose.
Unless, of course, the Ninth Circuit disagrees; you've got your
motion pending with them, so -MR. MASTERSON:
Well, the reason I'm still hesitant
here is the Court indicated at one point -- and I believe you
were talking about the Montgomery investigation as opposed to
the Grissom investigation -- that the Court had some concerns
about expenditures of funds and man-hours to conduct an
investigation as opposed to complying with the Court's orders.
10
And if that is an issue, that could be an issue with Grissoms
11
as well.
12
perhaps we're done with Grissoms.
13
14
THE COURT:
Ms. Wang?
MR. YOUNG:
Actually, I don't know that the
expenditure of funds is going to be at issue, because that
16
occurred before the Court's October 2013 supplemental
17
injunction.
18
planning to ask questions about it or make much of an issue
19
about it with respect to the proceedings going forward.

MR. MASTERSON:
Well, "make much of an issue about it"
THE COURT:
Well, you know, again, I'm not going to
23
rule before evidence if somebody thinks of something that they
24
want raised, but I will tell you that it seems to -- I put down
25
the chronology in my order.
FR
11:19:27
and "make no issue about it" are a couple of different things.
IEN
22
11:19:03
So as Ms. Wang said, I don't think that we are
DS
21
11:18:39
If that's not going to be an issue there, then
15
20
11:18:16
It seems to me that if I
11:19:43
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

understand the chronology, and I think I do, Mr. Casey did an
initial investigation.
investigation; they hired Mr. Vogel to do it.
supplemental investigation, it didn't change Mr. Casey's
assessment, and nothing further was done on it.
His clients wanted a supplemental
Mr. Vogel did a
11:20:03
I think I said in my order it's possible, to the
6
7
extent that they then subsequently hired Mr. Vogel to do other
investigations, that that past relationship and its extent may
be of some minimal relevance.
That's where I -- at least right
10
now, that's where I see some possible relevance.
11
pretty minimal, and that's it.
12
expenditures.
MR. MASTERSON:
13
Okay.
But that's
I'm not concerned about
And the other issue here, and
14
it ties to the Grissoms, is -- and perhaps I shouldn't be
15
concerned about it, but I am -- there have been indications,
16
certainly in the press, and these folks in the back of the room
17
sometimes print things that go on in here and that people say,
18
and there have been indications that the sheriff's out to get
19
you.
20
those lines with respect to the Montgomery investigation.
to do with the Grissoms because I think it is a dead issue and
23
not relevant, but if somebody's going to stand up and argue,
24
whether it be the plaintiffs or whether the Court's inclined to
25
make it an issue, that Sheriff Arpaio or someone at MCSO is out
FR
11:21:03
So I typically would not want to raise anything having
IEN
22
11:20:44
And I think the Court even made some statements along
DS
21
11:20:24
11:21:20
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

to get you, Judge, and that's why the Grissom investigation was
conducted, as opposed to receiving an independent e-mail out of
nowhere from Ms. Grissom with some information about the Court,
that's what started it, if there's going to be someone even
trying to cast a shadow on MCSO that we're out to get the
Court, we've got to address that issue, so that's my concern
there.
THE COURT:
8
9
11:21:41
Then if you feel like you want to leave
the Grissom investigation open, you can leave it open.
10
don't -- you know, you have the right to do whatever you want
11
and I'll rule on it when it comes up.

MR. MASTERSON:
12
Well, I guess I'll ask the Court:
In
13
the Court's mind, is this an issue of concern, that
14
Sheriff Arpaio conducted the Grissom investigation to get you?

THE COURT:
15
I believe that I'm going to, in this
16
case -- well, I believe what I said is that I think it reflects
17
an attitude, a potential attitude -- I haven't ruled on any
18
facts or evidence -- about how the MCSO may have received the
19
Court's orders, and what it wanted -- and I think that is
20
possible.
21
anything personal about it, but if you feel like there is that
22
issue, there is that implication, you can leave open your
IEN
DS
So if you feel like -- I don't know that there was
23
assertion that you need to put in something from the Grissom
24
investigation.
FR
25
11:21:57
Because I can't really rule in the absence of facts.
11:22:16
11:22:38
11:22:54
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

I have no idea.
But I think that my comments were that it --
if I'm talking about contempt of the Court's orders, it does
seem to me that, for example, I'll offer a hypothetical that
seems to me possible under the facts of this case.
Sheriff Arpaio's susceptibility to ridiculous
11:23:15
suggestions by others might indicate attitudes about the Court
and its orders and a desire not to comply with them.
not; I'm open to considering that.
possible hypothetical that may have some relevance, you feel
It might
But if, because that is a
10
like you need to raise the Grissom investigation for some
11
purpose or other that you think may be relevant, I understand
12
that, and you can attempt to raise it at the time.

MR. MASTERSON:
13
14
Thank you, Judge.
I think you've
educated me enough that we can make decisions on that issue.

THE COURT:
15
Okay.
11:23:52
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER ON TELEPHONE:
16
THE COURT:
17
(Indiscernible).
Hello?
We've just heard something from somebody who's on
18
telephonically.
20
you want to be heard, you'd better speak up now.
If
MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
Next issue.
In the May 14,
23
2015 transcript, the Court referred, at pages 43 and 44, to 50
24
or so documents that were shown to the Court by the monitor.
FR
25
11:24:10
Anything else?
IEN
22
I assume that you didn't want to be heard.
DS
19
21
11:23:35
THE COURT:
Would you like those?
11:24:30
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
I'll provide them to you.
MR. MASTERSON:
We would.
Thank you, Judge.
Now we're going to get into another one, and I think
4
5
I'd probably like to look at the cases the Court cited earlier
before I raise it.
everybody knows and the Court's advised.
request the itemized billing records of the monitor.
reviewed some previous transcripts where Ms. Wilson was
Well, I'm going to raise it, just so
We are going to
And I've
10
involved and Ms. Wilson's ability to review the itemized
11
billings was discussed, and talked about independent CPA's and
12
such, so I'm familiar, to some extent, with -THE COURT:
13
Okay.
And we'll take a look at the
15
cases cited by the Court, but I just wanted to let you know
16
that we're going to be seeking those documents.

THE COURT:
17
One final issue, and I think probably
we're going to -- well, we're certainly going to try to work it
20
out with the plaintiffs' counsel, and it concerns the 50
21
hard drives.
22
if we can't -- well, if we come to an agreement and it does
IEN
DS
19
11:25:37
We discussed making forensic copies, and I think
23
include making a forensic copy, we raised on the conference
24
call with the monitors yesterday security issues that we were
25
concerned with from prior cases dealing with documents from law
FR
11:25:13
Okay.
MR. MASTERSON:
18
11:24:59
Why don't you file your motion.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
11:24:42
11:25:59
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

enforcement agencies, and I understand this -- these are not --
well, we don't know what they are.
enforcement agency.
followed and --
THE COURT:
But certain security protocols have to be
Start over again.
MR. MASTERSON:
Perhaps they are from a law
11:26:19
In prior litigation that I've been
involved in, when we're copying information from a law
enforcement agency into a separate hard drive for discovery
purposes, we have been asked by federal agencies, and also
10
local state agencies, to utilize a vendor that has appropriate
11
security protocols for maintenance of these files.
Here, since we have allegations, at least, that there
12
13
may be classified information on these hard drives, I -THE COURT:
14
Well --
MR. MASTERSON:
15
-- I just want to -- if nobody has a
16
concern about it, I don't care.
17
address it.
18
back to me later and say:
19
that classified stuff?
Mr. Gomez isn't here to
THE COURT:
Hey, Masterson, how come you put all
It seems to me like that will be something
you will discuss this week.
22
position that there is classified material on there.
IEN
21
11:27:16
I mean, again, it may be your

It seems
23
to me, based on the documents I've seen, it's possible that's
24
not the case, so just figure it out.
25
that it is the case, let me know.
FR
11:27:03
I don't care, but I don't want somebody coming
DS
20
11:26:41
If then you determine

11:27:32
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

I will tell you, too, by the way, just so you're not
1
2
suspicious when you get them, I said 50 documents.
said 50 documents.
weren't 50, but I'll give you everything that the monitor gave
me.
There
11:27:46
Okay.
Thank you very much, Judge.
That's all I have.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
9
10
of those documents?
11
THE COURT:
12
I've gone back and looked at them.
MR. MASTERSON:
I know I
Anything else?
Your Honor, may plaintiffs also have a copy
11:27:51
Oh, everybody's going to get copies of
those documents.
MS. WANG:
13
Thank you.
THE COURT:
14
It won't surprise you, Ms. Wang, to know
15
that you provided most of them in your -- in your response to
16
the motion to recuse.
17
but not many.
18
give all parties all of them.
There are a few additional documents,
I think you provided most of them.
MR. COMO:
19
But I'll
Your Honor, I have just one quick issue to
raise.
Given the number of depositions that need to be taken
21
next month, I would ask that -- that any party noticing a
22
deposition -- in particular, plaintiffs seem to be noticing
IEN
DS
20
23
them -- would be required to indicate if the topic about the
24
dissemination of the Court's preliminary injunction order is
25
going to be one of the topics addressed in the deposition.
FR
11:27:57
11:28:12
11:28:33
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

Because if it's not a topic for that particular witness, I'll
waive my appearance and save the taxpayers a little bit of
money on that.
4
5
THE COURT:
Any problem with that?
MR. YOUNG:
We'll do our best, but I would predict
that many of the depositions will involve that issue, simply
because we're getting e-mails now, we've gotten documents since
the April hearing, that involve issues relating to knowledge
about the preliminary injunction and compliance or lack of
10
compliance.
11:29:08
I suppose that probably Zullo and Mackiewicz, for
11
12
example, would not involve that issue, but many of the others
13
would.
14
15
16
17
THE COURT:
All right.
Just do your best.
MR. YOUNG:
Yes.
THE COURT:
I think it's a noble aspiration that we
11:29:23
ought to pursue to save all the money we can.

MR. COMO:
18
THE COURT:
19
Thank you, Your Honor.
Anything else by anybody?
MR. KILLEBREW:
DS
20
Your Honor, this is Paul Killibrew and
Puneet Cheema for the Civil Rights Division of the Department
22
of Justice representing the United States, plaintiff-intervenor
IEN
21
23
24
FR
25
11:28:50
11:29:33
in this case.
I apologize that we were late to the status
conference.
We had the wrong number, but Your Honor's chambers
11:29:41
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

was able to provide it to us.
presence is noted for the record.

THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
4
5
We just wanted to make sure our
court reporter.)
THE COURT:
11:29:55
Mr. Killebrew, because there is some
distortion on the speaker, my court reporter was not able to
discern who you said was with you.

MS. CHEEMA:
My name is Puneet Cheema, Your Honor.
10
I'm one of the attorneys that was noted on the complaint in
11
intervention.
THE COURT:
12
MS. CHEEMA:
13
14
THE COURT:
MS. CHEEMA:
16
THE COURT:
23
24
FR
25
And the first name is Puneet,
Thank you.
Anything else by anybody?
See you next week.
(Proceedings concluded at 11:30 a.m.)
DS
IEN
22
The last time is Cheema,
Thank you very much.
Thank you all.
19
21
Yes.
P-u-n-e-e-t.
18
20
Can you spell that name, please.
C-h-e-e-m-a.
15
17
11:30:07
11:30:18
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M

C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
4
5
6
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
7
8
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
10
11
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
12
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
13
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my direction and control.
15
16
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 24th day of August,
17
18
2015.
20
21
IEN
22
DS
19
23
24
FR
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres # 1275 - 2015-08-21 STATUS CONFERENCE Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres # 1275 - 2015-08-21 STATUS CONFERENCE Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 66

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

Covington & Burling, LLP

Covington & Burling, LLP

For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio:

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 66

For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:

For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 66

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 66

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 66

Civil case 07-2513, Manual de Jesus

Ortega Melendres and others versus Joseph M. Arpaio and others.

This is the time set for status conference.

Please announce your presence for the record.

Andre Segura of the ACLU

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the unnamed contemnors.

Good morning, Judge.

and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio.

Good morning, Your Honor.

and Charles Jirauch representing that portion of the Maricopa

County government embodied in the board of supervisors, the

county manager, and the employees working under their

the ACLU of Arizona for plaintiffs.

Good morning, Your Honor.

for the plaintiffs.

Covington & Burling, for plaintiffs.

Good morning, Your Honor.

the ACLU for the plaintiffs.

Please have it filed by next

Good morning, Your Honor.

behalf of Brian Sands, who's waived his appearance today.

Good morning, Judge.

behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan, who's present today, specially

Good morning, Your Honor.

Eisenberg, specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.

He is present, but, Your Honor, he may have to leave on police

Did the phone people get taken off?

appearance for Sheriff --

Good morning, Your Honor.

Yes, Your Honor.

You know, are you going to file the

memorandum which I invited you to file, Mr. Walker?

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1275 Filed 08/24/15 Page 6 of 66

Who's on the line?

Mel McDonald making special

appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Do we need to reestablish a bridge?