15-16440 # 13 W Ex Montgomery Opening Brief W Exhibits

(1 of 1100)
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID: 9731587, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 1 of 45
CASE NO. 15-16440

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL de JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, et al., Plaintiffs

v.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona; et al., Defendants
and
DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY, Putative Intervenor
From the United States District Court
For the District of Arizona
The Honorable G. Murray Snow, Presiding
Case No. CV-07-2513
OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800
Email: leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Putative Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery
(2 of 1100)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................... iv
CERTIFICATE AS TO NAMED PARTIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES .... iv
CERTIFICATE AS TO RELATED CASES ......................................................... vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. vii
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... x
ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................................................ 1
RULINGS UNDER REVIEW AND REVIEWABILITY .................................... 2
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT........................................................................ 2
A. Statutory basis of subject matter jurisdiction of the District Court ........ 2
B. Basis for claiming that the order appealed from is appealable ................ 3
C. Statutory basis of jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ........................................................................... 4
D. Date of entry of the order appealed from ................................................ 4
E. Date of filing of the notice of appeal ..................................................... 4
F. Statute or rule under which it is claimed the appeal is timely ............... 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL .............................. 6
A. Appellant Montgomery Seeks to Protect Property Rights ..................... 6
B. Motion to Intervene and Pro Hac Vice Application Denied .................. 10
C. Judge Snow Scape-Goating Montgomery is Irrelevant and Abusive ... 11
D. Judge Snows Conflicts of Interest Mandate Recusal .......................... 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................15
STANDARD OF REVIEW.....................................................................................16
ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 17
A. DISTRICT COURT ERRED DENYING MONTGOMERYS MOTION
TO INTERVENE ................................................................................. 17
ii
(3 of 1100)
B. STANDING OF MONTGOMERY TO INTERVENE

AS OF RIGHT .............................................................................. 19
C. DISTRICT
COURT
ERRED
DENYING
MOTION
OF
MONTGOMERYS ATTORNEY TO BE ADMITTED
PRO HAC VICE TO CASE ................................................................ 19
D. THE TWO LAWSUITS ARE NOT RELATED, AND
THEREFORE THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............... 22
E. DISTRICT COURT ERRED DENYING MONTGOMERYS MOTION
FOR RECUSAL ................................................................................. 24
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................... 30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................... 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 30
iii
(4 of 1100)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Appellant is a natural person and is not an officer, director, or majority
shareholder of any publicly traded corporation.
CERTIFICATE AS TO NAMED PARTIES
AND INTERESTED PARTIES
Plaintiff-Appellant certifies pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.1 that:
A. Parties -- Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs identified on the District Courts court record on PACER:
1) Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated
2) Velia Meraz on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
3) Manuel Nieto, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
4) David Rodriguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
5) Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated
6) Somos America
7) United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff, previously Amicus Curiae
B. Parties -- Defendants
The Plaintiffs sued in this action the following Defendants:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona

Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO), Arizona
Maricopa County, Arizona
Sgt. Brett Palmer, MCSO
C. Interested Parties Participating

The Court has entered into the litigation the following interested parties,
who are neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants:
iv
(5 of 1100)
1) State of Arizona
2) Maricopa County Administration
3) Gary L Birnbaum
4) Timothy J Casey
5) John M Girvin
6) Tom Liddy
7) John MacIntyre
8) Brian Mackiewicz
9) Barry Mitchell
10) Raul Martinez
11) David Ouimette
12) Brett Palmer
13) Brian Sands
14) Douglas Schwab
15) Gerard Sheridan
16) Joseph Sousa
17) Lee Stein
18) Ann Uglietta
19) Robert Warshaw
D. Amicus Curiae
The United States of America had been participating as Amicus Curiae.
(6 of 1100)
CERTIFICATE AS TO RELATED CASES

In a related petition, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Arpaio) and Chief Deputy Gerard
Sheridan (Sheridan) (especially appearing) of Arizonas Maricopa County
Sheriffs Office (MCSO) filed a petition on August 6, 2015, for writ of
mandamus for recusal of the Honorable G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona (District Court). See Joseph Arpaio and Gerard
Sheridan v. U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and Manuel de Jesus
Ortega Melendres, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 1572440. This Court apparently found that mandamus was the wrong legal means to
seek review of the serious issue of the lower courts conflict of interest and other
alleged unethical actions. Earlier, this Court had denied Appellants petition for
writ of mandamus on similar procedural grounds.
vi
(7 of 1100)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Birt v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 1983) .......................................21
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook
Railroad Co., 380 F.2d 570, 576 (D.C. 1967) ......................................................28
California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 776 (9th Cir.1982) .............................................4
Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................4
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th
Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................................3
Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust v. eTreppid Technologies,
LLC, Warren Trepp and the U.S. Department of Defense, Case Nos. 3:06-CV00056-PMP-VPC and 3:06-CV-00145-PMP-VPC, Order, Judge Philip M. Pro,
March 19,2007 ........................................................................................................9
*Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 909 (2d Cir.1984), amended 748 F.2d
69 (2d Cir.1984) ............................................................................................. 22,24
Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................4
Gas-A-Tron of Arizona v. Union Oil Co. of California, 534 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976) ..........23
Glasser v. U.S., 315 U.S. 60, 75, 62 S.Ct. 457, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942) ...........21
In re Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 919 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir. 1990) ........................29
In re United States, 158 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1998)................................................28
In the Matter of the Search of: The Residence Located at 12720 Buckthorne Lane,
Reno, Nevada, and Storage Units 136, 140, 141, 142 and 143, Double R Storage,
888 Madestro Drive, Reno, Nevada, Case Nos. 3:06-CV-0263-PMP-VPC and
3:06-MJ-00023-VPC, Order, Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, November 28,
vii
(8 of 1100)
2006 ........................................................................................................................9
Jackson v. Microsoft Corp., 135 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40 (D.D.C. 2001) .......................27
Joseph Arpaio and Gerard Sheridan v. U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona and Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Case No. 15-72440 ............... vi
Leisnoi, Inc. v. U.S., 313 F.3d 1181, 1884 (9th Cir. 2002)......................................4
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) ....................28
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474, 114 S. Ct. 1147
(1994)....................................................................................................................27
Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 243 (1980) ...............................................27
Melendres v. Arpaio, Record No. 13-16285, (9th Cir. April 15, 2015) .................12
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 352 (10th Cir. 1995) ................................................28
Nichols, 841 F.2d at 1502 ........................................................................................21
Panzardi-Alvarez v. U.S., 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989) .................................21
Republic of Pan. v. American Tobacco Co., 217 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2000) ....28
Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002)......................3
SCA Servs. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 (7th Cir. 1977) ..............................................28
Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) ...........................................27
Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 2001)
................................................................................................................................4
*Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001). .............17
Trone v. Smith, 621 F.2d 994 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1980) ................................................24
*Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85 (C.A.9 (Mont.)
1983) .....................................................................................................................24
U.S. v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir.1982) ......................................21
U.S. v. Laura, 607 F.2d 52, 56 (3d Cir.1979) .........................................................21
U.S. v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................21
viii
(9 of 1100)
U.S. v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1502 (10th Cir.1988) ...........................................21

U.S. v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 285 (2d Cir.1973) .............................................21
U.S. v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th Cir. 1989) ...................................................28
U.S. v. Nelson, 718 F .2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................28
Ward v. City of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972) ........................................27
York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C. 2001) ..........................................27
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 455(a) ...................................................................................................28
28 U.S.C. 1367 ........................................................................................................3
28 U.S.C. 455 ........................................................................................................29
28 U.S.C. 1291 ....................................................................................................3, 4
28 U.S.C. 144 ....................................................................................................1, 25
28 U.S.C. 1331 .........................................................................................................2
28 U.S.C. 1332 .........................................................................................................2
U.S. Constitution ..................................................................................................2, 27
Rules
ABA Code Of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 ................................................................29
ABA Code Of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(C)(1) ......................................................27
ABA Code Of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 ................................................................30
Circuit Rule 28-2.1 ................................................................................................... iv
FRAP 4(a)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................4
FRCP 24 ...................................................................................................................17
FRCP 24(a) ...........................................................................................................1,15
FRCP 24(a)(2), .........................................................................................................20
ix
(10 of 1100)
FRCP 24(c) ..............................................................................................................20
(11 of 1100)
GLOSSARY
FRAP refers to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
FRCP refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
MCSO refers to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office in Arizona
Executive Branch refers to the branch of the U.S. Government established under
Article II of the Constitution, including the President and the Federal Departments
and Agencies under the Presidents supervision
ACLU refers to one of the Plaintiffs law firms,
the American Civil Liberties Union
xi
(12 of 1100)
I.
ISSUES PRESENTED
A. The trial judge erred in denying Appellants motion to intervene as of
right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 24(a) to
object to the deprivation of his property and legal rights and due process.
B. The trial judge erred in denying Appellants motion for admission of his
attorney, Jonathon Moseley, pro hac vice because the instant case is not
substantially related to Sheriff Joe Arpaios lawsuit against President
Barack Obamas executive amnesty for illegal aliens. A conflict of
interest can only arise from an attorneys representation in two or more
cases if they are substantially related so that clients interests are
adverse in ways actually relevant. Parties having differences that have
absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings or legal matters do not
present a conflict of interest for legal representation.
C. The trial judge also erred in denying Appellants motion for admission of
Moseley pro hac vice by applying an erroneous rule of law merely
reciting that Moseley is involved in two different cases yet not
conducting any analysis as to whether any actual conflict exists.
D. The trial judge erred in denying Appellants motion for admission of his
attorney pro hac vice because there is no serious conflict of interest
under governing law. Montgomery asserts his total irrelevance to the
case below, he seeks to be left alone, and he merely demands the return
of and due process for his property and legal rights. Thus, Montgomerys
interests are not adverse to Arpaios interests in any way that qualifies as
serious. Montgomery has no stake in or knowledge of how Arpaios
office conducts traffic stops, investigates violations of Arizona State law
or immigration status, or evaluates probable cause. Montgomery has no
stake in whether Arpaio will or will not found be in contempt in this case.
E. The trial judge erred in not recusing himself due to the trial judges
personal conflict of interest. The trial judge was compelled to
immediately stop and refer the question of recusal to a different judge
upon the filing of Appellants affidavit under 28 U.S.C. 144, without
subjective discretion or analysis, after making his own wife a witness.
F. The trial judge erred in not recusing himself under 28 U.S.C. 455 where
1
(13 of 1100)
a reasonable member of the public would believe there is the appearance

of a conflict of interest in Judge Snow conducting an investigation of
statements made by his own wife, his wife announced that he hates
Sheriff Arpaio and is using the case to destroy Arpaio and remove him
from office, neither have denied this, and Judge Snow refuses to exclude
the topic making his wife and himself a likely material witness. He
ordered payment of $4 million to Covington & Burling, which represents
plaintiffs in the underlying case, where his brother-in-law is a partner.
II.
RULINGS UNDER REVIEW AND REVIEWABILITY

The Appellant appeals from the District Courts Orders of -1. July 10, 2015 (Doc. # 1167) Denying Motion For Reconsideration. ER51-58.
2. May 14, 2015 (Doc. # 1093) denying Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jonathon
Moseley Striking Putative Intervenor's Motion to Intervene and Striking
Putative Intervenor's Motion to Disqualify. ER59-62.
NOTE: The May 14, 2015, Order was without prejudice,1 explicitly
permitting Moseley to reapply. Moseley then reapplied by the May 19,
2015, Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 1112). ER433-476. The final
order runs for appeal from the July 10, 2015, Order denying that motion.
3. June 10, 2015 (Doc. # 1164) Denying Motion for Disqualification ER11-51.
All issues were preserved for appeal by the pleadings and are reviewable,
including in the Motion For Reconsideration ER433-476, denied July 10, 2014.
III.
A.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Statutory Basis of Subject Matter Jurisdiction in District Court
The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 as it is a controversy arising under federal law and the Constitution.
1
ER59-62; Transcript, May 14, 2015, 34:15-20, 39:17-19. ER193, 198.

2
(14 of 1100)
Moreover, the District Court also had jurisdiction over the issues and claims
about which the Appellant sought to intervene as supplemental jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 (Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims
that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.). The Appellant
seeks to intervene concerning matters so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
Article III of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Appellant seeks to
intervene concerning the presiding judges orders in proceeding about enforcement
of the main claims under federal law and the Constitution.
B.
Basis for Claiming that the Order Appealed from is Appealable
This appeal is from final orders as to the Plaintiff-Appellant which disposed

of all his claims and terminated his involvement in the case in the District Court.2
This Court has jurisdiction from the District Courts final order denying
Montgomerys motion to intervene, demand under 28 U.S.C. 144 for recusal of
the trial judge, and admission of his previous attorney pro hac vice under 28
U.S.C. 1291; See, e.g., Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'n,
647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court has "jurisdiction over the denial of a
motion to intervene as of right as a final appealable order . . ."); Rubin v. City of
Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002); Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d
2
Initial Order invited Moseley to reapply. ER59-62. The final order was July
10, 2015. ER51-58. Transcript, May 14, 2015, 34:15-20, 39:17-19. ER193, 198.
3
(15 of 1100)
1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 2013). We have jurisdiction over the district court's denial of
Stratman's motion to intervene as of right, because it is a final appealable order. 28
U.S.C. 1291; Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 814
(9th Cir. 2001). Leisnoi, Inc. v. U.S., 313 F.3d 1181, 1884 (9th Cir. 2002); Use v.
Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d at 896. ( See California v. Block, 690 F.2d
753, 776 (9th Cir.1982) (denial of motion to intervene is an appealable order).
Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1991).
C.
Statutory Basis of Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
This U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) has
jurisdiction over this appeal from the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
D.
Date of Entry of the Order Appealed From

a) Order of July 10, 2014 Denying Motion For Reconsideration
b) Order of May 14, 2015. NOTE: Denial of Pro Hac Vice
Admission was without prejudice, allowing Moseley to apply
again. He did. Therefore, the actual denial was on July 10, 2014.
c) Order of June 10, 2015 Denying Motion for Disqualification
E.
Date of Filing of the Notice of Appeal.
Appellant filed his July 15, 2015, Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 1173). ER6-10.
F.
Statute or Rule Under Which it is Claimed the Appeal is Timely.
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) Rule 4(a)(1)(A) the notice

of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days
(16 of 1100)
after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.

IV.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case should have absolutely nothing to do with Dennis L. Montgomery.
Prior to April 23, 2015, Montgomery had never been involved in or mentioned in
this litigation. He has never been named or served as a party, witness, or played in
any other role. Montgomery has no expertise in, knowledge of, or involvement in
illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, border security, law enforcement
issues, the proper way to conduct traffic stops, or when there is probable cause.
This case was filed December 12, 2007, alleging that Plaintiff Manuel
Melendres was detained in a traffic stop because of his Hispanic ancestry under
suspicion of illegal immigration status. The case concerned when the Maricopa
County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) regardless of who is its Sheriff has
authority to detain persons either on suspicion of violating Arizona State law
and/or to investigate their immigration status, and whether traffic stops and
enforcement were targeted based on race. But when the case was filed, MCSO had
authority to enforce the nations immigration laws under the so-called 287(g)
program. During the lawsuit, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security
terminated its 287(g) agreement with MCSO. As a result, the case below wrestled
with under what circumstances of probable cause MCSO may detain persons.
None of this has the remotest relevance to Dennis Montgomery. The case
(17 of 1100)
ended on October 2, 2013, by a final order labeled as Supplemental Permanent

Injunction/Judgment Order. (Docs. # 606, 670.) Now, the case is in postjudgment proceedings of contempt. On May 8, 2014, MCSOs Deputy Ramon
Armendariz killed himself. The Plaintiffs allege that the traffic stop videos found
in his house revealed that the injunction was not being fully implemented.3
But, suddenly, on April 23, 2015, Judge Snow sua sponte started attacking
Montgomery in absentia by asking Sheriff Arpaio about the conspiracy theories of
a local pro-illegal immigrant rag, The Phoenix New Times.4 Montgomery learned
about these events only after the fact from a news article published April 30. 2015.
Evidentiary hearings started on April 21-24, 2015. Hearings reconvened
September 22 through 25, and September 29 through October 5, 2015.5 In every
hearing since April, Judge Snow has repeatedly made Montgomery an issue.
V.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL

A.
Appellant Montgomery Seeks to Protect Property Rights
Montgomery seeks to intervene to protect his interests, receive due process,

and be heard. Montgomery has been denied his rights of due process guaranteed
by the Constitution to notice and an opportunity to be heard.6 His personal
3
Transcript, April 24, 2015, 955-958.

Id.
5
Minute Order, July 20, 2015 (Doc. # 1179).
6
Motion for Reconsideration, May 19, 2015, 3-4 (Doc. # 1112); ER435-436;
Transcript, July 20, 2015, pages 42:10 46:15; ER791-795; Transcript July 24,
4
(18 of 1100)
property, trade secrets, work product, proprietary information, intellectual

property, medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, and data were seized in violation of his rights, contracts, and
privileges, and then re-distributed promiscuously to adverse attorneys and parties.
Montgomery is a complaining witness and whistleblower seeking to expose
illegal activity in the government by unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens
more extensive and intrusive than the activities revealed by Edward Snowden.7
Montgomery sought help from MCSO. Montgomery states that the government
harvested private data far more extensive than telephonic metadata of
millions of people, including judges, politicians, and public officials, including
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.8 Then, the MCSO Cold Case Posse asked
Montgomery to analyze President Barack Obamas birth certificate released in
computer form for signs of forgery or digital alteration. During this period,
Montgomery suffered a massive stroke and was for a few minutes clinically dead
on the neurosurgeons operating table. That slowed the completion of his work.
2015, especially 9:27 - 10:20; 14:5 - 16:3; 18:11 - 20:15; 21:6 - 22:20; ER233-242.
7
Affidavit of Dennis Montgomery (Doc. # 1067-2), ER597, Exhibit 2
attached to Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge G.
Murray Snow Under 28 U.S.C. 144 Motion for Recusal, May 7, 2015 (Doc. #
1067); Transcript, April 24, 2015, 959; ER161.
8
Plaintiffs Motion for In Chambers and Ex Parte Interview of Witness
Dennis Montgomery, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No.
1:13-cv-00851, March 20, 210, (Doc. # 129); ER650 Bob Unruh, 2 Supreme
Court Justices targeted by US Spies," World Net Daily, April 30, 2015, Accessible
at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/u-s-gathering-dirt-on-supreme-court-justices/
7
(19 of 1100)
However, Montgomery entrusted MCSO with his documents, property, and

items under contractual obligations and an agreement that Montgomery retains
ownership of all of them and that these items will be preserved as confidential.
Yet Judge Snow ordered all documents and items relating to Montgomery
indiscriminately seized 9 and re-distributed.10 Judge Snow stated in open court
Montgomerys items might very well be entirely irrelevant to this case.11
As one example, on July 20, 2015, Judge Snow granted a civil motion by the
then non-party U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) for DoJ to obtain12 from the
District Court Montgomerys documents, intellectual property, and personal
property previously seized by Judge Snow from MCSO.13
These are mostly the same documents, data, and things that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada had already ordered DoJ to return to Montgomery
once before. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Nevada
District) already ruled that (1) the data, documents, intellectual property, tangible
objects, and personal property at issue in this case belong to Montgomery, (2) the
9
Transcript, April 23, 2015, pages 656-660; ER695-699; Transcript, July 24,
2015; ER824; Order, May 4, 2015; ER120.
10
Order, September 8, 2015, (Doc. # 1312); ER1; Transcript, July 20, 2015,
pages 42:10 46:15; ER791-795; Transcript, July 24, 2015, 23:4-24:5
(Montgomery documents available to counsel); ER838-839.
11
Transcript, July 24, 2015, pages 14:5-23:24; ER831-838.
12
Id.
13
Transcript, July 20, 2015, pages 42-53, ER791-802; primarily Page 53;
ER802 (emphases added); Order, July 24, 2015. (Doc. # 1190.) ER5.
8
(20 of 1100)
government did not address whether the information was classified adequately to
support that claim, (3) the U.S. Government was required to return it all to
Montgomery, and (4) the U.S. Government had deceived that court.14
In the Nevada District, Judge Philip M. Pro upheld the order of the
Magistrate Judge on March 19, 2007,15 finding no error. Magistrate Judge Valerie
P. Cooke, issued a detailed order November 28, 2006, 16 in relation to the U.S.
Governments search warrant and illegal search and seizure of Montgomerys
records, information, and property. Magistrate Judge Cooke ordered the
Government to return to Montgomery the items that had been taken. Magistrate
Judge Cooke found that the affidavit used to justify the search warrant was false
and misleading and condemned the U.S. Courts callous disregard for
Montgomerys rights. Magistrate Judge Cooke explained the problem on pages
30:25 31:3 of her November 28, 2006, Order:
SA West blindly relied on the documents, sworn statements, and
14
Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust v. eTreppid

Technologies, LLC, Warren Trepp and the U.S. Department of Defense, Case Nos.
3:06-CV-00056-PMP-VPC and 3:06-CV-00145-PMP-VPC, Order, Judge Philip
M. Pro, March 19,2007, and In the Matter of the Search of: The Residence
Located at 12720 Buckthorne Lane, Reno, Nevada, and Storage Units 136, 140,
141, 142 and 143, Double R Storage, 888 Madestro Drive, Reno, Nevada, Case
Nos. 3:06-CV-0263-PMP-VPC and 3:06-MJ-00023-VPC, Order, Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke, November 28, 2006 (referred to as Nevada Orders).
15
Exhibit 1, attached to Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery's Notice of
Supplemental Authority and Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion for Intervention of Right, May 13, 2015. (Doc. # 1081.) ER487.
16
Id., Exhibit 2, attached thereto. ER505.
9
(21 of 1100)
evidence supplied by eTreppid, and he never appeared to question

whether he had become an agent, not for the Government, but for
private interests engaged in litigation valued in millions of dollars.
The litigation that has ensued based upon the seizure of Montgomery's
property is a cautionary tale to heed the admonition that trade secrets
litigation is best left to the civil forum.
And Magistrate Judge Cooke further concluded on page 29:20 30:2 of her
Order:
The over-arching concern in this proceeding is that SA West became
an unwitting pawn in a civil dispute, and as a result of his
inexperience and lack of training, he prepared search warrant
affidavits that are riddled with incorrect statements, edited documents,
and uncorroborated conclusions, which caused this court to exercise
its formidable power to authorize the government to search
Montgomery's home and storage units.
Magistrate Judge Cooke noted in dicta that the Government did not pursue
whether Montgomerys records and documents are classified. Id., page 13:24
14:4.
B.
Motion to Intervene and Pro Hac Vice Application Denied
Judge Snow denied Montgomerys motions seeking to receive due process,

notice, and an opportunity to be heard guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution concerning his property and the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.17 Significantly, no party filed any pleading
opposing Montgomerys intervention or the admission of his attorney pro hac vice.
As a result, no specific arguments, evidence, or grounds were identified or
17
Order on Motion to Intervene, May 14, 2015, Page 2 (Doc. # 1093). ER59.
10
(22 of 1100)
developed in the record below to establish or clarify any grounds.

Judge Snow denied Moseleys admission pro hac vice by vaguely hinting
that apparently a conflict of interest might exist, merely because Moseley is
counsel in two lawsuits, without analyzing them.18 Montgomery argued in his
Motion for Reconsideration that no interest of any client was in conflict. 19
C.
Judge Snows Scape-Goating Montgomery is Irrelevant
Montgomery is simply irrelevant to whether MCSO implemented the 2013

injunction slowly or quickly. That irrelevance renders any conflict of interest
insubstantial, insignificant, and not the serious conflict needed to trigger
governing law. MCSO is apparently the largest Sheriffs offices in the nation,
serving 4 million Maricopa County residents. That sheer size might explain slow
implementation but Montgomery cannot explain these events. Paradoxically, the
Appellant is forced to step in to defend his interests, but preferring to be left alone.
Actually, Judge Snow is in contempt of this Court by reviewing whether
MCSO should have spent time dealing with Montgomery. This Court already
admonished Judge Snow to stop micro-managing MCSOs administration or
investigating the effectiveness of Sheriff Arpaios management by enlarging the
October 2, 2013, final order. Judge Snow, in contempt of this Court, ruled that his
18
Id.
Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Admittance Pro Hac Vice of
Jonathon A. Moseley and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, May 19,
2015, Pages 2-3 (Doc. # 1112). ER433.
19
11
(23 of 1100)
Monitors would not be shackled 20 by Defendants constitutional rights.21 This

Court of Appeals previously vacated Judge Snows use of Monitors for matters,
such as management quality, that have
no bearing on the constitutional rights at stake here. We therefore
vacate these particular provisions and order the district court to
tailor them so as to address only the constitutional violations at
issue. See Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282.
Melendres v. Arpaio, Record No. 13-16285, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, Opinion, April 15, 2015, page 23.
But Judge Snow ordered those same Monitors to investigate whether MCSO
spent its resources well by working with Montgomery as a complaining witness.22
This is what the Ninth Circuit admonished Judge Snow to stop investigating, areas
that have no bearing on the constitutional rights at stake here. Id.
D.
Judge Snows Conflicts of Interest Mandate Recusal
Judge Snow also injected personal issues into the case on April 23 and 24,
20
Transcript, May 14, 2015, at 49:15-21, 51, 56. ER748.

Order, May 4, 2015, page 3, (The questions posed by the Court, and later
by defense counsel, relate to the efficacy and integrity of MCSOs internal
investigative processes, the agencys approach to addressing conflicts of interest,
and the relative resistance of MCSOs command staff to the authority of the federal
court.) (Doc. # 1046.); ER120; Transcript, April 23, 2015, 651:1-653:5, 657:15660:8 (Judge Snow demands to know about funding decisions for MCSO law
enforcement activities); ER690-692, 696-699; Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Objection to Court-Ordered Disclosure
Procedure, April 28, 2015 (Doc. # 1035). ER623.
22
Transcript, July 20, 2015, page 46; ER795; Transcript July 24, 2015,
especially 9:27 - 10:20; 14:5 - 16:3; 18:11 - 20:15; 21:6 - 22:20; ER233-242;
Order, April 27, 2015, (Doc. # 1033); ER123.
21
12
(24 of 1100)
2015.23 Abruptly, on April 23, 2015, Judge Snow made himself and his wife major
topics in the litigation. Sheriff Arpaios lawyers then filed an objection to
procedures and on the last page to Judge Snow questioning Defendant Arpaio
on areas on which he did not receive prior notice.24 Judge Snow ruled that his
own questioning about the Grissom Investigation (Judge Snows wife) and the
Seattle operation (Dennis Montgomery) will not be excluded from the case.25
Over objection, Judge Snow insists upon making his own family issues in the case.
Sheriff Arpaio asked Judge Snow to exclude the topic. Judge Snow refused and
insisted upon making his wife and Montgomery parts of this case.
Karen Morris Grissom, her husband Dale, and their son Scott met Judge
Snows wife in a Someburros restaurant in Tempe, Arizona. Cheri Snow and
Karen Grissom knew each other from childhood. Cheri Snow boasted that her
husband was presiding over the trial of Sheriff Arpaio, that Judge Snow hated
Arpaio, and he will do whatever it takes to get Arpaio out of office.26 A year later,
Karen Grissom saw news reports about this case, and sent a tip to Sheriff Arpaio
23
Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge Snow

Under 28 U.S.C. 144 Motion for Recusal, May 7, 2015, pages 4-9. (Doc. #
1067). ER560-565.
24
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
Objection to Court-Ordered Disclosure Procedure, April 28, 2015 (Doc. # 1035).
ER623.
25
Order, May 4, 2015, Pages 2-3 (Doc. # 1046) ER121-122.
26
Interview Transcripts, attached as Exhibits 6 (ER304) and Exhibit 7
(ER335) to Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of District Court Judge G.
Murray Snow, filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, May 22, 2015 (Doc. # 1117). ER246.
13
(25 of 1100)
over Facebook.27 Sheriff Arpaio gave the tip to his attorney, Tim Casey, who
delegated it to a private investigator,28 Don Vogel whose credibility the Plaintiffs
are depending upon to malign Defendants on another issue. (Doc. # 1052.)
Neither Judge Snow nor his wife have ever denied that she announced that
Judge Snow hates Arpaio, that Judge Snow actually hates Arpaio or that he is using
the litigation to get Arpaio removed from office.29
Rather than publicly disclosing these concerns, Sheriff Arpaios attorney
Tim Casey, was apparently afraid to challenge Judge Snow.30 Several years passed
until The Phoenix New Times printed its conspiracy theories. Then Judge Snow
asked Sheriff Arpaio about the news articles in court on April 23, 2015. Judge
Snow created a conflict of interest by not only injecting his own family into the
case but also refusing to correct his mistake when urged to.
It is highly likely that Judge Snows wife will be material witnesses:
27
Facebook message, attached as Exhibit 5 to Motion for Recusal or

Disqualification of District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, May 22, 2015 (Doc. #
1117-5); Transcript, April 24, 2015, 960:21 967:23.
28
Transcript, April 23, 2015, 648:8-651:4; Exhibit attached to Order, May 7,
2015 (Doc. # 1053). ER 96.
29
Declaration of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Page 8, Exhibit 2 to Motion for Recusal
or Disqualification of District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, May 22, 2015 (Doc.
# 1117-2). ER266, 273.
30
Id. at Page 7 ( Nevertheless, testimony that Judge Snow elicited
demonstrated that MCSO decided to go no further than just to verify that Mrs.
Snow had made such statements.); ER272; Letter from Timothy E. Casey, Esq.,
Exhibit attached to Order, May 21, 2015 (Doc. # 1115); ER62; Transcript, April
24, 2015, 967; ER169.
14
(26 of 1100)
25. The fact that Judge Snow believes that the Grissom
investigation is relevant to the contempt proceeding establishes
his spouse as a material witness. Undoubtedly, Mrs. Snow is
now a material witness in this proceeding because of Judge
Snow's injection of her and her statements in the contempt
proceedings.31
Faced with defending a client against some allegation or charge, defense
counsel would have a professional duty in zealously defending their clients to call
Cheri Snow as a witness. The rules requiring recusal do not require an absolute
certainty; only that testimony by the judges family member is reasonably likely.
Also, Judge Snows brother in law is a partner in the law firm representing
the Plaintiffs, Covington & Burling. Judge Snow considered this earlier (Doc. #
541). But, now, much more recently than that previous review, Judge Snow later
ordered taxpayers to pay over $4 million to Covington & Burling.32 This
reasonably creates a significant appearance of bias at a minimum in the view of the
public.
VI.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Appellant, Dennis Montgomery, is entitled to intervene as of right
pursuant to FRCP 24(a) to assert his rights of due process and to protect against
seizure and the distribution to others of his intellectual property, proprietary
31
Declaration of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Page 7-8, Exhibit 2 to Motion for Recusal
or Disqualification of District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, May 22, 2015 (Doc.
# 1117-2); ER266, 272-273.
32
Arpaio , et al. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, et. al., Ninth
Circuit, Case No. 15-72440, Page 28 (petition for writ of mandamus for recusal.)
15
(27 of 1100)
information, technology, commercial work product, intangible property including

data, and personal property. A federal court in this Circuit has decided that the
property belongs to Montgomery and ordered the government to return the
property and items back to Montgomery once before. See, Nevada Orders, supra.
Meanwhile, the Appellant is entitled to his choice of legal counsel,
particularly where, as here, the Appellant is involved in other legal matters and
cases which must be coordinated conceptually and legally with the issues in this
case, he acted very quickly to assert his rights in this case, and the highly
controversial and high profile nature of this case makes it nearly impossible for the
Appellant to find a local attorney willing to risk involvement. Moreover, the
Appellant is in ill health, suffering from multiple strokes as a result of a brain
aneurism, and is indigent as a result of a campaign of defamation to silence him as
a whistleblower exposing government misconduct. Montgomery could not afford
to hire a local Arizona attorney rather than a public interest law firm.
A trial judge may not capriciously or arbitrarily deny an attorneys motion to
appear for a client pro hac vice where the standards have been satisfied. While he
may review an application, he may not use subjective discretion to deny it.
Here, Judge Snows decision was based upon significant errors of law.
Judge Snow merely recited that Montgomerys chosen attorney, Jonathon Moseley,
also represents Sheriff Joe Arpaio (working under Larry Klayman) in an unrelated
16
(28 of 1100)
matter. There, Larry Klayman as General Counsel of Freedom Watch brought a

constitutional challenge to President Barack Obamas amnesty for illegal aliens by
executive action, in which Moseley is a supporting lawyer. However, as errors of
law, Judge Snow failed to (1) identify any actual conflict of interest, (2) analyze
whether the cases are substantially related or (3) apply the legal test of whether
an asserted conflict is serious.
Finally, Judge Snow made his own wife a likely material witness in the case.
Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO objected. Judge Snow insists upon making his wifes
conversation with Karen Grissom an issue in this case, in which Cheri Snow
announced that Judge Snow hates Sheriff Arpaio and is manipulating this litigation
to get Sheriff Arpaio out of office. Neither Judge Snow nor Cheri Snow deny this.
Thus, Judge Snows own ruling categorizes the issue as material and makes his
wife a reasonably likely witness. Judge Snow must recuse himself.
VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews a motion to intervene de novo, with the exception of the
timeliness prong, which we review for abuse of discretion. Sw. Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 814, 817 (9th Cir. 2001).
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for admission of an out-of-state
attorney pro hac vice for abuse of discretion, but reviews the questions of law upon
which the denial is asserted to be based de novo. Here, the denial was asserted on
17
(29 of 1100)
the basis of legal grounds which are erroneous, which are reviewed de novo.
FRCP 24 governs intervention by additional parties in existing litigation in
the federal courts:
Rule 24. Intervention
(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
***
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its
interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.
(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit
anyone to intervene who:
***
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main
action a common question of law or fact.
VIII. ARGUMENT
A.
District Court Erred Denying Montgomerys Motion To

Intervene
The District Court erred by denying Montgomerys motion to intervene.

Judge Snow made it clear that he opposed the motion independently of admitting
Montgomerys attorney: even if I admit him pro hac vice, we still have to then
deal with his motion to intervene, which strikes me, as I said, to be a little bit
problematic, anyway. See, Transcript, May 14, 2015, 34:15-20. ER734.
18
(30 of 1100)
Yet the Court has permitted 19 interested parties to participate in the case,
who are not formal parties. See, Certificate, supra. Having allowed 19 non-parties
to participate, intervention by Montgomery should obviously have been granted.
The U.S. Government admits that they do not know if they own any of the
documents, items, or things seized from MCSO. The DoJ attorney, Raphael
Gomez, admitted in open Court on July 20, 2015:
The United States does not know whether there are any
documents in the Montgomery files that are in fact classified or
sensitive, but there is a representation that there were
documents that were of the United States.
Transcript, July 20, 2015, Status Conference, Melendres v. Arpaio, Page 43
(Emphases added) (argument by Raphel Gomez for the DoJ). ER792.
MR. GOMEZ: Yes, Your Honor. I believe on May 8th the
Court had issued an order to the defendants' counsel
instructing the defendants' counsel to contact the United
States; actually, the CIA general counsel's office. At that
point, we -- I'm an attorney in the Civil Division of the
Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and we were
contacted, and pursuant to that instruction we had spoken to
defendants' counsel, and with the purpose of, since there had
been a representation made that documents contained in what
I'll refer to as the Montgomery documents were either
documents of the United States or documents that -- implied
were classified or sensitive.
Transcript, July 20, 2015, Status Conference, Melendres v. Arpaio, Page 42
(Emphases added). ER791.
Judge Snow ordered Montgomerys items to be handed over to the DoJ on
the off-chance and mere possibility that they might include government
19
(31 of 1100)
documents. This is the same callous disregard for his rights that the Honorable
Phillip Pro and Magistrate Valerie Cooke condemned in the Nevada Orders, supra.
B.
Standing Of Montgomery To Intervene As Of Right
Pursuant to FRCP 24(a)(2), Montgomery has a right to intervene as of

right. Montgomerys motion is timely. The case started to involve Montgomery
only in late April of 2015. Montgomery filed his motion within two weeks.
Montgomery complied with FRCP 24(c) with notice and a proposed pleading.
Montgomery has a personal stake in this matter in which his property has
been seized by verbal order on April 23, 2015, and by Judge Snows written Order,
April 27, 2015, (Doc. # 1033), ER123. Federal courts in this Circuit have already
decided with appeal rights expired that the items are Montgomerys property.
C.
District Court Erred Denying Motion Of Montgomerys Attorney

To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice To Case
The District Court erred in denying the motion of Montgomerys attorney to

appear pro hac vice. Montgomery has a right to choose attorneys whom he
believes will be knowledgeable enough of his circumstances to represent him
effectively and meaningfully, whom he can afford, and who will protect his rights
on other topics that may be affected.
But here, especially, Montgomery would suffer unusual hardship.
Montgomery is both indigent and medically disabled, perhaps terminally ill. He
20
(32 of 1100)
could not afford regular counsel. Also, the litigation is controversial and political,
so that it would be extremely difficult to find a local lawyer whose livelihood
depends upon regularly appearing before Judge Snow to defend Montgomery
against this rush to judgment.
A person is entitled to his choice of counsel, including an attorney appearing
pro hac vice: A defendant's right to the counsel of his choice includes the right to
have an out-of-state lawyer admitted pro hac vice. U.S. v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054,
1056 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Panzardi-Alvarez v. U.S., 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st
Cir. 1989) ("[A] decision denying a pro hac vice admission necessarily implicates
constitutional concerns."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1082, 110 S. Ct. 1140, 107 L.
Ed. 2d 1045 (1990). A persons right to retain counsel of his choice therefore
represents 'a right of constitutional dimension' U.S. v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d
1064, 1070 (2d Cir.1982) (citing U.S. v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 285 (2d
Cir.1973)), the denial of which may rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Birt v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 874, 105 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed.2d 161 (1984); Wilson, 761 F.2d at 278-79.
The right to retain counsel of choice stems from ones right to decide what kind of
case he wishes to present. U.S. v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1502 (10th Cir.1988).
Attorneys are not fungible and often the most important decision a
defendant makes in shaping his defense is his selection of an attorney. U.S. v.
21
(33 of 1100)
Laura, 607 F.2d 52, 56 (3d Cir.1979); Nichols, 841 F.2d at 1502; Glasser v.
U.S., 315 U.S. 60, 75, 62 S.Ct. 457, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Judge Snow denied Moseleys application to be admitted pro hac vice on
unsupported speculation that there could be a conflict of interest. But the record
does not contain any basis for disqualification. Moseley filed a Clarification of
Motion for Admittance Pro Hac Vice of Jonathon A. Moseley, dated May 13,
2015, (Doc. # 1080), ER466, 33 stating that (emphasis added):
Neither Dennis L. Montgomery nor his counsel are adverse to
Sheriff Arpaio, his deputies, the Cold Case Posse, or MCSO in
any respect, particularly since this case involves a contempt
proceeding over allegations of profiling illegal immigrants.
No party has moved for disqualification of Moseley as counsel for
Montgomery, so no facts have been entered in the record to establish any conflict.
Simply reciting that Moseley represents Arpaio in an unrelated matter does
not establish any conflict of interest. Disqualification applies where serious
conflict exists. See Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 909 (2d
Cir.1984), amended 748 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1984). The proponent of disqualification
must demonstrate the existence of a conflict of interest which is serious.
Failing to follow the law of this Circuit, Judge Snow merely suggested that
Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO staff when compelled to do so by Judge Snows
33
See, also, Email from Larry Klayman to Amy Lake and Mike Zullo, April
29, 2015, Exhibit 2, to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac
Vice of Larry Klayman, July 28, 2015 (Doc. # 1198-2). ER243.
22
(34 of 1100)
persistent questioning sua sponte described dissatisfaction with the results found
by Montgomerys research.
Mere differences of opinion particularly when the trial judge compels one
person against their will to speak ill of another do not establish a conflict of
interest within attorney-client representation. The law considers conflicting
interests, not mere differences of opinion.
Furthermore, Judge Snows analysis is hopelessly inadequate and
inconsistent with the facts. There is nothing in the record to clarify whether
Montgomery did not find information satisfactory to Sheriff Arpaio because there
was nothing to be found, no matter how well Montgomery did his work, if Sheriff
Arpaio and Montgomery were confused about, misunderstood or disagreed about
the task each thought Montgomery was supposed to be working on, or if there were
miscommunications through MCSO ranks. Judge Snow forcing Sheriff Arpaio to
opine on Montgomerys work does not create a conflict of interest, certainly not
without clarification and exploration of what that meant.
D.
The Two Lawsuits Are Not Related, And There Is No Conflict Of

Interest
The relevant test for disqualification is whether the other representation is
substantially related to the current representation. See Gas-A-Tron of Arizona v.

Union Oil Co. of California, 534 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429
23
(35 of 1100)
U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976). A substantial relationship is

found if the factual contexts of the two representations are similar or related.
Trone v. Smith, 621 F.2d 994 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1980) (emphasis added).
We held that the "relevant test for disqualification is whether
the former representation is 'substantially related' to the
current representation."
Id. at 998; see Gas-A-Tron of
Arizona, supra, 534 F.2d at 1325; Westinghouse Electric Co.
v.
Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 221, 223 (CA7 1978).
"Substantiality is present if the factual contexts of the two
representations are similar or related." Trone, supra, 621
F.2d at 998.
Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85 (C.A.9 (Mont.),
1983) (Emphases added).
But, here, the the factual contexts of the two representations are not
similar or related. Id. Representation of Montgomery in the current case shares
no operative facts nor factual circumstances in common with Arpaios challenge to
the constitutionality of Obamas executive order on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Moreover, the complete irrelevance of Montgomery to the lawsuit even
though he is being harmed in fact destroys any claim of a conflict of interest.
Disqualification applies where serious conflict exists. Dunton v.
County of Suffolk, supra. There can be no serious conflict on matters which are
completely immaterial in the case. Since nothing concerning Montgomery is
material in Melendres v. Arpaio, nothing concerning Montgomery can be the basis
24
(36 of 1100)
of a serious conflict of interest in this case.

As a result, there is no conflict of interest between Moseleys
representation of Montgomery pro hac vice in this case and his representation
(working under Larry Klayman) for Sheriff Joe Arpaio contesting the legal validity
of President Barack Obamas executive grant of amnesty to illegal aliens.
E.
District Court Erred Denying Montgomerys Motion For Recusal
The Court erred by denying Montgomerys motion for recusal. Montgomery

filed his affidavit under 28 U.S.C. 144 as Exhibit 2 (Doc. # 1067-2), ER597, to
his Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge G. Murray
Snow Under 28 U.S.C. 144 Motion for Recusal, in which he also claimed
additional grounds requiring recusal of Judge Snow under 28 U.S.C. 455.
Montgomery relied upon the legal opinion of Professor Ronald Rotunda, a
renowned expert on Professional Responsibility and Constitutional Law, attached
as Exhibit 1; ER578. Montgomerys affidavit compelled Judge Snow to proceed
no further in the case and requires another judge shall be assigned to hear such
proceeding, without subjective analysis or discretion under 28 U.S.C. 144:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes
and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice
either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge
shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be
assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the
facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice
25
(37 of 1100)
exists.
A judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the public where
the judges wife volunteers that the judge hates the defendant and will do anything
to remove him from office34 and neither the judge nor his wife have denied it,
sought to explain the admission, nor apologized.
Moreover, Judge Snow has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary
facts concerning the proceeding. Judge Snow will have or already does have a
private explanation from his own wife of these disputed facts and events.
Any competent and uncompromised defense attorney must call Judge Snow
and his wife as witnesses in order to present a thorough defense to whatever
charges Judge Snow plans to bring. Judge Snow is likely to preside over testimony
and cross-examination of his own wife,35 who will be testifying about him.
And Judge Snow ordered $4 million of taxpayer funds paid to Covington &
Burling where his brother-in-law is a partner.36 The public would reasonably
question a judges impartiality after ordering $4 million paid to the law firm.
The demands for recusal are timely. Most of the circumstances requiring
recusal were created by Judge Snow himself starting only on April 23, 2015.
34
Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge G. Murray

Snow Under 28 U.S.C. 144 Motion for Recusal, May 7, 2015 (Docs. # 1067,
1058); ER552,541.
35
Id. at 9.
36
Id.
26
(38 of 1100)
The courts strive to eliminate even the appearance of bias. Thus even if
there is no bias in fact, an appearance of bias or prejudice requires recusal if it is
sufficient to raise a question in the mind of 'the average citizen' about a judge's
impartiality. York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C. 2001). "A judge
should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. . . ." ABA Code Of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(C)(1) see
also Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) (en banc).
An impartial judiciary is a fundamental component in any proceeding, is
protected by the Constitution. Ward v. City of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62
(1972). See also Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 243 (1980).
Disqualification or recusal is required when there is even the appearance that
"could suggest, to an outside observer, such a 'high degree of favoritism or
antagonism' to defendants' position that 'fair judgment is impossible.' Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474, 114 S. Ct. 1147 (1994)); See
also Jackson v. Microsoft Corp., 135 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40 (D.D.C. 2001) (recusal
required on an appearance of personal bias or prejudice).
The disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C. 144, is mandatory and
automatic, requiring only a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging
personal bias or prejudice of the judge. The judge is a silent
defendant, unable to make findings on the truth or falsity of the
affiant's allegations, and truth must be presumed. United States v.
Hanrahan, 248 F. Supp. 471, 474 (D.D.C. 1965)(Emphasis
added); and the allegations may be based upon information and
27
(39 of 1100)
belief, Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 34, 65 L. Ed. 481, 41 S.
Ct. 230 (1920).
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook
Railroad Co., 380 F.2d 570, 576 (D.C. 1967).
Under 455(a), a judge must recuse himself if a reasonable person with
knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. U.S. v. Nelson, 718 F .2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983).
Further, the Supreme Court has held that a violation of section 455(a) occurs
even if a judge is unaware of the circumstance that created the appearance of
impropriety. In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847
(1988), the trial judge was on the board of trustees of a university that had a
financial interest in the litigation, of which he was unaware. The court of appeals
vacated the judgment, and the Supreme Court agreed. Because the purpose is to
promote public confidence, the Court observed that recusal does not depend upon
whether or not the judge actually knew of facts creating an appearance of
impropriety, so long as the public might reasonably believe that he or she knew.
Close questions should be decided in favor of recusal. See Republic of Pan.
v. American Tobacco Co., 217 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2000); In re United States,
158 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1998); Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 352 (10th Cir. 1995);
U.S. v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732,
744 (11th Cir. 1989).
28
(40 of 1100)
In SCA Servs. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 (7th Cir. 1977), the judge's brother
was an attorney in the firm appearing before the judge. This appearance of
partiality begins with the natural assumption that brothers enjoy a close personal
and family relationship and, consequently, would be inclined to support each
other's interests. [T]he belief may arise in the public's mind that the brother's
firm and its clients will receive favored treatment. Id. at 116.
Also on point is In re Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 919 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir.
1990), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc,
required recusal. The trial judges daughters law firm represented four of seven
claimants. The judge separated the cases to try only the three claims in which his
daughters firm was not involved. On mandamus, the court reversed because the
cases remained intimately connected. Further, 28 U.S.C. 455 requires:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
***
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a
person:
***
(iv) Is to the judges knowledge likely to be a
29
(41 of 1100)
material witness in the proceeding. * * *

Also, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges CANON 2 requires:
***
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow
family, social, political, financial, or other relationships
to influence judicial conduct or judgment. * * *
CANON 3 requires:
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a
proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a)the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
***
(d)the judge or the judges spouse, or a person related to
either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such
a person is:
***
(iii) known by the judge to have an
interest that could be substantially affected by
the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judges knowledge likely to be
a material witness in the proceeding; .
IX.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

This Court should order vacate and reverse Judge Snows orders, grant
Montgomerys motion to intervene and the admission of his chosen attorney pro
hac vice, and grant the Appellants motion ordering the recusal of Judge Snow.
Dated: October 23, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
30
(42 of 1100)
General Counsel
Freedom Watch, Inc.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 345
Telephone: (310) 595-0800
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with the length limits set forth at Ninth
Circuit Rule 32, being no more than 30 pages long and approximately 7,318 words.
The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the
type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared
in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New
Roman style.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
brief with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit by using the Ninth Circuits CM/ECF system, causing it to be served upon
the following counsel of record in the case through CM/ECF:
Stanley Young, Esq.
Andrew Carl Byrnes, Esq.
333 Twin Dolphin Road
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
syoung@cov.com
650-632-4700
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Service via Email)
Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
31
(43 of 1100)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
dpochoda@acluaz.org
602-650-1854
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(Service via Email)
Cecilia D. Wang
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
cwang@aclu.org
415-343-0775
Attorney for Plaintiff Melendres
(Service via Email)
Thomas P. Liddy, Esq.
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85005
liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov
602-506-8541
Attorney for Defendant Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County
Sheriffs Office
(Service via Email)
Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.
IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 North Second Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
602-234-9775
Sheriffs Office
(Service via Email)
32
(44 of 1100)
Deborah L. Garner, Esq.

Phoenix, AZ 85003
dgarner@iafratelaw.com
602-234-9775
Sheriffs Office
(Service via Email)
Melvin McDonald
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2728
mmcdonald@jshfirm.com
602-263-1700
Attorney for Defendant Sheriff Joseph Arpaio
(Service via Email)
Andre Segura, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
asegura@aclu.org
212-549-2676
(Service via Email)
Anne Lai
UCI School of Law
401 E. Peltason Drive. Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92616
alai@law.uci.edu
949-824-9894
(Service via Email)
Jorge M. Castillo
MALDEF
33
(45 of 1100)
634 S. Spring Street, 11th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90014
jcastillo@maldef.org
213-629-2512
(Service via Email)
Richard K. Walker
WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2236
rkw@azlawpartner.com
480-483-6336
Attorney for Defendant Maricopa County
(Service via Email)
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
General Counsel
Freedom Watch, Inc.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 345
Telephone: (310) 595-0800
34
(46 of 1100)
CASE NO. 15-16440


v.
and
Case No. CV-07-2513
APPELLANTS EXCERPTS OF RECORD
Volume I of IV
Pages 1 to 242
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
Tel: (310) 595-0800
(47 of 1100)
VOLUME I
Docket
1312
1199
1192
1173
1164
Date
9/8/15
7/28/15
7/24/15
7/15/15
7/10/15
1167
1133
7/10/15
5/29/15
1134
5/29/15
1093
1115
1079
1060
1064
1053
1046
1032
5/14/15
5/21/15
5/13/15
5/8/15
5/8/15
5/7/15
5/4/15
4/27/15
4/23/15
4/24/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Notice of Appeal to Ninth Circuit
I
Order Denying Motion for Recusal or
I
Disqualification
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
I
Order (Notice Re Document Request by the
I
U.S. Department of Justice)
Order (Amended Notice Re Document
I
Request by the U.S. Department of Justice)
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order [Unsealed, releasing exhibits]
I
Order
I
Order
I
Excerpt of Transcript, containing oral orders
of trial judge, April 23, 2015, Pages 643-660
I
of trial judge, April 24, 2015
I
of trial judge, May 8, 2015
I
I
of trial judge, July 20, 2015
I
I
2
Page No.
1-2
3-4
5
6-10
11-50
51-56
57
58
59-61
62-80
81-82
83-91
92-95
96-119
120-122
123-124
125-149
150-169
170-185
186-209
210-227
228-242
(48 of 1100)
VOLUME II
Docket
Date
1198-2
7/28/15
1117
5/22/15
1112
5/19/15
1080
5/13/15
1081
5/13/15
Description
Vol.
Email, Larry Klayman to Amy Lake and
Mike Zullo, April 29, 2015, Exhibit 2, to II
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for
Admission Pro Hac Vice of Larry Klayman
Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of
District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, filed II
by Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for
Admittance Pro Hac Vice of Jonathon A. II
Moseley and Memorandum of Law in
Support Thereof
Clarification of Motion for Admittance Pro
Hac Vice of Jonathon A. Moseley
II
Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery's Notice of
Supplemental Authority and Supplemental II
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
for Intervention of Right
Page No.
243-245
246-432
433-465
466-478
479-538
(49 of 1100)
VOLUME III
Docket
Date
1057
5/7/15
1067
5/7/15
1058
5/7/15
5/2/15
1035
Judicial
Notice
Reques
ted
4/28/15
3/20/15
4/23/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion for
Intervention of Right
II
Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery's Motion
to Disqualify Judge G. Murray Snow Under II
28 U.S.C. 144
Intervenor
Dennis
L.
Montgomery's
Memorandum of Law In Support of II
Intervenor's Motion to Recuse/Disqualify
Judge G. Murray Snow under 28 U.S.C. 144
Application of Pro Hac Vice
III
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa
County Sheriffs Office Objection to Court- III
Ordered Disclosure Procedure
Plaintiffs Motion for In Chambers and Ex
Parte Interview of Witness Dennis
Montgomery, U.S. District Court for the III
District of Columbia, Case No. 1:13-cv00851, March 20, 2015, (Doc. No. 129 in that
case)
Relevant Excerpt of Transcript,April 23, 2015 III
Relevant Excerpt of Transcript, May 8, 2015
III
Relevant Excerpt of Transcript, May 14, 2015 III
Relevant Excerpt of Transcript, July 20, 2015 III
Transcript, July 24, 2015
III
Page No.
539-551
552-556
557-639
641-642
644-649
650-659
660-699
700-725
726-749
749-823
824-838
(50 of 1100)
VOLUME IV
Docket
Date
Description
Trial Court Docket Sheet
Vol.
III
Page No.
839-1035
(51 of 1100)
Case
Case:2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1312 DktEntry:
Filed 09/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
6 of
1 of
247
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on

behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.
11
12
13
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,
14
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
15
16
17
18
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
Defendants.
19
20
21
On September 4, 2015, the Court held a hearing with the Parties, and pursuant to
discussions at the hearing,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for Defendants shall review the client
23
file that Timothy Casey provided to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and produce
24
the documents requested in Plaintiffs subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Casey. Counsel for
25
Defendants shall produce all documents consistent with the previous orders of this Court
26
and provide a privilege log for any materials not produced.
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties comply with the procedure
28
suggested by Mr. Gomez, counsel for the United States, for the examination of the fifty
RE 1
(52 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1312 DktEntry:
Filed 09/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
7 of
2 of
247
2
1
2
3
4
5
hard drives.
Any material found to be privileged is subject to strict claw back
principles pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for responses to pending
interrogatories and requests for admissions shall be September 15, 2015.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2015.
6
7
Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2RE 2
(53 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1199 DktEntry:
Filed 07/28/15
13-2, Page
Page
8 of
1 of
247
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated, et al.,
13
14
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
The Court held a hearing on July 24, 2015 in which certain documents or tangible
17
things were discussed that were the subject of previous Orders by this Court and had not
18
yet been disclosed to the parties or the Monitor by the Defendants. The Court ordered
19
these documents, as specifically identified, to be turned over to the custody of the United
20
States Marshal for the District of Arizona. Three specific Departmental Record numbers
21
were identified that either involved identifications, seized by the Defendants that may
22
belong to members of the Plaintiff class, or that may contain materials associated with the
23
Montgomery investigation.
24
For those materials that were associated with a Departmental Report, Defense
25
Counsel requested that the Court provide an order requiring that the documents and
26
things associated with these DR numbers be transferred by the Maricopa County Sheriffs
27
Office to the United States Marshal for purposes of establishing a chain of custody. The
28
Court agreed to do so and Defense Counsel agreed to provide the Court with those DR
RE 3
(54 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1199 DktEntry:
Filed 07/28/15
13-2, Page
Page
9 of
2 of
247
2
numbers. On Friday the Court ordered and the MCSO turned over to the United States
Marshal all items of evidence associated with DR 14-007250, including hard drives,
documents, and/or any other materials to the United States Marshal.
complied with this Order without incident.
The MCSO
Late Friday Defense Counsel identified the two other DR files that contain
materials whose production was previously ordered by this Court.
include DR 15-14899 and DR 15-011082. Defendants are hereby ordered to turn over
each of these Departmental Reports and all items of evidence associated with those DR
files to the custody of the United States Marshal. Representatives of the Marshal shall
10
contact the MCSO to coordinate such transfer which shall be timely and efficiently
11
accomplished by the MCSO. The Marshal shall store this evidence in a secure location
12
and make it available, upon request and under secure conditions, to the parties and the
13
Monitor.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated this 28th day of July, 2015.
Those DR files
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2RE 4
(55 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1192DktEntry:
Filed 07/24/15
13-2, Page
Page
10 1ofof247
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
12
v.
13

Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
14
Defendants.
The Court held a hearing with the parties on July 24, 2015. Defendants are hereby
ordered to turn over all items of evidence associated with DR 14-007250, including hard
drives, documents, and/or any other and materials, to the custody of the United States
Marshals Service by the end of the day today, July 24, 2015. The Marshals shall store this
evidence in a secure location and make it available, upon request and under secure
conditions, to the parties and to the United States Government for copying pursuant to the
Courts previous orders. Defendants are further ordered to produce to the Marshals the
1,459 identifications that lack an associated DR number.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27

28
RE 5
(56 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1173 DktEntry:
Filed 07/15/15
13-2, Page
Page
111ofof247
57
RE 6
(57 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-2, Page
122ofof247
Case
Document
1173 DktEntry:
Filed 07/15/15
Page
57
RE 7
(58 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-2, Page
133ofof247
Case
Document
1173 DktEntry:
Filed 07/15/15
Page
57
RE 8
(59 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-2, Page
144ofof247
Case
Document
1173 DktEntry:
Filed 07/15/15
Page
57
RE 9
(60 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-2, Page
155ofof247
Case
Document
1173 DktEntry:
Filed 07/15/15
Page
57
RE 10
(61 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
161ofof247
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
11
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13

Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ; et al.
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Recusal/Motion for Disqualification
18
filed on May 22, 2015 by Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and non-party contemnor Gerard
19
Sheridan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455. (Doc. 1117.) Along with their Motion,
20
Movants1 have submitted an affidavit by Sheriff Arpaio as required by 144, as well as
21
supporting exhibits and certifications from counsel.
22
In April, the Court began the first phase of civil contempt proceedings against
23
Movants and other members of MCSOs command staff for violating a number of the
24
25
26
27
28
For clarity, the Court will refer to Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan as
Movants in relation to their pending Motion, and use Defendants when referencing
the parties named in the underlying action, Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County/the
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. Neither Maricopa County, MCSO, nor the other
named civil contemnors in this actionExecutive Chief (retired) Brian Sands, Deputy
Chief John MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Joseph Sousahave joined the Motion for
Recusal, or otherwise taken a position on its merits. (See Docs. 1129, 1135, 1137.)
RE 11
(62 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
172ofof247
40
Courts orders, entered both before and after trial. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Sheridan have admitted the facts charged in the Order to Show Cause and have consented
to the Courts entering a finding of civil contempt against them, although issues remain
about the appropriate scope of remedies for their violations. The evidentiary hearings on
contempt were slated to resume in June but have been postponed pending the resolution
of the instant Motion.
The proposed bases on which the Motion is predicated are legally insufficient and
untimely. Further, to the extent that Movants, by their own actions, created the
circumstances on which they now seek the Courts recusal, they have improperly
10
attempted to invoke the recusal provisions for strategic purposes. For these reasons, more
11
fully explained below, Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridans Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
12
13
This case has a lengthy procedural history; the following limited facts provide
14
context for the grounds on which Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan have moved
15
for recusal.
16
Over two years ago, the Court ruled that Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO had violated
17
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Plaintiff class and entered associated
18
injunctive relief. (Doc. 579.) For the past year and a half, a Monitor has been involved in
19
supervising and assessing Defendants implementation of the injunction and reporting to
20
the Court on MCSOs ongoing compliance.2 (See Doc. 649.) Since his appointment, the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Monitors position is outlined in the Supplemental Permanent Injunction.

Defendants appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed all provisions
except those that permitted the Monitor to consider MCSOs discipline for any
violations of departmental policy as well as whether any deputies are repeatedly the
subject of Complaints, civil suits, or criminal charges, including for off-duty conduct.
Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1267 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Doc. 606 at 53). The
Ninth Circuit reasoned that not every instance of officer misconduct bear[s] on the
constitutional rights at stake here, and directed that the injunction be clarified to relate to
the constitutional violations found by the Court. Id. The mandate from the Ninth Circuit
issued the day before this Order was filed. (Doc. 1163.) Thus, the Court shall more
narrowly define the aspects of MCSOs internal affairs processes that the Monitor may
consider so that they are clearly tailored to addressing the violations of federal law at
issue in this case and matters related thereto.
-2RE 12
(63 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
183ofof247
40
Court has adjusted the Monitors responsibilities in response to various issues presented
by Defendants actions.
On motion by Plaintiffs, in February the Court ordered the Sheriffs Office, Sheriff
Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and others in MCSOs chain of command to show cause
why they should not be held in contempt for violating (1) the December 23, 2011
preliminary injunction; (2) their pre-trial discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and (3) the Courts orders at a sealed hearing directing Defendants to
cooperate with the Monitor in developing a protocol to recover audio/video recordings of
traffic stops that were not disclosed during discovery. (Doc. 880.) The Order to Show
10
Cause charged the named contemnors with civil contempt only.3 (Doc. 880 at 79.)
11
Sheriff Arpaio was noticed on all three matters; Chief Deputy Sheridan was implicated in
12
the first and the third.
13
The charges in the Order to Show Cause resulted from materials MCSO had
14
posthumously found in the home of Deputy Charley Armendariz as well as from
15
MCSOs ensuing administrative investigations into Armendariz, his supervisors, and his
16
former patrol division.4 The Monitor was responsible for evaluating the sufficiency of
17
these investigations, which revealed that Defendants had failed to disclose a considerable
18
quantity of relevant evidence during pre-trial discovery. Because of Defendants
19
omission, Plaintiffs were precluded from admitting the evidence in support of their case-
20
3
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See United States v. Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining
that it would usually be wiser to try the civil and criminal charges separately in light of
the additional safeguards applicable only to criminal proceedings). The Court has noted
that if a criminal contempt prosecution proves necessary to vindicate its authority after
the civil contempt hearing, it will refer such proceedings to another judge. (See Tr. of
Mar. 20, 2015 Status Conf. 61:2362:2, Doc. 965.)
4
Some of the evidence, such as the traffic stop recordings, was plainly requested
by Plaintiffs during discovery but was never identified nor produced by Defendants.
Other evidence suggested that members of the Plaintiff class may have been subjected to
additional routine constitutional infringements other than those that were addressed in the
underlying trial. The evidence also revealed that Defendants, as a matter of regular
practice and operation, had actively enforced federal immigration law and detained
persons after officers concluded that there was no legal justification for such detention for
at least seventeen months after the Court prohibited these practices in the preliminary
injunction. (Tr. Nov. 20, 2014 Status Conf. 67:1022, Doc. 804.)
-3RE 13
(64 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
194ofof247
40
in-chief and uncovering the additional constitutional violations likely suffered by the
Plaintiff class before trial. Further, the Court did not have the evidence to consider when
making findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning what defects in MCSOs
operations and procedures had led to the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights, nor when
fashioning supplemental injunctive relief to remedy those defects. (See, e.g., Tr. of Sept.
10, 2013 Status Conf. 89:2191:23 (declining to incorporate Plaintiffs suggestions
regarding the inadequacy of MCSOs existing internal investigative practices into the
Supplemental Permanent Injunction due to the lack of evidence presented at trial on that
issue).) As a result of these revelations and procedural inadequacies in MCSOs self-
10
investigative processes that had been noted by the Monitor,5 the Court authorized
11
members of the monitoring team to conduct independent inquiries into the Armendariz
12
materials in addition to supervising those undertaken by MCSO and its Professional
13
Standards Bureau (PSB). This authorization was to allow the Monitor to assess whether
14
Defendants implementation of the Courts orders and responsiveness to the Armendariz
15
evidence promoted the constitutional and professional treatment of the Plaintiff class by
16
MCSO. (Doc. 795 at 1621, amended by Doc. 825 (following input by the parties).)
17
In the Order to Show Cause, the Court remarked that crafting suitable civil relief
18
for each of the grounds on which contempt is charged [would] be of chief interest to the
19
Court if Defendants, or their subordinates, [we]re ultimately adjudged to be in contempt
20
of court. (Doc. 880 at 25.) Prior to and throughout the contempt proceedings, the Court
21
reiterated its expectation that the parties would develop an evidentiary record sufficient
22
for the Court to fashion an appropriate remedy for members of the Plaintiff class whose
23
rights were impaired by the contemnors violations of the Courts orders and rules. (See,
24
e.g., Tr. of Mar. 20, 2015 Status Conf. 2:26, 11:612, 12:2125, 13:121, Doc. 965; Tr.
25
of Apr. 2124, 2015 Evid. Hrgs (Tr.) 44:1425, Docs. 1017, 1021, 1027, 1030, 1041,
26
5
27
28
See Memorandum from Chief Robert S. Warshaw to the Honorable G. Murray

Snow, Update and Assessment of MCSOs Armendariz and Related Investigations (Sept.
28, 2014) (Doc. 795, Attach. 1); (see generally Tr. Oct. 28, 2014 Status Conf., Docs. 776
780.)
-4RE 14
(65 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
205ofof247
40
1043; Doc. 1007 at 12.) Such a remedy would both compensate those individuals
specifically harmed by Defendants noncompliance and also provide relief for possible
system wide deficiencies, relief to which Plaintiffs may have been entitled after trial but
for Defendants discovery violations.
Approximately one month before the scheduled hearing, Sheriff Arpaio and Chief
Deputy Sheridan filed an Expedited Motion to Vacate the hearing. (Doc. 948.) Movants
admitted to being in civil contempt on the charges in the Order to Show Cause and
suggested possible remedial measures. (Id.) Plaintiffs opposed the Motion because it did
not specify how the admitted violations of the Courts orders had occurred, nor did it
10
resolve all outstanding questions involving the appropriateness and feasibility of the
11
proposed remedies. (See Doc. 952.) At the next status conference, the Court encouraged
12
the parties to pursue settlement while advising that any remedies would need to
13
adequately compel Movants compliance with the Courts orders going forwardin
14
addition to any compensatory elementbefore the Court would approve the terms. (Tr.
15
of Mar. 20, 2015 Status Conf. 38:1242:18, Doc. 965.) In the end, negotiations with
16
Plaintiffs were unsuccessful. (See Doc. 1005 at 1.) A representative of the United States
17
Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona also declined, citing departmental policy, to
18
participate in any pre-referral settlement of criminal contempt with the contemnors.6
19
(Doc. 924; Tr. of Feb. 26, 2015 Status Conf. 35:716, Doc. 926.) The Court thus denied
20
the motion without prejudice, as well as Movants renewed Motion to Vacate that was
21
substantively identical to the first. (Docs. 1003, 1007.)
22
Although the Court had ordered expedited discovery in advance of the scheduled
23
hearings on contempt, (Doc. 881), this discovery was inhibited by Defendants delays in
24
25
26
27
28
The Court is required to designate the United States Attorney for the district in
which it sits to prosecute criminal contempt of court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42. The Court
invited a representative of the Arizona USAO to attend status conferences following the
later Armendariz revelations, some of which had potential criminal implications for
members of MCSO. (Doc. 797 at 2; Tr. of Dec. 4, 2014 Status Conf. 5:48, Doc. 817.)
-5RE 15
(66 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
216ofof247
40
completing the Armendariz investigations,7 assertion of a purported privilege over
information pertaining to ongoing internal investigations, and inadequate document
search and retrieval protocols. Consequently, Defendants had not disclosed the complete
catalog of documents responsive to Plaintiffs discovery requests by the beginning of the
April hearings.8 (Docs. 995, 1002, 1013; Tr. 16:1419:1.)
At the show-cause hearing, the Court noted that it would participate in questioning
witnesses, as it had done at trial. Nevertheless, the Court invited counsel to freely object
during its examination of the witnesses,9 and counsel did, in turn, successfully raise
objections. (See, e.g., Tr. 626:1824 (Ms. Iafrate: Your Honor, may I object just as to
10
the way that question is worded? Could we include civil contempt? The Court:
11
Surely.); see also Tr. 985:1986:19 (objection sustained).) Movants both had civil and
12
criminal representation during the hearing.
13
Sheriff Arpaio testified under oath on the second and third days of the contempt
14
hearing. In framing its examination of Sheriff Arpaio, the Court explained that it was
15
important, from a remedial perspective, whether Sheriff Arpaios admitted contempt was
16
an isolated incident or reflected a pattern of resistance on his part or by MCSO to the
17
Courts directives. (Tr. 635:1218.) Accordingly, the Court questioned Sheriff Arpaio on
18
7
19
20
21
22
For example, Defendants initially indicated that all internal investigations arising
out of the Armendariz matter would be completed by March 13, 2015. (Doc. 864.)
Defendants subsequently postponed the deadline for completing these investigations until
April 13 and, again, until May 18. (Docs. 923, 1052.) The investigations have still not
been completed. As a consequence of these delays, the Monitor was unable to make
outcome assessments and recommendations based on MCSOs handling of the
Armendariz investigations before the April hearings.
8
23
24
Defendants insufficient efforts to locate and produce the documents responsive

to Plaintiffs discovery request also led to the scheduling of the additional proceedings
that were supposed to begin in June.
9
25
26
27
28
Im going to have some questions, some of them may be difficult to answer, and
Im going to certainly let your attorneys participate if they have concerns, but Im going
to try and ask you [Sheriff Arpaio] my questions with respect, and I hope youll afford
me the same in response. (Tr. 625:1216; see also Tr. 42:2044:12 (explaining that
specially appearing counsel could object where necessary to protect contemnors criminal
interests, even in the civil proceeding); Tr. 965:411 (In all seriousness, Ms. Iafrate, I
think that if you have objections or if anybody else does, they ought to make
them . . . .).)
-6RE 16
(67 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
227ofof247
40
aspects of MCSOs internal investigations that had previously raised concerns for the
Court and the Monitor about the integrity of those investigations, such as MCSOs
apparent reluctance to mete out punishment for violations of department policy and this
Courts orders. Sheriff Arpaio acknowledged that, although MCSOs failure to comply
with a court order is a pretty big deal, he had taken no action to hold anyone
responsible for the violations of the Preliminary Injunction or the Courts May 14
instructions. (Tr. 628:2029:1, 633:1219, 635:1922.) The Court also inquired about the
reassignment of Captain Steven Bailey from the command of the Special Investigations
Division (SID)which was responsible for the unit to which Deputy Armendariz was
10
assigned and that had been responsible for many of the constitutional violations found at
11
trialto the PSB at the time when the Human Smuggling Unit was under investigation
12
by the PSB because of the Armendariz materials. (Tr. 637:1938:1, 638:2540:12.) The
13
Monitor had previously identified this as a potential conflict of interest, which led to
14
MCSOs appointment of an independent contractor named Don Vogel to oversee the
15
two principal Armendariz-related investigations being conducted by MCSO. (See Tr.
16
979:2480:12.)
17
Sheriff Arpaio went on to confirm that, in addition to overseeing the Human
18
Smuggling Unit, the SID was also responsible for investigations that involved
19
confidential informants, and that someone in the SID chain of command would have been
20
responsible for approving payments to confidential sources during Captain Baileys
21
tenure there. (Tr. 642:314.) The Court then produced an article published in the Phoenix
22
New Times on June 4, 2014, the approximate time of Captain Baileys transfer to PSB.
23
(Tr. 642:1743:3.) The Court invited Sheriff Arpaio and all counsel to take a minute to
24
read the article, which alleged that MCSO was paying a confidential informant from
25
Seattle, Washington named Dennis Montgomery to investigate possible collusion
26
between this Court and the United States Department of Justice. (Tr. 643:1417.) Sheriff
27
Arpaio confirmed the existence of an investigation being conducted by MCSO, the
28
Maricopa County Sheriffs Cold Case Posse, and Mr. Montgomery, but repudiated the
-7RE 17
(68 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
238ofof247
40
articles implication that what Montgomery was actually doing was investigating [the
Court]. (Tr. 647:412.) The Court directed Defendants to preserve and immediately
produce all documents implicated by Sheriff Arpaios testimony, subject to a
contemporaneous review for privilege by counsel. (Tr. 653:1825.)
Defense counsel initiated the questioning on this matter when Chief Deputy
Sheridan took the stand the following day, which was supplemented with a handful of
follow-up inquiries by the Court. (Tr. 958:967:10.) At the end of Chief Deputy
Sheridans testimony, three separate attorneys who presently or formerly represented
Sheriff Arpaio noted an ethical obligation to correct aspects of his testimony from the
10
previous day. They have since made a variety of disclosures in fulfillment of their duty to
11
act with candor toward the tribunal, including the submission of a November 8, 2013
12
letter/investigative summary from Movants then-attorney to Sheriff Arpaio, which was
13
copied to Chief Deputy Sheridan and others at the MCSO. (Tr. 101934; see also Docs.
14
1040, 1044, 1053.) From Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridans testimony and the
15
corrective disclosures provided by former defense counsel, it is now apparent that Sheriff
16
Arpaio in fact testified as to two investigations with a possible connection to the Court.
17
The first, the Montgomery matter, was the topic of the New Times article and the
18
subject of the Courts examination. In approximately September 2013 MCSO apparently
19
hired Dennis Montgomery, a computer consultant based out of Seattle, Washington. (Tr.
20
960:914, 1006:24, 1007:2108:2.) Montgomery was given the status of an MCSO
21
confidential informant. (Tr. 998:1214, 1006:1016.) According to Movants,
22
Montgomery represented to MCSO that he was in possession of a large number of
23
documents he had obtained while employed by the United States Central Intelligence
24
Agency that the CIA had harvested from American citizens. (Tr. 1000:218.) Sheriff
25
Arpaio characterized Mr. Montgomerys investigation as pertaining to whether
26
someone had infiltrated Movants phone lines and the phones and e-mail accounts of
27
various local attorneys and judges connected to Defendants, including this Court. (Tr.
28
649:1450:6, 652:1153:8.) Chief Deputy Sheridan reiterated that Mr. Montgomery had
-8RE 18
(69 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
249ofof247
40
made allegations that the CIA hacked into individual bank accounts of county
residents, (Tr. 960:1113, 1004:911), and that he, Sheriff Arpaio, and the two law firms
representing Defendants in a related lawsuit brought against the MCSO by the
Department of Justice had been the subject of a secret wiretap by the government. (Tr.
999:161000:6.) At some point during Montgomerys investigation, Chief Deputy
Sheridan was informed that Montgomery had evidence of a communication sent by the
DOJ to the Courts computer. (Tr. 1000:1214). Sheridan testified that he ordered the
MCSO personnel working on the project not to investigate any information involving
Judge Snow, and that [i]f any further information comes up, [he] want[ed] to know
10
immediately. (Tr. 1003:1219.) He further testified that, after he issued this instruction,
11
nothing further ever did materialize. (Tr. 1003:1929.)
12
Sheriff Arpaio avowed that nothing gleaned from Montgomery gave him any
13
concern that the Courts judgment or neutrality in this case might be affected, (Tr.
14
652:1618), and Chief Deputy Sheridan similarly confirmed that there was really
15
nothing [in the information from Montgomery] to think that there was any collusion
16
between this Court and the Department of Justice. (Tr. 1003:12.) Movants both declare
17
that MCSO eventually concluded that Montgomery had made false representations
18
regarding his work product, and that they have no confidence in Montgomery or his
19
allegations; they were junk. (Id. at 650:1825, 961:111.)
20
Documents pertaining to the Montgomery investigation that were subsequently
21
disclosed pursuant to this Courts orders, however, call into question the version of
22
events testified to by Movants. Some of these documents have been filed by Plaintiffs in
23
their Response to this Motion. (Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Exs. BF (available at
24
Doc. 1153).) Although the body of documents produced has not yet been reviewed in
25
full, and the Monitor has made document requests of the County that remain pending, at
26
least some of the materials dofalselyassert the existence of telephone calls between
27
this Court and agents of the DOJ, including Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and one of this
28
-9RE 19
(70 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page2510ofof247
40
Courts former law clerks, dating back to before this case was assigned to the Court.10
They also appear to imply that this Court authorized a wiretap on MCSO. (See id., Ex. F
(available at Doc. 1153).) These documents and Sheriff Arpaios hearing testimony
further suggest that the same persons in charge of implementing the Courts injunctive
decree within MCSO and supervising MCSOs internal affairs processes were aware of
Mr. Montgomerys attempt to construct a conspiracy between the Court and other agents
of the federal executive branch. In addition, although Movants apparently knew by at
least November 2014 that the CIA database of documents from which Montgomery was
supposedly providing this information was fraudulent, (id., Ex. C (available at Doc.
10
1153)), the investigation was still ongoing as of the contempt proceedings (Tr. 651:24
11
52:4) and MCSO continued to press Montgomery for work-product until the day before
12
the hearings began. (Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Ex. E (available at Doc. 1153).) It
13
was after the Court noted some of the apparent inconsistencies between the documents
14
from the Montgomery investigation and Movants previous testimony, authorized the
15
Monitor to collect documents and conduct additional interviews on the matter, and
16
invited Movants to address these inconsistencies in the resumed contempt hearings, that
17
Movants filed the instant Motion.
18
The second investigation, the Grissom matter, came to light during the Courts
19
questioning of Sheriff Arpaio about the Montgomery investigation; the Court was
20
unaware of the Grissom matter until Sheriff Arpaio testified to its existence. After Sheriff
21
Arpaio denied being aware of any investigation involving the Court, he then testified as
22
follows:
23
Q.
Are you aware that Ive ever been investigated by

anyone?
A.
You investigated?
Q.
Yes.
24
25
26
27
10
28
The phone number that is attributed to the Court in these documents is not,
however, accurate.
- 10 RE 20
(71 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page2611ofof247
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A.
No. No.
Q.
Any of my activities?
A.
No.
Q.
Any of my family members?
A.
That have been investigated?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Not by our office.
Q.
Are you aware of anybody whos investigated any of

my family members by anyany office. Or anybody.
A.
I believe there was an issue, but once again, it wasnt

my office.
Q.
Well, whose office was it?
A.
It was an outside investigator not hired by us.
Q.
Who hired the outside investigator?
A.
Could have been Counsel.
Q.
Counsel meaning your counsel?
Q.
Yes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Tr. 647:848:3.) The Courts inquiry of Sheriff Arpaio on the Grissom matter lasted
18
only for a few minutes prior to the lunch recess. The next day, the Court asked a few
19
clarifying questions on this topic during defense counsels cross-examination of Chief
20
Deputy Sheridan. The Court asked no additional questions about a possible investigation
21
of its family members during its own colloquy with Sheridan.
22
MCSO apparently initiated the Grissom investigation after a woman named Karen
23
Grissom sent a message through Facebook.com to Sheriff Arpaio in August of 2013. Mrs.
24
Grissoms message to Sheriff Arpaio alleged that she heard this Courts wife make
25
remarks to the effect that [the Court] hates u [Arpaio] and will do anything to get u out
26
of office. (Doc. 1115 at 8; Doc. 1117, Ex. 5.) Mrs. Grissom attributes the statement to a
27
conversation she had with the Courts wife fourteen or fifteen months earlier at a local
28
restaurant. (Doc. 1115 at 6; Tr. 964:19.) Upon receiving the message, Sheriff Arpaio
- 11 RE 21
(72 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page2712ofof247
40
consulted with his counsel, Timothy Casey, who initially tried to locate Mrs. Grissom and
evaluate the credibility of her story. (Doc. 1115 at 89.) Although Mrs. Grissom repeated
the supposed memory of her encounter with the Courts wife, her demeanor and general
non-responsiveness led Mr. Casey to conclude that the matter was over and that the
information from Ms. Grissom lacked substance or merit. (Id. at 9.) Mr. Casey shared
this conclusion with Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan. (Id.)
Nevertheless, after a subsequent meeting with Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Sheridan, Mr. Casey retained Don Vogelthe independent contractor to whom the
principal Armendariz investigations were later outsourced by MCSOin October 2013
10
to further investigate Mrs. Grissoms allegations. (Id. at 10; Tr. 966:23, 2123.) In the
11
interviews Mr. Vogel subsequently conducted with Mrs. Grissom and her family, all
12
corroborated that Mrs. Grissom had met with a woman at this particular restaurant who
13
had implied harboring negative feelings toward Sheriff Arpaio. (Doc. 1115 at 1011; Tr.
14
967:1768:2.) However, they were generally unable to remember the details of the
15
conversation. (Doc. 1115 at 1011.) There were also inconsistencies in the Grissoms
16
recounting of the statement pertaining to Sheriff Arpaio supposedly made by the woman
17
in the restaurant. (Id.) According to counsel, Mr. Vogel found the Grissoms sincere and
18
truthful in their statements about what they believe they heard from Mrs. Snow. (Id. at
19
6.) Nevertheless, at the conclusion of Mr. Vogels investigation, Mr. Casey made the
20
following determination: [T]he Grissom information is, in my judgment, so
21
fundamentally flawed in its substance that it likely cannot be used in a Rule 60 motion,
22
appeal, or otherwise without the lawyer doing so violating the Federal Rules of Civil
23
Procedure and the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id. at 7, 1819.) Mr. Casey
24
recommend[ed] and strongly advise[d] Sheriff Arpaio against any use of the Grissom
25
information. (Id. (emphasis in original).)
26
Despite their hearing testimony that the investigator allegedly found the Grissoms
27
stories credible, Chief Deputy Sheridan stated that nothing came of the Grissom
28
allegations. (Tr. 968:59) He has since acknowledged both in interviews with the press
- 12 RE 22
(73 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page2813ofof247
40
and on the record that Movants took Mr. Caseys advice, given in November 2013, and
chose not to pursue the matter further (Tr. of May 14, 2015 Status Conf. 911, Doc.
1097.) Consequently, the matter sat in [Chief Deputy Sheridans] desk drawer for a year
and a half, until it came out in court when the Sheriff was on the stand because Movants
had no intention to do anything after they were told it would be unethical for [them] to
make a complaint on third-party hearsay. (Id. (quoting Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, How
Mexican Food Drew Couple Into Heart of Arpaio Case, Ariz. Republic, May 08, 2015).)
Movants counsel also avowed to the Court that the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy
accepted the advice of counsel and let it go. (Id.) Movants continue to maintain, as with
10
the Montgomery matter, that at no time was Judge Snow or his wife the subject of an
11
investigation. (Docs. 1083, Ex. 1; see also Doc. 1117 at 9; Tr. 961:89.)
12
LEGAL STANDARDS
13
The two principal statutes that govern federal judicial recusal are 28 U.S.C. 144,
14
Bias or Prejudice of Judge, and 28 U.S.C. 455, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or
15
Magistrate Judge. Section 144 provides a statutory method for seeking recusal only on
16
the basis of a federal district judges personal bias and is triggered by the filing of a
17
timely and sufficient affidavit setting forth the facts that would convince a reasonable
18
person that the judge has a bias or prejudice. 28 U.S.C. 144. The affidavit must be
19
accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
20
Id. The affidavit and accompanying certificate are strictly construed for form, timeliness,
21
and sufficiency. United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331, 1339 (7th Cir. 1993). The court has
22
a duty to proceed no further and assign the motion to another judge for a determination
23
of the merits only after it determines the affidavit is legally sufficient. United States v.
24
Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980). A party may file only one affidavit pursuant to
25
144 in any case. 28 U.S.C. 144.
26
Section 455, in contrast, has two recusal provisions. Subsection (a) states that a
27
judge. . . of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
28
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a). An objective standard

- 13 RE 23
(74 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page2914ofof247
40
applies to disqualification under 455(a), which contemplates whether a reasonable
person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.
1993). Subsection (b) enumerates specific situations that require a judge to disqualify
himself, regardless of whether the conflict of interest creates an appearance of
impropriety:
7
8
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

...
10
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his

spouse . . . has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy . . . or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; [or]
11
12
...
13
14

relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
15
...
16
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; [or]
17
(iv) Is to the judges knowledge likely to be a material

witness in the proceeding.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)(5). The analysis under section 455(b) is subjective and also selfenforcing on the part of the presiding judge. United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 915
(9th Cir. 2008).
Recusal for actual bias pursuant to subsection (b)(1) is required only if the moving
party can prove by compelling evidence that a reasonable person would be convinced
the judge was biased in a way that may prevent a fair decision on the merits.11 United
States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1201 (7th Cir. 1985); see also Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 55356 (1994) (defining bias as animus or malice of a kind that a fair-
27
28
11
The standard is identical under 445(b)(1) and 144. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867.
- 14 RE 24
(75 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3015ofof247
40
minded person could not entirely set aside when judging certain persons or causes). The
party seeking recusal carries a substantial burden of overcoming the presumption that a
district court is free from bias. United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d at 1104, 1111 (8th Cir.
2006). The other relevant provisions of 455(b) mandate disqualification on the basis of
a judges personal interest in the case or his familial relationship with a material witness
or other interested party to a proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4)(5). The statute specifies
that the degree of relationship that necessitates recusal under 455(b) is calculated
according to the civil law system, which includes spouses and siblings. Id. 455(d)(2).
Motions brought pursuant to either 144 or 455 are subject to the extrajudicial
10
source rule, meaning that the disqualifying bias or prejudice must generally stem from
11
something other than information and beliefs the judge acquired while acting in his or
12
her judicial capacity. United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012)
13
(quoting United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord
14
United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2000) (To disqualify a judge, the
15
alleged bias must constitute animus more active and deep-rooted than an attitude of
16
disapproval toward certain persons because of their known conduct. (internal quotation
17
marks omitted)). A judges courtroom conduct, expressions of opinion, or adverse rulings
18
during the course of proceedings in which disqualification is sought, or in related
19
proceedings, do not constitute a valid basis for the judges disqualification under 144
20
or 455. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; In re Marshall, 721 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 2013).
21
Recusal motions must also be filed in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. 144;
22
Preston v. United States, 923 F.3d 731, 73233 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying same timeliness
23
standard to 455 motion). This requirement avoids wasted judicial time and resources
24
and a heightened risk that litigants would use recusal motions for strategic purposes. Id.
25
(internal citations omitted). Although no per se rule exists regarding the time frame in
26
which recusal motions should be filed, they must be filed with reasonable promptness
27
after the ground for such a motion is ascertained. Id.
28
When a case is close, the balance should tip in favor of recusal. Holland, 519 F.3d
- 15 RE 25
(76 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3116ofof247
40
at 912. Nevertheless, the recusal statute is not intended to give litigants a veto power
over sitting judges, or a vehicle for obtaining a judge of their choice. United States v.
Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993). In considering whether recusal is appropriate
under 455, the judge is free to make credibility determinations, assign to the evidence
what he believes to be its proper weight, and to contradict the evidence with facts drawn
from his own personal knowledge. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d at 1202.

DISCUSSION
7
8
For the reasons set forth below, Movants have not satisfied the requirements to
bring a motion pursuant to 144. Therefore, the Court need not accept the truth of the
10
allegations in Sheriff Arpaios affidavit nor refer the Motion to another judge for a
11
determination of its merits. See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. The Court will instead consider
12
whether the record as a whole demonstrates actual bias against Movants, triggers the
13
automatic recusal provisions of 28 U.S.C. 455(b), or raises a reasonable question about
14
the Courts impartiality.12 (See Doc. 1117 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 455).)
15
I.
The Courts Actions and Rulings Relating to the Contempt Proceedings Are
16
Not Grounds for Recusal.
17
The record of the contempt proceeding belies Movants contention that the Court
18
exhibits antipathy toward Movants; nor would an objective third party perceive a
19
significant risk that the Court would resolve the case on a basis other than the merits.
20
Movants reliance on the Courts rulings and actions as the foundation for their Motion to
21
Recuse also ignores the long-settled principle that, to trigger recusal, any alleged bias
22
must spring from an extrajudicial source, not from information or beliefs the judge gained
23
over the course of litigation, or else the bias must be particularly excessive in degree. See
24
25
26
27
28
12
The Motion also refers to the recusal requirements under the Judicial Code of
Conduct. The standard for disqualification under the judicial canons is substantively
identical to that under the federal statutes. See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 870 (1988) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (explaining that 455 was
substantially revised by Congress to bring it in conformity with Canon 3C of the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges). The state canons cited in the Motion are inapplicable
to federal courts.
- 16 RE 26
(77 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3217ofof247
40
Litkey, 510 U.S. at 55051.
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan argue that the Courts conduct during
the civil contempt proceedings establish that it has a personal bias or prejudice against
them, 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1), or might cause a reasonable person to question the Courts
partiality. Id. 455(a). In particular, Movants challenge the Courts denial of their
Motions to Vacate and its invitation to the United States Attorneys Office to attend
status conferences. (Doc. 1117 at 57.) Movants further assert that the Court engaged in
outside investigations . . . that [it] infused into the proceeding, took evidence outside of
court, asked leading questions, was argumentative with and interrupted Chief
10
Deputy Sheridan, and gave [its] own testimony. (Id. at 15.) Movants attempt to prove
11
these allegations solely by reference to the declaration13 of Ronald D. Rotunda, who is a
12
professor at Chapman University School of Law. (See id. at 1415.)
13
However, the Rotunda declarationas well as Plaintiffs corresponding
14
declaration by Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Lawis an
15
expert opinion. The law of this and every Circuit is that while an expert may provide an
16
opinion to help the jury or judge understand a particular fact, the expert is not permitted
17
to give an opinion as to his legal conclusion. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
18
Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702(a) (requiring that
19
expert opinion evidence help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine
20
a fact in issue). The question presented on the recusal motion is whether 28 U.S.C. 455
21
requires this Court to disqualify itself. This decision is solely a question of law. See
22
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 92 F.3d 1561, 1581 (11th Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds,
23
520 U.S. 1261 (1997) (Whether a judge is disqualified, that is, must not take part in
24
13
25
26
27
28
Movants reply memorandum is accompanied by a second declaration from

Professor Rotunda dated June 19, 2015. (Doc. 1158, Ex. 1.) In addition to the reasons
stated below, the Court will not consider this new declaration because parties may not
present new evidence for the first time in their reply briefs. Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d
1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (Where new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion . . .
the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [non-]movant
an opportunity to respond. (quoting Black v. TIC Inv. Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir.
1990))).
- 17 RE 27
(78 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3318ofof247
40
deciding a case, is a question of law.); In re City of Houston, 745 F.2d 925, 927 (5th Cir.
1984) (same). Because both declarations only purport to offer interpretations and
analyses of 455 and express the professors opinions on whether the Court must
withdraw from this case, (see Doc. 1117, Decl. of Ronald Rotunda 2930; Doc. 1150,
Decl. of Stephen Gillers 21), they are not appropriate for the Court to consider in
deciding whether its recusal is appropriate. See in re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 174
F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (excluding expert opinions of law professors that trial
judge should recuse herself on the grounds that they impermissibly stated conclusions of
law); accord United States v. Eyerman, 660 F. Supp. 775, 781 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
10
Although the Court disregards both declarations, it is Movants who bear the
11
burden of overcoming the presumption that the Court is impartial. See Denton, 434 F.3d
12
at 1111. Movants failure to cite to anything admissible that might suggest how the
13
Courts course of examination or rulings demonstrate its actual bias against them falls
14
short of the compelling evidence standard that governs motions to recuse under
15
455(b)(1). See Hook, 89 F.3d at 355. Moreover, to the extent that the examples of the
16
Courts bias cited to by Movants are based on the Courts rulings and conduct during the
17
contempt proceedings, the Motion also fails under 455(a) and (b)(1) because judicial
18
rulings and conduct during litigation are not a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion
19
unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair
20
judgment impossible. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. If the Court committed error in relation to
21
the contempt proceedings, Movants proper recourse is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, not
22
a motion for recusal. Id. Under the circumstances, a person apprised of all relevant facts
23
would not reasonably doubt the Courts impartiality.
24
First, the proceedings in which the underlying events occurred were civil contempt
25
hearings, the factual basis for which Movants do not contest. (See Docs. 880, 948, 1003.)
26
Even if it were to accept Movants unsupported contention that the Court interrupted
27
Chief Deputy Sheridan or was argumentative, (see Doc. 1117 at 15), these actions
28
would have to be especially severe or pervasive to fairly suggest the kind of deep- 18 RE 28
(79 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3419ofof247
40
seated animus toward Movants that requires the Courts recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at
55556; see also Marshall, 721 F.3d at 1043 (holding that a series of hostile comments
toward litigant did not require the judges recusal because the comments might also be
reasonably seen as the product of [the judges] frustration with [the litigants] behavior
throughout the litigation). The record reflects that the Courts orders were violated from
a very early stage in this litigation, and that Movants continued to resist the Courts
directives after the Court entered its permanent injunction and throughout the compliance
phase. The Court has expressed concern for what it perceives to be, at best, Movants
negligent approach to the timely implementation of its orders and, at worst, a pattern of
10
knowing defiance and subversion of the Courts efforts to administer justice in this
11
action. Movants antagonism has necessitated substantial judicial corrective action; yet,
12
as of the Monitors last report, MCSO was not close to achieving full compliance with
13
the injunctive order entered nearly two years ago. See Robert S. Warshaw, Third
14
Quarterly Report 112 (2015) (Doc. 1010). The Courts comment about Movants having
15
skin in the game in any proposed settlement does not provide a basis for recusal for
16
similar reasons. The Court has previously questioned whether, due to the organization of
17
the Maricopa County governmentwhich requires the County as a whole to bear the
18
brunt of the financial costs incurred by Movants recalcitranceand Movants ability to
19
solicit contributions to fund their litigation, Movants might appreciate no adverse
20
consequences, financial or otherwise, from their admitted contempt. (See, e.g., Tr. of
21
Mar. 20, 2015 Status Conf. 52:1653:7, Doc. 965.) The Court need not ignore these facts
22
in making its rulings. See in re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 118182 (9th Cir. 1986) (When
23
[a judge imposes sanctions], the judge will obviously be dissatisfied with some aspect of
24
the offending . . . conduct[;] . . .[w]ithout more, this natural responsive attitude does not
25
provide reasonable grounds to question the judge's impartiality . . . .). Disinterestedness
26
does not mean child-like innocence. If the judge did not form judgments of the actors in
27
those court-house dramas called trials, he could never render decisions. Liteky, 510 U.S.
28
at 551 (quoting In re J.P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (2d Cir. 1943)). In this case,
- 19 RE 29
(80 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3520ofof247
40
the record does not support the conclusion that the Court was critical of or hostile toward
Movants, let alone that its behavior was serious enough to overcome the high standard
set forth in Liteky. Marshall, 721 F.3d at 1043.
Second, the accusation that recusal is required because the Court took evidence
outside of court is misplaced. (See Doc. 1117 at 15.) During the evidentiary hearing,
Sheriff Arpaio testified on the source of funding for the Montgomery investigation,
which involved MCSO deputies as well as a member of the Cold Case Posse. Sheriff
Arpaio stated that Maricopa County had not paid for the Cold Case Posse members trips
to the Seattle area. (Tr. 645:15.) During the ensuing lunch break, the Monitor mentioned
10
to the Court that the Cold Case Posse may have separate finances from MCSO. When the
11
proceedings resumed, the Court confirmed as much with Sheriff Arpaio during
12
questioning. (Tr. 657:1859:1.)
13
As an initial matter, only in the rarest of circumstances need the Court recuse
14
itself on the basis of knowledge gained in a judicial capacity. Holland, 519 F.3d at 913
15
14. The Monitor is an agent of the court and, in this role, has communicated with the
16
Court as necessary to oversee and coordinate Defendants compliance with existing
17
judicial orders on the Courts behalf. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 946 F.2d
18
180, 184 (2d Cir. 1991) (denying motion to recuse based on communications between
19
judge and court-appointed outside housing advisor). In addition, the Monitors
20
unprompted comment during the recess did not provide the Court with the kind of
21
substantive information about proceedings that cannot be controverted or tested by the
22
tools of the adversary process. See Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256, 259 (7th Cir. 1996).
23
Rather, the only evidence on this matter is in the record: Sheriff Arpaios testimony, as
24
developed through the Courts examination. Under the circumstances, then, the Courts
25
clarifying questions did not constitute an independent investigation or otherwise
26
demonstrate that the Court possessed impermissible knowledge of a disputed evidentiary
27
fact. See 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1). This would also not cause a reasonable and informed
28
observer to question the Courts impartiality. See id. 455(a); Yonkers, 946 F.2d at 184.
- 20 RE 30
(81 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3621ofof247
40
Third, the Courts orders after the first phase of the contempt hearings that
Defendants immediately produce all documents relating to the matters on which Sheriff
Arpaio had testified or pertaining to the Monitors discretion to inquire into matters . . .
pertinent to the current contempt findings are not an adequate basis for the instant
Motion.14 (See Tr. of May 14, 2015 Status Conf. 50:24-51:6, Doc. 1097.) The orders
relating to document production were justified by Defendants past failures to adequately
and timely conduct discovery and produce requested documents. These failures are one
of the grounds for contempt noticed in the Order to Show Cause to which the Movants
have admitted and are largely the reason the evidentiary hearings remain incomplete.
10
Defendants past destruction of responsive documents also has already resulted in the
11
imposition of sanctions at an earlier stage of litigation. (Doc. 493.) Movants non-
12
compliance with Court orders in a way that risked additional evidence spoliation is yet
13
another ground on which Movants are charged with, and have admitted to being in,
14
contempt. Further, Defendants ambivalence toward meeting self-imposed deadlines has
15
repeatedly delayed the judicious progression of this litigation; in the context of internal
16
affairs, for example, Defendants delay in completing the Armendariz-related
17
investigations has prevented the Monitor from being able to assess the adequacy of a
18
number of MCSOs self-investigations. In light of this history, the Courts efforts to
19
ensure the preservation of the Montgomery and Grissom documents and their timely
20
production do not fairly suggest that the tribunal is biased against Movants. See Marshall,
21
721 F.3d at 104243 (considering judges orders in light of litigants history in the case);
22
McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 892 (finding judges negative comments about a defendant did
23
not imply her partiality where they were based on the defendants known past
24
misconduct).
25
14
26
27
28
Movants arguments that the Court ordered the disclosure of materials without
providing an opportunity for counsel to conduct privilege review, or that the Court
provided the Monitor with unbounded investigative power bearing no relation to this
case, mischaracterize the record. (See, e.g., Doc. 1032; Tr. 653:1825; Tr. of May 8, 2015
Status Conf. 30:14, 30:2531:15, Doc. 1086; Tr. of May 14, 2015 Status Conf. 53:12
56:25, Doc. 1097.)
- 21 RE 31
(82 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3722ofof247
40
The Courts specification following the first phase of the contempt hearing that the
Monitors investigative and oversight authority extended to the Montgomery
investigation is likewise responsive to Movants testimony and does not otherwise imply
an invidious motive on the part of the Court. Under the terms of the Supplemental
Permanent Injunction, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and its inherent power, the
Court has continuing authority to modify the Monitors role in adaption to changed
circumstances. (See Doc. 606); Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 380
81 (1992). Since the permanent injunction was entered, Defendants actions have resulted
in a number of modifications to the scope of the Monitors authority.
10
For instance, in April 2014 the Court, at the parties request, amended the
11
Supplemental Permanent Injunction to transfer responsibility for conducting community
12
outreach programs designed to improve relations with the Plaintiff class from Defendants
13
to the appointed Monitor after Defendants objected to their compelled participation in
14
these programs. (Tr. of March 24, 2014 Hrg, Doc. 662; see Doc. 670.) Around this time,
15
the Court became aware that Movants and other members of MCSOs command staff had
16
repeatedly mischaracterized the Courts orders since it issued its Findings of Fact,
17
including during a training organized for MCSO patrol deputies and in other public
18
forums. (See Docs. 656 at 414, 680 at 13, 684 at 4; Tr. of Mar. 24, 2014 Hrg, Doc.
19
662; Tr. of Apr. 3, 2014 Hrg, Doc. 672; Tr. of Oct. 28, 2014 Status Conf., Doc. 776.)
20
After the Movants agreed to voluntarily address these misrepresentations, subsequent
21
press coverage caused Sheriff Arpaio to change his mind. (Doc. 680 at 3.) The Court, in
22
response, entered an enforcement order requiring that Defendants distribute a corrective
23
statement within MCSO and that command staff and patrol personnel take steps to
24
familiarize themselves with the content of the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions
25
of Law; the Court assigned to the Monitor the responsibility for verifying Defendants
26
compliance with that order. (Doc. 680 at 4.) The following month, developments brought
27
about by the death of Deputy Armendariz put MCSO in the conflicted position of
28
investigating its own operations and supervisors in matters related to this litigation. When
- 22 RE 32
(83 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3823ofof247
40
MCSO insisted on undertaking such investigations despite the conflict of interest,
Defendants agreed that the Monitors involvement and oversight was appropriate. (See
Tr. of May 14, 2014 Status Conf. 95:696:15, Doc. 700.) In November 2014, concerns
about the adequacy of MCSOs investigations into the Armendariz issues, and the
revelation that MCSO had never complied with this Courts preliminary injunction,
resulted in the addition of an independent investigative component to the Monitors
authority. (Doc. 795.) At each stage, the supplements to the Monitors responsibilities
were discussed with the parties and the memorializing orders revised at their suggestion.
Movants do not explain why a detached third party would now infer bias from the
10
Courts specification that the Monitors independent investigative authority allowed him
11
to look into the Montgomery investigation. Certainly, the documents produced by
12
Defendants after Movants testimony do suggest, at a minimum, the inaccuracy of their
13
previous testimony sufficient to justify the Monitor to consider such matters in
14
conjunction with his investigative and oversight authority.
15
Lastly, Movants assertion that the Courts questions denied them of due process
16
is baseless. The Federal Rules of Evidence plainly extend to the Court the right to
17
participate in questioning witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 614 & advisory committee notes; see
18
also Barba-Reyes v. United States, 387 F.2d 91, 93 (9th Cir. 1967) ([T]he function of a
19
federal trial judge is not that of an umpire or of a moderator at a town meeting. . . . [I]t is
20
his duty to see that a case on trial is presented in such way as to be understood . . . . He
21
should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts; and it is no
22
ground of complaint that the facts so developed may hurt or help one side or the other.).
23
In addition, in a civil contempt proceeding, it is the offended judge [who is] solely
24
responsible for identifying, prosecuting, adjudicating, and sanctioning the contumacious
25
conduct. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994).
26
The record further indicates that on the first day of the contempt proceedings the Court
27
informed the parties of its intent to participate in questioning witnesses. (Tr. 140:612.)
28
Movants were each represented by civil and criminal counsel at the show-cause hearings,
- 23 RE 33
(84 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page3924ofof247
40
none of which objected to the Courts examination at the time or to the questions posed to
either Movant, despite being invited to do so by the Court. (Tr. 625:1216); cf. Fed. R.
Evid. 614(b)(c); Stillman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 811 F.2d 834, 839 (4th Cir. 1987)
([T]he failure of . . . counsel to object to any of this questioning at trial precludes our
review of this issue on appeal.). Due process guarantees the right to be fairly heard
before the Court arrives at a decision. See Little v. Kern Cnty. Sup. Ct., 294 F.3d 1075,
1080 (9th Cir. 2002). However, a fact witness in a legal proceeding has no constitutional
entitlement to advance notice of every question he might be asked. The now-challenged
topics on which the Court questioned Movants are relevant to the Courts determination
10
of the extent of Defendants resistance to the Courts orders and what measures are
11
necessary to compel Movants ongoing compliance with its orders and provide
12
comprehensive relief to the Plaintiff class for Movants contempt. Moreover, the Courts
13
intervention in witness examination was particularly appropriate in light of the fact that
14
Defendants had restricted Plaintiffs ability to develop the evidentiary record by
15
withholding discoverable evidence. See United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 775 (4th
16
Cir. 1983) (noting judges questioning of witnesses is especially appropriate in such
17
circumstances). No due process violation occurred merely because Movants compelled
18
testimony revealed evidence contrary to Movants interests in the litigation, namely, that
19
MCSO may have hired a confidential informant at least partly in an attempt to discredit
20
this Court by linking it to a speculative conspiracy. Barba-Reyes, 387 F.2d at 93; cf.
21
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991) (remarking on district courts inherent
22
power to police litigants whose actions show bad faith or the intent to hamper
23
enforcement of court orders).
24
Under the principles discussed above, Movants arguments for recusal that relate
25
to the Courts conduct in and around the contempt hearing are foreclosed by the record
26
and the extrajudicial source rule. The examples Movants provide of the Courts alleged
27
bias consist of rulings and conduct all occurred in the course of judicial proceedings and
28
neither reflect a negative opinion of Movants based on facts that the Court acquired
- 24 RE 34
(85 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4025ofof247
40
extrajudicially, nor display a level of antagonism that would impede fair judgment on the
merits. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556. Sheriff Arpaio is a frequent litigant before this Court
on a wide variety of civil matters, and is a named defendant in a half-dozen pending cases
assigned to the Court in which he has not sought the Courts recusal. This further
suggests that the impetus for Movants efforts to disqualify the Court in this case is not
concern that the Court harbors any extrajudicial bias against Sheriff Arpaio or Chief
Deputy Sheridan, but, rather, stems from their dissatisfaction with the Courts rulings in
this case, which is not an issue properly resolved through a disqualification motion. See
id. at 55556. Although a court must recuse when the provisions of 455 are implicated,
10
it also has an obligation to hear all cases assigned to it when there is no legitimate reason
11
to recuse. Holland, 519 F.3d at 912. In this case, nothing about the Courts conduct
12
pertaining to the contempt hearing warrants its recusal under 455(a) or (b)(1).
13
II.
The Montgomery and Grissom Investigations Do Not Give the Court or its
14
Wife a Disqualifying Interest in the Outcome of the Proceedings,
15
Demonstrate its Actual Bias, or Otherwise Warrant Recusal.
16
Neither the facts underlying the Grissom and Montgomery investigations nor the
17
Courts inquiry into those investigations demonstrate actual bias or reasonably risk an
18
appearance of partiality to an objective third party with knowledge of the matters. See 28
19
U.S.C. 455(a)(b)(1). Furthermore, neither investigation implicates an interest of the
20
Court or its wife that stands to be substantially affected by the outcome of this
21
proceeding. See id. 455(b).
22
A.
The Montgomery Matter
23
A charge of bias or prejudice under 455(b)(1) or that a judges impartiality might
24
reasonably be questioned under 455(a) must be sufficiently grounded in fact to generate
25
doubt in the mind of a fully informed, objective observer; mere speculation or innuendo
26
is not enough. See in re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 695 (1st Cir. 1981). In this case,
27
nobodynot even Movantsasserts that the Court was actually involved in the alleged
28
conspiracy that is reflected in the documents on the Montgomery matter produced by

- 25 RE 35
(86 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4126ofof247
40
Defendants subsequent to Movants testimony. (See Tr. 1003:12) Sheriff Arpaio and
Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that they no longer have confidence in any of the
materials provided by Mr. Montgomerythey believed those materials to be junk (Tr.
650:2025)that they had always been very skeptical of Mr. Montgomerys claims,
and that they finally realized that he was stringing [them] along. (Tr. 1002:216.)
Among other problems apparent from the face of the Montgomery materials, the
telephone number attributed to the Court in documents that purported to prove phone
calls with the Department of Justice, (Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Ex. B (available
at Doc. 1153)),
is similar to, but has never been, the Courts telephone number.
10
[R]umor, speculation . . . and similar non-factual matters that are advocated by no one
11
do not suffice to establish actual bias. Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal.,
12
428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005).
13
Nor do they raise a reasonable question about the Courts impartiality: Sheriff
14
Arpaio testified that nothing about the Montgomery matter affected his perception of the
15
Courts ability to remain neutral in this case. (Tr. 652:1618.) Chief Deputy Sheridan
16
also disclaimed that the Montgomery materials caused him to believe there was collusion
17
between the Court and the Department of Justice. (Tr. 1002:12.) Movants continue to
18
contend under penalty of perjury that the Montgomery investigation never involved any
19
investigation of [the Court]. (Doc. 1117 at 9; Doc. 1083, Ex. 1 (At no time was an
20
investigation initiated against Judge Snow . . . . At no time was Judge Snow or his wife
21
the subject or target of investigation.).) Movants have neither sought to recant those
22
declarations nor assert the truth of the conspiracy apparently outlined in the Montgomery
23
documents. If Movants, knowing the facts of the Montgomery investigation as they did,
24
did not doubt the Courts impartiality it follows that a reasonable person would not either.
25
See 28 U.S.C. 455(a).
26
To the extent that the Movants seek to now implicitly assert the truth of the
27
Montgomery materials, they are precluded from doing so because a party must seek to
28
disqualify a judge in a timely fashion after he becomes aware of the basis for
- 26 RE 36
(87 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4227ofof247
40
disqualification. Yet, Movants knew about the content of the Montgomery documents for
some time before they filed the instant Motion. See Preston, 923 F.3d at 73233 (quoting
Molina v. Rison, 886 F.2d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989)). At the contempt hearing, Chief
Deputy Sheridan testified that, over the course of Mr. Montgomerys investigation, he
was presented with materials suggesting that the Department of Justice had made contact
with the Court; it was at this point that he apparently ordered his subordinates to
undertake no investigation of the Court. He further testified that no additional materials
regarding the Court materialized after this point in time. Therefore, assuming the
accuracy of Chief Deputy Sheridans testimony, he has long been aware of all of the
10
Montgomery documents implicating the Court in an alleged conspiracy, but nevertheless
11
elected not to seek the Courts disqualification until May 2015after the Court invited
12
the parties to address the seeming inconsistencies between the Montgomery documents
13
and Movants testimony and months after Movants apparently lost faith in Mr.
14
Montgomerys credibility.15 There is a presumption that a recusal petition submitted after
15
the moving party suffers adverse rulings has been filed for suspect tactical and strategic
16
reasons. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9th Cir.
17
1992).
18
Furthermore, that the Court inquired into the Montgomery investigation is not a
19
proper basis for the Courts disqualification under 455(b)(1) because there is nothing to
20
suggest the Courts examination was the product of extrajudicial bias. See Liteky, 510
21
U.S. at 555. Aspects of the Montgomery investigation are relevant to this litigation for
22
reasons the Court has already explained on the record. Sheriff Arpaio began a time- and
23
resource-intensive operation involving Mr. Montgomery at a time when MCSO was
24
25
26
27
28
15
The New Times article that summarizes what the documents subsequently
produced by Defendants tend to show was also published over a year ago, and documents
that have since been produced by Defendants reinforce the timeline testified to by
Movants, that they suspected Mr. Montgomery was stringing MCSO along for at least
several months. (See Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Ex. C (compiling e-mails from at
least November 2014 challenging Mr. Montgomerys work product) (available at Doc.
1153).)
- 27 RE 37
(88 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4328ofof247
40
under an obligation to implement the Supplemental Permanent Injunction. To the extent
that MCSO may have been trying to use Montgomery to discredit the Court and
undermine the legitimacy of its judgment in the underlying lawsuit, these facts are
relevant to the attitude that Defendants have toward the Court and its orders, and to the
corrective measures that may be necessary to remedy Movants contempt and achieve the
implementation of the permanent injunctive relief. This may be particularly germane in
light of the evidence that MCSO apparently continued to press Mr. Montgomery for work
product up until the eve of the show-cause hearings even after his credibility was found
to be lacking. (Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Exs. CE (available at Doc. 1153).)
10
The integrity and transparency of MCSOs PSB and SID processes are also
11
implicated by the Montgomery investigation. There is no dispute that there was
12
misconduct within the HSU and the MCSO generally that is relevant to this lawsuit,16
13
including patrol deputies unexplained confiscation of personal identifications and other
14
items. These matters were, at least at the time, systemically under-investigated by
15
supervisors within the SID. Further, the intentional destruction of the evidence of that
16
misconduct may have been sanctioned by those in charge. The inquiry into these issues
17
when they finally came to lightwas handled internally by PSB at the election of MCSO
18
and ultimately compromised by conflicts of interest, delays, and procedural inadequacies.
19
There now appears to have been substantial overlap in the personnel who failed to
20
adequately supervise Deputy Armendariz and the HSU, and those who were responsible
21
for the Montgomery investigation with its speculative ties to this Court. This raises
22
obvious questions about whether those personnel are, in fact, working to implement all of
23
this Courts orders in good faith, especially since the documents that have been produced
24
from the Montgomery investigation tend to suggest that Movants testimony on the
25
matter may have been at least partially inaccurate. Therefore, the Courts questions about
26
16
27
28
Defendants have never contested the relevance of the Armendariz materials to

the Plaintiffs underlying constitutional claims or that it falls within the scope of the
Monitors oversight. (See, e.g., Tr. of May 14, 2014 Status Conf. 55:2156:8, 73:2024,
Doc. 700.)
- 28 RE 38
(89 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4429ofof247
40
the Montgomery investigation are relevant to this proceeding, and there is nothing to
suggest that the questions were motivated by deep-rooted antagonism against Movants.
See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
In addition, to the extent that Movants are responsible for creating the
circumstances that they now offer as grounds for their Motion, the Montgomery materials
provide no basis for judicial disqualification. The Ninth Circuit is clear that a party
cannot effect recusal of a trial judge by its own actions. [B]aseless personal attacks on or
suits against the judge by a party, quotes attributed to the judge or others, but which are
in fact false or materially inaccurate or misleading, or attempts to intimidate the judge
10
will not suffice to trigger the Courts disqualification. Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1179
11
(quoting Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995)). Movants instigated the
12
Montgomery matter and have controlled the investigation and the limited disclosures to
13
date concerning its subject, scope, outcome, and relevance to this Court and Movants
14
contempt. By bringing the Motion, Movants stalled additional discovery into the
15
Montgomery materials from occurring. This kind of risk of strategic manipulation is what
16
455 (and its timeliness requirement) explicitly does not allow.
17
Lastly, none of the specific disqualifying subsections of 455(b) are applicable
18
here. Under 455(b)(4), a judge must recuse himself if he has a financial interest in the
19
subject matter in controversy or any other interest that could be substantially affected
20
by the outcome of the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4). A judge must also disqualify
21
himself under 455(b)(5)(iii) where he or his spouse is known by the judge to have an
22
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Id.
23
455(b)(5)(iii). A disqualifying interest is one that concerns the subject matter of the
24
litigation or a party to it. See in re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1314
25
(2d Cir. 1988). Courts have generally limited the kinds of interests for which recusal is
26
mandatory to those that are somehow pecuniary or proprietary in nature. See Guardian
27
Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land, 525 F.3d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 2008); In re N.M.
28
Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 620 F.2d 794, 796 (10th Cir. 1980); In re Va. Elec. & Power
- 29 RE 39
(90 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4530ofof247
40
Co., 539 F.2d 357, 367 (4th Cir. 1976); (see also Doc. 138 at 1516.) Even if a courts
concern with its general reputation were sufficient to constitute an interest within the
meaning of 455(b)(4) and (b)(5)(iii), such an interest would not be affected in this case
because no one claims that the conspiracy outlined in the Montgomery documents is true.
See Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) ([W]here an interest is
not direct, but is remote, contingent or speculative, it is not the kind of interest which
reasonably brings into question a judge's partiality. (quoting in parenthetical Sensley v.
Albritton, 385 F.3d 591, 600 (5th Cir. 2004))).
B.
The Grissom Matter
10
As with the Montgomery matter, the Courts questions and orders relating to the
11
Grissom matter do not warrant its recusal under 455(b)(1) or (a). See Liteky, 510 U.S.
12
at 555. The Courts knowledge of the Grissom investigation was acquired in the course of
13
this judicial proceeding, and the Courts conduct since learning of its existence in no way
14
suggests that the Court is now biased or prejudiced against Movants in a way that
15
threatens its ability to evaluate the case on the merits, let alone evidences the degree of
16
antagonism required to justify recusal where no extrajudicial source is involved. See id.
17
Although the Court had read the New Times article concerning an alleged
18
investigation of the Court by MCSO, the Court had no awareness of the Grissom matter
19
until Sheriff Arpaio testified, in response to the Courts questioning about the reported
20
investigation, that he knew of an investigation involving a member of the Courts family.
21
The Court asked a few follow-up questions of Sheriff Arpaio; then, the next day, defense
22
counsel elicited testimony on the matter from Chief Deputy Sheridan, apparently in an
23
attempt to clarify Sheriff Arpaios earlier statements. However, aspects of Sheriff
24
Arpaios testimony were sufficiently inaccurate to prompt the disclosure of additional
25
materials on the subject by Sheriff Arpaio and his former attorneys. (See generally Tr.
26
10191035; Doc. 1083, Ex. 1.) As a result, the Grissom matter garnered further attention
27
as the Parties litigated the applicability of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
28
immunity to some of those disclosures. The Courts own examination of Movants on this
- 30 RE 40
(91 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4631ofof247
40
matter has been minimal, and Movants provide no evidence that is reasonably suggestive
of any newly generated bias on the part of the Court since it learned of Mrs. Grissoms
allegations and Movants decision to investigate them.
Mrs. Grissoms paraphrasing of a statement allegedly made by the Courts wife,
alone, does not suffice to warrant the Courts recusal. Sheriff Arpaios counsel initially
evaluated the statement and Mrs. Grissom and concluded that her allegations lacked
substance or merit. (Doc. 1115 at 9.) Nonetheless, apparently at the request of Sheriff
Arpaio, Mr. Casey took the additional step of retaining Mr. Vogel to investigate the
matter further. (Id. at 10; Tr. 966:23, 2123.) After reviewing the results of that
10
investigation, Mr. Casey concluded that the Grissom information was fundamentally
11
flawed and provided no basis for a Rule 60 motion [or] appeal . . . without the lawyer
12
doing so violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Arizona Rules of
13
Professional Conduct. (Doc. 1115 at 7, 1819.) Movants acknowledge that they
14
accepted this advice against any use of the Grissom information and let the matter go.
15
Movants stood by this decision even after the first phase of the contempt
16
proceedings. Sheriff Arpaios specially appearing counsel (who filed the instant motion)
17
stated publicly following Sheriff Arpaios testimony that the Grissom matter was not a
18
basis on which the Court should recuse. (See Doc. 1150, Aff. of Cecilia Wang, Ex. H.) In
19
addition, Movants argued before Magistrate Judge Boyle that nothing about the Grissom
20
investigation was relevant to issues at stake in this case in order to preserve attorney-
21
client privilege and work-product immunity over the November 2013 letter disclosed by
22
Mr. Casey in which he had summarized Mr. Vogels findings for Sheriff Arpaio. (See
23
Doc. 1073 at 45; Doc. 1107 at 5.) Movants were successful in preventing disclosure of
24
portions of the letter because Judge Boyle was apparently convinced, as Movants
25
claimed, that the facts underlying the Grissom investigation did not relate to the contempt
26
proceedings. (Doc. 1053 at 6.) The recusal statutes do not allow for the use of
27
disqualifying elements as a sword and a shield any more than the doctrines of attorney-
28
client privilege and work-product immunity do. See Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v.
- 31 RE 41
(92 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4732ofof247
40
Barnett Bks. of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 913 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that the
disqualification statute was intended as a shield, not a sword, and that disqualification
cannot be used as an insurance policy to be cashed in if a partys assessment of his
litigation risks turns out to be off and a loss occurs). Accordingly, the history amply
demonstrates that Movants themselves have concluded, repeatedly and after thorough
investigation of all of the facts, that the Grissom matter does not warrant the Courts
recusal. The Court agrees with these conclusions.
When a party becomes aware of a basis to seek to disqualify a judge, it must act
with reasonable promptness after the basis for disqualification is ascertained. Preston,
10
923 F.3d at 73233. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that a party that unduly delays the
11
filing of a recusal motion is presumed to be filing it for manipulative purposes. See E. &
12
J. Gallo, 967 F.2d at 129596. Sheriff Arpaio became aware of the Grissom allegations
13
in August 2013, and, after inquiries by his attorney and an independent investigator,
14
elected not to pursue the Grissom matter further. Now, nineteen months later, Movants
15
have filed the instant Motion for disqualification. In the interim time, the Armendariz
16
materials came to light, precipitating the revelation of additional evidence of MCSOs
17
repeated failures to comply with the orders of this Court and the institution of civil
18
contempt hearings. Movants delay in raising the Grissom allegations until after the
19
contempt proceedings were underway not only raises the specter of attempted
20
manipulation of the judicial process, it runs counter to 455s requirement of prompt
21
action.
22
In an apparent attempt to bolster their argument for recusal, Movants now assert
23
that because testimony about the Grissom investigation occurred during the contempt
24
hearing, then Mrs. Snow is undoubtedly a material witness in this proceeding. (Doc.
25
1117 at 14; but see also id. at 14 (noting the irrelevance of the Grissom and
26
Montgomery investigations to the issue of whether the admitted contempt of the
27
Preliminary Injunction occurred . . .).) However, 455(b)(5)(iv) requires recusal only
28
when the judge or his spouse is to the judges knowledge likely to be a material witness
- 32 RE 42
(93 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4833ofof247
40
in the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(iv). A material witness is one who can testify
about matters having some logical connection with the consequential facts of a case.
Williams v. Stewart, 441 F.3d 1030, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Blacks Law
Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)); United States v. Vazquez-Botet, 453 F. Supp. 2d 362, 370
(D.P.R. 2006) (applying definition in context of motion under 455(b)(5)(iv)). The Court
has no reason to think that its spouse will be a material witness in any proceeding
pertaining to either the instant Motion or to the civil contempt proceedings. First, Sheriff
Arpaios former attorney already concluded that Mrs. Grissoms claims were
fundamentally flawed and legally insufficient. Movants accepted that conclusion. Second,
10
all of the facts from the Grissom investigation were known by Movants by the fall of
11
2013, and seeking disqualification on their basis now is untimely, regardless of which
12
provision of the statute Movants claim it triggers. See E. & J. Gallo, 967 F.2d at 1295
13
n.8; Preston, 923 F.2d at 733. Third, Movants do not suggest a single example of
14
admissible testimony that the Courts wife could offer: the Grissom allegation is not of
15
material importance to the show-cause hearing, nor did Movants request a hearing in
16
conjunction with their Motion for disqualification at which such testimonial evidence
17
might be taken. A judge will not be disqualified under 455(b)(5)(iv) based on mere
18
speculation that the judge or his family member will be called as a witness. See United
19
States v. Rivera, 802 F.2d 593, 601 (2d Cir. 1986) (finding judge was not required to
20
recuse himself on the basis of defendants allegations that judge would be material
21
witness at a requested hearing where defendants did not allege sufficient facts
22
demonstrating their entitlement to the hearing). Fourth, there is no precedent for
23
Movants contention that an alleged statement by a judges spouse that might be used to
24
question the judges impartiality is grounds for disqualification because the spouse is
25
likely to be a material witness. If this was the case, a party could deliberately
26
manipulate the recusal process by raising statements whose substance is fundamentally
27
flawed to demonstrate the supposed bias of the presiding judicial officer and attribute
28
them to the judge or a family member and, by forcing their contravening testimony to
- 33 RE 43
(94 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page4934ofof247
40
rebut the charge of bias, oblige the judge to recuse under 455(b)(5)(iv). That is exactly
what Movants attempt to do here by trying to re-raise a forfeited suggestion of alleged
bias. To the extent that anything about the Grissom matter continues to have incidental
relevance to this casefor example, it may illuminate that factual misrepresentations
have been made on the record, and suggests the existence of yet another potential conflict
in Defendants selection of Don Vogel as the independent contractor to whom to
outsource the Armendariz investigationsit is not because the Courts wife will be a
material witness.
Section 455s commitment to fairness in the administration of justice does not
10
require recusal upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or
11
prejudice. Holland, 519 F.3d at 913. If a judge were to allow manipulation to deter the
12
normal course of litigation, this would equally risk subvert[ing] [judicial] processes,
13
undermin[ing] our notions of fair play and justice, and damag[ing] the publics
14
perception of the judiciary. Id. at 915. Accordingly, the reasonable person as to whom
15
the Court must evaluate the appropriateness of its recusal in light of a cases
16
particularities is not someone who is hypersensitive or unduly suspicious, but rather is
17
a well-informed, thoughtful observer. Id. at 913 (quoting In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384,
18
385 (7th Cir. 1990)). After careful consideration of all of the relevant facts, there is no
19
basis to believe the Court or its wife has a disqualifying bias or interest in the litigation
20
based on the Grissom matter. Moreover, Mrs. Grissoms allegations do not raise a
21
reasonable question about the Courts impartiality, because a neutral observer would not
22
infer the existence of actual prejudice against Movants from a single instance of third-
23
party hearsay that Movants own counsel determined to be baseless. See 28 U.S.C.
24
455(a).
25
III.
The Courts Brother-in-Laws Partnership Interest Does Not Require the
26
Courts Recusal
27
Movants also revive as an issue the Courts brother-in-laws affiliation with
28
Covington & Burling LLP, the law firm that represents Plaintiffs in this case. That a
- 34 RE 44
(95 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5035ofof247
40
relative of a judge is a law partner of an attorney of record triggers a judges recusal only
if the nature of the familial relationship raises a reasonable question about the judges
impartiality, or if the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm
that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.
455(a), (b)(5)(iii); Pashaian v. Eccelston Props., Ltd., 88 F.3d 77, 8384 (2d Cir.
1996).
The Court raised the issue of whether its withdrawal was appropriate in light of its
brother-in-laws partnership interest at Covington with the parties three years ago, prior
to trial. The Court entered an order setting forth the nature of its relationship with Mr.
10
Teel, the extent of its past consideration of the matter, and the reasons why its recusal
11
was not compelled by law or the judicial canons.17 (Doc. 537.) The Court also noticed a
12
hearing, (Doc. 539), at which it offered to recuse on the request of any party and to vacate
13
the orders it entered after Covington & Burlings appearance, including the Summary
14
Judgment and Preliminary Injunction order of December 23, 2011. (Tr. of June 29, 2012
15
Status Conf. 5:199:17, Doc. 1149.) At the hearing, Defendants agreed recusal was not
16
mandatory and affirmatively stated that they desired this case to remain on the Courts
17
docket. (Id. 15:1317:2.) Defendants also filed a notice indicating they expressly
18
waiv[ed] any and all appeal issues regarding . . . the Courts potential bias, impartiality,
19
and/or conflict of interest potentially implicated by its brother-in-laws partnership
20
interest at Covington & Burling. (Doc. 541.)
21
The Court, in another order, concluded that the Courts brother-in-law had no
22
interest, financial or otherwise, that required the Courts recusal under 455(b)(5)(iii),
23
and that no reasonable and objective observer would question the Courts impartiality
24
25
26
27
28
17
In 2010 when Covington was substituted as counsel for Plaintiffs the Court
reviewed the case law, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and the
commentaries to the canons and determined its recusal was not necessary, although the
Court later observed that it may have been preferable to have fully discussed the matter
with the parties at this time. (See Doc. 537.)
- 35 RE 45
(96 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5136ofof247
40
based on Mr. Teels partnership at Covington.18 (Doc. 542.) As Plaintiffs explained,
Covington had screened Mr. Teel from participating in the case or receiving any income
that may accrue to the firm, so he had no existing economic stake in the case. Further, no
party had articulated a non-pecuniary interest of Mr. Teels that might be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(iii), and the Court
reasoned that any speculative reputational benefits or Mr. Teels general interest in his
firms goodwill and client relationships did not amount to a disqualifying interest under
455(b)(5)(iii) under the facts of this case. In the intervening three years, nothing that
has occurred alters the Courts initial analysis: Movants offer no evidence suggesting that
10
Mr. Teel has acquired an interest in the interim time that could be substantially affected
11
by the outcome of these proceedings nor do they explain why the Courts impartiality
12
would now be questioned by any abstract personal interest of Mr. Teels in this litigation.
13
See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that recusal
14
is not required where the alleged interest is remote).
15
In any event, this ground for recusal has long been forfeited. Covington & Burling
16
first entered an appearance in 2010. Sheriff Arpaio was aware of the issue prior to trial
17
three years ago and expressly waived the conflict. (See Doc. 541; see also Doc. 1117 at
18
13 (acknowledging that Movants waived this basis for recusal early in this action).)
19
Although the parties could not remit the Courts disqualification if recusal was required
20
under 455(b)(5)(iii), a conflict that is disqualifying only because it risks a judges
21
appearing impartial can be waived. 28 U.S.C. 455(e); United States v. Conforte, 624
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
The primary conflict observed by the Court was between the commentary to the
judicial canons, which notes that [t]he fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated
with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify
the judge, Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, cmt. Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii), and the advice of
the United States Committee on Codes of Conduct, which suggests a categorical rule of
recusal when a relative within the third degree of relationship of a judge has an equity
interest in a law firm in a case before that judge. Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges Canon
3C, Advisory Opinion No. 58. The Court explained at length in its earlier opinions on the
matter why the per se rule of disqualification set forth in Advisory Opinion No. 58 is an
erroneous interpretation of Judicial Canon 3C and the corollary subsection of 455(b).
(See Docs. 537, 542.).
- 36 RE 46
(97 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5237ofof247
40
F.2d 869, 88081 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, even claims for recusal under 455(b) may be
lost by inaction after the facts supporting the claim are known by the party and no motion
is timely made. See E. & J. Gallo, 967 F.2d at 1295 n.8 (The timeliness of a partys
presentation to the court of information it has that comprises a potential ground for
disqualification is a different issue than is addressed by subsection (e).). Movants
failure to raise this ground for disqualification before now precludes them from
attempting to do so at this juncture.
IV.
This Motion Is Legally Insufficient Under 28 U.S.C. 144.
Section 144 provides for the assignment of a new judge when a party to a
10
proceeding files a timely and legally sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or
11
prejudice on the part of a judge before whom the matter is pending. 28 U.S.C. 144. All
12
144 motions must also be accompanied by a certificate of good faith from counsel for
13
the party moving for recusal. Id. Because the judge must accept the truth of the facts
14
alleged in the affidavit as demonstrating the purported bias, the affidavit and certificate of
15
counsel are strictly construed for form, timeliness, and sufficiency. United States v.
16
Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331, 1339 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Rademacher v. City of Phoenix, 442 F.
17
Supp. 27, 29 (D. Ariz. 1977) (explaining that affidavits filed in support of 144 motions
18
must be given the utmost of strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous
19
attacks upon its dignity and integrity and to prevent abuse and to insure orderly
20
functioning of the judicial system. (internal citations omitted)). The judge against whom
21
a 144 affidavit of bias is filed may pass on its legal sufficiency. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868.
22
For the reasons set forth above, Movants affidavit is legally insufficient. Recusal
23
motions brought pursuant to 144 are subject to the same timeliness requirement and
24
extrajudicial source rule as 455 motions. See 28 U.S.C. 144; United States v. Studley,
25
783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). The Courts relationship to its brother-in-law and the
26
facts underlying the Grissom and Montgomery investigations were all known by Movants
27
for years before they filed their Motion. Furthermore, to the extent that any of the bases
28
in Sheriff Arpaios affidavit stem from the Courts conduct, they fail to establish
- 37 RE 47
(98 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5338ofof247
40
recusable bias or prejudice. See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868 ([A]n affidavit . . . is not legally
sufficient unless it specifically alleges facts that fairly support the contention that the
judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party that stems from an extrajudicial
source.); United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that actions
taken by a judge during proceedings are not a legally sufficient ground to include in a
144 affidavit). A litigant may also not compel a judges recusal through his own actions
under 144 any more than he can under 455. See Studley, 783 F.2d at 93940
(rejecting affidavit where intemperate and scurrilous attacks on the judge were the only
grounds for recusal asserted).
10
In addition, this is Defendants second Motion for Recusal brought pursuant to
11
144 and second accompanying affidavit of prejudice. Section 144 explicitly limits a
12
party to filing only one affidavit in support of recusal per case. 28 U.S.C. 144 (A party
13
may file only one such affidavit in any case.). In 2009, Defendants moved to recuse
14
Judge Murgua, then presiding over this case, on the grounds that her relationship with
15
her twin sister raised concerns about her impartiality or at least risked an appearance
16
thereof. (Doc. 63.) Defendants motion was accompanied by an affidavit pursuant to
17
144 and the requisite certification of good faith by counsel. (Id. at 17, Ex. 1.) Judge
18
Murgua granted Defendants motion and withdrew from the case. (Doc. 138.) Having
19
previously filed a Motion and affidavit under 144, in accordance with the express
20
provisions of the statute, Movants are not permitted to file another against this Court.19
21
See United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950, 961 (5th Cir. 1986) ([Movants] affidavit
22
violates the one-affidavit rule of 28 U.S.C. 144 and need not be considered.);
23
Balistrieri, 779 F.2d at 1200 n.6 (same). The limit on successive affidavits is considered
24
necessary to prevent litigants from disqualifying each judge designated to the case and
25
thereby avoid any disposition of its merits. S.E.C. v. Loving Spirit Found. Inc., 392 F.3d
26
19
27
28
If a party discovers new grounds for recusal after submitting an affidavit under
144, it may still obtain the judges recusal through a 455 motion, to which the oneaffidavit rule does not apply. Cf. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 86768 (suggesting that an affidavit is
not required under 455).
- 38 RE 48
(99 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5439ofof247
40
486, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Movants do not address the one-affidavit rule in their Motion
or Reply nor have they credibly argued for its inapplicability even though it was raised to
them by the Court on the filing of their Motion. (See Tr. of May 22, 2015 Status Conf.
7:138:9, Doc. 1130; Doc. 1158 at 12.)
The certifications of counsel submitted in support of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief
Deputy Sheridans Motion also fail to meet the statutory requirements of 144, which
oblige counsel to personally certify that the affidavit of alleged bias as well as the motion
to which it is appended are filed in good faith. See Loving Spirit, 392 F.3d at 496. Like
the ban on successive affidavits, the certification is not simply a pro forma procedural
10
requirement but is key to the integrity of the recusal process. Klayman v. Judicial
11
Watch, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 264, 270 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Loving Spirit, 392 F.3d at
12
496 ([T]he attorneys certificate plays a critical role in the recusal process. . . [by]
13
guard[ing] against the removal of an unbiased judge through the filing of a false
14
affidavit. . . (internal citations omitted)). Although attorneys may have an obligation to
15
consider the record in the light most favorable to their clients when certifying a motion
16
for recusal, there is a difference between presenting the facts in a way that highlights the
17
clients interests and misstating or mischaracterizing the facts in order to effect
18
reassignment of a case. The Court need not determine whether counsel have acted
19
improperly here, however, because the certificates filed by Movants counsel are legally
20
insufficient on their face. The four attorneys bringing this motion on behalf of Movants
21
have signed an identical certificate stating only that the associated affidavit from Joseph
22
M. Arpaio for the recusal of Judge G. Murray Snow is made in good faith. (Doc. 1117,
23
Exs. 1113.) Counsel has not, however, personally certified that there is a good faith
24
basis for the substantive factual allegations contained therein, nor that the Motion itself
25
has been filed in good faith. Each certificate is therefore in disregard of the statutory
26
mandate. The Court, therefore, denies Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridans
27
alternative Motion to Recuse pursuant to 144 as legally insufficient.
28
///
- 39 RE 49
(100 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1164 DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page5540ofof247
40
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
4
5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy

Sheridans Motion for Recusal/Disqualification (Doc. 1117) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any stay on pre-hearing discovery and/or the
activities of the Monitor related to the resumption of the show-cause hearings is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a status conference in these matters for
Monday, July 20, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day OConnor U.S.
Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003. All parties and
specially appearing non-parties are required to attend.20 The parties shall be prepared to
10
discuss: (1) Defendants Motion relating to the definition of the Plaintiff Class (Doc.
11
1103); (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. 1085); (3) the status of MCSOs remaining
12
internal investigations; (4) the Department of Justices request to see the database of
13
documents given by Montgomery to the MCSO, which he claims to have taken from the
14
CIA; (5) the procedures pertaining to Maricopa Countys independent review of the
15
Monitors billing; (6) whether Maricopa County is entitled to representation in this
16
litigation separate from Sheriff Arpaio; and (7) the scheduling of the second phase of the
17
civil contempt hearings.
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Out-of-state counsel may appear telephonically for the status conference.

Plaintiffs counsel are directed to establish a call-in number and disseminate to the parties
and non-parties.
- 40 RE 50
(101 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
56 1ofof247
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
12
v.
13
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his individual and

official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa
County, AZ; et al.
15
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
14
Defendants.
16
17
In early May 2015, the Court received an Application of Attorney for Admission
18
to Practice Pro Hac Vice from Mr. Jonathan A. Moseley, who practices in Virginia. The
19
application was accompanied by a two page letter dated May 2, 2015 and a three page
20
document entitled Additional Information. Mr. Moseley subsequently filed a Motion to
21
Intervene in this action on behalf of Dennis Montgomery, along with various other
22
motions and memoranda. (See Docs. 1057, 1058, 1067, stricken by Doc. 1093.)
23
Following a status conference at which Mr. Moseley was invited to appear telephonically
24
in support of his request for admission pro hac vice, and at which he did not appear, the
25
Court denied Mr. Moseleys application. (See Doc. 1093.) Mr. Moseley now moves for
26
reconsideration of his application for admission on the grounds that (1) the record does
27
not reflect the existence of any conflict of interest between Mr. Moseleys representation
28
of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in another action and his intended representation of Mr.
RE 51
(102 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
57 2ofof247
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
Montgomery in this case; (2) Mr. Montgomerys Sixth Amendment right to counsel
would be violated if Mr. Moseley is unable to represent him pro hac vice; and (3) the
Court should recuse itself. (Doc. 1112.) Mr. Montgomery has since filed three
supplements to this Motion. (Docs. 1140, 1160, 1161.)
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) provides that a party seeking reconsideration
of a ruling shall, in that motion, point out with specificity the matters that the movant
believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being
brought to the Courts attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented
earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Courts Order. The movant
may not repeat any argument previously made in support of the motion that resulted in
the challenged order. L.R. Civ. 7.2(g). Motions for reconsiderations are disfavored, and
will ordinarily not be granted absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new
facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence. Id.; Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. CIV-070670-PHX-RCB, 2012 WL 2368478, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2012) (noting motions for
reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances). As with all motions,
failure to comply with the local rules of procedure are grounds for denial of the motion.
L.R. Civ. 7.2(g).
As a preliminary matter, Mr. Moseleys challenge of the Courts articulated
concern that his admission could create a conflict of interest fails to advance any grounds
different from those contained in his Clarification of Motion for Admittance Pro Hac
Vice, filed prior to the Court heard argument on his application for admission. (See Doc.
1080); L.R. Civ. 7.2(g) (No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any . . .
argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in
the Order.). Moreover, his Motion for Reconsideration does not address the issues raised
at the status conference the Court held in these matters on May 14, 2015, at which Mr.
Moseleys application was discussed and, ultimately, denied.1 Under the Arizona Rules
1
As noted above, Mr. Moseley was authorized to appear telephonically at this

-2RE 52
(103 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
58 3ofof247
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
of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation

involves a concurrent conflict of interest, such as where the representation of one client
will be directly adverse to another client or where there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's
responsibilities to another client . . . . E.R. 1.7(a). Attorneys admitted pro hac vice are
held to the same professional responsibilities and ethical standards as regular
counsel. . . . Cole v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Idaho, 366 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir.
2004). The comments to E.R. 1.7 offer some guidance on whether an impermissible
conflict exists: the comments provide that a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one
matter against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters
are wholly unrelated. A conflict may also exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in
the parties testimony, [or] incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing
party . . . . E.R. 1.7 (advisory notes).
The interests of Mr. Montgomery are adverse to the interests of Sheriff Arpaio and
the MCSO, or at least the risk of such adversity, is sufficiently present to warrant denying
Mr. Moseleys application to represent the former. (See also Doc. 1145 (noting the
parties differences with some positions taken by Mr. Moseley)). Mr. Moseley concedes
that he has an attorney-client relationship with Sheriff Arpaio stemming from his
affiliation with Freedom Watch, which represents the Sheriff in another action in the
Circuit Court for the District of Columbia challenging President Obamas executive
action on immigration. Mr. Moseley seeks admission on behalf of Mr. Montgomery, who
was hired as a confidential informant by the MCSO. Sheriff Arpaio has testified in this
action that the material MCSO received from Mr. Montgomery was junk. (Tr. of Apr.
23, 2015 Evid. Hrg 650:2025, Docs. 1027.). Facts involving the Seattle operation and
the credibility of Mr. Montgomery are squarely before this Court, at least insofar as those
26
27
28
conference, but he gave no indication of his presence during the initial counsel roll call
or, later, when directly addressed by the Court at this time the issues of his application
and the potential conflict of interest it posed were raised. (See Tr. May 14, 2015 Status
Conf. 32, Doc. 1097.)
-3RE 53
(104 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
59 4ofof247
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
issues reflect the truthfulness of testimony offered in this matter, and the MCSOs efforts,
or lack thereof, in implementing this Courts orders at the same time it may have been
devoting resources to funding an investigation to possibly discredit this Court. Therefore,
Mr. Moseleys litigating of Mr. Montgomerys stake in the evidence at issue, the validity
of which has been repudiated by Sheriff Arpaio, will most likely involve credibility
determinations and competing factual testimony. This would seem to necessarily impact
the attorney-client relationships Mr. Moseley has with Mr. Montgomery and Sheriff
Arpaio, and likely violate his duty of loyalty to one or both of them. Further, Sheriff
Arpaio has objected on the record to the positions taken by Mr. Moseley in one of his
supplemental pleadings for admission pro hac vice: Putative intervenors attorneys
Klayman and Mosely [sic] neither represent Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan,
nor speak for the interests of the MCSO in this action or in any proceeding related to this
action. (Doc. 1145 at 2.) This is additional evidence that there is sufficient adversity of
interests to deny Mr. Moseleys request for admission. The Court has a recognized
interest in ensuring that the proceedings in this case are conducted within the standards of
the profession. Cf. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988).
In addition to the potential conflict posed by Mr. Moseleys application for
admission, there is evidence that Mr. Moseleys representation of Mr. Montgomery
would stand in the way of the orderly administration of justice. Mr. Moseley attached a
letter dated May 02, 2015 to his pro hac vice application. There is a notation on the letter
that counsel of record were sent copies of his application and accompanying materials;
yet, no other attorney in this action has ever received these documents from Mr. Moseley.
In the letter, Mr. Moseley claims that his appearance would be for the purpose of
presenting answers to this Court. However, before his application for admission pro hac
vice was considered, Mr. Moseley filed several substantive motions not previously
referenced in his application or accompanying letter. Mr. Moseley subsequently
acknowledged that portions of the letter relating to his filing of an amicus curiae brief for
Sheriff Arpaio were also inaccurate. Following that, Mr. Moseley attempted to withdraw
-4RE 54
(105 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
60 5ofof247
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
the letter in its entirety. Then, Mr. Moseley reached out to the Court about appearing
telephonically in support of his Motion for Reconsideration and failed to do so or explain
his absence, although he contacted the Court about obtaining a transcript of the
proceedings following their conclusion. At the hearing, Plaintiffs provided the Court with
information that raises additional concerns about Mr. Moseleys ethical fitness to be
admitted to practice in this district pro hac vice. (Tr. May 14, 2015 Status Conf. 34:22
39:9, Doc. 1097 (referencing Moseley v. Virginia State Bar, ex rel. Seventh Dist. Comm.,
280 Va. 1, 1, 694 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2010)).) Mr. Moseleys engagement in this action to
date demonstrates a substantial likelihood that his conduct would hinder the efficacious
administration of justice if he were to be admitted. Where an out-of-state attorney
strongly suggests through his behavior that he will neither abide by the court's rules and
practices . . . nor be readily answerable to the court, the judge may reject his pro hac
vice application. Ries, 100 F.3d at 1471. Mr. Moseley fails to demonstrate how the
Courts previous denial of his application amounted to manifest error.
The second point in Mr. Moseleys Motion for Reconsideration is also misplaced.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil action, which this is. United States v.
Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Further, in any case, a litigants right
to choose his counsel is not unlimited and may give way to serve a compelling purpose
such as the efficient and orderly administration of justice. United States v. Walters, 309
F.3d 589, 59192 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir.
1996) (finding court may impinge on right to have chosen attorney admitted pro hac vice
where the attorneys admission is sought for a dilatory purpose or is otherwise subversive
of the ethical and orderly judicial process). For the reasons stated above, the record
strongly suggests that admission of Mr. Moseley would indeed interfere with the orderly
adjudication of this case. Thus, the interest underlying the Courts denial of Mr.
Moseleys application also provides a sufficiently compelling reason to warrant depriving
Mr. Montgomery of his preferred choice of counsel.
Mr. Moseleys third point is a reiteration of previous arguments made in support
-5RE 55
(106 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1167DktEntry:
Filed 07/10/15
13-2, Page
Page
61 6ofof247
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
of the Motion to Intervene he filed concomitantly with seeking admission pro hac vice,
and does not constitute new facts or legal authority to justify this Courts
reconsideration of his application.2 See L.R. Civ. 7.2(g).
IT
IS
THEREFORE
ORDERED
that
Mr.
Moseleys
Motion
for
Reconsideration (Doc. 1112) is DENIED.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
None of the supplements filed by Mr. Moseley and Mr. Klayman address the
apparent conflict of interest between Mr. Montgomery and Sheriff Arpaio or present new
arguments sufficient to cause this Court to reconsider the denial of their application.
-6RE 56
(107 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1133DktEntry:
Filed 05/29/15
13-2, Page
Page
62 1ofof247
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
13

County, AZ; et al.
14
15
NOTICE RE DOCUMENT REQUEST
BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Defendants.
16
Earlier this week, the Court-appointed Monitor received a request from the United
17
States Department of Justice to copy the hard drives containing the documents that
18
Dennis Montgomery delivered to the Maricopa County Sherriffs Office, and that were
19
allegedly harvested from the Central Intelligence Agency. The Department of Justice has
20
requested to copy these hard drives on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 under the supervision of a
21
court-appointed security officer. Should any Party wish to be heard regarding this request
22
or procedure, it should immediately notify the Court with its comments or objections and
23
the reasons therefore.
24
Dated this 29th day of May, 2015.
25
26
27

28
RE 57
(108 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1134DktEntry:
Filed 05/29/15
13-2, Page
Page
63 1ofof247
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9

situated; et al.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Plaintiffs,
AMENDED NOTICE RE
DOCUMENT REQUEST BY THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
v.
County, AZ; et al.
Defendants.
Earlier this week, the Court-appointed Monitor received a request from the United
States Department of Justice to copy the documents and hard drives containing materials
that Dennis Montgomery delivered to the Maricopa County Sherriffs Office and that
were allegedly harvested from the Central Intelligence Agency. The Department of
Justice has requested to copy these hard drives on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 under the
supervision of a court-appointed security officer. Should any Party wish to be heard
regarding this request or procedure, it should immediately notify the Court with its
comments or objections and the reasons therefore.
25
26

27
28
RE 58
(109 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1093DktEntry:
Filed 05/14/15
13-2, Page
Page
64 1ofof247
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
13

County, AZ; et al.
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
A status conference in this action was held on May 14, 2015. The Court orders the
following:
19
1. On May 07, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a ruling regarding the
20
applicability of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product immunity to certain
21
disclosures made by Thomas Liddy and Karen Clark, on behalf of former defense
22
counsel Timothy Casey. (See Doc. 1053.) Subsequent to this order, Chief Deputy
23
Gerard Sheridan voluntarily disclosed Mr. Caseys mental impressions, opinions,
24
and advice in an interview with the Arizona Republic.1 Thus, the matter is referred
25
back to Judge Boyle for re-evaluation on the continued applicability of the opinion
26
1
27
28
See Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, How Mexican Food Drew Couple Into Heart of
Arpaio
Case,
Ariz.
Republic,
May
08,
2015,
available
at
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/05/07/mexican-fooddrew%20grissom-couple-heart%20-sheriff%20-joe-arpaio-civil-contempt%20-case/70990098/.
RE 59
(110 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1093DktEntry:
Filed 05/14/15
13-2, Page
Page
65 2ofof247
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
work-product doctrine to these materials in light of Chief Deputy Sheridans

statements to the press. Although, of course, Judge Boyle will fix any briefing
schedule, the Court requests that if the parties wish to brief the issue they do so
expeditiously.
2. The Application of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice received by
Jonathon A. Moseley, who practices in Virginia, is denied. The record
demonstrates that actual and potential conflicts of interest exist between Mr.
Moseleys current representation of Sheriff Arpaio in another action and his
proposed representation of Mr. Dennis L. Montgomery before this Court. See E.R.
1.7(a) ([A] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a
concurrent conflict of interest.); Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of
Idaho, 366 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (Attorneys admitted pro hac vice are
held to the same professional responsibilities and ethical standards as regular
counsel. . . .). Mr. Moseley was given the opportunity to appear telephonically at
the status conference but did not do so. The Court denies Mr. Moseleys
application. Accordingly, his pending Motion to Intervene (Doc. 1057) and
Motion to Disqualify (Doc. 1067) are hereby stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f) and Local Rule 7.2(m)(1).
3. In light of the newly disclosed documents, the Court orders that the parties
proceed as follows so as to effectively manage the discovery period prior to the
continuation of the show cause hearing:
a. The Monitor, pursuant to its authority to evaluate the integrity of MCSOs
operations and compliance efforts, shall investigate matters that are raised
by the documents recently disclosed to them by Defendants. The Parties
shall fully cooperate with such investigations. Although the Monitor has
broad authority to set the direction of an investigation, this authority is
limited by the orders previously entered in this matter. Ongoing
investigations by the MCSO Professional Standards Bureau do not restrict
-2RE 60
(111 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1093DktEntry:
Filed 05/14/15
13-2, Page
Page
66 3ofof247
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the Monitor in his investigative authority.

b. Chief Sherry Kiyler is authorized to be involved in all investigations
pertaining to recent MCSO disclosures.
c. To the extent that the Monitor interviews persons who are in the employ of
MCSO, any and all counsel may be present at the interviews. All parties
and specially appearing non-parties will have the right to pay for and obtain
transcripts of any interview done by the Monitor.
d. The witness is entitled to counsel at his or her own expense, and is also
entitled to all rights and privileges which are available to him or her under
federal law.
e. The Parties and named non-party contemnors may conduct their own
depositions coextensively with the Monitor, so long as they obtain the
approval of the Monitor prior to scheduling such depositions so as not to
interfere with the Monitors investigation. Copies of transcripts from all
such deposition shall be provided to the Monitor.
f. Aspects of the Seattle operation are germane to the show cause
proceedings, and shall be addressed by the Parties insofar as they relate to
the charged bases for contempt or the appropriateness of any remedial
measures. The Court will consult with the Parties on the topics that merit
addressing at the hearings to be resumed on June 16, 2015 once the scope
of relevant issues are sufficiently refined by document review and the
Monitors investigations.
24
25
26

27
28
-3RE 61
(112 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
671ofof247
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
Manuel de Melendres, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
10
11
v.
12
Maricopa, County of, et al.,
13
ORDER
Defendants.
14
15
On May 7, 2015, after conducting an in camera review, this Court ruled that
16
Timothy Caseys mental impressions and opinions regarding litigation strategy based on
17
the Grissom information and investigation findings, which are contained in a November
18
6, 2013 letter, are protected from disclosure as opinion work-product, and that immunity
19
has not been waived. (Doc. 1053.) Subsequently, as reported in the Arizona Republic,1
20
Chief Deputy Sheridan made the following comments to the press regarding the Grissom
21
information: (1) The Sheriff and I felt that we should have our lawyer look into the
22
comment in the event that it was made, and it was credible, because it went to the judges
23
state of mind; (2) it sat in my desk drawer for a year and a half, until it came out in
24
court when the sheriff was on the stand . . . . We had no intention to do anything with it
25
because we were told it would be unethical for us to make a complaint on third-party
26
27
28
See Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, How Mexican Food Drew Couple Into Heart of Arpaio
Case,
Ariz.
Republic,
May
08,
2015,
available
at
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/05/07/mexican-fooddrew%20grissom-couple-heart%20-sheriff%20-joe-arpaio-civil-contempt%20-case/70990098/.
RE 62
(113 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
682ofof247
19
hearsay; and (3) Timothy Casey told Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio that there wasnt
enough evidence to take the tip any further. On May 14, 2015, District Judge G. Murray
Snow referred to this Court an evaluation of whether the work-product immunity
continues to apply to the redacted materials appended to Doc. 1053 in light of Chief
Deputy Sheridans statements. (Doc. 1093.) On May 19, 2015, Defendants submitted to
this Court an Objection to Re-evaluation of Disclosures Made on Behalf of Tim Casey.
(Doc. 1107.)
The Court has reviewed Chief Deputy Sheridans statements and Defendants
Objection. For the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that Chief Deputy Sheridans
10
comments waived the work-product immunity only as to the portions of the redacted
11
materials Chief Deputy Sheridan directly disclosed. The Court finds that the waiver does
12
not extend to the other redacted portions of the November 6, 2013 letter that were not
13
directly disclosed by Chief Deputy Sheridan during the interview.
14
Sheridans limited disclosure to the media does not warrant the wholesale disclosure of
15
pages of work-product opinion and litigation strategy outlined by Mr. Casey in the
16
November 6, 2013 letter.
17
I.
Chief Deputy
Waiver of Work-Product Immunity
18
Work-product protections may be waived by voluntary disclosures or using the at-
19
issue materials as evidence at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239
20
(1975); Hernandez, 604 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010). The disclosure of work-product
21
materials to a third party can result in waiver if the material is disclosed in a manner
22
inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary. In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 165
23
(3d Cir. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of
24
Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428 (3d Cir. 1991).
25
Here, there is no dispute that Chief Deputy Sheridan made the comments detailed
26
in the Arizona Republic article,2 and that the comments are now in the public domain.
27
2
28
During the May 14, 2015 status conference, Chief Deputy Sheridan, who was in
attendance, confirmed that he made the statements attributed to him in the article. (Doc.
1097 at 10:1-11:8.)
-2RE 63
(114 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
693ofof247
19
The Court finds that this disclosure is inconsistent with keeping the protected materials
on those same topics from an adversary.
In their Objection, Defendants argue that Chief Deputy Sheridans comments do
not present any new information or evidence that suddenly put[s] Mr. Caseys mental
impressions and opinions of the Grissom investigation at issue in the contempt
proceedings. Therefore, the news article did not waive the work-product doctrine and the
mental impressions of Mr. Casey are protected. (Doc. 1107 at 4-5.) However, Chief
Deputy Sheridans statements to the press directly, and voluntarily, disclosed Mr. Caseys
conclusions that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Grissom information and
10
use of the information would be unethical. Accordingly, at a minimum, Chief Deputy
11
Sheridans comments waived the work-product protection as to those conclusions as they
12
appear in the November 6, 2013 letter.
13
II.
Scope of Waiver
14
The Court must now determine whether this waiver extends to the other redacted
15
portions of the November 6, 2013 letter that were not directly disclosed by Chief Deputy
16
Sheridan. The Court finds that it does not.
17
Pursuant to Rule 502(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, waiver of work-product
18
may extend to undisclosed materials if: the disclosed and undisclosed communications
19
or information concern the same subject matter; and [] they ought in fairness to be
20
considered together. However, the work product doctrine is distinct from and broader
21
than the attorney-client privilege. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238 n.11. Work product
22
immunity furthers the clients interest in obtaining complete legal advice and creates a
23
protected area in which the lawyer can prepare his case free from adversarial scrutiny.
24
Appleton Papers, Inc. v. EPA, 702 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Hickman,
25
329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947)). Accordingly, disclosure of some documents does not
26
necessarily destroy work-product protection for other documents of the same character.
27
Id. (quoting 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, 2024).
28
Further, opinion work-protect is entitled to greater protection. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
-3RE 64
(115 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
704ofof247
19
26(b)(3)(B) (If the court orders discovery of those materials [for which a party has a
substantial need], it must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a partys attorney or other representative
concerning the litigation.). In light of this heighted protection, [w]hile certainly actual
disclosure of pure mental impressions may be deemed waiver . . . . the underlying
rationale for the doctrine of subject matter waiver has little application in the context of a
pure expression of legal theory or legal opinion. In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d
619, 626 (4th Cir. 1988); see also In re EchoStar Communs. Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1302
(Fed. Cir. 2006) ([W]ork product waiver only extends to factual or non-opinion work
10
product concerning the same subject matter as the disclosed work product.); Cox v.
11
Admr U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ([T]he subject-matter
12
waiver doctrine does not extend to materials protected by the opinion work product
13
privilege.).
14
Here, Chief Deputy Sheridan disclosed to the press Mr. Caseys conclusions that
15
there wasnt enough evidence to take the tip any further and use of the Grissom
16
information would be unethical. Chief Deputy Sheridans statements, however, do not
17
specifically discuss Mr. Caseys substantive analysis contained in the November 6, 2013
18
letter regarding use of the Grissom information and investigation findings. The Court
19
does not find that these limited statements warrant the disclosure of pages of Mr. Caseys
20
opinion work-product. Further, as the Court has already found, that analysis is not at
21
issue in the current proceedings. For these reasons, the Court finds that Chief Deputy
22
Sheridans waiver of the work-product immunity is limited to the specific information he
23
disclosed and does not extend to the other redacted portions of the November 6, 2013
24
letter. The Court will remove the redactions of those portions of the letter no longer
25
protected by the work-product immunity.3
26
27
28
The newly-released text in the November 6, 2013 letter can be found at the end of
Section A (page 2) and the beginning of Section E (pages 13 and 14).
-4RE 65
(116 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
715ofof247
19
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Chief Deputy Sheridans
statements to the press waived the work-product protections as to the redacted portions of
the November 6, 2013 letter that are specifically addressed in those statements. The
waiver, however, does not extend to the other redacted portions of the letter that were not
discussed by Chief Deputy Sheridan in the interview. A copy of the newly-redacted
November 6, 2013 letter is attached to this Order.
Dated this 21st day of May, 2015.
9
10
Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5RE 66
(117 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
726ofof247
19
RE 67
(118 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
737ofof247
19
RE 68
(119 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
748ofof247
19
RE 69
(120 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page
759ofof247
19
RE 70
(121 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page7610ofof247
19
RE 71
(122 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page7711ofof247
19
RE 72
(123 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page7812ofof247
19
RE 73
(124 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page7913ofof247
19
RE 74
(125 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8014ofof247
19
RE 75
(126 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8115ofof247
19
RE 76
(127 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8216ofof247
19
RE 77
(128 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8317ofof247
19
RE 78
(129 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8418ofof247
19
RE 79
(130 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1115 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/15
13-2, Page
Page8519ofof247
19
RE 80
(131 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1079DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-2, Page
Page
86 1ofof247
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12

situated; et al.
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
15

County, AZ; et al.
16
Defendants.
17
18
A Status Conference is set for May 14, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The Parties are to be
19
20
prepared to discuss matters including but not limited to the following:

1.
21
22
Whether any counsel of record believes steps are necessary to comply with
his or her obligations under E.R. 3.3(a)(3), and the appropriate scheduling of such steps.
2.
23
Questions regarding the Parties briefing on the depositions of Timothy
24
Casey, Thomas Liddy, and Christine Stutz, or other relevant attorneys with the Maricopa
25
County Attorneys Office.

3.
26
27
A. Moseley.
28
///
The Application for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Jonathon
RE 81
(132 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1079DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-2, Page
Page
87 2ofof247
2
1
2
4.
The Courts concerns and orders regarding recently disclosed documents.
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
-2RE 82
(133 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
88 1ofof247
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12

situated; et al.
13
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15

County, AZ; et al.
16
17
Defendants.
18
19
At the Status Conference today the Court mentioned receiving an Application of
20
Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(b)(2) from Mr.
21
Jonathon A. Moseley who practices in Virginia. The application was accompanied by
22
both a two page letter dated May 2, 2015 and a three page document entitled Additional
23
Information.
24
In the two page letter noted as being copied to all counsel Mr. Moseley
25
indicates he is a staff attorney working for the public interest law firm Freedom Watch,
26
Inc. and that he seeks to intervene in this action on behalf of Dennis Montgomery,
27
Freedom Watch apparently represents Mr. Montgomery in Florida defamation litigation.
28
In the letter Mr. Moseley is apparently critical of the testimony of Sheriff Arpaio or Chief
RE 83
(134 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
89 2ofof247
9
Deputy Sheridan or both.
Mr. Moseley requested that the Additional Information document be filed under
seal, because it concerned previous bar discipline that had been imposed on him for a
period, and in providing his explanation he thought it would be preferable to avoid
mentioning third parties in the public court files.
provided [the additional information] to counsel to allow them to fulfill their
obligations. He indicates in that Additional Information that I also ask that the Court
and the parties consider that I, Jonathon Moseley, am not proposing to actually
participate in the conduct of this case, but merely to sponsor the filing of an Amicus
10
He nevertheless avows that he
Curiae brief for Sheriff Joe Arpaio by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.
11
This statement of representation appears to be inconsistent with that stated in his
12
letter. As confirmed with Ms. Iafrate at the Status Conference, Mr. Klayman represents
13
Sheriff Arpaio in other litigation. To the extent that his law firm seeks to represent Mr.
14
Montgomery in this litigation it appears that such interests may be adverse to those of
15
Sheriff Arpaio and/or Deputy Chief Sheridan who are jointly defended. Because of the
16
confusion regarding this matter, the Court indicated it would take up this matter in its
17
Status Conference set for May 14, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and would so advise Mr. Moseley.
18
In the meantime, so that counsel can be fully advised, the Court attaches to this Order Mr.
19
Moseleys application and his two-page letter. Consistent with what appear to be Mr.
20
Moseleys intentions, the three page Additional Information document is forwarded to
21
counsel of record only, but not attached to this Order, so that its confidential status may
22
be preserved.
23
IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this Order to:
24
Jonathon Alden Moseley
Freedom Watch, Inc.
2020 Pennsylvania, Ave. N.W., Suite 345
Washington, D.C. 20006
25
26
27
///
28
///
-2RE 84
(135 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
90 3ofof247
9
1
2
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the

Additional Information by mail to all Plaintiffs Counsel and Defense Counsel of record.
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
-3RE 85
(136 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
91 4ofof247
9
RE 86
(137 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
92 5ofof247
9
RE 87
(138 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
93 6ofof247
9
RE 88
(139 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
94 7ofof247
9
RE 89
(140 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
95 8ofof247
9
RE 90
(141 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1060DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
96 9ofof247
9
RE 91
(142 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1064DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
97 1ofof247
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
12
v.
13

County, AZ; et al.
Defendants.
15
16
17
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
14
The Court held a status conference on this action on May 08, 2015. Pursuant to
discussions and the Courts directions,
18
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
19
1.
Deputy County Attorneys Thomas Liddy, Ann Thompson Uglietta, and
20
Douglas Schwabs Amended and Supplemental Application to Withdraw as Counsel of
21
Record for Defendants (Doc. 1028) is GRANTED.
22
23
2.
The Court will hold weekly status conferences according to the schedule set
forth below, at which out-of-state counsel may appear telephonically1:
24
Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
25
Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
26
Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
27
1
28
Plaintiffs counsel, Andre Segura, is directed to obtain and disseminate the

conference call-in number to the Court and pertinent parties prior to the status
conferences.
RE 92
(143 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1064DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
98 2ofof247
4
Friday, June 5, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
3.
The Parties shall hold the dates of June 2326, 2015 to follow the
resumption of the show cause proceedings on June 16-19, 2015. The hearings will be
continued as follows:
Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
10
4.
Defendants shall file objections to Plaintiffs request for documents
11
pertaining to workplace operations by Friday, May 15, 2015. Plaintiffs shall file a
12
responsive memorandum as soon as practicable. Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel
13
the investigative reports of Don Vogel and the accompanying materials and transcripts,
14
and the Defendants shall promptly respond, after which the Court will rule.
15
5.
The Parties and specially appearing non-Parties who have received
16
documents that contain personally identifying, financial or other confidential information
17
pursuant to this Courts April 2324, 2015 Orders shall maintain the materials under seal,
18
not to be disclosed to others without further Order of the Court. (See Doc. 1032.)
19
6.
Defendants have received materials from confidential informant Dennis L.
20
Montgomery that he apparently indicated were improperly obtained from the Central
21
Intelligence Agency. (the alleged CIA documents) Counsel for Defendants will contact
22
the chief legal counsel at the CIA, inform such legal counsel of MCSOs receipt of the
23
alleged CIA documents, this proceeding, the Courts subsequent discovery orders and the
24
CIAs need to seek relief, if any, with respect to such documents within 14 days of
25
todays date.
26
appropriate officials with respect to documents now in the custody and control of the
27
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
28
///
Counsel shall take any other steps required by law to contact the
-2RE 93
(144 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1064DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
99 3ofof247
4
7.
With respect to the CIA documents, the Defendants will cooperate with the
Monitor in identifying which documents are those provided by Dennis L. Montgomery to
the MCSO, and, with respect to those documents, indicating to the parties their contents,
the files they contain if any, the files general contents and organization, and the general
content of the file. To the extent that parts of the CIA documents file may have already
been delivered to the parties in hard copy, the parties may review it, but are bound by the
confidentiality provisions set forth in paragraph 5 above.
8.
Any objections to the unsealing of Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyles Order
(Doc. 1053) on the applicability of any attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
10
immunity to the materials submitted by Timothy Casey and Thomas Liddy in compliance
11
with this Courts April 27, 2015 Order (Doc. 1033) shall be filed by Tuesday, May 12,
12
2015.
13
9.
Defendants shall file a supplement to their Notice regarding Completion of
14
Internal Investigations (Doc. 1052) to verify the investigations that are complete by
15
investigation number and further describe the length of time that the subjects of these
16
investigations have to appeal the internal investigation decisions.
17
10.
The Court will appoint an independent accountant to review the bills
18
submitted to Maricopa County by the Monitor. This independent accountant will perform
19
the function that was previously performed by Deputy County Manager for Maricopa
20
County, Sandi Wilson, and her attorney in reviewing on a monthly basis the detailed
21
billings of the Monitor. The independent accountant will be under the same
22
confidentiality obligations and will follow the same procedure that Ms. Wilson followed
23
when reviewing the Monitors bills as set forth in the Courts Order (Doc. 696), as
24
modified by the statements on todays record. Ms. Wilson will provide the Court with a
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
-3RE 94
(145 of 1100)
Case:
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1064DktEntry:
Filed 05/08/15
13-2, Page
Page
1004ofof247
4
list of three or four qualified individuals to fill this appointment, from which the Court
will select an available candidate.
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
-4RE 95
(146 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1011 of
of 247
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
Manuel de Melendres, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
10
11
v.
12
Maricopa, County of, et al.,
13
ORDER
[FILED UNDER SEAL]
Defendants.
14
15
On April 27, 2015, District Judge G. Murray Snow referred to this Court an in
16
camera review of two documents to determine whether those documents are protected
17
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product immunity. (Doc.
18
1033.) On April 29, 2015, Thomas Liddy and Karen Clark, ethics counsel for Thomas
19
Casey, each submitted to Magistrate Judge Boyle: (1) an October 23, 2013 letter from
20
Mr. Casey to an outside private investigator, Don Vogel; and (2) a November 6, 2013
21
letter from Mr. Casey to Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, copied to Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan,
22
Deputy Chief John MacIntyre, and Mr. Liddy.
23
As detailed below, the Court finds that the letters are not protected by the attorney-
24
client privilege or, to the extent the privilege attaches, the privilege has been waived.
25
Additionally, the Court finds that the work-product immunity applies to both letters. Mr.
26
Caseys mental impressions and opinions in the November 6, 2013 letter regarding
27
litigation strategy based on the information provided by the Grissom-investigation
28
materials and findings are protected from disclosure as opinion work-product, and that
RE 96
(147 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1022 of
of 247
24
immunity has not been waived. The Court will therefore redact those mental impressions
and opinions. However, the immunity as to remaining portions of the letters has been
waived.
I.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal advisor in his
capacity as such, communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by [a]
client are, at his instance[,] permanently protected from disclosure by himself or by the
legal advisor, unless the protection be waived. In re Fischel, 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir.
1977) (internal numbering omitted).
10
The attorney-client privilege conceals only those communications and advice that
11
the client has a reasonable expectation will remain solely within the knowledge of the
12
client, the attorney, and the necessary agents of each. Id. at 212; United States v. Ruehle,
13
583 F.3d 600, 609 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a clients communication to his attorney was
14
not made in confidence where it was made for the purpose of transmission to outside
15
auditor). Confidentiality must be affirmatively established by the privilege proponent
16
and is not presumed. See Weil v. Inv./Indicators, Research & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18,
17
25 (9th Cir. 1981) ([T]he burden of proving that the attorney-client privilege applies
18
rests . . . with the party asserting it.); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special
19
Grand Jury Sept. Term, 1991, 33 F.3d 342, 354 (4th Cir. 1994) ([T]he mere relationship
20
between the attorney and the client does not warrant a presumption of confidentiality.).
21
Additionally, [t]he attorney-client privilege may extend to communications with
22
third parties who have been engaged to assist the attorney in providing legal advice. If
23
the advice sought is not legal advice, but, for example, accounting advice from an
24
accountant, then the privilege does not exist. United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566
25
(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Weil, 647 F.2d at 24). What is vital to the privilege is that the
26
communication be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the
27
lawyer. United States v. Gurtner, 474 F.2d 297, 288-99 (9th Cir. 1973) (emphasis in
28
original) (quoting United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961)).
-2RE 97
(148 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1033 of
of 247
24
Finally, when the client voluntarily discloses privileged communications to
someone outside the attorney-client relationship, the privilege is waived. Tennenbaum v.
Deloitte & Touche, 77 F.3d 337, 341 (9th Cir. 1996). The voluntary disclosure of a
privileged communication may also destroy the privilege as to other communications
relating to the same subject matter that, in fairness, ought to be considered together.
Weil, 647 F.2d at 24; Fed. R. Evid. 502(a).
a. October 23, 2013 Letter
The October 23, 2013 letter is authored by Mr. Casey and addressed to Mr. Vogel,
an outside private investigator retained by Mr. Casey as authorized by MCSO and Sheriff
10
Arpaio. The letter details Mr. Caseys retention of Mr. Vogel as an investigator and the
11
scope of Mr. Vogels investigation. Based on the letter, Mr. Casey engaged Mr. Vogel to
12
conduct an investigation of allegations made by Ms. Grissom, including conducting
13
interviews of third parties, obtaining witness statements, and assessing the credibility of
14
the allegations.
15
Even assuming Mr. Caseys October 23, 2013 communication to Mr. Vogel was
16
sufficiently made in confidence and the privilege attaches, the Court finds that the
17
privilege was waived by Sheriff Arpaios and Chief Sheridans hearing testimony.
18
Sheriff Arpaio testified that: (1) he received an email from Ms. Grissom regarding a
19
comment allegedly made about him in a restaurant by Judge Snows wife; (2) Mr. Casey
20
retained a private investigator to conduct an investigation of the information provided by
21
Ms. Grissom; (3) as part of that investigation, the private investigator interviewed alleged
22
witnesses; and (4) the results of the investigation were that the investigator confirmed the
23
alleged comment was made. (Doc. 1027 at 647:19-648:9, 654:6-655:12.) By voluntarily
24
making these disclosures in open court, and by failing to object to questions and
25
testimony about these topics, Sheriff Arpaio waived any attorney-client privilege as to the
26
October 23, 2013 letter containing much of the same information. Tennenbaum, 77 F.3d
27
at 341; United States v. Sanders, 979 F.2d 87, 92 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that failure to
28
object during testimony constitutes waiver); Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 206
-3RE 98
(149 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1044 of
of 247
24
(5th Cir. 1999) (A client waives the attorney-client privilege, however, by failing to
assert it when confidential information is sought in legal proceedings.); Fed. R. Evid.
502(a).
Further, Ms. Iafrate, Sheriff Arpaios and MCSOs attorney, elicited these and
additional details regarding the Grissom investigationthe same subject matter discussed
in the October 23, 2013 letterfrom Chief Sheridan during his testimony. (Doc. 1030 at
960:21-964:6, 966:24-967:9.) Therefore, any attorney-client privilege as to the October
23, 2013 letter was also waived by Chief Sheridans testimony in response to Ms.
Iafrates questions.
10
b. November 6, 2013 Letter
11
The November 6, 2013 letter from Mr. Casey to Sheriff Arpaio was copied to
12
Deputy Chief MacIntyre. There is no basis for this Court to find that Deputy Chief
13
MacIntyre needed to receive the November 6, 2013 letter and, therefore, the Court finds
14
that the attorney-client privilege does not attach to the November 6, 2013 letter. See
15
Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dept of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
16
(quoting Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 253 n.24 (D.C.
17
Cir. 1977)) (The test . . . is whether the agency is able to demonstrate that the
18
documents, and therefore the confidential information contained therein, were circulated
19
no further than among those members of the organization who are authorized to speak or
20
act for the organization in relation to the subject matter of the communication.). This
21
conclusion is consistent with Judge Snows previous ruling that the privilege did not
22
attach to different communications distributed to Deputy Chief MacIntyre. (See Doc.
23
986.) Further, even if the privilege attached to the November 6, 2013 letter, for the
24
reasons explained above, the privilege was waived by Sheriff Arpaios and Chief
25
Sheridans hearing testimony on the same subject matters.
26
II.
Work-Product Immunity
27
To qualify for work-product protection, documents must: (1) be prepared in
28
anticipation of litigation or for trial and (2) be prepared by or for another party or by or
-4RE 99
(150 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1055 of
of 247
24
for that other partys representative. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Mark Torf/Torf Envtl.
Mgmt., 357 F.3d 900, 907 (2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The party asserting the work-
product immunity has the burden of demonstrating that the at-issue documents are work-
product. Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing
burden is on party invoking work-product immunity).
The Court finds that both of the letters were prepared by Mr. Casey in anticipation
of litigation, as each letter was prepared because and in the course of the underlying
litigation. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 357 F.3d at 907 (citing Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure 2024 (2d ed.
10
1994)). Further, portions of the November 6, 2013 letter contain Mr. Caseys mental
11
impressions and opinions regarding litigation strategy. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.
12
495, 522 (1947) (Work-product protection is designed to prevent parties from
13
perform[ing] its functions either without wits or on wits borrowed from the adversary.);
14
Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1992).
15
Therefore, both letters are covered by the work-product immunity.
16
17
18
Below, the Court addresses whether the letters are nonetheless subject to
disclosure based on waiver and/or a compelling need.
a. Waiver
19
Work-product protections may be waived by voluntary disclosures or using the at-
20
issue materials as evidence at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239
21
(1975); Hernandez, 604 F.3d at 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that the work-product
22
protection for attorneys notes of a witness interview was waived with regard to the
23
subject matter covered). The disclosure of work-product materials to a third party can
24
result in waiver if the material is disclosed in a manner inconsistent with keeping it from
25
an adversary. In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 165 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation and
26
quotations omitted); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414,
27
1428 (3d Cir. 1991). Further, pursuant to Rule 502(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
28
waiver of work-product may extend to undisclosed materials if: the disclosed and
-5RE 100
(151 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1066 of
of 247
24
undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and [] they
ought in fairness to be considered together.
However, the work product doctrine is distinct from and broader than the
attorney-client privilege. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238 n.11. Work product immunity
furthers the clients interest in obtaining complete legal advice and creates a protected
area in which the lawyer can prepare his case free from adversarial scrutiny. Appleton
Papers, Inc. v. EPA, 702 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at
511). Accordingly, disclosure of some documents does not necessarily destroy work-
product protection for other documents of the same character. Id. (quoting 8 Wright &
10
Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, 2024).
11
Here, the Court finds that Sheriff Arpaios and Chief Sheridans disclosures
12
regarding the retention of Mr. Vogel, the scope of the Grissom investigation, and the
13
investigation findings, including findings regarding whether the Grissom information is
14
credible, constitute a waiver of the work-product immunity covering those portions of the
15
October 23, 2013 and November 6, 2013 letters that relate to the same subject matters.
16
However, the Court finds that the waiver does not extend to Mr. Caseys mental
17
impressions and opinions in the November 6, 2013 letter regarding litigation strategy
18
based on the information provided by the Grissom investigation materials and findings.1
19
First, the testimony did not cover Mr. Caseys mental impressions and opinions on that
20
issue. See Hernandez, 604 F.3d at 1100 (The work product privilege is also only waived
21
with respect to matters covered in . . . testimony.) (quoting Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239-
22
40). Second, Defendants have not thus far used the Grissom investigation information in
23
these proceedings. Further, Mr. Caseys mental impressions and opinions regarding
24
litigation strategy based on that information do not relate to Defendants failures to
25
implement the Courts Orders and the Courts determination of the appropriate remedies
26
for such failures. Therefore, those portions of the November 6, 2013 letter do not relate
27
1
28
The Court identifies the subject matter of the protected mental impressions and opinions
contained in the November 6, 2013 letter so that the parties are clear as to the scope of
the Courts findings.
-6RE 101
(152 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1077 of
of 247
24
to the issues in the current contempt proceedings, and, need not in fairness be disclosed.
See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a).
The Court will redact those mental impressions and opinions from the November
6, 2013 letter. See United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 139 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(remanding to the district court for the purpose of independently assessing whether the
document was entirely work-product, or whether a partial or redacted version of the
document could have been disclosed); United States v. $1,379,879.09 Seized From Bank
of America, 374 Fed. Appx. 709, 711 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (records should be
redacted only to the extent absolutely necessary to protect information covered by the
10
attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine).
11
b. Mental Impressions at Issue and Compelling NeedOpinion WorkProduct
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Finally, the opinion work-product in the November 6, 2013 letter that has not been
waived may still be subject to disclosure under limited circumstances.
Holmgren, 976
F.2d at 577. Specifically, a party seeking opinion work-product must show that mental
impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the material is compelling. Id. This
standard requires a showing beyond the substantial need/undue hardship test required
under Rule 26(b)(3) for non-opinion work product. Id. (citing Upjohn Co. v. United
States, 449 U.S. 383, 401-02 (1981)).
Here, as stated above, Mr. Caseys mental impressions regarding litigation
strategy based on the Grissom information and investigation findings does not relate to
the issues in the current contempt proceedings. Therefore, the other parties do not have a
compelling need for those portions of the November 6, 2013 letter.2
24
25
2
26
27
28
Because, as discussed above, the Court finds that the immunity has been waived as to
the other work-product in the two letters, the Court need not address whether any party
has established a substantial or compelling need for those portions of the letters.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) (A party may obtain non-opinion work-product upon a showing
that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without
undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.); Holmgren, 976
F.2d at 577.
-7RE 102
(153 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1088 of
of 247
24
III.
Based on the above, the Court finds that the attorney-client privilege (to the extent
it attaches) has been waived as to both letters. Further, Mr. Caseys mental impressions
and opinions regarding litigation strategy based on the Grissom information and
investigation findings, which are contained in the November 6, 2013 letter, are protected
from disclosure as opinion work-product, and that immunity has not been waived. The
work-product immunity as to the remaining portions of the letters has been waived.
Conclusion
The Court encloses with this sealed Order a sealed, redacted version of the
November 6, 2013 letter. Unless the Court receives objections regarding lifting the seal
10
by Tuesday, May 13, 2015 at 5:00 P.M., the Court will unseal this Order and the
11
appended, redacted document.
12
The Court further advises the parties that as discussed in Judge Snows April 27,
13
2015 Order, they are still obligated to take any remedial measures required by Ethics
14
Rule 3.3 with regard to Sheriff Arpaios hearing testimony. (See Doc. 1033.)
15
16
17
Honorable John Z. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cc:
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendants
Karen Clark
Lee David Stein
Gregory Stephen Como
Melvin McDonald
Gary Birnbaum
David Eisenberg
Robert Warshaw
-8RE 103
(154 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
1099 of
of 247
24
RE 104
(155 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
110
10ofof247
24
RE 105
(156 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
111
11ofof247
24
RE 106
(157 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
112
12ofof247
24
RE 107
(158 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
113
13ofof247
24
RE 108
(159 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
114
14ofof247
24
RE 109
(160 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
115
15ofof247
24
RE 110
(161 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
116
16ofof247
24
RE 111
(162 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
117
17ofof247
24
RE 112
(163 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
118
18ofof247
24
RE 113
(164 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
119
19ofof247
24
RE 114
(165 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
120
20ofof247
24
RE 115
(166 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
121
21ofof247
24
RE 116
(167 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
122
22ofof247
24
RE 117
(168 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
123
23ofof247
24
RE 118
(169 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1053 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-2, Page
Page
124
24ofof247
24
RE 119
(170 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1046DktEntry:
Filed 05/04/15
13-2, Page
Page
1251ofof247
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
12
v.
13

County, AZ; et al.
15
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
14
Defendants.
16
17
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (Defendants)
18
have filed objections to the procedure for document preservation and production outlined
19
at the Show Cause proceedings and in this Courts April 27, 2015 Order (Doc. 1032).
20
First, Defendants have requested time to review the sequestered documents for
21
attorney-client privilege, work-product immunity, and/or any other applicable privilege.
22
To the extent that this amounts to an objection by Defendants to the Courts previous
23
directions that the documents be transmitted as soon as is reasonably possible, (see id.
24
at 1), the Court hereby orders that Defendants expeditiously complete their privilege
25
review of all documents, memoranda, reports, records, notes, e-mails, social media
26
messages, photographs, audio/video recordings, contracts, meeting minutes, timesheets,
27
financial records, or other materials disclosed to the Monitor during the evidentiary
28
hearing that pertain to the Seattle, Washington/Dennis Montgomery and Grissom
RE 120
(171 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1046DktEntry:
Filed 05/04/15
13-2, Page
Page
1262ofof247
3
investigations, and turn over Bates-stamped copies to the Plaintiffs and the Monitor by
the May 8, 2015 status conference. The Court notes that counsel for Defendants were
present and conducting a review for privilege contemporaneously with the initial
disclosure of documents to the Monitor. Counsel has now had over a week to continue
this process. No further production has apparently occurred, however, since the date of
this Courts initial orders on April 23 and 24. The process set forth by the Court with
respect to these documents is necessary in light of Defendants history of spoliation of
evidence and non-compliance with orders relating to document discovery. Defendants are
to promptly respond to all related future requests for documents by the Monitor by either
10
producing the materials sought or seeking an appropriate protective order from the Court.
11
Second, Defendants contention that Sheriff Arpaios due process rights were
12
implicated by the April 23, 2015 colloquy with the Court is untimely and without merit.
13
The Court notes at the outset that Defendants have requested no specific relief stemming
14
from this objection. The Federal Rules of Evidence extend to the Court the right to
15
participate in questioning, and even call its own, witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 614. The Court
16
also has inherent power to compel testimony, concomitant with its authority to police
17
litigants whose actions show bad faith or the intent to hamper enforcement of court
18
orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991). Furthermore, incident to
19
their responsibility to ensure the fairness of the process for all parties, trial courts have an
20
obligation to clarify the evidence presented and ensure that all facts relevant to the
21
proceedings are brought out. United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.
22
2001). It follows that the Courts intervention in witness examination is particularly
23
appropriate when one party has restricted the others ability to develop an evidentiary
24
record through pre-trial discovery.
25
Neither Sheriff Arpaios civil nor criminal counsel objected to the examination at
26
the time, and counsel for Defendants elicited testimony on the same subject matter from
27
Chief Deputy Sheridan the following day. Defendants offer no precedent for their
28
assertion that a fact witness in a legal proceeding is entitled to notice of all questions that
-2RE 121
(172 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1046DktEntry:
Filed 05/04/15
13-2, Page
Page
1273ofof247
3
might be posed to him. The questions posed by the Court, and later by defense counsel,
relate to the efficacy and integrity of MCSOs internal investigative processes, the
agencys approach to addressing conflicts of interest, and the relative resistance of
MCSOs command staff to the authority of the federal court. As the Court explained
during the hearing, whether the events giving rise to the charged bases in the Order to
Show Cause were isolated incidents of non-compliance or a reflection of a larger pattern
of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Offices subversion of this Courts orders is relevant
both to the Defendants liability in contempt as well as to the scope of appropriate
remedies for Defendants conduct. Defendants objection is, therefore, overruled.
10
Third, consistent with its oral orders on April 24, 2015, the Court GRANTS
11
Defendants Motion to Seal Document 1021 Transcript (Doc. 1038). The Court directs
12
the Clerk of the Court to seal the transcript of the April 22, 2015 Evidentiary Hearing
13
(Doc. 1021) to preserve the privileged nature of the information communicated to the
14
Court by Thomas Liddy, of the Maricopa County Attorneys Office, regarding the nature
15
of his ethical conflict and pending Motion to Withdraw. A version of the transcript that
16
omits the challenged sidebar discussion will be refiled and available for order shortly
17
thereafter. The privileged excerpt of the April 22, 2015 hearing transcript, page 307, line
18
23 to page 311, line 16, shall be maintained under seal.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27
28
-3RE 122
(173 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1032DktEntry:
Filed 04/27/15
13-2, Page
Page
1281ofof247
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

situated; et al.
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
13

County, AZ; et al.
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
During the evidentiary hearing on April 23, 2015, the Court ordered the MCSO
18
Defendants1 to immediately disclose certain materials discussed in the Courts colloquy
19
with Sheriff Arpaio. Because of the need for the disclosure to occur on an expedited
20
basis, the documents were not initially Bates stamped for control purposes. Attorney
21
review for privilege was conducted contemporaneously with this production, and dual
22
copies of the documents were made, one of which was provided to the Monitor and the
23
other which was retained by the MCSO Defendants. The MCSO is still in the process of
24
producing some such documents.
25
The MCSO Defendants shall promptly affix Bates numbers to the documents
26
disclosed to the Monitor and, as soon as is reasonably possible, transmit copies of the
27
1
28
Collectively, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
whose representation is currently being handled by Iafrate & Associates.
RE 123
(174 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1032DktEntry:
Filed 04/27/15
13-2, Page
Page
1292ofof247
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Bates-stamped materials, along with a detailed privilege log for any documents withheld,
to Plaintiffs, the Monitor, specially appearing party Brian Sands, and Maricopa County,
which has been reinstated as a party to this action. The Monitor will compare the Batesstamped documents provided by the MCSO defendants with the set of documents
provided by the MCSO Defendants without bates numbers to verify that the two sets of
documents are identical. The Monitor will inform the Court as soon as possible as to any
lack of identity of the documents sets, and the particulars of such apparent discrepancies.
Any issues that arise will be resolved by the Court.
Objections to the aforementioned procedure must be raised with the Court no later
than April 28, 2015.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2015.
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2RE 124
(175 of 1100)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
512
3
4
Manuel de Jesus Ortega

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
April 23, 2015
8:34 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
17
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 3, pages 512-817)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
24
25
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
RE 125
(176 of 1100)
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/23/15 Evidentiary Hrg 513
A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
7
Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Immigrants' Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 343-0775
Stanley Young, Esq.
Hyun S. Byun, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
(650) 632-4700
8
9
10
Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

Joshua D. Bendor, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
(602) 650-1854
11
12
13
14
Andre I. Segura, Esq.

FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 549-2676
15
16
17
18
For the Defendants:
19
20

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
21
For the Defendant Maricopa County:
22
23
24
25
Richard K. Walker, Esq.

WALKER & PESKIND, P.L.L.C.
16100 N. 71st Street
Suite 140
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(480) 483-6336
RE 126
(177 of 1100)
2
3
For the Defendant Arpaio:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A. Melvin McDonald, Esq.

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
(602) 263-1700
For Chief Deputy Sheridan: Lee D. Stein, Esq.

MITCHELL STEIN CAREY
One Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue
Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
For Executive Chief Sands:
11
12
13
Greg S. Como, Esq.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& SMITH, L.L.P.
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
(602) 385-1040
14
17
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.

DICKINSON WRIGHT, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
18
For Lieutenant Sousa:
David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.
2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Robert Warshaw

Chief John Girvin
Chief Raul Martinez
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 127
(178 of 1100)
I N D E X
Witness:
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young

Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Redirect Examination by Mr. Young
Examination by the Court
Page
518
587
614
625
6
JOSEPH SOUSA
7
8
9
Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
661
757
779
789
797
10
11
12
E X H I B I T S
13
No.
Description
Admitted
78
MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Raid

561
Phoenix Business for Employees using False ID,
All Arrested Suspected of Being in US Illegally
dated 9/20/2012
84
MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Execute

Search Warrant at Concrete Company in Glendale
dated 10/18/2012
565
85
MCSO Shift Summary (Sonoran Concrete)

DR 12-156907 dated 10/18/2012
(MELC157123 - MELC156125)
565
87
MCSO News Release, 72st Operation Targeting

False Identifications Used to Gain Employment
dated 3/14/2013
570
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 128
(179 of 1100)
E X H I B I T S
No.
Description
88
MCSO Shift Summary (America's Taco Shop)

DR 12-108378, DOJ Ex. 284 dated 3/14/2013
(MCS001291219 - MCS001291221)
571
132
E-mail chain from Sousa re "FW: Updated stats"

and attaching "Criminal Employments stats
03-28-12.doc; 03-28-12.doc" dated 3/28/2012
(MELCl14928 - MELCl 14931)
756
168
MCSO Memorandum from Sousa re "Document

Production Request Regarding Request IAM-22"
dated 1/12/2015 (MELC 114948)
706
169
E-mail chain from Sousa re "Current HSU Ops

Manual" originally dated March 27, 2012, then
January 13, 2015, and attaching HSU ops manual
(MELCl14960 - MELCl14967)
677
180
MCSO News Release, West Valley

Asian/International Supermarket Under
Investigation by Sheriff's Office, Arpaio
Says dated 1/17/2013 (MELC109370 - MELC109371)
568
182
MCSO News Release, 6 Adults and One Juvenile

Detained in Human Smuggling Operation dated
5/18/2013 (MELC167859 - MELC167860)
572
193A
A Video Clip 1 of Story re Crime Sweep,

October 19, 2013
580
193B
Video Clip 2 of Story re Crime Sweep,

October 19, 2013
582
193C

October 19, 2013
582
195A
Video Clip 1 of KNVX after 1070 Decision,

June 25, 2012
527
196A
Video Clip 1 of Fox Latino at Republican

Convention, August 31, 2012
545
4
5
6
Admitted
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 129
(180 of 1100)
E X H I B I T S
No.
Description
Admitted
196C

547
196D

548
196E

550
197A
Video Clip 1 of Fox News after after 1070

Decision, June 26, 2012
536
198A
Video Clip 1 of Univision after 1070 Decision,

June 25, 2012
529
198B

June 25, 2012
530
12
199A
Video Clip 1 of CNN June 25, 2012
533
13
199B
534
14
200A
Video Clip 1 of Fox Cavuto June 25, 2012
539
15
201A
Video Clip 1 of Maldonado Interview published

April 13, 2012
521
201B

April 13, 2012
524
203
Video Excerpt from The Joe Show, released

February 26, 2014
585
212`
Email Chain from J. Sousa to J. Spurgin, et.

al., re "Master Stat Sheet for Op Desert Sky"
dated March 31, 2011 (MELC172485 - MELC172503)
Sousa Depo Exhibit 192
725
216
Email from J. Sousa to M. Trowbridge, et al.,

re "The Saving of Emails for Ongoing Lawsuits
per Att Tim Casey" dated March 27, 2012
(MELC173868 - MELC173870)
668
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 130
(181 of 1100)
Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/23/15
518
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
3
THE CLERK:
All rise.
The United States District
Court for the District of Arizona is now in session, the
Honorable G. Murray Snow presiding.
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Civil case number 07-2513, Melendres v.
Arpaio, on for continued evidentiary hearing.

THE COURT:
9
10
Do we have any matters of business,
housekeeping to take up?
11
MR. YOUNG:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
08:34:20
08:34:34
Nothing from plaintiffs, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor.
Nothing from the County at this time,
Your Honor.
15
MR. COMO:
No, Your Honor.
16
THE COURT:
Please proceed, Mr. Young.
17
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you, Your Honor.
08:34:49
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
18
19
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
20
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
21
DIRECT EXAMINATION
22
BY MR. YOUNG:
23
Q.
Good morning, Sheriff.
24
A.
Good morning.
25
Q.
In the early part of 2012 you believed that illegal
08:34:56
RE 131
(182 of 1100)
Arpaio - Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/23/15
643
Q.
had sources were telling him your office was doing out of
Seattle involving confidential informants?
A.
He may -- I may remember that, yes.
Q.
Let me just give you -- I've copied the article.
give it to you and see if it helps to refresh your recollection
that you've read it.
Do you remember him writing about investigations that he
Let me
11:54:26
Do you want to distribute that?
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
10
clerk.)
11:54:57
11
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:
Hand it to the attorneys.

It's a long article.
13
BY THE COURT:
14
Q.
15
read it, you can do that.
16
recollection, now having me give it to you, if you ever read
17
it.
18
It is a long article, and if you need to take the time to

But I'm just asking if you have any
11:55:44
I will tell you that in the article he says he talked
19
to you about some of the materials in the article, and that's
20
kind of on the last page, if that will help you.
21
11:56:01
(Pause in proceedings.)
22
BY THE COURT:
23
Q.
Do you remember reading this article?
24
A.
I believe I read it.
25
Q.
And I just want to ask you some questions about the article
11:56:53
RE 132
(183 of 1100)
644
and some of the things that it states.
I recognize, and I believe Mr. Lemons does in the
article, too, that he can't personally vouch for everything
that the article says, it's just what he's had some sources
tell him.
11:57:10
So I don't mean to suggest one way or another that the
article is accurate.
things that it says so I understand them.
you'll tell me the truth, and you understand you're under oath,
10
I just want to ask about some of the

And I trust that
correct?
11
11:57:24
Did you detail some of your personnel to conduct
12
investigations that resulted in their frequent trips and stays
13
in the Washington state area beginning in 2013 or 2014?
14
A.
15
there, yes.
16
Q.
And who were those investigators?
17
A.
I think it was Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz.
18
Q.
And Mackiewicz is --
19
A.
A detective.
20
Q.
Is he in your -- is he assigned to you personally, your
21
risk detail?
22
A.
Well, we had a lot of threats on me and --
23
Q.
I understand that.
24
protect you and assess risks that come against you?
25
A.
We had a couple investigations -- investigators go up
Yes.
11:57:40
11:57:52
Is that generally his assignment, to
11:58:09
RE 133
(184 of 1100)
645
Q.
And so you were aware when he was gone to the Seattle area?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what about -- I think there's a Mr. Anglin mentioned in
the article.
Seattle as well?
A.
I think for a short period of time he did.
Q.
And is zoo -- did you say Zulu?
member?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And did you pay funds from Maricopa County for Mr. Zullo to
11
go to the Washington area?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And then I assume you paid Anglin and Mackiewicz their
14
travel costs?
15
A.
We don't pay for Zullo, but --
16
Q.
But you paid Mackiewicz and Anglin.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you also hire a consultant in the Washington state
19
area to help you with this investigation or investigations that
20
Mackiewicz and Zullo were working with?
21
A.
Not that I know of.
22
Q.
Did you have a confidential informant in the Washington
23
area that they were working with?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And does the article accurately identify who that
Was he also an officer that was assigned to go to

11:58:23
Zullo.
Is he a posse
11:58:33
11:58:47
11:59:02
May have.
11:59:12
RE 134
(185 of 1100)
646
confidential informant was?
It says the name is Dennis Montgomery.
Is that the
confidential informant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so when Mr. Montgomery was a confidential informant, he
was some sort of a computer consultant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And as a confidential informant, his fees would have to be
paid, or approved, if in fact it was before the transfer of
10
Captain Bailey, his fees would have had to have been approved
11
by Captain Bailey, or any payments to him would have had to
12
have been approved by Captain Bailey?
13
A.
I'm not sure at the time period, Your Honor.
14
Q.
Now, the article says that you were personally conducting
15
these investigations and personally aware of them.
16
11:59:38
11:59:57
12:00:14
Were you?
17
A.
Well, on a certain issue I was.
18
Q.
And what issue was that?
19
A.
It was the president's birth certificate.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
into the president's birth certificate.
22
ever tell you -- or, well, did you ever use Mr. Montgomery to
23
investigate anything about the Department of Justice?
24
A.
25
certificate.
So you were -- Mr. Montgomery was doing research
12:00:25
Did Mr. Montgomery
I don't believe that Montgomery was involved in the birth

It was other violations that he was looking into.
12:00:46
RE 135
(186 of 1100)
647
Q.
And what were those?
A.
Had to do with computer tampering and also bank fraud, that
type of thing.
Q.
Montgomery was actually doing was investigating me.
You see that that's what the article says?
Did you ever -- you see that the article says that what
A.
It's not true.
Q.
All right.
by anyone?
12:01:12
Are you aware that I've ever been investigated
10
A.
You investigated?
11
Q.
Yes.
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
16
A.
17
Q.
Yes.
18
A.
Not by our office.
19
Q.
Are you aware of anybody who's investigated any of my
20
family members by any -- any office.
21
A.
22
office.
23
Q.
24
A.
25
Q.
12:01:24
No.
12:01:31
Or anybody.
12:01:52
I believe there was an issue, but once again, it wasn't my
12:02:12
RE 136
(187 of 1100)
648
A.
Could have been counsel.
Q.
"Counsel" meaning your counsel?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And would that have been Mr. Casey or Ms. Iafrate?
A.
I believe it would have been Mr. Casey.
Q.
And who did he hire?
A.
It was the counsel.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
Mr. Casey.
10
Q.
Mr. Casey.
11
A.
Pardon?
12
Q.
Who did Mr. Casey hire?
13
my family, or members of my family.
14
A.
We weren't investigating you, Your Honor.
15
Q.
Well, who were you investigating?
16
A.
We were investigating some comments that came to our
17
attention.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Through e-mail.
20
Q.
And do you know who the author of the e-mail was?
21
A.
I don't have the name right now.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
well, let me get -- let me get this clear.
24
that Mr. Mackiewicz, Mr. Anglin, Mr. Zullo, never were involved
25
in any investigation of the Department of Justice or of me, is
12:02:30
12:02:42
To investigate me or a member of
12:02:56
And how did they come to your attention?
12:03:10
Let me ask, in his article Mr. Lemons indicates -Your testimony is
12:03:33
RE 137
(188 of 1100)
649
that correct?
A.
Not -- no, not of you.
Q.
Well, were they involved in an investigation of the
Department of Justice?
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
Were they trying to determine whether the Department of
Justice had contacted me in any way?
A.
I'm not sure about that.
Q.
You're not sure about that?
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
And would Mr. Montgomery have been involved in assisting
12
them to determine whether the Department of Justice had
13
contacted me in any way?
14
A.
15
being infiltrated or wiretaps and that type of thing.
16
what the informer said that right now we don't have much
17
confidence in.
18
Q.
Well, who was the informer and what did the informer say?
19
A.
We're speaking about Montgomery.
20
Q.
All right.
21
infiltrated?
22
A.
23
phones were tapped, e-mails, that type of thing.
24
Q.
By the Department of Justice?
25
A.
By someone.
No.
12:03:55
12:04:09
I believe there was information about many judges

That's
Montgomery said that judges had been
12:04:29
12:04:50
That many judges -- if I recall, that they're wire -- their
12:05:08
RE 138
(189 of 1100)
Q.
at the MCSO that the DOJ was inappropriately --
650
And so Mr. Montgomery proposed to -- who did he propose to
I assume it was of interest to you if they were
wiretapping my phone, among others?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And yours, too.
And mine, too.
12:05:33
And so were you conducting this investigation?
A.
No.
Q.
Who was in your department?
10
A.
This is Zullo and I think Mackiewicz.
11
Q.
What rank does Mackiewicz have?
12
A.
He's a detective.
13
Q.
Who did he report to about this investigation?
14
A.
I think he and Zullo worked together.
15
Q.
And who did they report to?
16
A.
And Jerry Sheridan.
17
Q.
They reported to Deputy Chief Sheridan?
18
A.
At one time, but let me just say that the information
19
we're -- we've been getting is the informer's not very viable.
20
Q.
21
that you became aware after a considerable amount of time that
22
the reporter was giving you junk.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Or the informer was giving you junk?
25
A.
Yes.
12:05:40
12:05:52
Well, I understand that, I think the article itself says,
12:06:11
Is that fair to say?
12:06:24
RE 139
(190 of 1100)
Q.
How much money did you spend on the informant?
A.
I don't recall.
Q.
How much money did you spend on the investigation?
A.
I don't have the figures.
Q.
Do you -- does the -- I guess I want to straighten some
things out to make sure that I understand them.
651
12:06:35
It's typical that confidential informants get control
numbers?
A.
I believe so.
10
Q.
And that they are maintained in a confidential informant
11
log and monitored by the Special Investigations Division
12
commander or his designee?
13
A.
I believe so.
14
Q.
And that for the time that this matter was going to be
15
investigated, or was being investigated, that would have been
16
Captain Bailey, correct?
17
A.
18
knew about it.
19
Q.
20
investigation began in October of 2013.
21
article, says that as of January 2015 he kept making document
22
requests to the MCSO, and the MCSO continued to say this is an
23
ongoing investigation, we're not going to give you anything.
24
So is this investigation still ongoing, or have you
25
determined pretty much that the informant was unreliable and
12:06:56
12:07:14
I'm still not sure on the time -- time frame, or whether he
Well, I will tell you that the article suggests that the
And Mr. Lemons, in the
12:07:29
12:07:51
RE 140
(191 of 1100)
652
it's not worth proceeding?
A.
Well, it's almost finished.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
It's almost finished on -- especially on his reliability.
Q.
All right.
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
Well, I want to understand exactly what it is that
Mr. Mont -- your understanding of what it is that
Mr. Montgomery told you DOJ was doing that you were
Are you investigating him now?
12:08:06
10
investigating.
11
A.
12
penetrating in the e-mails of our local attorneys and others,
13
judges, that type of thing, which we can't prove.
14
Q.
All right.
15
A.
I think you were one of the judges.
16
Q.
And were you concerned then that that might be affecting my
17
judgment or neutrality in this lawsuit?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Who else was named by Mr. Montgomery as being targets of
20
this DOJ investigation?
21
A.
22
for us on the Department of Justice lawsuit.
23
Q.
Who else?
24
A.
You mean other judges around -- I don't remember.
25
Q.
Anybody that Mr. Montgomery said that -- that the DOJ was
12:08:23
Once again, he seemed to indicate that someone was
And was I one of those judges?

12:08:50
12:09:08
I believe the -- our local law firm, the attorneys working
12:09:34
RE 141
(192 of 1100)
653
bugging their phones, or otherwise intruding into their private
communications.
A.
Well, I know I was.
Q.
You were one.
A.
Jerry Sheridan, I believe.
officials.
Q.
And I was?
A.
You -- yes.
Q.
Did you keep any of the materials that Mr. Montgomery has
Your law firm was one.

And there's other local
12:09:53
10
provided you?
11
A.
I don't have them.
12
Q.
Who does?
13
A.
I believe Zullo does.
14
Q.
And is he subject to your control --
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
-- as a member of your posse?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
I'm going to direct you that you tell Mr. Zullo that he
19
keep all those documents.
20
A.
He what?
21
Q.
He keep and maintain all of those documents.
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
I'm going to direct you that nothing pertaining to any of
24
this investigation be destroyed, including confidential
25
informant numbers.
12:10:03
12:10:13
All right?
12:10:22
12:10:32
RE 142
(193 of 1100)
654
Do you understand that direction?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Who else was aware of these investigations within the MCSO?
A.
I'm not sure.
to keep it quiet.
Q.
involved me and my phone or any contact or tapping by the
Department of Justice, you indicated that there were
investigations made into members of my family.
Because of the sensitivity, we were trying

12:10:51
Now, I think in addition to the investigation that may have
10
Did you indicate that?
11
A.
That had nothing to do with Montgomery.
12
Q.
What did it have to do with?
13
A.
I believe there was a, as I say, e-mail that came to me.
14
Q.
And do you still have that e-mail?
15
A.
We may have it, yes.
16
Q.
I'm going to direct you to keep that e-mail.
17
12:11:08
12:11:28
What did the e-mail say, to the best of your
18
recollection?
19
A.
20
everything to make sure I'm not elected.
21
Q.
Do you recall who the author of that e-mail was?
22
A.
I believe it was someone named Grissom.
23
Q.
Grissom?
24
A.
Grissom.
25
Q.
Okay.
I think it mentioned that Judge Snow wanted to do
And how did this person purport to know that?
12:11:43
12:12:02
RE 143
(194 of 1100)
655
A.
that made those comments.
Q.
According to whatever Mr. Grissom said.
A.
There was other witnesses, yes.
Q.
Okay.
counsel hired a private investigator, and what did the
investigator do?
A.
He investigated it.
Q.
And what was the result of the investigation?
10
A.
Results were that he confirmed that your wife was in that
11
restaurant and con -- I guess talked to the witnesses, three or
12
four, that confirm that remark was made.
13
Q.
14
that investigation?
15
A.
We should have.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
All right.
19
The person met your wife in a restaurant, and she's the one
And so you turned that over to your counsel and
All right.
12:12:28
12:12:37
And do you have any materials pertaining to
12:12:59
Will you save those as well?
Thank you.
Who has told you that the information that
20
Mr. Montgomery provide -- or how is it that you've come to
21
conclude that the information you were getting from
22
Mr. Montgomery is not reliable?
23
A.
24
he may not be reliable.
25
Q.
12:13:08
I think the investigators, as time progressed, figured that
Did the MCSO also purchase computer equipment for
12:13:24
RE 144
(195 of 1100)
Mr. Montgomery or for the investigation?
A.
That's possible.
Q.
Well, I'm going to direct you, to the extent that any of
this material is in your control, that it be maintained.
656
12:13:45
A.
Yes.
Q.
Would Captain Bailey have been involved in any of these
investigations?
A.
I don't believe so.
10
Q.
But if he was the commander of Special Investigations
11
Division, he would have been aware of the investigations?
12
A.
I'm not sure.
13
Q.
The commander of the Special Investigations Division would
14
have to sign off on payments made to confidential informants?
15
A.
Yes, normally.
16
Q.
And would they have to sign off on payments made for
17
investigations in which confidential informants were involved?
18
A.
19
would do that.
20
Q.
21
Division?
22
A.
23
name, but -- I know that Trombi is the top guy in charge of all
24
these elements.
25
Q.
12:13:56
12:14:14
I'm not sure if he would do it, or a lieutenant, or who
Who is currently the director of the Special Investigations
12:14:34
Or the commander or the captain.
I can't re -- I can't remember his name.
It's an Italian
Will you make sure that everybody in your division that has
12:15:09
RE 145
(196 of 1100)
anything to do with any of this maintains all these records?
A.
657
Yes.
THE COURT:
I think, Sheriff, for the time being,
those are my questions.
lunch, so could you be back in an hour?
lunch break.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
It's probably time for us to break for

We'll have an hour
12:16:07
Yes, sir.
I appreciate your answers.

Thank you.
10
(Lunch recess taken.)
11
THE CLERK:
All rise.
12
THE COURT:
Thank you.
13
You ready to proceed?
14
MS. WANG:
15
THE COURT:
16
Oh, I'm sorry.
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
12:16:16
Court is now in session.

Please be seated.
Yes, Your Honor.

Sheriff, I just wanted to --
13:23:01
Yes, Your Honor.
I just wanted to reiterate some of the
19
things I said during my questioning of you to make sure
20
everybody was clear.
21
like Mr. Zullo -- Mr. Zullo's the head of one of your posses.
I was told over lunch that posse funds
22
THE WITNESS:
23
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE COURT:
13:23:11
Yes.
Is it the Cold Case posse?

Yes.
I was told that you also have various
13:23:23
RE 146
(197 of 1100)
sources of funding within the MCSO, like the Cold Case posse
has its own funds.
658
Is that possible?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
No.
Okay.
Do you know what the possible
funding sources were for the investigations that were related
to the Seattle operation?
When I say "operation," I mean the one involving
Mr. Montgomery and the investigations with Brian Mackiewicz and
Mr. Anglin.
10
THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure if it was our RICO, which
11
is drugs seized -- I mean moneys seized from drug peddlers, or
12
our general funds.
13
THE COURT:
be involved that fund various like, for example, the Cold Case
15
posse?
13:24:14
16
THE WITNESS:
17
THE COURT:
18
THE WITNESS:
19
THE COURT:
They're independent 501(c) --
501(c)(3).
-- and they raise their own money.
All right.
And you don't have any control
over those funds?
13:24:24
21
THE WITNESS:
22
THE COURT:
No.
What about asset forfeiture funds, would
23
any asset forfeiture funds have been involved in funding this
24
operation?
25
13:24:00
Were there other possible funds that might
14
20
13:23:34
THE WITNESS:
I don't know where their funding came
13:24:35
RE 147
(198 of 1100)
659
from.
THE COURT:
Well, the point is this, and I think I
made it clear, but I just want to make sure that I've made it
clear, to the extent that you have any control over any funding
records, over any reports, over any communications, over any
overtime records, travel documentation, any e-mails of any and
all people involved in the threat assessment unit or anywhere
else, any communications from and to Montgomery, any computers
or phones, cell phones or other information that in any way is
13:24:45
10
relevant or related to this investigation, I want you to direct
11
your people to put a hold on it immediately and preserve it.
12
And that includes any documentation or numbers that would
13
relate to Mr. Montgomery's confidential status.
14
You understand that?
15
THE WITNESS:
16
Your Honor, are you referring to this
13:25:39
investigation with the monitors and --
17
THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm referring to the
18
investigation that Mr. Montgomery was undertaking with
19
Mr. Mackiewicz, Mr. Anglin, Mr. Zullo, anybody else from your
20
staff, anybody else from the MCSO, or anyone else from the
21
posse.
22
electronic data or anything else, or the financing, funding of
23
that operation, all phone records, e-mails, reports, I want it
24
all preserved.
25
13:25:18
13:26:00
I want all records that in any way relate to it, all
And I think I will send the monitor to begin taking
13:26:18
RE 148
(199 of 1100)
possession of those records and we'll do it confidentially,
imminently.
records lost, inadvertently or otherwise.
660
But I don't want in the interim any of those
You understand what I'm saying?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Mr. Young?
10
MR. YOUNG:
No further questions, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate?
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
nothing, Your Honor.
Yes.
13:26:32
And you'll so direct your people?

Yes.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
13:26:39
Nothing, Your Honor.

Subject to my earlier reservation,
15
MR. COMO:
16
THE COURT:
17
Next witness.
18
MS. WANG:
19
THE CLERK:
20
and last name for the record.
I have no questions, Your Honor.

You may step down, Sheriff.
13:26:47
Thank you.
Your Honor, plaintiffs call Joseph Sousa.

Can you please state and spell your first
21
THE WITNESS:
22
(Joseph Sousa was duly sworn as a witness.)
23
THE CLERK:
Can you please take our witness stand.
24
THE COURT:
Please, Ms. Wang.
25
MS. WANG:
13:27:18
Joseph Sousa, J-o-s-e-p-h, S-o-u-s-a.
13:28:03
RE 149
(200 of 1100)
817
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
April 24, 2015
8:41 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 150
(201 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
7

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
Stanley Young, Esq.
Hyun S. Byun, Esq.
(650) 632-4700
8
9
10

3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
(602) 650-1854
11
12
13
14

FOUNDATION
(212) 549-2676
15
16
17
18
For the Defendants:
19
20

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
21
22
23
24
25

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
RE 151
(202 of 1100)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(602) 263-1700

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
11
12
13
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
14
17

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
18

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief
Chief
Chief
Karen
Ralph
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
Robert Warshaw
John Girvin
Raul Martinez
Clark, Esq.
Adams, Esq.
24
25
RE 152
(203 of 1100)
I N D E X
Witness:
GERALD SHERIDAN

Direct Examination by the Court
Cross-Examination Continued by Ms. Iafrate
Further Examination by the Court
5
6
Page
821
922
965
966
967
7
E X H I B I T S
8
9
No.
Description
10
147
Azcentral opinion article by Jerry Sheridan,

Here are the facts in profiling suit vs.
MCSO dated 1/12/2014
906
204C
Video Clip 3 of October 18, 2013 Crime

Suppression Briefing
911
204D

913
204E

914
204G
916
11
12
Admitted
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 153
(204 of 1100)
Sheridan - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/24/15
821
2
3
4
THE CLERK:
All rise.
Court is now in session, the
THE COURT:
Thank you.
THE CLERK:
This is civil case number 07-2513,
Please be seated.
08:41:33
Melendres v. Arpaio, on for continued evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
We ready, Ms. Wang?

Yes, Your Honor.
Good morning.
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. WANG:
12
THE CLERK:
13
Please state your first and last name for the record.
14
THE WITNESS:
15
Good morning.
08:41:46
Plaintiffs call Gerard Sheridan.

Step right up here, sir.
Gerard Sheridan.
G-e-r-a-r-d,
S-h-e-r-i-d-a-n.
08:42:11
16
THE CLERK:
17
(Gerard Sheridan was duly sworn as a witness.)
18
THE CLERK:
Thank you.
19
THE COURT:
Please proceed, Ms. Wang.
20
MS. WANG:
21
Thank you.
Please raise your right hand.
Please take our witness stand.

GERARD SHERIDAN,
22
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
23
examined and testified as follows:
24
25
08:42:48
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WANG:
08:42:50
RE 154
(205 of 1100)
response rate?
A.
That would be correct.
Q.
Has anyone been disciplined for noncompliance with the
directive to send in video recordings?
A.
I don't know.
10:00:23
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Mr. McDonald to his funeral.
10
Ms. Wang, are you at a breaking point?

I can, yes, Your Honor.
All right.
I think that we need to get
And so, Mr. McDonald, if you need to leave, we will
11
let you go.
12
I do have an item of business.
13
874
10:00:37
I promise you there will be no more testimony, but
As I indicated yesterday, I was going to require
14
Ms. Iafrate, Mr. Walker, to give a point of contact so we could
15
have attorney review and production of documents today that I
16
required to be delivered yesterday.
17
I've just been informed that the document
18
representative that Mr. -- that's been provided, I assume they
19
were attorneys you both provided, advised that he's been
20
directed by deputy chief -- or Chief Deputy Sheridan to not
21
release anything until all items are Bates stamped and
22
Ms. Iafrate has seen all items and she approves the release.
23
10:00:54
10:01:07
For reasons I stated yesterday -- and I understand
24
your desire for document control, but for reasons I stated
25
yesterday, it's incredibly important, I think, first that we
10:01:26
RE 155
(206 of 1100)
get our hands around the documents.
about some of the issues that we have.
875
I mean, we're talking
And so I'm going to require that those documents be
released immediately.
Whoever your designated attorney is, get over there and review
them.
have been provided, and then we can -- we can match them up
when you Bates stamp them.
provided.
10
I mean, not without your review.
We'll make some sort of a list of the documents that
But I want those documents
Do you have an issue with that, Chief, that we need --
11
that we need to discuss or concerns that you wanted to raise
12
that I should consider?
13
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
15
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
17
18
10:01:58
No, sir.
Okay.
Is that okay with you?
Yes, sir.
All right.
10:02:11
Do you have any issues,
Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, it does not take long to
19
Bates stamp documents, and I think that because of the control
20
issues that I have been having regarding releasing documents,
21
that's the safest way to document what's in there.
22
10:01:43
THE COURT:
Well, I appreciate that.
10:02:23
But nothing that
23
you've tried so far has worked very well, and we don't have
24
documents that we should have had prior to this proceeding.
25
what I propose is, again, you turn them over.
So
You identify the
10:02:39
RE 156
(207 of 1100)
documents.
number of pages.
them all once we have a control set.
We'll give you the receipt.
We'll list the
And then we can match them up and Bates stamp
Are you okay with that?
MS. IAFRATE:
I am, except that I would like to
clarify that I believe that what I have been doing has been
working since I've started on this case.
876
THE COURT:
10:02:52
Well, and again, I didn't mean by my
comment to impugn you in any way, but we certainly don't have
10
all the documents that I ordered to be delivered in February,
11
and here we are at the end of March.
12
10:03:06
That's my concern.
And there has been nothing throughout this case, only
13
a small part of which you've been privy to, that makes me
14
believe that we still have all the documents that are relevant
15
to this case, and I'm not going to put up with it any more, and
16
so we're going to proceed in that way.
17
10:03:22
I appreciate your desire for document control, and I
18
don't mean for my frustration to be reflected upon you
19
personally.
20
your best efforts, and I appreciate your belief and your view
21
about Bates stamping documents.
22
I have no reason to think that you haven't used

10:03:37
We will proceed in the way I've suggested so that we
23
can match up documents and Bates stamp them and get a good
24
control.
25
while my monitor team is here.
But I want those documents delivered immediately

10:03:52
RE 157
(208 of 1100)
THE WITNESS:
with my counsel for one second?
little confusion.
Excuse me, Your Honor.
877
Can I confer
Because I think there's a
THE COURT:
(Off-the-record discussion between the clerk and the
7
8
9
10
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
10:04:05
Court.)
THE COURT:
For the record, my deputy clerk informs me
that I said we're at the end of March.

the end of April.
I do realize we're at
I'm not a very good detective, either.
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
THE COURT:
13
Then I think we agreed we'll be back at 1:30.
14
We have nothing to add, Your Honor.
All right.
Thank you.
THE CLERK:
16
(Recess taken.)
17
THE CLERK:
All rise.
18
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
19
Mr. McDonald, thank you for being back timely.
20
MR. McDONALD:
22
Is that
a -- we'll see you back at 1:30.
15
21
10:04:31
All rise.
10:05:01
That you think very much, Your Honor,
13:37:12
for accommodating me.

THE COURT:
Before we begin, apparently there's been a
23
miscommunication.
Chief, I know you were over trying to
24
facilitate or getting those documents over the noon hour, and
25
as soon as you left, folks indicated they wouldn't give the
13:37:24
RE 158
(209 of 1100)
878
documents until Ms. Iafrate had a chance to review them and
they were Bates stamped, which I think we had already resolved
prior to lunch.
Is there anything you can do to facilitate that
production right away, Chief?
wouldn't give them?
CHIEF MARTINEZ:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Who is the captain that said he
Chief Knight.
Chief Knight.
Your Honor --
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
15
I'm really trying -- the thought occurred to me over
Yes, Ms. Iafrate.
13:37:50
-- may I make a call?
Sure.
May I make a call?
Sure, if you don't mind.
16
lunch, Chief.
17
going to be too much other stuff.
18
important to secure the documents.
19
to that order, unless you have some reason, Chief, why I
20
shouldn't.
21
history of the case, that we get the documents in a set today.
22
I'm not trying to use these today.
But I really do think it's

So I'm still going to hold
I think it's very important, in light of the
MS. IAFRATE:
13:38:19
From what I understand, Your Honor, at
one point there were three requests, and now I think that there
24
are way more requests -THE COURT:
13:38:01
There's
23
25
13:37:39
Yeah, it --
13:38:35
RE 159
(210 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
879
-- so it's a moving target.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if the
requests are coming in fast and furious, because my folks want
to get their arms around everything today.
of the confusion.
the chief deputy went over to try the facilitate that, and
there must be some confusion, so if you'll call Chief Knight
and we'll wait for you.
So that may be part
But I'm sure I was clear, and I suspect that
MS. IAFRATE:
Okay.
And just for your edification,
10
there are three attorneys over there facilitating it also,
11
so --
12
THE COURT:
13
THE WITNESS:
14
13:39:07
I appreciate that very much.

That might be the confusion, Your Honor,
the three attorneys.
15
THE COURT:
16
I'll be back as soon as you return, Ms. Iafrate.
17
(Recess taken.)
18
THE COURT:
19
13:38:50
They probably need five, right?
Ms. Iafrate.
Thank you.
13:39:17
I understand
that the problem's been resolved.
20
MS. IAFRATE:
21
THE COURT:
22
Ms. Wang.
23
MS. WANG:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
Thank you.
13:48:48
Appreciate that.
Good afternoon, Chief Sheridan.
13:49:00
RE 160
(211 of 1100)
Sheridan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/24/15
Q.
No, you do not.
A.
Okay.
Q.
It's either me or the judge, so I'll go first.
4
5
959
There was an investigation that was discussed, someone

called it the Seattle investigation.
16:13:01
Do you know what I'm referring to?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
What is it?
A.
In a nutshell, the Seattle investigation was where we had a
10
confidential informant that had information about computer
11
tampering crimes, where he had information that the CIA hacked
12
into individual bank accounts, I think there were approximately
13
50,000 of them, Maricopa County residents.
14
their bank account numbers, and their dollar amounts.
15
Q.
Who made the determination to investigate these issues?
16
A.
Sheriff and I.
17
Q.
When you made that determination, did you seek anyone
18
else's advice on how to proceed with this investigation?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
20
Q.
Who?
21
A.
We went to the Arizona Attorney General with this
22
information.
23
Q.
24
investigation?
25
A.
16:13:20
He had their names,
16:14:01
16:14:19
And following your conversation did you ensue an
Yes.
16:14:33
RE 161
(212 of 1100)
960
Q.
What became of that investigation?
A.
Eventually, nothing.
Q.
Why is that?
A.
Because we found it difficult to determine the credibility
of the informant.
Q.
criminal case is vital, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So if you were doubting the credibility of the confidential
16:14:53
The credibility of an informant in attempting to make a
10
informant, the investigation went nowhere?
11
A.
That's correct.
12
Q.
There was some discussion regarding how you pay
13
confidential informants.
14
for that confidential informant?
15
A.
I do.
16
Q.
Where?
17
A.
RICO funds.
18
Q.
And who is responsible for determining what fund is used?
19
A.
It's normal standing operating procedure that we pay
20
informants using those RICO funds.
21
Q.
22
Sheriff Arpaio about.
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
The question that I think -- and I don't mean to put words
25
in his mouth, but what the judge asked was:
16:15:11
Do you know the source of the money
16:15:30
What was the source?
16:15:44
There was another investigation that the judge queried

Do you recall that?
Do you know of
16:16:04
RE 162
(213 of 1100)
961
anyone that investigated Judge Snow or a family member?
Do you recall that question?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Do you know of anyone that investigated Judge Snow or a
family member of Judge Snow?
A.
question is because I've been around lawyers for the last five
years and I know words mean certain things.
investigate Judge Snow's wife.
16:16:20
The reason I'm hesitating in answer -- answering the
We did not
10
Q.
Who was investigated?
11
A.
We contacted an individual that talked to Judge Snow's
12
wife.
13
Q.
14
individual and Judge Snow's wife?
15
A.
16
Sheriff Arpaio in August of 2013.
17
Q.
And what was the content of that Facebook message?
18
A.
I'd rather not say.
19
Q.
Well, I'm asking you what it said.
20
judge chooses to ask that very same question, are you going to
21
answer it?
22
A.
23
that question.
16:16:48
How did you find out about this conversation with an
An individual sent a private Facebook page message to
16:17:04
If I sit down and the

16:17:40
I will answer the question if the Court orders me to answer
24
THE COURT:
Well, let me ask you, was it about me?
25
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
16:17:56
RE 163
(214 of 1100)
1
2
THE COURT:
962
And did it make allegations that I was
doing something illegal?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
in this litigation?
No, sir.
Did it make allegations that I was biased

16:18:08
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
All right.
You may go ahead and answer.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Do you remember the question?
10
A.
Could you please repeat it?
11
Q.
Sure.
12
went to the sheriff's office, and I asked you what was the
13
content of the message.
14
A.
15
Judge Snow's wife.
16
see you out of office.
17
Q.
Did you identify who that message was from?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Karen Grissom.
20
Q.
21
Ms. Grissom came to get this information that Judge Snow's wife
22
said that Judge Snow hates the sheriff and wants to get him out
23
of office?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
What did you -- what did you learn subsequently?
Yes.
16:18:17
You were talking about this Facebook message that
I can't quote it verbatim, but it was -- I know

She told me he hates you and he wants to
16:18:40
The header from the individual that it came from was
Did you learn -- subsequently learn more about how
16:19:11
16:19:30
RE 164
(215 of 1100)
963
A.
East Valley with her husband and her adult son.
by Judge Snow's wife and his daughter near the counter to pay
the cashier.
were children growing up in Yuma, I believe, and that
Judge Snow's wife recognized her as childhood friends, but
actually she mistook her for her other -- for Ms. Grissom's
sister, and they had a conversation about life, they hadn't
seen each other for years, and then this conversation occurred.
I learned that Ms. Grissom was at a restaurant in the

They were met
Apparently, they knew each other from when they
10
Q.
So why -- why was Ms. Grissom being investigated?
11
A.
I'm sorry, what was that question?
12
Q.
Why was Ms. Grissom being investigated?
13
THE COURT:
Ms. Grissom was not being investigated.
15
wrote the e-mail to the sheriff.
17
16:20:38
If I understood correctly, Ms. Iafrate,
14
16
16:20:06
MS. IAFRATE:
She was the person who

16:20:58
She was the person who wrote the e-mail
to the sheriff and then subsequently was investigated.
18
THE COURT:
Oh, I didn't know that.
19
THE WITNESS:
Well, no one was investigated.
20
BY MS. IAFRATE:
21
Q.
Okay.
22
A.
She was interviewed, her husband was interviewed, her son
23
was interviewed, for the veracity of Ms. Grissom's Facebook
24
message to the sheriff.
25
Q.
16:21:10
The investigator spoke to her?
And were the husband and the son present when -- supposedly
16:21:26
RE 165
(216 of 1100)
964
present when this statement by Ms. -- by Judge Snow's wife was
made?
A.
Yes, as well as His Honor's daughter, also.
Q.
Ultimately, following the interviews of these individuals
was the statement deemed credible?
A.
7
8
Yes.
THE COURT:
Maybe we ought to go back.
I missed the
whole investigation.
MS. IAFRATE:
10
11
16:21:54
THE COURT:
Okay.
It probably makes sense to only go through
this once.
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
THE COURT:
Yes.
So I got that Karen Grissom, who is an
14
acquaintance or a friend of my -- childhood friend of my wife
15
from Yuma, met my wife and daughter in a restaurant, said
16
something about what I supposedly feel about Sheriff Arpaio.
17
didn't hear -- and then you said there was an investigation.
18
Who did the investigation?
19
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
22
BY MS. IAFRATE:
23
Q.
25
Okay, so let me back up.
16:22:21
I used the
wrong verb, Your Honor.
21
24
16:22:07
16:22:39
Okay.
You said an investigator interviewed Ms. Grissom.

THE COURT:
questions?
Can we go back?
Can we jointly ask these

16:22:49
RE 166
(217 of 1100)
Sheridan - Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/24/15
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
question?
965
Sure.
Who hired the investigator?

Mr. Casey.
All right.
And so do you mind if I ask a
You can interrupt me.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
16:23:04
I will not interrupt you.
Please do.
I will not.
In all seriousness, Ms. Iafrate, I think
10
that if you have objections or if anybody else does, they ought
11
to make them, even though I -- I'm asking questions.
12
16:23:13
EXAMINATION
13
BY THE COURT:
14
Q.
15
with his counsel?
16
A.
That's correct, Your Honor.
17
Q.
All right.
18
made, by whom I don't know, that there should be an
19
investigator that would contact Ms. Grissom.
20
A.
That's correct.
21
Q.
All right.
22
that Mr. Casey hired that investigator?
23
A.
I do know that, yes, he did.
24
Q.
All right.
25
release which, while acknowledging -- I read the press release
I take it, then, that the sheriff discussed this e-mail

16:23:25
And I take it, then, that the decision was
16:23:38
And it's your understanding -- or do you know
Are you aware that Mr. Casey has filed a press

16:23:50
RE 167
(218 of 1100)
966
because he sent it to my office.
while acknowledging that he has duties to you and not
commenting on it, denies that he was involved in any way, or he
says -- he doesn't deny anything, but he says something to the
effect that he's confidant that when the materials are
evaluated he was not involved in any way in the investigation
of me or a member of my family.
8
9
You're aware that Mr. Casey,
16:24:09
And is it your view that you were at a conversation in

which that just simply isn't true?
That if I read it that way,
10
my understanding is wrong?
11
A.
12
depends on how you define "investigated your wife," because
13
no one, no one ever went any further than just verifying that
14
conversation --
15
Q.
All right.
16
A.
-- occurred.
17
Q.
Mr. Casey hired, if not an investigator, somebody?
18
A.
That's correct.
19
Q.
And that somebody went and talked to Ms. Grissom?
20
A.
Correct.
21
16:24:25
Your Honor, that -- that's where I started out saying it
16:24:49
16:24:58
THE COURT:
22
Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
23
BY MS. IAFRATE:
24
Q.
And also spoke to her husband and her grown son?
25
A.
Correct.
16:25:07
RE 168
(219 of 1100)
Sheridan - Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/24/15
Q.
Who also heard the statements?
A.
Who verified her statement, yes.
THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm with you.
Go ahead.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
this information?
privilege, but ultimately, what was the end game of these
interviews with these individuals?
A.
Okay.
So based on this investigation, what was done with
Nothing.
MS. IAFRATE:
11
THE COURT:
12
Do you have any more?
I believe I'll stop there, Your Honor.
Okay.
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
16
Mr. Walker?
17
MR. WALKER:
Thank you.
You're through with your
Yes.
All right.
16:25:48
Your Honor, I would like to defer on this
18
witness also, particularly since he's going to be coming back
19
in June in any event.
20
THE COURT:
21
Mr. Como.
22
MR. COMO:
All right.
16:26:00
I don't have any questions at this time,
Your Honor.
24
25
16:25:39
examination?
14
23
16:25:18
I don't want you to reveal attorney-client
10
13
967
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
16:26:31
RE 169
(220 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
May 8, 2015
9:01 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 170
(221 of 1100)
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 5/8/15 Status Conference
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
(Telephonically)
5
6
7
8
(Telephonically)
9
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
Stanley Young, Esq.

Hyun Byun, Esq.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
13
16

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
23
24
25
RE 171
(222 of 1100)
2
3
For the Defendants Arpaio and MCSO:

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
4
5
6
7

Linda Tivorsak, Esq.
(602) 263-1700
For Chief Deputy Sheridan:
Barry D. Mitchell, Esq.

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
18
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:
15
16
19
20
21
22
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
23
24
25
RE 172
(223 of 1100)
2
3
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:
(Telephonically)
5
6

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
7
For Tom Liddy, Ann Uglietta, and Douglas Schwab:
8
Terrence P. Woods, Esq.
BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7700
9
10
11
Also present:
12
13
14
15
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)
Chief Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor

Deputy Monitor John Girvin
Deputy Monitor Raul Martinez
Ms. Sandi Wilson
Karen Clark, Esq.
Ms. Cari Shehorn
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 173
(224 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Melendres v. Arpaio, on for status conference.
09:01:18
Counsel, please announce your appearances.
MR. YOUNG:
Good morning, Your Honor.
For plaintiffs,
Stanley Young, Covington & Burling.

MR. BENDOR:
Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona.
10
MR. POCHODA:
Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona.
11
MS. IAFRATE:
09:01:30
Michele
12
Iafrate, and with me is my law clerk, Cari Shehorn, on behalf
13
of Sheriff Arpaio.
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. BIRNBAUM:
16
Birnbaum.
17
MacIntyre.
Good morning.
Gary
09:01:39
I'm appearing specially for Deputy Chief John
18
THE COURT:
Good morning.
19
MR. BIRNBAUM:
20
MR. WALKER:
Thank you.
Richard Walker
21
appearing on behalf of that portion of the Maricopa County
22
government embodied by the board of supervisors, the county
23
manager, and the appointed county officers reporting to them.
24
25
THE COURT:
morning?
Good morning.
09:01:46
Is Ms. Wilson here this

09:02:01
RE 174
(225 of 1100)
30
So I'm just going to instruct the parties, I've
instructed Ms. Iafrate, and I think she's doing her best to
comply, to review this material for attorney-client privilege
or work product immunity and do a privilege log, but if she
doesn't, but all the other documents she's providing in Bates
stamped order, and I gather that we may some need to discuss
and work that through to all parties so you're all getting
material that has peoples names, addresses, and telephone
numbers --
10
MS. IAFRATE:
11
banking documents, Your Honor.
As well as Social Security numbers and
12
THE COURT:
13
and Social Security numbers.
14
released without authorization of the Court.
15
can have it.
16
for this action.
17
release it without authorization of the Court.
18
Okay.
09:37:18
So there are some banking documents

None of that material can be
You can review it.
All right?
You
You can use it in preparing
09:37:31
But you cannot review it -- or you cannot
Ms. Iafrate, it occurred to me that if in -- and I
19
know that Chief Deputy Sheridan said that -- and again, Chief,
20
you're here.
21
trying to summarize essentially what your testimony was -- that
22
Mr. Montgomery, the MCSO has determined that he was not
23
credible.
24
you wish to.
25
09:37:04
I don't mean to put words in your mouth; I'm just
09:37:48
And again, you can correct that characterization if
And so it may be that -- well, I'm sorry.
It may be
09:38:06
RE 175
(226 of 1100)
31
that the doc -- it may be that his assertion that these
actually were documents that are a CIA dump are not correct.
But it occurs to me that if there is a chance that you believe
that you did receive CIA files, if you haven't already done it,
if you have not already done it, I'm going to ask you to
contact the chief counsel for the CIA and inform him that you
received these documents, the date you received these
documents, and see if they wish to intervene in this action and
take any protective measures with respect to these documents.
10
Do you have any problem doing that?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
Your Honor.
I think, I think that that would be prudent.
THE COURT:
14
order Ms. Iafrate to do that?
15
MR. YOUNG:
16
MR. WALKER:
17
MR. McDONALD:
18
MR. COMO:
19
THE COURT:
21
09:38:48
I do not have any problem doing that,
13
20
09:38:31
All right.
Any objection by anybody if I
None from plaintiffs, Your Honor.
09:38:59
No objection, Your Honor.

None, Your Honor.
I have none, Your Honor.

All right.
Other issues that you have,
Ms. Iafrate.
MS. IAFRATE:
09:39:08
I do have other issues regarding --
22
regarding that production.
I received a call from Chief Girvin
23
yesterday very concerned regarding the release of these
24
documents to others rather than the monitors, and I advised
25
them that I was ordered to do so by Your Honor in --
09:39:27
RE 176
(227 of 1100)
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
32
And you were.

-- docket 1032.
So --
No, no, you clearly were.
I hadn't
anticipated that you had a document dump like this, so you're
right, I did make that order.
MS. IAFRATE:
09:39:40
So the monitors have received documents
well before plaintiffs, because we were given the opportunity
to then review them and Bates stamp them and get them in order
to send them out to plaintiffs as well as the other attorneys.
10
There is a hard drive that has over two terabytes of data dump
11
on it in sub-folders.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
Are these the alleged CIA documents?

Yes.
This has --
Let me ask, are you -- and I'm sorry to
15
interrupt you -- are you able to segregate what the alleged CIA
16
documents are from other documents that were prepared by
17
Mr. Montgomery?
18
09:39:59
MS. IAFRATE:
To a point, Your Honor.
09:40:16
This hard drive
19
is the one that's most troubling, and I think that it -- I
20
think that the monitors would agree that it would be the most
21
troubling, not only the content that's on this hard drive is
22
personal in nature to hundreds of thousands of alleged victims
23
of identity theft, but also to duplicate it and get it in a
24
process that would be usable for plaintiffs and other attorneys
25
would require weeks of effort on the part of our third-party
09:40:33
09:40:58
RE 177
(228 of 1100)
33
vendor, and each shot would be approximately $87,000.
So the paper and the thumb drives and the other
information that has been provided to us, we have pushed that
out to plaintiffs, but this hard drive that I believe is
concerning -- and I won't speak for Chief Girvin, but he
expressed concern, too -- this is the bulk of the data dump
that I think that we should be most cautious about.
8
9
10
11
THE COURT:
All right.
09:41:22
Let me -- well, does anybody
have anything else they want to say before I venture some

thoughts?
09:41:42
It seems to me that we can do this.
In addition to
12
the concern that the monitor raised, he's also indicated to me,
13
at least based on a rough initial look, that there are clearly
14
documents in that file that are very relevant to this
15
litigation.
16
chance to look at that, and I guess -- so I don't want to
17
prevent them from looking at those things, but I see your point
18
that, you know, this data dump -- whether it's real, whether
19
it's false, whether it's partly real, partly false -- may be
20
very large, and may have lots of information.
21
And I believe that the plaintiffs have to have a
09:42:01
09:42:24
Does anybody object if I have my monitor coordinate
22
with Ms. Iafrate in terms of attempting to characterize
23
documents that you have in your possession, but I -- I guess
24
I'll just say just set them aside until the monitor coordinates
25
with Ms. Iafrate, looks at them, determines if their --
09:42:46
RE 178
(229 of 1100)
34
determines what their contents is in general, can disclose to
you what their content appears to be in general, and then you
can determine, or we can all determine in these status
conferences, what parts of that larger document file, if any,
are relevant to the ongoing proceeding here.
prevent you from looking at other documents that are not part
of that file.
Does that work for you, Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor.
And that will not
However, just to
10
complicate matters, I think that there are duplications from
11
the paper documents that have been provided --
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
15
09:43:31
Already?
Already, and there is some data dump in
those documents as well.

THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I think -- I think, and
16
tell me if you object to this, to the extent that you've
17
already done paper documents and put Bates stamps on them that
18
have been disclosed, we will let the plaintiffs look at those
19
subject to the protective order I just entered, which is they
20
are not to release them without order of this Court.
21
09:43:11
09:43:43
09:43:59
And then I guess I'm going to ask you, Ms. Iafrate,
22
would you please, unless you have an objection to doing so,
23
copy all counsel -- and the Court -- on your letter to -- or on
24
your communication, whatever it is, to counsel for the Central
25
Intelligence Agency?
09:44:23
RE 179
(230 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, I feel comfortable copying
you.
would like to be if you're ordering me to also provide it to
plaintiffs' counsel.
I need to think about whether I can be as candid as I
5
6
35
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, is there an issue you
09:44:37
want to talk to me about at sidebar on this?
MS. IAFRATE:
No, I'm just thinking out loud, Your
Honor, that this is a very sensitive matter that relates to CIA
intelligence, and potentially Mr. Montgomery's motive or
10
technique.
I'm just concerned that --
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
09:44:53
Well --- I'd like to be as candid as possible,
13
but I'm in an adversary position with plaintiffs' counsel as it
14
relates to my client.
15
THE COURT:
Mr. Young?
16
MR. YOUNG:
Well, Your Honor, plaintiffs have no
09:45:06
17
interest in receiving sensitive information that isn't relevant
18
to this case.
19
would be interested in it, and your suggested -- the Court's
20
suggested procedure to have the monitor make that
21
determination, or make it with the plaintiffs -- with the
22
defendants is fine with.
23
If it is relevant to the case, obviously, we
THE COURT:
All right.
24
letter.
25
going to send to CIA counsel?
09:45:21
Then I'm asking you about the
Do you care to receive the letter that Ms. Iafrate's

09:45:35
RE 180
(231 of 1100)
MR. YOUNG:
If Ms. Iafrate thinks that she can write a
better letter that's more informative to the CIA without
copying us on it, we're fine not getting it.
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
All right.
How about you, Mr. Como?
I don't need to be copied on that letter,
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Walker?
Your Honor, I don't think I need to have
a copy, although I must say I'm confused by this whole
10
discussion, probably primarily because I'm hearing a lot of
11
this for the first time.
12
13
14
15
16
THE COURT:
09:46:01
But the letter --
You were here, sir, with all the rest of
us; you were here.

MR. WALKER:
But to answer the Court's question
directly, I don't believe that I need to receive the letter.

THE COURT:
All right.
09:46:11
Well, you know, I think,
17
Ms. Iafrate, if you can't send it to the parties, I probably
18
ought not to receive it, either, but will authorize you to send
19
it to CIA counsel, ask you to retain a copy because it may
20
become relevant.
21
09:45:49
Your Honor.
36
09:46:28
And it does seem to me -- and I think that if you
22
would, and you can refer to the minutes of this hearing, you
23
can tell the CIA in a letter that we have an ongoing hearing.
24
It's my determination that allegations are relevant to the
25
ongoing hearing, and we're going to proceed with this ongoing
09:46:41
RE 181
(232 of 1100)
37
hearing.
going to be too late if it tries to assert them three or four
weeks from now.
So if it has interests that it wants to assert, it's
MS. IAFRATE:
Well, Your Honor, would you like me to
relay a deadline for them?
made aware of this by my letter.
THE COURT:
I mean, they're just going to be
09:46:57
Well you can make them aware of it by the
letter and however else you want to do it.
And perhaps if the
press is here they'll make them aware of it, too, but -- well,
10
I -- but we can't rely on that.
11
they should notify -- they should notify us within two weeks if
12
they want to assert any privilege.
And so you can tell them that
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
15
Anything else relating to those matters, if we have
Very well.
I will let them know.
All right.
16
the monitor work these matters through with plaintiffs'
17
counsel?
18
MR. YOUNG:
09:47:19
09:47:39
Your Honor, there's one detail, and I'm
19
not sure whether Ms. Iafrate is the right person or not, but we
20
did notice in the sealed order that was filed yesterday by
21
Judge Boyle that there were some interview transcripts that
22
were referred to in the correspondence which were not part of
23
that set of documents that was given to Magistrate Boyle, and
24
it would seem to us and it would be our assumption that as part
25
of the production of the documents that Your Honor ordered
09:47:59
09:48:17
RE 182
(233 of 1100)
49
to operate, I'm not going to say so unless the parties don't --
don't request the depositions and I think it's absolutely
necessary.
In conjunction with that, and I'm not sure how many
parties will have received this and how many parties will not
have received this, but I received a request for admission
pro hac vice from a Jonathan Alden Moseley.
it is he indicated that he had provided copies of this request
for admission to all parties of record.
10
11
The reason I raise
He also provided me a
letter with that request for admission pro hac vice.
10:04:46
There are some parts relating to confidential matters
12
pertaining to whether or not I would admit him to practice
13
here, and he requests that they, for the most part, be kept
14
confidential unless they need to be known, and I think I want
15
to honor that request.
16
it's relevant, but my concern is this.
17
10:04:21
I don't see any reason that it -- that
10:05:08
Pursuant to Arizona rules, I admit somebody
18
pro hac vice only if I'm going to admit them as a party to a
19
particular action.
20
people here that are representing others, they are not parties
21
to the action.
22
he's provided inconsistent information, because in his
23
application he says -- I ask -- in his application for his
24
admission pro hac vice, he says I ask that the Court and the
25
parties consider that I, Jonathan Moseley, am not proposing to
Now, I have -- although there are a lot of

10:05:29
And Mr. Moseley I'm not sure -- well, he's --
10:05:57
RE 183
(234 of 1100)
50
actually participate in the conduct of this case, but merely to
sponsor the filing of an amicus curiae brief for Sheriff Joe
Arpaio by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.
And then, in a letter dated the same date, he says
that he wants to enter an appearance on behalf of Dennis
Montgomery because he says without naming who, but it must
either be Sheriff Arpaio or Sheriff Sheridan, that one of the
witnesses doesn't know what they're talking about with respect
to some of the testimony he's heard that they issued about
10
Dennis Montgomery's work, and that he wants to correct the
11
record and answer any questions, and he will be happy to do
12
that however the Court deems best fit.
13
14
10:06:16
10:06:35
Now, he tells me that he's copied all counsel of

record.
Have you all received this letter?
15
MR. YOUNG:
16
MS. IAFRATE:
17
MR. WALKER:
18
MR. COMO:
19
THE COURT:
Plaintiffs have not, Your Honor.
10:06:53
I have not, Your Honor.

I'm not aware of receiving it.

Well, my concern, I'll just say it, is I
20
know that Mr. Klayman is representing Sheriff Arpaio in the
21
D.C. Circuit action, and it seems to me that if he's trying to
22
represent, and he may be trying to represent Sheriff Arpaio
23
here, he says he is.
24
Dennis Montgomery here, and he says that he's an associate with
25
Mr. Klayman in Freedom Watch.
10:07:02
But then he says he's trying to represent
10:07:22
RE 184
(235 of 1100)
51
Well, as I understand it, Freedom Watch is a special
interest law firm that's representing Sheriff Arpaio in another
action and cannot then take positions adverse to his
representation here.
So I have some real concerns about granting this
pro hac vice application.
application, copy it and provide it to all parties.
propose, unless anybody has an objection, that we set the
opportunity at our next status hearing for Mr. Klayman to
10:07:37
I will, if you haven't received this

But I
10
appear if he wishes to and seek to be admitted pro hac vice and
11
clarify who and what and why he wants to be admitted
12
pro hac vice; and how, if in fact he wishes to represent Dennis
13
Montgomery and be critical of testimony offered by the
14
defendants in this matter, he can do so without a conflict.
15
And that may be something, Ms. Iafrate, you may wish
16
to explore prior to that hearing.
17
available to all parties.
18
indicates he's willing to be deposed in this matter if any of
19
the parties believe that that deposition would be beneficial.
20
10:07:57
10:08:14
So I will make copies
I assume at least that that
I've already discussed with you some of my thoughts
10:08:38
21
about whether or not it wouldn't be worthwhile for you to talk
22
and see if there's ways to simplify this action in terms of
23
possible remedies, be they damages remedies to individual
24
plaintiffs, be they expansion of the relief that this Court is
25
entitled, and the scope of the injunction that needs to monitor
10:09:00
RE 185
(236 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
May 14, 2015
9:35 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 186
(237 of 1100)
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 5/14/15 Status Hearing
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
7

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
Stanley Young, Esq.
Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
8
9
10
(Telephonically)
11
12
Tammy Albarran, Esq.

One Front Street, 35th Floor
(415) 591-7066
13
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
14
15
16
17
(Telephonically)
18
19
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676
20
21
22
23
24

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
25
RE 187
(238 of 1100)
2
3

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
4
5
6
7

(602) 263-1700

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
17
18
19
20
21
22
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
23
24
25
RE 188
(239 of 1100)
2
3

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
4
5
6
7
For Timothy J. Casey:
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
520 E. Portland Street
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
Also present:

Deputy Monitor Sherry Kiyler
Ms. Cari Shehorn
8
9
10
11
12
(Telephonically)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 189
(240 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
This is CV 07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio,
on for status conference.
09:35:06
MS. WANG:
the ACLU for plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
Good morning.
10
MR. YOUNG:
11
12
13
14
15
MR. BENDOR:
MR. POCHODA:
plaintiffs.
09:35:26
going to announce, Your Honor.
I thought the people on the phone were
is my law clerk, Cari Shehorn.
20
MR. WALKER:
24
25
That's why I paused.
Michele Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
19
23
Josh Bendor,
Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for
17
22
09:35:14
ACLU of Arizona, for plaintiffs.
MS. IAFRATE:
21
Stanley Young,
Covington & Burling, for plaintiffs.
16
18
Cecillia Wang of
With me
Richard Walker on behalf of the County as
09:35:40
I've defined in previous proceedings.

MR. McDONALD:
Mel McDonald, limited appearance for
Sheriff Arpaio.
MR. COMO:
behalf of former Chief Brian Sands.
Greg Como on
09:35:53
RE 190
(241 of 1100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
MS. CLARK:
Correct.
That's why I would suggest that
we need you there, Judge Snow.

THE COURT:
Well, it hasn't been scheduled yet.
If I
can be there, I will be.

MS. CLARK:
It will be very difficult for me to advise
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.
Now, I want to take up the application for admission
11
to practice pro hac vice of Mr. Jon -- oh, was there anybody
12
else who had anything to say on that?
13
practice pro hac vice of Mr. Jonathon A. Moseley.
15
and asked to appear telephonically.
16
appear telephonically but I did not hear him appear.
17
Are you there, Mr. Moseley?
18
All right.
20
10:12:36
I want to take up the application for admission to
14
19
10:12:27
him about how to answer in light of what you just said.
10
32
He called
We authorized him to
10:12:52
Mr. Moseley?
Let me tell you my concerns, and I guess
I'm going to lay them out.

Ms. Iafrate, Mr. Moseley is affiliated with Freedom
10:13:11
21
Watch, which represents Sheriff Arpaio in another action in the
22
district court of -- or in the D.C. Circuit now, so he has an
23
attorney-client relationship with Sheriff Arpaio.
24
Arpaio, and I believe Chief Deputy Sheridan, have both
25
testified in this action that the material they received from
Sheriff
10:13:35
RE 191
(242 of 1100)
Mr. Montgomery has been discredited, and I don't mean to put
words in their mouth but I think it's pretty clear they said
that on a number of occasions.
Sheriff Arpaio at one time called it junk.
word but he said yes.
33
At my invitation, I think
I mean, that was my
10:13:52
Is the sheriff -- are you withdrawing that testimony?
MS. IAFRATE:
8
9
No, Your Honor, we're not withdrawing
it.
THE COURT:
If that's the case, then it seems to me
10
like it's just not possible for Mr. Moseley, without creating a
11
conflict, to represent Mr. Montgomery in this action while
12
representing Sheriff Arpaio in another action and challenging
13
the validity of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan's
14
statements about Mr. Moseley in this action.
15
not appearing, and so it is my determination that I'm going to
16
deny his petition -- or application for admission to practice
17
pro hac vice, because it seems to me that it would create a
18
conflict in this case.
19
MS. IAFRATE:
10:14:04
And Mr. Moseley's

10:14:29
Well, Your Honor, it's unfortunate that
20
Mr. Moseley is not here because this is his motion, not mine.
21
However, all that I can tell you is that within his pleading
22
papers they're saying that there is no conflict.
23
to ask -- I was hopeful that Mr. Moseley would be on the phone
24
so that we could ask how could he say that.
25
appearing to answer those questions, I just have -- I have no
10:14:48
I would like
Without him
10:15:06
RE 192
(243 of 1100)
34
understanding regarding whether there is a conflict or there is
not a conflict.
THE COURT:
Well, I understand the position you're in,
but he's not here.
understand why I think there is an apparent conflict, despite
what he says.
We did authorize him to be here.
You can
I will say I've read his motion to intervene and I
don't think that's well taken.
to rule on it because I'm going to strike it because I'm not
But, of course, I'm not going
10
going to allow his admission.
11
prevent Mr. Montgomery from seeking to intervene if he wishes
12
to do so.
13
going to create a conflict by his very appearance, and it
14
surely seems to me like Mr. Moseley does that.
15
I'm certainly not going to
10:15:36
But he has to do so through counsel that is not
So how about we do this?
I'm going to deny
10:15:54
16
Mr. Moseley's application for admission to practice pro hac
17
vice without prejudice if he wants to appear and take it up.
18
But even if I admit him pro hac vice, we still have to then
19
deal with his motion to intervene, which strikes me, as I said,
20
to be a little bit problematic, anyway.
But that's --
21
Did you want to be heard on that, Mr. Young?
22
MR. YOUNG:
23
24
25
10:15:23
10:16:12
I do want to be heard on the motion for
pro hac vice admission, Your Honor.

Our view is that the Court has the discretion and
should exercise that discretion to deny the motion for
10:16:31
RE 193
(244 of 1100)
35
additional reasons beyond what Your Honor has just stated, and
I'll state those on the record now since the motion may be
renewed.
Under Local Rule 83.1(b)(2), this is a discretionary
issue for the Court under United States versus Ries,
100 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1996):
strongly suggests through his behavior that he will neither
abide by the court's rules and practices - thus impeding the
'orderly administration of Justice' - nor be readily answerable
"Where an out-of-state attorney
10
to the court, the Judge may ... deny the pro hac vice
11
application."
12
been made, it is our view that that likelihood exists.
13
10:16:47
10:17:09
And here already, based on the filings that have
I would refer first to Mr. Moseley's May 2nd letter,
14
which is attached to the Court's May 8 order.
15
notation there that counsel of record were copied.
16
8, I believe the Court asked counsel of record and none of them
17
had received it.
18
only have it because of the Court's order.
There is a
As of May
We still have not received the letter.
We
19
The letter also states that Montgomery was not engaged
20
in relation to this case; he was engaged to help research other
21
matters, not this case.
22
Mr. Moseley is false.
23
for now but we believe it is not correct.
24
25
10:17:28
10:17:45
We believe that statement by
We won't get into the substance of that
Mr. Moseley's May 2nd letter also says that his

appearance would be, quote, for the purpose of presenting
10:18:05
RE 194
(245 of 1100)
36
answers to the Court.
subsequently filed a motion to intervene.
providing information to the Court about the testimony of the
witnesses in the earlier hearing, but it's actually filing a
motion that's not anticipated or not mentioned in this letter.
So we believe that that letter by itself is indicative of
disruption and, frankly, the possibility of improper activity
if he were to be admitted.
That's also not true, because he

That's not just
Now, this has been -- some of this letter has been
10
later withdrawn, but I believe that you can't just make a
11
statement about something that's material to a matter before
12
the Court and just say, "Oh, sorry," later, and withdraw it
13
without even apologizing or offer much explanation.
14
THE COURT:
10:18:51
Well, for what it's worth, Mr. Young, I
15
noted that he wanted to withdraw it -- he might want to
16
withdraw it, but I've attached it to my order and I'm not
17
withdrawing it from my order.
18
MR. YOUNG:
19
see it ourselves, Your Honor.
20
10:18:23
10:19:08
And that's the reason why we're able to
There was also a sealed document which was
10:19:19
21
accompanied -- which accompanied the May 2nd letter, and as
22
Your Honor noted previously, that communication said that the
23
purpose of the filing by Mr. Moseley was to file an amicus
24
brief on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
25
been withdrawn through a clarification paper that was filed
That statement has also

10:19:37
RE 195
(246 of 1100)
37
late yesterday, with some explanation that relates to what
apparently was a word processing error on the part of
Mr. Moseley, but there wasn't even an apology for that error.
And again you have a material misstatement in a document filed
in this court.
this case yet, and I believe that just tells us that it would
not be a wise thing to have him admitted.
8
9
And he hasn't even been admitted to appear in
Even more seriously, although Mr. Moseley's letter

refers to a Virginia Supreme Court case relating to his earlier
10
suspension from practice for a period of six months in that
11
court, I believe looking at the Virginia Supreme Court decision
12
will disclose that there is a lot that has not been disclosed
13
to this Court, and the citation for it is 694 S.E.2d.
14
THE COURT:
Wait.
15
MR. YOUNG:
694 S.E.2d 586.
16
10:20:21
Give me that again.

And I have copies of the
10:20:43
decision if you would like to see them.
17
THE COURT:
Yes, please provide copies.
18
MR. YOUNG:
Now, what happened in the Virginia case
19
that caused Mr. Moseley's suspension was that there was a key
20
document with an arbitration clause which was not disclosed
21
prior to a hearing by Mr. Moseley.
22
10:19:57
10:21:15
At the hearing, and this is what Mr. Moseley does not
23
say, according to the Virginia Supreme Court, on
24
cross-examination Mr. Moseley's client admitted that he had
25
given a copy of that document to Mr. Moseley, and that that
10:21:34
RE 196
(247 of 1100)
38
contract did contain an arbitration clause, which would make
the action that Mr. Moseley had filed improper.
in Virginia decided, well, that's not proper behavior, and they
suspended him for that.
So the courts
In addition, the Virginia court noted -- and this is
also omitted from Mr. Moseley's letter to you -- the court
found that Mr. Moseley filed in excess of 80 pleadings and
motions in the case and used abusive discovery tactics and
filed frivolous pleadings.
10
The court also found that Mr. Moseley wrote letters to
11
the adverse party that were unprofessional and intended to
12
intimidate and harass.
13
in that case issued an absurd decision, was a wacko judge who
14
he believed was bribed, and he believed that opposing counsel
15
were demonically empowered.
16
10:21:54
10:22:14
And Mr. Moseley stated that the judge
10:22:36
The Virginia Supreme Court then said the following,
17
quote:
18
integrity of the judicial officer adjudicating his matters, and
19
those statements were made either with knowing falsity or with
20
reckless disregard for their truth or falsity."
21
information that we believe is highly relevant to any
22
application by Mr. Moseley to appear in this case.
23
"Moseley clearly made derogatory statements about the
Now, that's
10:22:56
Your Honor has already noted the conflict issue.
24
Mr. Moseley's clarification statement filed yesterday says,
25
quote:
"Neither Dennis L. Montgomery nor his counsel are
10:23:20
RE 197
(248 of 1100)
39
adverse to Sheriff Arpaio, his deputies, the Cold Case Posse or
the MCSO in any respect."
Your Honor has already noted, and for other reasons in some of
the documents that have been produced, which I won't go into,
that statement also is false.
We believe that for the reasons that
10:23:41
So for making all these false statements to the Court,
and for the behavior that led him to be suspended in the
Virginia bar, we believe that any application for pro hac vice
appearance in this case by Mr. Moseley should be denied.
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. IAFRATE:
Thank you.
Ms. Iafrate.
10:23:56
Your Honor, I'll leave it to your
12
discretion.
13
what Your Honor should do regarding the admission pro hac vice.
I do not advocate or have any opinion regarding
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. COMO:
16
17
Mr. Como?
I have no position on this issue, Your
10:24:12
Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
Then I'm going to deny the
18
application, and if he wants me to move to reconsider he can do
19
that, but the application is denied.
20
The last matter, and I have some fairly important
10:24:21
21
things to say here, and I think we've all recognized that this
22
is a very unusual case with permutations that are new, and I've
23
decided to handle this in this way.
24
defendants to produce certain documents, and I believe that
25
they have been doing so.
I have ordered the
Among those documents are the
10:24:53
RE 198
(249 of 1100)
40
documents that are apparently a data dump of some kind by
Mr. Montgomery to MCSO.
documents there are other documents about what I will call the
Seattle operations with Mr. Montgomery that are not data dumps.
And then in addition to those
Last week I ordered Ms. Iafrate to contact the CIA
10:25:20
since I think at least it was Chief Deputy Sheridan's
understanding, that I think has been confirmed by some of the
documents that I've seen, that at least Mr. Montgomery claims
that some of these documents were taken from the CS -- or the
10
CIA.
11
we've given the CIA another week to come lay any claim to any
12
sort of protection it wants.
And again, I don't know whether that's true or not, but
13
And so I'm going to order the parties, at least with
14
respect to those documents that are the Montgomery data dump,
15
do not disclose them in any way.
16
at them.
17
don't disclose them to anybody else.
18
United States another week in which to act if it wishes to do
19
so.
20
letter.
I'm not saying you can't look
10:25:55
If you choose to, look at them all you want, but

And that will give the
I've been credibly informed that they're aware of your

10:26:16
21
MS. IAFRATE:
22
I have a piece of information that I would like to
23
10:25:38
That's good to know, Your Honor.
share with you also when it's my time.
24
THE COURT:
Go ahead.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
I have heard that the CIA is aware of
10:26:27
RE 199
(250 of 1100)
41
the letter, and I filed a notice just so that you saw that the
letter actually did get sent out.
Yesterday I was contacted by phone several times, and
then by e-mail, from two people that said that they were part
of the Department of Justice and they wanted the letter.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
10:26:54
They wanted the letter you sent the CIA?

Correct.
So I said -- I asked them if
they were representing the CIA and they said no.
I asked them
if they had authority from the CIA for me to give them the
10
letter, if there was someone that I could talk to.
11
no.
12
if I don't have someone from the CIA saying that you have
13
authority.
They said
I said I feel uncomfortable providing you with this letter
14
Your Honor, this is all new territory to me.
They
15
didn't write me a letter requesting it.
16
specifically regarding whether they had authority on behalf of
17
the CIA, they said no.
18
THE COURT:
And when I asked
10:27:29
Well, let me just say isn't it a good
19
thing we live in a country where there's a separation of
20
powers?
21
hang on to the documents, and nobody's going to be taking those
22
documents.
23
sort of protective order.
24
fashion.
25
10:27:13
And I've told everybody, every party here, you can
You're going to have them.
10:27:43
They may be under some
We will proceed in an orderly
So -MS. IAFRATE:
Well, Your Honor, the reason --
10:28:02
RE 200
(251 of 1100)
THE COURT:
42
-- why don't you just direct them, if they
wish, to come to a proceeding or contact the Court or the
Court's monitor.
MS. IAFRATE:
Very well.
THE COURT:
We have had issues, apparently, lately with the
Okay.
10:28:10
County, Mr. Walker, about the County not being sure -- the
monitor has made requests to try and follow the financial trail
about payments that may have been made to Mr. Montgomery,
10
payments that may have been made to MCSO folks, and travel
11
costs and hardware costs and software costs that may have been
12
expended on this operation.
13
The folks at the County are not really sure about
14
whether or not they have such documents, in response to the
15
monitor's request.
16
see if the parties can live with it.
17
10:28:28
Let me just throw something out there and
Because we've had some past dealings with Sandi Wilson
18
in this case, I know she knows where the budgets are and where
19
things are kept if the County has them.
20
if the monitor contacts Ms. Wilson about where or not -- where
21
these documents may be found if they are in the possession of
22
the County?
23
10:28:46
MR. WALKER:
Is there any problem

10:29:05
Your Honor, I have no problem with
24
Ms. Wilson speaking directly with the monitor as long as I or
25
someone from my office can also be present.
10:29:23
RE 201
(252 of 1100)
43
If I could just elaborate a little bit, I think the
problem is the way expense documents are filed.
understand is they're filed by a vendor name.
management -- office management and budget is looking -- is
looking for a document, say one of my bills, and they know the
name of my firm, that's fairly easy.
name of the vendor it's like looking for a needle in a
haystack.
And what I
So if the office
If they don't know the
So the only problem I think we have is there's a
10
degree of coordination that needs to happen between
11
Ms. Wilson's office and the Sheriff's Office so that we have
12
the information we need so that a meaningful search for the
13
documents can be conducted.
14
10:29:50
THE COURT:
10:30:10
I think that's understandable and the
15
monitor can coordinate that with Ms. Wilson, with you, with
16
Ms. Iafrate, and whoever's handling document production at the
17
sheriff's Office.
18
problems, it sounds like a great solution.
10:30:25
If we can set up those meetings and avoid
19
Any problem with that, Chief?
20
CHIEF WARSHAW:
21
THE COURT:
No, sir.
Okay.
10:30:45
Now, I'd like to talk about how
22
we're going to go forward in light of these new documents.
23
There are a great number of them, even excluding the data dump.
24
And my monitor has had a chance to look at several of them but
25
far from the totality.
10:31:03
RE 202
(253 of 1100)
44
He has shown me several, 50 or so documents, that
cause me great concern.
plowing new ground here.
documents show, and I'm going to say that it is a concern that
I expect the MCSO to address in the resumption of our May
hearing, and I'm going to propose how we proceed.
And I acknowledge that we're all

But I'm going to say what those
10:31:23
The documents that I have seen pertain to what appears
to be some of the activities of the Seattle operation we
involve Dennis Montgomery as a confidential informant.
The
10
documents seem to reveal that as at least part of their
11
operations, the Seattle operatives attempted to construct an
12
alleged conspiracy that supposedly involved this Court; one of
13
this Court's former law clerks; Eric Holder, the attorney
14
general of the United States; Lanny Breuer, the Chief Deputy
15
Attorney General of the United States in charge of the criminal
16
division; Phil Gordon, the mayor of Phoenix; and Brian Sands,
17
the executive chief of the MCSO.
18
conspiracy was apparently to covertly investigate the MCSO and
19
deprive the sheriff and the MCSO of the due process of law in
20
this particular case and in a related case brought against the
21
sheriff by the DOJ.
22
10:31:43
10:32:02
The purpose of the alleged
10:32:22
This Seattle operation work product seems to purport
23
that by allegedly using a database of information harvested by
24
the CIA and confiscated by him, Mr. Montgomery was able to
25
reproduce fragments of e-mails that had been sent in 2009 and
10:32:40
RE 203
(254 of 1100)
45
2010 between persons within the Department of Justice, Mayor
Gordon, and Brian Sands.
As it pertains to this Court, the Seattle operation
work product, which was apparently prepared and revised over a
number of months, not a few, it began apparently -- the first
contact was in September of 2013.
December.
January, and at least their properties indicate that they have
been revised many times over a period of substantial months.
There were meetings in
These documents began being created in December and
10
Anyway, the documents purport to track telephone calls
11
between this Court, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and Dennis Burke
12
to reproduce those phone calls which occurred years earlier.
13
And between the Court and one of its former law clerks, who
14
apparently allegedly was supposed to have served as this
15
Court's liaison with the Department of Justice regarding this
16
case.
17
10:32:56
10:33:15
10:33:35
The documents appear to allege or suggest that this
18
Court had contact with the Department of Justice about this
19
case before the Court was ever assigned to it.
20
seems to suggest that when Judge Murguia recused from this
21
case, the random selection process of this Court was subverted
22
so that the case was deliberately assigned to this Court.
23
documents further suggest that thereafter this Court had
24
conversations with Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer about this
25
case, and it also alleges that this Court issued an order to
It further
10:33:48
The
10:34:05
RE 204
(255 of 1100)
46
tap the MCSO's phones after being assigned as the judge in this
case.
It also seems to allege that this Court had
conversations, as I've indicated, with the Department of
Justice, through one of its former law clerks as an
intermediary.
10:34:19
Now, I will tell you I've looked at these documents
closely and I think there are a great deal of problems with
them.
But I don't intend to put them on the screen and go over
10
those problems because I believe that Sheriff Arpaio and
11
Chief Sheridan have both acknowledged that the materials
12
received from Montgomery are not credible and/or are junk.
13
I'm not presuming at this point that the MCSO is alleging that
14
anything the documents contain in this respect are true.
10:34:35
So
15
If, Ms. Iafrate, you're going to assert that, I will
16
tell you that I'm going to require good faith assertions that
17
any of that information is true, and I have a number of
18
questions that you will have to respond to.
19
assuming, as I do, that the sheriff and Chief Sheridan both
20
will say that those documents are not credible, the very
21
existence of these documents in the MCSO's files causes this
22
Court some concerns.
23
10:34:53
Nevertheless,
10:35:16
In addition to their tendency to suggest that previous
24
testimony offered in this matter may have been untruthful, the
25
Court wonders why, when the MCSO should have been spending
10:35:33
RE 205
(256 of 1100)
47
their time, money, and resources in implementing its order,
they were funding a confidential informant as well as three
MCSO deputies or posse members to be in Seattle, Washington,
and other places, accruing overtime, travel, and salary
expenses, as well as significant technology costs, attempting
to construct some bogus conspiracy theory to discredit this
Court.
The Court notes that as of the monitor's last report,
the MCSO was only 29 percent in compliance with the injunctive
10
order entered a year and a half ago, approximately the same
11
time as this Seattle operation began.
12
explanation for all of this, I realize that these are only
13
documents in MCSO's file, but I'm going to require you to
14
address that in the hearing that's coming up in June.
15
10:35:51
10:36:06
There may be some
I also want to say that when upon the death -- I think
16
before I began questioning Sheriff Arpaio, I explained to him
17
why I was questioning about these things and how I viewed this
18
as being relevant to the contempt hearing, and I think it's
19
relevant for reasons I've already stated.
20
death of Deputy Armendariz it became clear to the Court that
21
the members of the plaintiff class in this case may have been
22
commonly subjected to deprivations not previously disclosed at
23
or prior to trial, and that this information as well as a great
24
deal of additional information sought prior to trial had never
25
been provided, this Court suggested to the MCSO that it arrange
10:36:25
But when upon the

10:36:46
10:37:02
RE 206
(257 of 1100)
48
for an independent investigation of these matters.
do so, the MCSO elected to conduct a self-investigation through
its own Professional Standards Bureau.
Rather than
This Court's orders were violated at the very start of
that investigation, and that is part of the notice contempt.
And even though many of the allegations of misconduct arose --
that were at issue in the Armendariz investigation arose from
the conduct of the HSU, the MCSO transferred in as the new
captain of the Professional Standards Bureau the previous
10
captain of the special investigation divisions -- Special
11
Investigations Division, which was over the HSU.
12
10:37:19
10:37:37
There is evidence that before his transfer to the PSB,
13
Captain Bailey was sent an inquiry memoranda regarding seized
14
identifications from within the HSU, which memorandum and
15
documents were subsequently sent for destruction.
16
Special Investigations Division had responsibilities for
17
operations like the Seattle operation and would likely have
18
played a role in the Grissom inquiries.
19
Further, the
10:37:56
Of course, Captain Bailey was supervised at both the
20
SID and the PSB by Chief Deputy Sheridan and by Sheriff Arpaio.
21
The Court has held repeated hearings regarding its concerns
22
about the inadequate investigations conducted by the PSB of
23
these matters.
24
facially inadequate explanations for the confiscation of
25
identifications of the members of the plaintiff class.
10:38:14
There is evidence that the PSB accepted
There
10:38:31
RE 207
(258 of 1100)
49
is evidence that such seizure practices existed
department-wide.
failed to adequately investigate and evaluate the seizure of
items of value from members of the plaintiff class, attempted
to destroy relevant evidence and manipulate internal and
independent investigations to exonerate those whom it may have
wished to clear, or to mitigate any possible discipline.
8
9
There is further evidence that the MCSO
10:38:46
This evidence may thus tend to demonstrate that the

MCSO attempted to keep all matters pertaining to this case, its
10
speculative investigations into this Court, and to the
11
investigations triggered by the unfortunate death of Deputy
12
Armendariz, in the hands of a relative few people who may not
13
have been working to implement this Court's order in good
14
faith.
15
10:39:05
Further, it may tend to demonstrate that contemptuous
16
actions that have been noticed by this Court in its order to
17
show cause hearing were part of a pattern of knowing defiance
18
rather than inadvertence.
19
for members of the plaintiff class in civil contempt.
20
for these reasons that the Seattle operations materials may be
21
relevant to this action.
10:39:18
This may affect necessary remedies

It is
22
Nevertheless, the Montgomery materials are
23
considerable, and they have only been reviewed in small part.
24
When they are reviewed in more complete detail, it may suggest
25
other potential problems in the operations of the MCSO that are
10:39:35
10:39:54
RE 208
(259 of 1100)
50
beyond the scope of this contempt hearing and that I have no
intent to raise in this contempt hearing except to the extent
that it bears some relation to it.
focus of obliging the MCSO to comply with its orders and to
cure the existing and admitted contempts that have impaired for
a very long time the rights of the plaintiffs' class.
I do not want to lose the
I'm going to set forth my proposed solution to this
problem, and I will hear your comments on it if you have
suggestions.
I remind the parties that because of the
10
cooperation you made in the first week of the hearing where we
11
both -- where we were questioning witnesses at the same time,
12
we made substantial headway towards ending the hearing, and it
13
seems to me we shouldn't lose the focus on what the hearing is
14
about, recognizing that there now are other matters that may be
15
relevant.
16
But when the Armendariz investigation came forth I

made it clear, and it's on the record, and we have several
18
orders that supplement the monitor's original investigative
19
authority with his investigative authority to ensure the
20
integrity, the adequacy of MCSO's investigative operations.
21
has authority to investigate all matters pertaining to this
22
contempt hearing and to the MCSO self-investigations in the
23
previous orders.
25
10:40:35
10:40:56
17
24
10:40:14
He
10:41:12
I propose, and I am likely to order, that based upon

his ongoing review of the documents provided, that he be
10:41:36
RE 209
(260 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
July 20, 2015
11:03 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 210
(261 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
Stanley Young, Esq.

Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
(Telephonically)

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
11
12
13
14
(Telephonically)
Jorge M. Castillo, Esq.

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Regional Counsel
634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 629-2512
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 211
(262 of 1100)
2
3
For the Defendants MCSO

and Joseph M. Arpaio:
4
5
6
A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.

John T. Masterson, Esq.
Joseph J. Popolizio, Esq.
(602) 263-1700
7
8
9
10
11
12

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
For Maricopa County:

Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.
(480) 483-6336
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: David J. Ouimette, Esq.
Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
21
22
23
24
25

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
RE 212
(263 of 1100)
2
3

Greg S. Como, Esq.
& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
4
5
6
7
8
For William Montgomery and Maricopa County Attorney's Office:

9
April M. Hamilton, Esq.
RIDENOUR HIENTON, P.L.L.C.
Chase Tower
Suite 3300
(602) 254-9900
10
11
12
13
For the United States:
14
15
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)
Lynnette C. Kimmins
Rosaleen T. O'Gara
Assistant United States Attorneys
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800
Tucson, Arizona 85701
(520) 620-7300
Raphael O. Gomez
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
(202) 514-1318
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 213
(264 of 1100)
2
3
For Thomas P. Liddy and Christine Stutz:

BROENING, OBERG, WOODS
& WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7705
4
5
6
7
For Dennis Montgomery:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Also present:
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 345
(310) 595-0800

Commander John Girvin, Deputy Monitor
Chief Raul Martinez, Deputy Monitor
Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
Deputy Chief John MacIntyre
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 214
(265 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
5
6
7

MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:
MR. BENDOR:
11
12
Good morning.
Good morning.
MR. POCHODA:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
17
18
11:03:40
plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
16
Josh Bendor, ACLU of
Arizona, for plaintiffs.
13
15
Stanley Young,
10
11:03:26
Good morning.
I was waiting for those on the phone,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
11:03:48
Well, why don't we take everybody present
in the courtroom, and then we'll take those on the phone.

MS. IAFRATE:
Very well.
Good morning.
Michele
19
Iafrate on behalf of Joseph Arpaio and the alleged non-party
20
contemnors.
11:03:59
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
Good morning.
Good morning, Judge.
John Masterson
and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. WALKER:
Good morning.
Richard Walker
11:04:08
RE 215
(266 of 1100)
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 7/20/15 Status Conference 42
1
2
THE COURT:
All right.
completed, you'll provide it to the parties?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Correct.
Do you have an estimated date for me?

I do not, Your Honor.
status conference?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you.
DOJ's request to examine and copy the database of
11
documents given by Montgomery.
12
the Department of Justice here.
13
and tell us what your request is.
14
11:47:47
Can you have one by the time of our next
10
And as soon as that's
MR. GOMEZ:
11:47:59
We had a representative from

Do you want to come forward
Yes, Your Honor.
I believe on May 8th the
15
16
17
States; actually, the CIA general counsel's office.
18
19
20
21
22
23
I'll refer to as the Montgomery documents were either documents
24
of the United States or documents that -- implied -- were
25
classified or sensitive.
11:48:25
At that
11:48:46
11:49:15
RE 216
(267 of 1100)
Pursuant to that, the United States attempted to make
a -- or contacted the defendants' counsel to see if we can make
arrangements to copy and examine those documents to determine
whether they're classified or sensitive or otherwise the
property of the United States.
agreement, I guess, with the defendants' counsel, and we
contacted the Court-appointed monitor, Mr. Warshaw, and made
that request to him.
We were unable to reach an
11:49:38
10
documents in the Montgomery files that are in fact classified
11
or sensitive, but there is a representation that there were
12
13
Pursuant to Mr. Warshaw and our discussion, we were
14
able to make -- reach an agreement that we would copy the
15
documents under the supervision of the Court-appointed monitor.
16
Essentially, we would -- I believe there are two Banker Boxes
17
of documents, and a hard drive that contains something like
18
200-some megabytes.
19
11:50:24
We would take and copy them at the FBI office and then
20
here in Phoenix, with court-appointed security officers from
21
Washington, who would take custody of the documents, and then
22
we would examine those documents in Washington.
23
11:49:59
11:50:45
And at that point, I believe there was a motion --
24
there was notification to the parties, there was a motion for
25
recusal, and it was -- that was suspended and --
11:51:04
RE 217
(268 of 1100)
THE COURT:
If I authorize you to receive such
documents for your examination, I assume that you would have no
objection if I order you not to disclose any of those documents
to any third party without further order of this Court.
MR. GOMEZ:
We would be
prepared to do that.
classified or sensitive information, we -- the review would be
conducted by the United States.
that may have to review it.
However, if the documents contained
There may be various entities
We would have a central -- or
10
central entities that would conduct the review at its -- at the
11
beginning.
12
entities as part of the United States, then I assume that that
13
prohibition wouldn't preclude that kind of review.
14
THE COURT:
It doesn't prohibit agents of the United
States reviewing the documents; it does prohibit any
16
dissemination to any third party.
18
11:51:45
If there was a need to contact other government
15
17
11:51:25
MR. GOMEZ:
11:52:05
The United States has no objection to
that, Your Honor.
19
THE COURT:
All right.
Any party object?
20
MS. IAFRATE:
21
THE COURT:
You may.
22
MR. GOMEZ:
Oh, one point, Your Honor.
May I be heard, Your Honor?
11:52:19
If we are
23
authorized to conduct the review, I would request the Court's
24
permission to either meet with the Court-appointed monitor,
25
Mr. Warshaw, today, or its designee, to make the arrangements.
11:52:33
RE 218
(269 of 1100)
Thank you.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
All right.
Your Honor, I kept you abreast of this
situation when it was unfolding.
letter to the CIA, which I did do and noticed the Court.
You had ordered me to write a
I then received a call from people that I did not know
that said that they were the United States and they were
entitled to those documents.
permission of the CIA and they said no, but they were the
10
11
11:52:50
I inquired whether they had the
United States and they were entitled to them.
11:53:06
I did not feel comfortable giving documents -- I
12
objected, based on that rationale, that if these are indeed CIA
13
documents, then the CIA needs to be the one to say whether they
14
can be disclosed or not.
15
The other thing, Your Honor, that we discussed
11:53:22
16
previously, and it's your document 1086, was a procedure that
17
the monitor and I were going to perform in order to protect
18
some private information.
19
the Monitor Team and I never got around to performing that
20
procedure that would protect some of these people's bank
21
accounts, Social Security numbers, things of that nature.
22
in fact, plaintiffs have some of these documents which you
23
told, You may look at, but please don't do anything with them
24
until we go through that procedure.
25
Because the stay was implemented,
11:53:47
And
I would ask that if you were inclined to allow the
11:54:03
RE 219
(270 of 1100)
U.S. Attorney's Office to review these, that we would first be
allowed to go through that procedure for the sake of these
individuals' privacy interests.
THE COURT:
Well, the United States would be subject
to the same protective order that plaintiffs are subject to;
they wouldn't be able to disclose any of that information
pending their review.
MS. IAFRATE:
in document 1086 --
11
THE COURT:
13
It is my understanding that despite
that, we would still perform that procedure that you requested
10
12
11:54:19
11:54:35
Have you taken any steps to do that in the
two months between the middle of May and now?

MS. IAFRATE:
Well, actually, Your Honor, the document
14
says that the monitor was to coordinate and contact me, so, no,
15
we have not done anything in order to perform that.
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. KLAYMAN:
All right.
11:54:48
Any other objections?
No, Your Honor.
Anybody else wish to be heard?

Your Honor, I don't know if you'll allow
20
me to be heard on my pro hac vice application, Mr. Klayman.
21
represent Mr. Montgomery.
22
THE COURT:
11:54:58
Well, let me tell you, Mr. Klayman, I did
23
receive your pro hac vice -- I don't know whether it's "vise"
24
or "veechay" application -- just before I took the bench.
25
don't know whether you filed it Friday night or sometime today,
I
11:55:13
RE 220
(271 of 1100)
but I didn't get it till just now.
I have a couple of concerns.
I have the concern that
you have the same conflicts that Mr. Moseley was subject to as
it pertains to your client, Mr. Montgomery, and the testimony
that we've already received from your client, Sheriff Arpaio,
and Chief Deputy Sheridan that I had outlined in denying his
admission pro hac vice.
those same objections.
It seems to me like you're subject to
It also seems to me, and I don't want to be
10
precipitous on this, but some of the documents that have since
11
been disclosed raise at least the possibility that you yourself
12
might be a witness in this action, and so I'm a little
13
concerned to grant your admission pro hac vice without at least
14
allowing the other parties to be heard on it.
15
To the extent that you want to speak on behalf of
16
Mr. Montgomery, I will briefly allow you to do so as long as
17
you keep within the confines of ethics and propriety.
18
19
MR. KLAYMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
11:55:44
11:56:03
May I address the
Bench --
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. KLAYMAN:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. KLAYMAN:
24
Let me deal with the issues that Your Honor raised
25
11:55:28
first.
You may.
11:56:17
-- from the lectern?
You may.
Thank you.
11:56:27
RE 221
(272 of 1100)
THE COURT:
No.
You don't need to deal with them.
We're not going to address them now.
other parties --
MR. KLAYMAN:
THE COURT:
Well -- okay.
I'm going to allow the
That's fine.
You can talk to whether or not I allow the
Department of Justice to review the materials under seal that
Maricopa County has indicated that your client provided to them
indicating that it was material that he had taken from Central
Intelligence Agency as a result of their harvesting of
10
documents.
11
12
13
14
15
11:56:57
MR. KLAYMAN:
Let me explain why I want to come in pro
hac vice.
THE COURT:
No.
You can address what I've just told
you you can address.

MR. KLAYMAN:
Mr. Montgomery obviously opposes that
11:57:01
16
until such time as our appeal is heard by the Ninth Circuit.
17
We've appealed Your Honor not allowing us to intervene, and the
18
reason for that --
19
20
THE COURT:
I didn't rule on your motion to intervene,
because I didn't allow --
21
MR. KLAYMAN:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. KLAYMAN:
24
THE COURT:
25
11:56:35
11:57:14
Correct.
-- Mr. Moseley to appear.

And that's the re --
Your client can hire any other attorney
that doesn't present the conflict that you and Mr. Moseley do.
11:57:20
RE 222
(273 of 1100)
1
2
MR. KLAYMAN:
have a conflict.
3
4
We submit, Your Honor, that we don't
THE COURT:
All right.
Then I don't want to hear
that.
MR. KLAYMAN:
THE COURT:
Did you provide your motion for admittance
8
9
10
11
12
13
All right.
11:57:30
I will hear it in due course when --
pro hac vice to the other -- all the other -MR. KLAYMAN:
We did, Your Honor.
We e-mailed it to
everybody and it's been served by mail.

THE COURT:
All right.
11:57:43
Then what I'll do is I will
hear that next status conference.

MR. KLAYMAN:
That's fine, Your Honor, but we do
14
request that before that's heard, and if Your Honor should
15
grant it -- and I would like an opportunity to reply to that;
16
we just simply submitted the application pro hac vice -- that
17
you not release documents until such time as you make a ruling
18
on that, because Mr. Montgomery would like to renew his motion
19
to intervene to protect what he claims are his property
20
interests in those documents.
21
THE COURT:
11:57:53
11:58:10
Well, the only testimony that we have in
22
this action is that those are documents that he -- I don't know
23
how to -- I don't want to use words other than Chief Deputy
24
Sheridan used, but those are documents that he took from the
25
CIA that the CIA was harvesting from American citizens.
It
11:58:27
RE 223
(274 of 1100)
doesn't sound to me like he has any property interest in such
documents.
To the extent that he does have such property
interests, and to the extent that -- because there may be other
documents in there that are -- and, in fact, there may be no
documents taken from the CIA; that possibility has been raised
by the evidence.
the United States of America to review and confirm that they
have no property interest in those documents?
11:58:42
If that is so, how is he damaged by allowing
What property
10
interest does Mr. Montgomery have in such documents that would
11
in any way be infringed by allowing the United States to review
12
those documents under seal to make sure that they have no
13
security interest in them?
14
MR. KLAYMAN:
We did submit with the motion to
15
intervene, as part of the various pleadings, a court -- and
16
we've cited it -- a court ruling in Nevada where the Department
17
of Justice was ordered to give documents back to
18
Mr. Montgomery.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. KLAYMAN:
21
THE COURT:
That's correct.
11:59:26
Well, this case supposedly reconstructed
material from a database that pertained to alleged telephone
23
calls and e-mails that occurred in 2009 and 2010.
25
11:59:13
And that was a 2006 ruling.
22
24
11:58:59
How does that Nevada 2006 ruling relate to any

database that alleges to have 2009-2010 documents in it?
11:59:44
RE 224
(275 of 1100)
1
2
MR. KLAYMAN:
would like the opportunity to argue in front of this Court.
3
4
That's something that Mr. Montgomery
THE COURT:
Well, I'm giving you the opportunity right
now.
MR. KLAYMAN:
I don't have that information, Your
Honor.
systematic way, put forward a brief to this Court on that
issue.
I don't have it.
THE COURT:
11:59:54
But we want an opportunity to, in a
And I think that you can have that
10
opportunity, but you need to explain to me now why any interest
11
that Mr. Montgomery might have in such materials is in any way
12
infringed by allowing the United States to review them under
13
seal to make sure that there are no secured documents that
14
belong to the CIA in those materials.
15
MR. KLAYMAN:
Your Honor, I'm not taking a position on
16
that; I'm simply wanting an opportunity to brief it in the
17
ordinary course.
18
have any conflict with Sheriff Arpaio.
12:00:07
12:00:28
And we came before this Court, and I don't
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. KLAYMAN:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. KLAYMAN:
23
THE COURT:
We --
Well --- we stated that we're not --
12:00:37
-- you may take your seat.

-- taking any adverse position.
You may take your seat, because I've
24
already ruled on that.
I'm going to allow the other parties to
25
address your renewed motion to intervene.
But I would point
12:00:46
RE 225
(276 of 1100)
out that you also signed Mr. Moseley's motions and
Mr. Moseley's appeal.
than Mr. Moseley, and we will allow you the opportunity to be
heard to the extent that the other parties have an opportunity
to address it in an orderly fashion, which is not today.
And I don't see how you're any different
MR. KLAYMAN:
sign those pleadings.
signed those pleadings.
THE COURT:
12:01:01
Your Honor, may I just say I did not

I was listed as Of Counsel but I never
Only Mr. Moseley signed the pleadings.
Okay.
It looked to me like you'd signed
10
them, but I'm not saying you did.
11
orderly opportunity for your motion, or your pro hac vice
12
application to be heard, but an appeal to the Ninth Circuit
13
would take years, and I'm not going to hang up the review of
14
the United States in documents that your client may have
15
claimed to Chief Deputy Sheridan were procured from the CIA for
16
that period of time.
17
18
19
20
21
And we will give you the
12:01:17
So thank you, and we will hear your motion when the

other parties have had a chance to address it.
MR. KLAYMAN:
May I have an opportunity to reply to
that, because I -THE COURT:
12:01:46
Yes.
In fact, if you don't have an
22
adequate time to reply, we'll schedule it for the next status
23
conference out, so that we can have a fair response, a reply, a
24
full opportunity to be heard on the point.
25
12:01:30
MR. KLAYMAN:
Thank you.
12:02:00
RE 226
(277 of 1100)
THE COURT:
In the meantime, I am going to grant the
United States' motion to review the documents that have been
provided.
the authorization to have government employees and agents
review the material, the material will be disseminated to no
third party under any condition without the prior approval of
this Court.
8
9
I am ordering the United States that while they have
12:02:12
I'm going to further authorize the monitor to make

whatever arrangements are necessary to do a secured transfer of
10
such documents to the United States.
11
authorize a representative from the defendants to be present
12
during such transfer if they wish to be.
I'm also going to
13
Anything else on that matter?
14
Do you know, what are we going to do in terms of
12:02:26
All right.
15
MCS -- Maricopa County having independent representation from
16
Sheriff Arpaio?
17
have separate counsel, if that's how you choose to pursue the
18
matter, but I'm not sure that you have -- I'm not sure, to the
19
extent --
20
12:02:49
I don't question that you have the ability to
Well, let me ask, Mr. Walker, are you taking the
12:03:07
21
position -- well, I think I've already spelled this out with
22
Mr. Jirauch.
23
is not going to be liable for any liability, if any, that
24
Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and the MCSO are
25
responsible for after the issuance of the mandate by the Ninth
Are you taking the position that Maricopa County
12:03:25
RE 227
(278
(60 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
Case:
15-16440,
15-72440,
10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
9638202,
DktEntry:
DktEntry:
13-2,
1-3,Page
Page233
7 ofof
278
247
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
July 24, 2015
3:04 p.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(In-Court Hearing)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

0001
RE
228
(279
(61 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-2,
247
Case:
15-72440,
08/06/2015,
9638202,
DktEntry:
1-3,Page
Page234
8 ofof
278
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 7/24/15 In-Court Hearing
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:

Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
(Telephonically)
Stanley Young, Esq.

Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
(Telephonically)

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676


649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
(Telephonically)

(602) 263-1700
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
RE
229
(280
(62 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-2,
247
Case:
15-72440,
08/06/2015,
9638202,
DktEntry:
1-3,Page
Page235
9 ofof
278
2
3
4
(Telephonically)
5
6

(480) 483-6336
7
8
9
10

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
11
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre:
12
(Telephonically)
13
14
15
David J. Ouimette, Esq.

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
16
17
(Telephonically)
18
19
20
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
21
22
23
24
25
0003
RE
230
(281
(63 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 236
10 ofof278
2
3

Chase Tower
Suite 3300
(602) 254-9900
4
5
6
7
8
(Telephonically)
10
11
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
12
13
(Telephonically)
14
15
16
17
18
Also present:

& WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7705
The Monitoring Team
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0004
RE
231
(282
(64 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 237
11 ofof278
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Melendres v. Arpaio, on for in-court hearing.
15:04:13
MR. POCHODA:
ACLU of Arizona for plaintiffs.

MR. BENDOR:
9
10
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
THE COURT:
12
MR. MASTERSON:
15:04:24
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Judge.
John Masterson
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. IAFRATE:
16
Josh Bendor of the ACLU
of Arizona for plaintiffs.
11
13
Dan Pochoda from the
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Michele
15:04:34
Iafrate on behalf of Joe Arpaio.
17
THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
18
MR. MITCHELL:
19
on behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan.
20
Your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. WALKER:
Barry Mitchell
He's not present today,

15:04:52
Good afternoon.
Anyone else?
Richer Walker on behalf of that portion
23
of Maricopa County government embodied in the Board of
24
Supervisors, the county manager, and the employees reporting to
25
them.
15:05:03
0005
RE
232
(283
(68 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 238
15 ofof278
acknowledged to the monitor.
THE COURT:
3
4
5
Did you determine who gave that
instruction?
CHIEF WARSHAW:
We attempted to, and the answer we
received was that would be an attorney-client matter.
THE COURT:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
15:09:33
All right.
With the full belief that this matter
is at the heart of the issue before the Court and our
determination to at least see these documents, I instructed one
10
of our two deputy monitors, Commander Girvin, last night to
11
make an attempt to reach out to senior executives of the MCSO
12
for the simple purpose of making arrangements to see if we
13
could see these IDs.
14
15:09:52
Commander Girvin attempted to call both telephonically
15
and by text message Captain Steven Bailey, the commanding
16
officer of the Professional Standards Bureau, as well as Chief
17
Deputy Sheridan, but with no luck.
18
15:10:09
Further, at my instruction, and after a reasonable
19
passage of time, Commander Girvin reached out to Captain Russ
20
Skinner, who's the commander of the agency's court compliance
21
implementation division, and he is the official contact of the
22
MCSO for -- the contact for us.
23
15:10:30
Captain Skinner was very cooperative and he attempted
24
to reach Captain Bailey, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and he reported
25
back to Commander Girvin that he also had attempted to reach
0009
RE
15:10:53
233
(284
(69 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 239
16 ofof278
10
counsel but with no luck.
At that point, knowing full well that we very much
wanted to see these documents but were not getting cooperation
with the lack of response, I initiated an e-mail to every
attorney involved in this case advising that I might very well
ask for an emergency hearing for the purposes of getting relief
from the Court so we could in fact access those documents.
8
9
This morning I noted an e-mail from Ms. Iafrate.

did call her at approximately 7:45 this morning.
She inquired
10
with more specificity as to what it is that we wanted.
11
advised her that we were looking to gain access to 1500 IDs
12
that had been brought to our attention as well as 50
13
hard drives that we believed to be in the Property Unit and
14
were associated with the Dennis Montgomery matter.
15
15:11:40
I would note that back on April 27th, when we received
16
the single hard drive that we did get at that time, we were
17
told by Chief Knight that that material was the only material
18
in the possession of the agency relevant to the Montgomery
19
matter.
20
report number that was associated with the 50 hard drives.
21
15:11:13
15:12:03
I gave Ms. Iafrate the DR number, the department

15:12:24
Though I didn't hear back from Ms. Iafrate, we
22
proceeded to the Professional Standards Bureau and got there
23
about 8:30 this morning, myself, Chief Martinez, and
24
Chief Kiyler.
25
us that he had been told by Captain Bailey that we were coming.
We were met by Lieutenant Kratzer, who advised
0010
RE
15:12:49
234
(285
(73 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 240
20 ofof278
14
these particular documents were slated for destruction, and had
this matter not come to our attention and had we not made the
kind of inquiry that we made, these items in fact would have
been destroyed.
THE COURT:
When you talk about the 50 hard drives
15:18:24
related to the Montgomery investigation, where did you find out
about those?
8
9
CHIEF WARSHAW:
As a result of document requests that
were made of the MCSO, after the initial release of the single
10
hard drive we got on April 27th, it became apparent, in looking
11
at various e-mail streams, that there were references to
12
hard drives that were reposited in the Property Unit.
13
THE COURT:
Did anybody look -- did you request the
14
hard drives in the Property Unit?
15
CHIEF WARSHAW:
16
THE COURT:
17
18
19
15:18:45
We request -- I'm sorry, Judge.
15:19:06
I think -- did you request that the
hard drives be turned over that were in the Property Unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW:
We request any and all.
Yes, we
certainly today requested that today, yes, sir.
20
THE COURT:
And you talked about a specific DR number.
21
Is that a locker?
22
CHIEF WARSHAW:
15:19:17
What is that?
The DR number would be -- a DR
23
number is the department report number, so it would be a filing
24
mechanism in which they could find the items in the particular
25
bin based upon what the DR number is.
15:19:34
0014
RE
235
(286
(74 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 241
21 ofof278
THE COURT:
Did you request what the contents of that
particular DR unit was?
contents of that unit?
Did you ask anybody to verify the
CHIEF WARSHAW:
THE COURT:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
10
We were told that the number that we
THE COURT:
Was there anything else in the unit?

I do not believe.
Okay.
I don't believe.
And so you haven't had any response
CHIEF WARSHAW:
13
THE COURT:
We've had no response.
-- in terms of your request to have those
50 hard drives.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
That is correct.
And we made that
15:20:11
16
very clear to Lieutenant Kratzer, that that was also part of
17
our mission this morning.
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. IAFRATE:
Ms. Iafrate.
Your Honor, if I could rely on
20
co-counsel to talk about this chain of events, I've kind of
21
been out of commission the last 24 hours.
22
15:20:04
in --
12
15
15:19:46
gave did in fact correspond to 50 hard drives.

THE COURT:
14
Yes.
And what were you told?
11
15
15:20:36
I can tell you that I did have a conversation with
23
Mr. Warshaw this morning.
He provided me with the DR number.
24
I called over to Property and Evidence in order to make certain
25
that that property was pulled, and I received information that
0015
RE
15:20:53
236
(287
(77 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 242
24 ofof278
1
2
3
4
THE COURT:
Did you ask the MCSO to provide you with
these documents back in February?

MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, I believe that that's a
privileged communication.
THE COURT:
Anything else you want to say?
MS. IAFRATE:
All right.
All right.
You're right.
chronology of events, I apologize that I'm not prepared to
testify regarding that, and I would hope that Mr. Masterson
10
would have the opportunity to answer any further questions.

THE COURT:
15:23:13
Your Honor, regarding the other
11
18
15:23:27
Well, as it pertains to the 50
12
hard drives, I did, too, notice in the documents that have been
13
made public that some of the e-mails reference 50 or 60
14
hard drives taken from Mr. Montgomery, and noted that
15
apparently you -- by "you" I don't mean you personally; I mean
16
your client -- produced only one in May.
17
18
15:23:43
Have you made any effort to determine what is in that

DR file that Mr. Warshaw asked you about?
19
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes.
And what is in there?
15:24:00
There are approximately 40 to 50
22
hard drives that may potentially relate to documents from the
23
Seattle investigation.
24
THE COURT:
Anything else in there?
25
MS. IAFRATE:
No.
15:24:12
0018
RE
237
(288
(78 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 243
25 ofof278
THE COURT:
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
Thank you.
Judge, I guess I'd first like to
address -- well, I have a question, perhaps the Court already
answered this question, where in the Court's order setting this
hearing today the Court says that defendants have "declined to
provide access."
THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
THE COURT:
Yes, I did answer that question.
13
THE COURT:
All right.
The second thing I --
Are you going to provide those
hard drives?
15
MR. MASTERSON:
I knew nothing of the hard drives
THE COURT:
18
produced right now?
19
How about my order that the hard drives be
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, I don't have them with me, but
20
here's my question.
21
have been objections before, as to relevance of these
22
hard drives in the Montgomery materials, because I do not
23
see --
25
15:24:56
until --
17
24
15:24:47
provide access; that was a misunderstanding on my part.

MR. MASTERSON:
16
Okay.
I don't know that you've declined to
12
14
15:24:36
THE COURT:
I'm going to object, and I assume there
15:25:10
I've already ruled on that 40 times.
Objection's overruled.
15:25:22
0019
RE
238
(289
(79 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 244
26 ofof278
1
2
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, let me make my record, please,
Judge.
THE COURT:
The record has been made.
make it, Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Go ahead and
Your Honor --
Let me tell you something.
15:25:30
I realize that
you're new to this litigation, but you certainly have read,
have you not, my questioning of Sheriff Arpaio?
MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
THE COURT:
15:25:44
things?
MR. MASTERSON:
13
THE COURT:
You asked him to hold on to them.
And I said we would send the monitor over
to retrieve them, didn't I.
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE COURT:
17
I have read your questioning.
When I required him to turn over all these
12
14
20
You did.
15:25:54
And that it needed to be done immediately,
didn't I.
18
MR. MASTERSON:
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. MASTERSON:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. MASTERSON:
25
THE COURT:
You did.
All right.
But that doesn't make them relevant --
15:25:58
All right.
-- to the OSC.
Make your objection -To the --
Make your objection on the record.
15:26:02
0020
RE
239
(290
(80 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 245
27 ofof278
MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor, there are distinct --
three distinct issues in the OSC proceeding.
underlying issues which --
THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
to go through this.
relevant.
also may be very relevant.
10
21
There are
Well --- the Court ruled on --
-- let me tell you what.

I'll tell you this.
15:26:10
We're not going
They may not be
I realize that they may not be relevant.
But they
And they were demanded to be
produced and they haven't been produced.
11
So I would propose this.
15:26:23
I'm going to send the
12
marshals over.
13
locker.
14
full access to it.
15
whatever's in there, and I don't know what's in there, but if
16
whatever is in there is material that I've already ordered --
17
for instance, if, it seems to me, that the other documents
18
suggest -- that's the database that Montgomery downloaded --
19
then it's going to be turned over to the United States
20
Government under the same terms the other matter was turned
21
over.
22
relevance in the current proceeding and we'll hear then.
23
may be nothing that is relevant, but I certainly don't know
24
that now.
25
You'll provide everything that's in that DR
We'll hold it here.
I won't look at it.
So can the monitor.
You can have
If you have -15:26:43
15:27:03
You can preserve whatever objections you have to its
MR. MASTERSON:
There
I understand that, Judge, and I'm
15:27:14
0021
RE
240
(291
(81 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 246
28 ofof278
22
not -- I'm not resisting that or saying that the Court does not
have the authority -- I'm certainly not saying the Court does
not have the authority to order them produced.
and I think the objection's been made before and ruled upon,
but I will make a continuing objection to the relevance of
those materials to this proceeding.
7
8
9
THE COURT:
I am objecting,
And why don't we find out what those
materials are first.

MR. MASTERSON:
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE COURT:
Let's do that.
All right.
15:27:40
Now, I --
Any problem if I order the marshal to go
13
over and take those documents and put them in the evidence
14
locker of the marshals today?
15
16
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
18
MS. IAFRATE:
15:27:52
Your Honor, may I have a court order
referencing the DR number that I know that Mr. Warshaw has -THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
Sure.
15:28:04
-- so that then we can remove it from
Property and then put it back into the marshal property --
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. IAFRATE:
25
May I consult with
You may.
20
22
I don't know.
counsel, please?
17
19
15:27:29
Sure.
-- just so that we have a chain
of custody.
15:28:11
0022
RE
241
(292
(82 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
247
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-2,
1-3, Page 247
29 ofof278
1
2
THE COURT:
Sure, absolutely.
23
I don't know what that
is, but I'll -- that's a reasonable request.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
So we've resolved that one.
Let me just
be clear on the record, you can have access to it here, and the
monitor can have access to it here.
privileged materials or whatever else.
to be done with some expedition.
And you can review it for

I'm going to require it
What about the -- and then -- then if there's anything
10
in it that I think may be relevant or that the parties think
11
may be relevant, you can raise your -- you can re-raise your
12
relevance objections then.
13
is, for example, the Montgomery database, and it actually turns
14
out to be full of stuff that doesn't relate to anything and
15
isn't taken from the CIA, then there may be limited relevance
16
here except to the extent -- well, there may be no relevance,
17
depending upon what the facts are, other than to verify that
18
the Montgomery investigation was based on whatever, if anybody
19
tries to assert its truthfulness, but that's a very limited
20
relevance, I'll grant you.
21
relevant, but I think that we're all entitled to make that
22
determination based on the documents.
23
24
25
15:28:18
15:28:40
Because it may well be that if that
There may be something in it that's
15:29:01
15:29:23
That being said, was there anything else you wanted to

say about the document, the hard drives?
MR. MASTERSON:
No, I have -- no, nothing about the
0023
RE
15:29:35
242
(293 of 1100)
CASE NO. 15-16440


v.
and
Case No. CV-07-2513
Volume II of IV
Pages 243 to 538
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
Tel: (310) 595-0800
(294 of 1100)
VOLUME I
Docket
1312
1199
1192
1173
1164
Date
9/8/15
7/28/15
7/24/15
7/15/15
7/10/15
1167
1133
7/10/15
5/29/15
1134
5/29/15
1093
1115
1079
1060
1064
1053
1046
1032
5/14/15
5/21/15
5/13/15
5/8/15
5/8/15
5/7/15
5/4/15
4/27/15
4/23/15
4/24/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
Disqualification
I
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Page No.
1-2
3-4
5
6-10
11-50
51-56
57
58
59-61
62-80
81-82
83-91
92-95
96-119
120-122
123-124
125-149
150-169
170-185
186-209
210-227
228-242
(295 of 1100)
VOLUME II
Docket
Date
1198-2
7/28/15
1117
5/22/15
1112
5/19/15
1080
5/13/15
1081
5/13/15
Description
Vol.
Support Thereof
II
Page No.
243-245
246-432
433-465
466-478
479-538
(296 of 1100)
VOLUME III
Docket
Date
1057
5/7/15
1067
5/7/15
1058
5/7/15
5/2/15
1035
Judicial
Notice
Reques
ted
4/28/15
3/20/15
4/23/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
II
28 U.S.C. 144
Intervenor
Dennis
L.
Montgomery's
III
case)
III
III
Page No.
539-551
552-556
557-639
641-642
644-649
650-659
660-699
700-725
726-749
749-823
824-838
(297 of 1100)
VOLUME IV
Docket
Date
Description
Vol.
III
Page No.
839-1035
(298(22
of 1100)
of 24)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
08/26/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
9662458,
1198-2DktEntry:
Filed 07/28/15
13-3,
10-2, Page
Page
6
15ofof
2301
of
174
RE 243
MELC198703
(299(23
of 1100)
of 24)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3,
7
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
08/26/2015,
Document
9662458,
1198-2DktEntry:
Filed 07/28/15
10-2, Page
Page
16ofof
3301
of
174
RE 244
MELC198704
(300(24
of 1100)
of 24)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3,
8
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
08/26/2015,
Document
9662458,
1198-2DktEntry:
Filed 07/28/15
10-2, Page
Page
17ofof
4301
of
174
RE 245
MELC198705
(301 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page9 1ofof301
19
1
2
3
4
5
Michele M. Iafrate, Bar #015115

Iafrate & Associates
Tel: 602-234-9775
A. Melvin McDonald, Bar #002298

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Telephone: (602) 263-1700
Fax: (602) 200-7847
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
6
7
10
15
Barry Mitchell Bar #013975

Lee Stein Bar #12368
Mitchell, Stein, Carey, PC
Telephone: (602) 358-0290
Fax: (602) 358-0291
barry@mitchellsteincarey.com
lee@mitchellsteincarey.com
16
Attorneys for Gerard Sheridan
11
12
13
14
17
18
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
19
20
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,

Plaintiff,
21
v.
22
23
Motion for Recusal or

Disqualification of District Court
Judge G. Murray Snow

Defendant.
24
25
NO. CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS
I.
INTRODUCTION
26
No doubt, moving for the recusal or disqualification of any sitting judge is a
27
serious matter. Under statute, case law, and judicial canons, the perception of judicial bias
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
RE 246
(302 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
102ofof301
19
and the appearance of impropriety, punctuated by the material witness status of the
presiding judge's spouse, mandate the recusal and disqualification of the Honorable G.
Murray Snow. Accordingly, Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan have
no other choice but to file this Motion.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455, Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Gerard Sheridan respectfully move for recusal and/or disqualification of the Honorable G.
Murray Snow. (Affidavit of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, attached as Exhibit 1). Defendant
Arpaio Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan present this Memorandum and file the attached
affidavit and corresponding Certificates of Filing in Good Faith by Counsel. Defendant
10
Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan respectfully request the transfer of this case to
11
a different judge, immediately, as provided by 28 U.S. Code 144, and the
12
disqualification or recusal of Judge Snow in further related proceedings concerning
13
Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan.1
14
By his own official inquiry, statements, and questions in open court on the
15
record, one of the investigations into which Judge Snow unexpectedly inquired during
16
recent contempt proceedings concerns his spouse, Sheri Snow. No reasonable person with
17
knowledge of the facts can deny that Judge Snow is now investigating and presiding over
18
issues involving his own family.
19
disqualification. Furthermore, the fact that Judge Snows wife is now a material witness,
20
while dispositive, is not the only appearance of bias and impropriety requiring recusal.
This alone is sufficient to mandate recusal and
21
Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan therefore move: (1)
22
for Judge Snow to recuse himself based upon the facts and law stated in the Motion for
23
Change of Judge for Cause; or (2) if Judge Snow declines to recuse himself, Defendant
24
Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan move that this Motion for Change of Judge for
25
26
27
28
The legal opinion of Professor Ronald Rotunda, a renowned expert on

Professional Responsibility and Constitutional Law, is attached and incorporated in
support of this Court's disqualification. (Exhibit 10). As Professor Rotunda explains in his
declaration, Judge Snow now has- by his own admission- an incurable personal interest
in the case, at least in this new phase of this case as it has metastasized into something
entirely new. Id.
4272904.1
5/22/15
2
RE 247
(303 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
113ofof301
19
Cause be assigned to another United States District Court judge.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION

A.
Melendres Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
In December 2007, Latino motorists brought a class action under 42 U.S.C.
1983 against the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Joseph
Arpaio, in his official capacity only, alleging that Defendants engaged in a custom, policy,
and practice of racially profiling Latinos, and a policy of unconstitutionally stopping
persons without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, in violation of
Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.2 [Doc. 1, amended by Doc. 26.] The
10
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from engaging in
11
racial profiling and exceeding the limits of their authority to enforce federal immigration
12
law. [Doc. 1 at 1920.]
13
After pre-trial discovery was closed, the parties filed competing motions for
14
summary judgment; Plaintiffs motion included a request for the entry of a preliminary
15
injunction. [Docs. 413, 421.] Judge Snow granted the Plaintiffs motion in part, and
16
entered a preliminary injunction on December 23, 2011. [Doc. 494.] The injunction
17
prohibited MCSO from detaining individuals in order to investigate civil violations of
18
federal immigration law, and from detaining any person based on actual knowledge,
19
without more, that the person is not a legal resident of the United States. [Id. at 39.] The
20
injunction further stated that, absent probable cause, officers may only detain individuals
21
based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. [Id. at 5.]
22
Seventeen months later, approximately nine months following a bench trial,
23
and one week before the recall petition for Sheriff Arpaio was due, Judge Snow issued his
24
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in May 2013, in which he found MCSO liable
25
for a number of constitutional violations in its operations and procedures. [Doc. 579 at
26
11531.] The timing of the decision was curious and problematic, as it resulted in
27
28
MCSO, a non-jural entity, is no longer a named defendant in this action.

Maricopa County has recently become a defendant in this action.
4272904.1
5/22/15
3
RE 248
(304 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
124ofof301
Case
Document
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
19
immediate marches and protests against Defendant Arpaio at a crucial point in his
political career.
After allowing the Parties, at their request, to attempt to negotiate the terms
of a consent decree, in October 2013 Judge Snow ordered supplemental injunctive relief
to remedy the violations outlined in his Findings and Conclusions and defined
enforcement mechanisms for such remedies. [Doc. 606.]
B.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge Snows Determination that a Civil Contempt Hearing was

Necessary.
On May 14, 2014, Defendants, on their own initiative, informed Judge
Snow and Plaintiffs counsel that a former member of the Human Smuggling Unit,
Deputy Charley Armendariz, was found to be in possession of hundreds of personal items,
many of which appeared to have been appropriated from members of the Plaintiff class.
[See Doc. 700 at 1213.] Deputy Armendariz was a regular participant in the HSUs
saturation patrols, both large and small scale. He also testified at trial and was personally
implicated by the allegations of two representatives of the Plaintiff class regarding his
involvement in a 2008 immigration sweep in which two Hispanic American citizens were
allegedly profiled and illegally detained on the basis of their suspected undocumented
status. [Doc. 576.] After his apparent suicide, in addition to the numerous personal items
apparently seized from persons he had stopped, MCSO also discovered numerous video
recordings of traffic stops that Armendariz had conducted, apparently going back several
years. [Doc. 700 at 11.] Some of those videos revealed what MCSO characterized as
problematic activity on the part of Deputy Armendariz during the stops. [Id. at 35, 57.]
Other officers, and at least one supervisor of Armendariz who also testified at the trial in
this action, were depicted on these recordings during one or more problematic stops. [Id.
at 35.]
In light of the inappropriate activity observable on Deputy Armendarizs
videotapes and the questions surrounding other officers use of video and audio recording
devices during the time period in which pre-trial discovery in this case was occurring,
4272904.1
5/22/15
4
RE 249
(305 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
135ofof301
Case
Document
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
19
Judge Snow ordered Defendants to immediately formulate and obtain the Monitors
approval of a plan designed to retrieve all recordings made by officers that might still be
in existence. [Id. at 2527.] The ensuing investigations unearthed documents apparently
requiring officers to make such recordings during the period of time relevant to Plaintiffs
claims, and that those here-to-fore unknown documents and recordings were never
disclosed.
Moreover, the Armendariz videotapes resulted in administrative interviews
with MCSO personnel.
seventeen months after Judge Snow issued his preliminary injunction, Defendants, as a
10
matter of regular practice and operation, continued to enforce federal immigration law by
11
conducting immigration interdiction operations, and detaining persons after officers
12
concluded that there was no criminal law basis for such detention,.
Those interviews have apparently revealed that, for at least
13
Accordingly, Judge Snow determined that civil contempt proceedings were
14
necessary to determine if MCSO, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan
15
and other MCSO leadership acted in contempt of this Courts lawful writs, processes,
16
orders, rules, decrees, or commands by (1) failing to implement and comply with the
17
preliminary injunction; (2) violating their discovery obligations; and (3) acting in
18
derogation of this Courts May 14, 2014 Orders. [Doc. 880 at 26.] Moreover, Judge
19
Snow noted that the development of the evidentiary record in the contempt proceedings
20
would permit him to evaluate whether civil remedies can vindicate the rights of the
21
Plaintiff class, or if criminal remedies are necessary.
22
C.
Pre-Civil Contempt Hearing Events
23
On March 17, 2015, Defendants Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO filed an
24
Expedited Motion to Vacate Hearing and Request for Entry of Judgment. [Doc. 948.]
25
The purpose of that Motion was to convey to the Court and to Plaintiffs that Defendants
26
Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and identified nonparty Chief
27
Deputy Gerard Sheridan (collectively, Defendants) consent[ed] to a finding of civil
28
contempt against them and the imposition of remedies designed to address their conduct.
4272904.1
5/22/15
5
RE 250
(306 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
146ofof301
19
[Id. at 1.] Defendants expressed their most sincere remorse to the Court and to Plaintiffs
and explicitly acknowledged that they had violated the Courts Preliminary Injunction.
[Id. at 2.] Accordingly, Defendants adopted and stipulated to the facts as stated in the
Courts Order to Show Cause, [Doc. 880] as well as to the entry of an order finding them
in civil contempt of court. [Doc. 948 at 3.]
Judge Snow demanded, before accepting the proposal, that Arpaio have
skin in the game, specifically that Defendant Arpaio pay a sanction from his personal
funds and not from any defense funds supporting Defendant Arpaio. It is noteworthy that
Defendant Arpaio is only named as a defendant in his official capacity in this lawsuit. To
10
this end, Defendants attached a proposed list of stipulated remedial measures that
11
Defendants had agreed to implement, including the payment of $100,000 from Defendant
12
Arpaios personal funds to a civil rights organization and that a fund would be created to
13
compensate victims of the Defendants violation of the Courts December 2011
14
injunction.3 In light of these remedial measures, Defendants requested that Judge Snow
15
vacate the evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of the admitted contempt. [Doc.
16
948 at 4.]
17
Despite the admitted violation of this Courts preliminary injunction and the
18
remedial measures Defendants sought to implement, including Defendants agreeing to
19
Plaintiffs settlement terms that also would have mooted the need for contempt
20
proceedings, Judge Snow refused to vacate the contempt proceedings. [Doc. 1007.] In
21
fact, he requested that the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona attend the
22
proceedings to determine whether sufficient evidence would be presented to justify
23
24
25
26
27
28
The remedies proposed by Arpaio included: (1) acknowledging in a public forum

the violations of this Courts orders; (2) Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO will seek from
Maricopa County the creation and initial funding of a reserve to compensate victims of
MCSOs violation of the Courts December 2011 injunction; (3) develop and implement a
plan to identify victims of the Courts December 2011 order; (4) permit the Monitor to
investigate any matter that relates to Defendants violation of the Courts preliminary
injunction; (5) move to dismiss the then pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals; and (6) pay for Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees that were necessary to
ensure compliance with this Courts Orders. [Doc. 748, Ex. B].
4272904.1
5/22/15
6
RE 251
(307 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
157ofof301
19
criminal contempt proceedings. In essence, Judge Snow requested that the U.S. Attorney
function as his investigator to determine whether criminal contempt of his Preliminary
Injunction had occurred.
invitation to participate in this capacity by letter and subsequently in open court.
D.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge Snows Surprise Examination of Unexpected, Irrelevant Subjects

During Contempt Proceedings.
On April 23, 2015, Judge Snow embarked on his own inquiries during the
testimony of Sheriff Arpaio. Those inquiries were entirely unrelated to the three grounds
that were the defined and noticed subjects of the contempt proceeding.4 Judge Snow
continued these inquiries when he examined Chief Deputy Sheridan following Sheriff
Arpaios testimony. These lines of questioning were based on Judge Snows reading of,
reference to, and reliance on hearsay statements contained in a Phoenix New Times blog
post by Stephen Lemons. [Phoenix New Times Blog Post, attached as Exhibit 2; see also
4/23/15 Transcript at 648-649, attached as Exhibit 3]. Importantly, this article had never
been disclosed and no advance notice was provided to any of the Defendants or their
counsel in the contempt proceeding that the article would be discussed or relied upon by
Judge Snow.
1.
18
19
The U.S. Attorney appropriately declined Judge Snows
The Grissom Investigation
Specifically, Judge Snow questioned Sheriff Arpaio regarding a blog

posting by Stephen Lemons in the Phoenix New Times that detailed an alleged
investigation by Sheriff Arpaio regarding comments made by Judge Snows wife
(Grissom Investigation). [4/23/15 Transcript at 643-644].
During this line of
questioning, Judge Snow questioned Sheriff Arpaio regarding whether he was aware if
Judge Snow or any of his family members had ever been investigated by anyone. [Id. at
647:8-17]. In response, Sheriff Arpaio testified that he had received a communication in
4
Again, the issues of the contempt proceeding were clearly defined: (1) failing to
implement and comply with the preliminary injunction; (2) violating [ ] discovery
obligations; and (3) acting in derogation of this Courts May 14, 2014 Orders. (Doc. 880
at 26.)
4272904.1
5/22/15
7
RE 252
(308 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
168ofof301
19
August 2013 from Karen Grissom regarding comments that Judge Snows spouse had
made to her in a restaurant about Judge Snows hatred for Sheriff Arpaio and his desire to
do anything to get Sheriff Arpaio out of office. [Id. at 654-55; 4/24/15 Transcript at
962:14-16]. It was ultimately revealed that a private investigator hired by the Sheriffs
counsel had interviewed three individuals: Karen Grissom, her husband Dale Grissom,
and their adult son Scott Grissom, regarding the reliability of Mrs. Grissoms report.
[4/23/15 Transcript at 655].
8
9
The private investigators interviews of these individuals determined that

Mrs. Grissom was credible in the following statement:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
[Facebook Message, attached as Exhibit 5; 4/23/15 Transcript at 655]. The Grissoms
17
have been unwavering in their recollection of the comments Judge Snows wife made
18
regarding Judge Snows hatred toward Sheriff Arpaio and his desire to do anything to get
19
him out of office. See 10/26/13 Transcript of Karen Grissom at 12:18-21, 14:18-20, 19,
20
28:10-18 attached as Exhibit 6; 10/28/13 Transcript of Dale Grissom at 13:21-25, 16:5-12,
21
22:19-23:9, attached as Exhibit 7; 5/20/15 Arizona Republic Article, attached as Exhibit
22
8].
23
Although the interviews of these individuals were deemed credible, in that
24
they corroborated Judge Snows spouse had made these statements, Sheriff Arpaio never
25
went any further than just verifying that [a] conversation [between Karen Grissom and
26
Sheri Snow] . . . occurred. [4/24/15 Transcript at 966:11-16]. Moreover, to date, neither
27
Judge Snow nor Mrs. Snow have denied that Mrs. Snow made the statements attributed to
28
her.
4272904.1
5/22/15
8
RE 253
(309 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
179ofof301
19
2.
In addition, Judge Snow questioned Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Sheridan regarding a second investigation, also unrelated to the three clearly defined
subjects of the contempt proceedings. Judge Snow inquired regarding athe unrelated
investigation and MCSOs use of a confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery,
involving e-mail breaches, including the e-mails of certain attorneys representing the
Sheriff, wiretaps of the Sheriff and judges, and computer hacking of 50,000 bank accounts
of Maricopa County citizens. [4/23/15 Transcript at 647:1-3, 649; 4/24/15 Transcript at
1003:9-11; 1006:6-10].
Neither the Grissom investigation nor the Montgomery investigation
10
11
involved any investigation of Judge Snow or his family. [4/23/15 Transcript at 649].
12
E.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
Post Contempt Proceeding Expansion of Monitors Duties by Judge

Snow
As the sole arbiter of the matters relevant to the contempt proceedings,
Judge Snow has also utilized the Melendres Monitor to expand his investigation into these
unrelated issues. In an attempt to justify this expansion of power, Judge Snow is trying to
create a connection between the Grissom and Montgomery investigations and a
speculative pattern of knowing defiance rather than inadvertence of Judge Snows
Orders and necessary remedies for members of the Plaintiff class. [5/14/15 Transcript at
49:15-21, attached as Ex. 9]. In doing so, he has granted the Monitor broad leeway in
determining what matters are pertinent to the current contempt proceedings. [Id. at 51].
21
22
The Montgomery Investigation
When Defendant Arpaios counsel requested clarification regarding the

Monitors investigatory powers, Judge Snow refused. Instead, Judge Snow stated that he
is not going to limit the Monitors authority and [hes] not going to require [the Monitor]
to provide [Defendant Arpaios counsel] with advance notice of what [the Monitor] wants
to inquire into. [Id. at 53:15-21]. Defendant Arpaios counsel objected to the Courts
morphing of the OSC hearing into something quite different than the three subjects that
were a part of the original OSC Order and the expansion of the Monitors powers as a
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
9
RE 254
(310 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page1810ofof301
19
violation of her clients Due Process rights. Judge Snow overruled her objection and
refused to unduly shackle [the Monitor]. [Id. at 56:20]. Thus, the Monitor now has
court ordered unlimited investigatory power.
Accordingly, despite the Ninth Circuits recent Order, Judge Snow has
improperly expanded the authority and investigatory powers of the Monitor into matters
completely immaterial and irrelevant to the contempt proceedings and issues, as framed
by Judge Snows Order to Show Cause (e.g., the Grissom and Montgomery investigations,
and most recently MCSOs long past investigation into the authenticity of President
Obamas birth certificate).5
10
III.
JUDGE SNOW MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS ACTION.
11
The right to a neutral and detached judge in any proceeding is protected by
12
the Constitution and is an integral part of maintaining the publics confidence in the
13
judicial system. Ward v. City of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972). Accordingly, in
14
order to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, and to ensure that justice is carried out in
15
each individual case, judges must adhere to high standards of conduct. York v. United
16
States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C. 2001).
17
Cannon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that
18
[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
19
Avoidance of the appearance of impropriety in all judicial activities is important because:
20
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or

improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition
applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge
must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and
accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Ninth Circuit has advised Judge Snow against extending the Monitors
powers into areas not narrowly tailored to address the violations of federal law at issue in
this case. Id. (holding that the injunction improperly requires the Monitor to consider the
disciplinary outcomes for any violations of departmental policy and to assess whether
Deputies are subject to civil suits or criminal charges ... for off-duty conduct.). Judge
Snow now seeks to expand the authority of the Monitor without regard to the Ninth
Circuits Order.
4272904.1
5/22/15
10
RE 255
(311 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page1911ofof301
19
Comment 2A to Cannon 2.
Cannon 3 requires that [a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a
proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonable be questioned, including
but not limited to instances in which:
5
6
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

...
(c) the judge knows that the judge [has an] interest that
could be affected substantially by the outcome of the
proceeding;6
9
10
11
(d) the judge or the judges spouse, or a person related to

either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of
such a person is:
12
13
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could

be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding; or
14
15
(iv) to the judges knowledge likely to be a material

witness in the proceeding;
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Cannon 3 is, in essence, codified by 28 U.S.C. 455. Section 455(a)

covers circumstances that appear to create a conflict of interest, whether or not there is
actual bias. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1991) (citation omitted)
(emphasis in original). In contrast, [s]ection 455(b) covers situations in which an actual
conflict of interest exits, even if there is no appearance of one. Id. (citation omitted).
Given the developments in this case, both provisions require recusal.
23
24
25
26
27
Proceeding includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of

litigation. Cannon 3(C)(3)(d).
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
11
RE 256
(312 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page2012ofof301
19
A.
28 U.S.C. 455(b) Requires Mandatory Disqualification of Judge Snow.7
Section (b) of 28 U.S.C. 455 provides for mandatory recusal without
investigation into the appearance of partiality by a judge. Preston, 923 F.2d at 734 (9th
Cir. 1991) (We need not explore whether an appearance of partiality existed in this case.
The drafters of section 455 have accomplished this task for us.).
Section 455(b) requires disqualification under Section 455(a), even absent
any evidence of actual bias. Mangini v. United States, 314 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.)
opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 319 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Preston, 923
F.2d at 734 (addressing Section 455(b)(2), which requires disqualification when the judge
10
either served as a lawyer or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served as a
11
lawyer during such association in the matter in controversy). [I]t is sufficient to state that
12
section 455(b) provides us with a concrete example where the appearance of partiality
13
suffices to establish a ground for recusal under section 455(a) even absent actual bias.
14
Preston, 923 F.2d at 734 (emphasis added).
15
1.
16
17
28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5) Requires Disqualification of Judge Snow

Due to Spousal Relationship.
Under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5), a judge shall disqualify himself in the

following circumstances:
18
19

relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
20
21
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
22
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
23
(iv) Is to the judges knowledge likely to be a material
24
25
26
27
As a matter of style, most courts look first to Section 455(b), which provides that
a judge is automatically recused upon the existence of certain familial and/or financial
relationships, and then to the more general terms of 455(a).
In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136, 1143 (6th Cir. 1990). Accordingly,
this Motion is organized in accordance with this principle.
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
12
RE 257
(313 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page2113ofof301
19
1
2
witness in the proceeding.

(Emphasis added).
This requirement is strictly imposed. Preston, 923 F.2d at 734 (9th Cir.
1991). For example, a judge was required to recuse himself when it was learned that his
daughter had participated in certain early depositions in a case, even though the daughter's
role in the depositions was minimal and the firm she was working for was no longer
involved in the case. See In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir. 1990).
Here, Judge Snows recusal is required for three reasons:

First, a person within the third degree of relationship to Judge Snow is
9
10
affiliated with Plaintiffs Counsel.
Judge Snows brother-in-law is an attorney with
11
Covington Burling. Early in this action, Defendant Arpaios former counsel waived this
12
conflict. However, in light of recent events, reconsideration of this previously waived
13
conflict is necessary.
14
Second, the interests of Judge Snow and his spouse are substantially
15
affected by the outcome of this proceeding. Judge Snow himself has recognized that the
16
documents involved in the Montgomery investigation appear to allege or suggest that this
17
Court had contact with the Department of Justice about this case before the Court was
18
ever assigned to it. [5/14/15 Transcript at 45:17-19]. Moreover, Judge Snow stated on
19
the record that the Montgomery Investigation appears to allege that the random selection
20
process of this Court was subverted so that the case was deliberately assigned to him and
21
that he had conversations with Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer about this case. [Id. at
22
45:19-25]. Judge Snow, therefore, has an interest that could be substantially affected by
23
the outcome of the proceeding because his reputation is squarely at stake. [Id. at 46:23-
24
47:7 (recognizing the potential of a bogus conspiracy theory to discredit the court)]; see
25
also 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) (requiring disqualification when a Judge knows that he
26
[has] any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
27
proceeding.).
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
13
RE 258
(314 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page2214ofof301
19
Finally, and most importantly, the fact that the Judge himself believes that
the Grissom investigation is relevant to the contempt proceeding establishes his spouse as
a material witness.
proceeding (i.e., whether she made the statement at issue and/or what she meant by it and
the context in how it was made). Moreover, regardless of the irrelevance of the Grissom
and Montgomery investigations to the issue of whether the admitted contempt of the
Preliminary Injunction occurred, Judge Snow infused himself and the materiality of his
wife as a witness and her uncontradicted statement into the contempt proceeding.
Whether a sitting judge is admittedly biased toward a defendant in his Court and will do
10
anything to ensure he is not re-elected is without question a conflict that creates
11
grounds for recusal.8 Accordingly, even if at some point there is a denial that Mrs. Snow
12
made the statements at issue, the conflict that is created is unwaivable under 455(b). See
13
28 U.S.C. 455(e) (No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to
14
the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection
15
(b).). Judge Snow is solely responsible for making his spouse a material witness to this
16
proceeding.9
17
2.
18
19
20
21
22
23
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. Under Section 455(b), Judge Snow has
made comments that indicate he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,
namely Sheriff Arpaio.
As revealed during the contempt proceeding, Judge Snow has engaged in
25
27
28
28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1) Requires Disqualification of Judge Snow

Due To His Personal Bias.
Under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1), a judge shall disqualify himself [w]here he
24
26
In fact, Mrs. Snow is undoubtedly a material witness in this
Implicitly, Judge Snow has complete and unfettered access to a material witness
in this case, his wife.
9
For the same reasons, Judge Snows wife has an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding because her reputation is also
squarely at stake under 42 U.S.C. 455(b)(5).
4272904.1
5/22/15
14
RE 259
(315 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page2315ofof301
19
outside investigations with regard to matters that he thought to be relevant and that he
infused into the proceeding. [Rotunda Declaration 20, attached as Ex. 10]. Whats
more, he apparently took evidence outside of court. [Id.]. Although Judge Snow did not
disclose the identity of the individual with whom he spoke regarding this matter, he
clearly stated that he engaged in an investigation outside the courtroom during a lunch
break. [Id.]. In addition, Judge Snow also asked leading questions on irrelevant matters
during the contempt proceeding.
[Id. at 19, 21].
In addition, he gave his own
testimony during the proceeding. [Id. at 22-23].
Furthermore, Judge Snow was
argumentative with witness Chief Deputy Sheridan when he was on the stand.
He
10
interrupted Chief Deputy Sheridan and challenged his decision to make an informant,
11
Dennis Montgomery, a confidential informant in an investigation unrelated to the
12
contempt proceeding. [Id. at 24]. Judge Snow has also ordered the production of
13
documents that may be protected by the work product doctrine or attorney client privilege.
14
Those documents pertain to an attorney, Larry Klayman, and his client, Dennis
15
Montgomery. Mr. Klayman is not an attorney who has appeared in this case and Mr.
16
Montgomery is not a party to this action. [Id. at 25].
17
Moreover, Judge Snows inquiry into matters unrelated to the contempt
18
proceeding deprived Sheriff Arpaio of his due process constitutional rights.
19
minimum, a Court must provide an alleged contemnor with notice and an opportunity to
20
be heard. Intl Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827
21
(1994). The concept of notice includes prior disclosure and provision of documents used
22
at trial and prior identification of areas of examination. See generally, Stuart v. United
23
States, 813 F.2d 243, 251 (9th Cir.1987), rev'd on other grounds, 489 U.S. 353 (1989); DP
24
Aviation v. Smiths Indus. Aerospace & Def. Sys. Ltd., 268 F.3d 829, 846-47 (9th Cir.
25
2001). Such advance notice is consistent with an alleged contemnors right to present a
26
defense. See United States v. Powers, 629 F.2d 619, 625 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, the law
27
requires progressively greater procedural protections for indirect contempts of complex
28
injunctions that necessitate more elaborate and in-depth fact-finding, as in this case. See
4272904.1
5/22/15
At a
15
RE 260
(316 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page2416ofof301
19
Intl Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 at 833-34. Here,
although Defendant Arpaio testified that he previously read the Phoenix New Times blog
Judge Snow utilized to justify his unauthorized line of questioning (Transcript, 643:23-
24), neither the Court nor any other party previously provided it to Defendants nor gave
notice that Defendant Arpaio or Chief Deputy Sheridan would be questioned about it. It
was not identified as an exhibit. Neither was Defendant Arpaio nor Chief Deputy Sheridan
provided notice that this subject area would be addressed. In contempt proceedings,
procedural protections such as prior notice are crucial in view of the heightened potential
for abuse posed by the contempt power. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 498 (1974).
10
Judge Snows failure to abide by these fundamental and basic constitutional requirements,
11
demonstrates further evidence of the perception of an unwaivable bias towards Sheriff
12
Arpaio.
13
Finally, Judge Snow has improperly expanded the authority and
14
investigatory powers of the Monitor into matters completely immaterial and irrelevant to
15
the contempt proceedings and issues, as framed by his own Order to Show Cause (e.g., the
16
Grissom and Montgomery investigations, and most recently MCSOs long past
17
investigation into the authenticity of President Obamas birth certificate). Judge Snows
18
willingness to ignore Defendant Arpaios and Chief Deputy Sheridans constitutional
19
rights in favor of granting the Monitor unfettered access to further his own
20
investigational curiosities or agenda further demonstrates a perception of bias.10
21
B.
22
Under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), a judge shall disqualify himself in any
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 U.S.C. 455(a) Requires Disqualification of Judge Snow Because His

Impartiality is Questionable.
10
Additionally, the procedure outlined by the Court in its Order (Doc. 1032) places
Defendants in an untenable position in which they must immediately provide documents
pursuant to the Courts Order in such a way that sacrifices the attorney-client and work
product privileges. The two Deputy County Attorneys who quickly reviewed documents
on April 23, 2015 made random selections throughout the documents to discern what the
documents were and made a cursory check for any privileged documents. They did not
view any privileged documents; however, time did not allow for a careful or thorough
review. It is probable that privileged documents were given to the monitors.
4272904.1
5/22/15
16
RE 261
(317 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page2517ofof301
19
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A violation of
section 455(a) occurs even if the judge is unaware of the circumstances that created the
appearance of impropriety. Lifjeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 8847
(1988). In determining whether disqualification is proper, courts apply an objective test:
whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
Central Dist. of California, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The
reasonable person in this context means a well-informed, thoughtful observer, as
opposed to a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person.
Id. (citations omitted).
10
Further, the grounds for disqualification must arise from extrajudicial factors, namely,
11
factors not related to the judicial proceeding at hand. Id.
12
Under Arizona Judicial Canon Rule 2.11, the standard for disqualification is
13
identical to the disqualification standard under 28 U.S.C. 455(a). Rule 2.11 states that
14
the Judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
15
reasonably be questioned. For instance, a Judge shall disqualify himself if his spouse or a
16
person within the third degree of relationship to either of them is a person who has more
17
than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding or is
18
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. See Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c)(d). In addition,
19
the comments under Rule 2.11 provide guidance. For instance, comment 2 specifically
20
states that: A Judges obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is
21
required, applies regardless of whether a Motion to Disqualify is filed. Additionally,
22
Comment 5 to Rule 2.11 requires the Judge to disclose on the record information that he
23
believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible
24
Motion for Disqualification, even if the Judge believes there is no basis for
25
disqualification.
26
Finally, even in cases of a close question of judicial impartiality, this Court
27
should decide in favor of recusal. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Tenth,
28
and Eleventh Circuits have said that close questions of judicial impartiality should be
4272904.1
5/22/15
17
RE 262
(318 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page2618ofof301
19
decided in favor of recusal. See Republic of Pan v. American Tobacco Co., 217 F.3d 343,
347 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing In re Chevron, 121 F.3d 163, 165 5th Cir. 1997)); In re United
States, 158 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1998); Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 352 (10th Cir.
1995); United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th Cir. 1989).
For all of the reasons stated above, Judge Snows recusal is required
because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Even presuming this Court does
not find that the aforementioned actions by Judge Snow demonstrate evidence of actual
bias, see supra III(B), a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would
10
certainly question Judge Snows impartiality. Recusal is therefore required because of the
11
bedrock notion and importance of public confidence in the judiciary and that confidence
12
in the judiciary is severely eroded by even the appearance of irresponsible, improper or
13
biased conduct by judges.
14
IV.
CONCLUSION
15
For the aforementioned reasons Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy Gerard
16
Sheridan respectfully request that (1) Judge Snow recuse himself from these proceedings
17
and (2) if Judge Snow declines to recuse himself, Defendant Arpaio and Chief Deputy
18
Gerard Sheridan move that this Motion for Change of Judge for Cause be assigned to a
19
another United States District Court judge for immediate consideration.
20
21
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2015.
22
23
24
By s/ Michele M. Iafrate
Michele M. Iafrate
Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio
25
26
27
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
18
RE 263
(319 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117 DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page2719ofof301
19
1
2
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC
3
4
By s/ A. Melvin McDonald
A. Melvin McDonald
Phoenix, Arizona 85012Attorneys for
Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio
5
6
7
8
MITCHELL STEIN CAREY, PC
9
10
By s/ Barry Mitchell
Barry Mitchell
Lee Stein
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of May, 2015, I caused the foregoing
document to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF System
for filing; and served on counsel of record via the Courts CM/ECF system.
s/ Mance Caroll
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4272904.1
5/22/15
19
RE 264
(320 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
28 of
1 of
301
10
RE 265
(321 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
29 of
2 of
301
10
RE 266
(322 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
30 of
3 of
301
10
RE 267
(323 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
31 of
4 of
301
10
RE 268
(324 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
32 of
5 of
301
10
RE 269
(325 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
33 of
6 of
301
10
RE 270
(326 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
34 of
7 of
301
10
RE 271
(327 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
35 of
8 of
301
10
RE 272
(328 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
36 of
9 of
301
10
RE 273
(329 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-1DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
3710
of 301
of 10
29.
I
2
Judge Snow also asked leading questions on irrelevant matters during
the contennpt proceeding.
30.
31.
Moreover, he gave his own testimony during the proceeding.
Furthermore, Judge Snow was argumentative with witness Chief
Deputy Sheridan when he was on the stand; he interrupted Chief Deputy Sheridan and
challenged his decision
informant in an investigation unrelated to the contempt proceeding.
32.
to make an informant, Dennis Montgomery, a confidential
Judge Snow has also ordered the production of documents that may
be protected by the work product doctrine or attorney client privilege. Those documents
10
pertain to an attorney, Lany Klayman, and his client Dennis Montgomery. Mr. Klayman
11
is not an attorney who has appeared in this case and Mr. Montgomery is not a party to this
t2
action.
33.
13
For the reasons set forth in this affidavit and in the simultaneously
t4
filed Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of District Court Judge G. Munay Snow, I
15
am requesting that:
(1) Judge Snow recuses himself from these proceedings; and

(2) If Judge Snow declines to recuse himselt that this Motion be
16
t7
18
assigned to another United States District Court
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH
t9
for
GHT.
20
2t
22
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me
24
tniOflday of Muy, 2015 by
25
26
My Commission Expires:
27
Q- rq-tr
28
4272903.r
s/2t/t5
Public
ffiffim*
RE 274
(330 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-2DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
38 of
1 of
301
11
EXHIBIT 2
RE 275
(331 of 1100)
Page 1 of 10
Using
...
and
Say,Page
Sources
Snow,
DOJ,
G. Murray
Federal
Judge Document
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
1117-2
DktEntry:
Filed
05/22/15
13-3,
Page
39 of
2 of
301
11
Hffiimffi
JOT ARPAIO'S INVESTIGATI NG FEDERAL
JUDGE G MURRAY SN[]W, t]OJ, SOURCES

SAY, ANt] USING A STATTLT STAMMTRTO
D0 l
BY STEPHEN TEMONS
WEDNTSDAY,IUIT+,ZOI+
12 MO}lTHS AG
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, during a 2012 press conference abottt his ludicrous birther investigation
AP Photo/MattYorlt
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-murray-..
RE 276
5l2Il20l5
(332 of 1100)
of l0
Page 2
...
Using
Say,Page
and
DOJ,
Snow,
Sources
Federal
Judge Document
Investigating
G. Munay
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
3 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
40 of
301
The most revealing part of Phoenix filmmaker Randy Murray's recent documentary The
Joe Show ws a strategy meeting during Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 2Ol2 re-election campaign
that included Arpaio, his top flack, Lisa Allen, Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, and campaign
manager Chad Willems.
The group huddled in the back of a Fountain Hills restaurant to discuss how to spin Joe's
negatives -- the misspending of more than $100 million, the deaths in the jails, the scores
of millions in lawsuit payouts -- fbr the public.
At some point, Arpaio's "birther" investigation came up. You know, the one in which
President Barack Obama's birth certificate gets investigated by both the Maricopa County
Sheriff s Office's Cold Case Posse, a nonpr:ofit organization, and MCSO Deputy Brian
Mackiewicz, whom Arpaio flew to Hawaii as part of this snipe hunt, at a cost of nearly
$10,000 to txpayers.
Arpaio's March 2012 press conference -- in which the sheriff and the Cold Case Posse's
"lead investigator," ex-usecl-car salesman Mike Zullo, cleclared Obama's birth certificate to
be a forgery -- was in the planning stage when the scene was filmed.
At the mere mention of the birther investigation ancl the future press event, Allen and
Willems practically rolled their eyes.
Willems called the birther probe "nuts."
Allen said the sheriff rnight as well go the press conferettce "in big ol' clown shoes." Arpaio
shrugged, literally.
"There ain't gonna be no damage control," Arpaio promised Willems. "You'll get more
money [in campaign contributions] than you'll know what to do with."
Wilier than the cartoon coyote, Arpaio had tappecl into a nationwide right-wing antigovernment, anti-Obama feeding frenzy with his birther probe and with his tirades
against the U.S. Department of Jr.rstice, which was investigating him for abuse of power
and other issues and is now suing him in f'ederal court.
"The DOJ is a hot item evetywhere," Joe told his flunkies.
whenever Arpaio's never-ending political campaign sends out an e-mail blast begging
for loot from Obama-haters, it reels in contributions from retired, far-right ofays all over
the country.
See,
Willems essentially admitted as much in another scene from the film'

"Now, with Arpaio going to battle with Barack Obama," Willems said, "it's meant literally
millions of dollars for his campaign."
As everybody knows, Arpaio was re-elected in 201.2,but the investigation into Obama's
birth certificate continues apace, according to both Arpaio and Cold Case Posse
"commander" Zullo.
At the beginning of May, Arpaio mentioned the birther probe during a speech before
group of Silicon Valley conservatives.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muray-.
'.
RE 277
5121i2015
(333 of 1100)
of 10
Page 3
...
Say,Page
and
Using
Sources
DOJ,
Snow,
G. Muray
Judge Document
Federal
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
4 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
41 of
301
Around the same tirne, he appeared on The RghtSde, a conservative cable-access show
in Mountain View, California. He told host Chris Pareja that the inquiry into Obama's birth
certificate was going strong.
"l'rn not done with that yet," Arpaio insisted. "People thir,k I surrendered. No . . . I'm trying
to find out who's behind it now. That's the key. You can always have a crime to investigate,
but I think you would like to know who did it."
The sheriff said he was after whoever created this "forged, frauclulent document," meaning
a computer scan of the president's long-fbrm birth certificate, released by the White
House in April2011.
Arpaio's statements have paralleled assurances from Zullo during periodic interviews
wiih Ftorida pastor/raclio host Carl Gallups that new revelations concerning the Obama
birth certificate are on the waY.
Critics of birthers regularly mock Zullo's vague pronouncements on Gallups' show
never resulting in any "ne\r" finds.
Why, even the information disclosed during Arpaio's two birther-themed press
conferences in 2012 were a rehash of debunked conspiracy theories.
But cluring a February interview with Gallups, Zullo caused an Internet kerfuffle when he
told Gallus'audience that there were now two investigations: the original birther one and
an offshoot of the birther probe, this one a criminal investigation.
Moreover, the second investigation was using two MCSO detectives and, presumably,
county money.
"l don't know how this is all going to play out," Zullo said. "l know that linl the criminal
investigation that we're working on now, Sheriff Arpaio has dedicated resources and two
full-time Maricopa County Sheriffs Office detectives."
He aclclecl, "These are seasoned pros lwhol are working this. These are the guys that go
hunt down the really bad guys."
Zullo prorised to release "universe-shattering" results of these investigations in March, a
deadline Zullo since has extended indefinitely.
Blogger Mitch Martinson of arizonaspolitics.colrl was the first to query the MCSO on
Zull,o s claim, and the first to report that Sheriffs Otfice spokesman Brandon Jones kindasorta had confirmed it.
"We have two sheriffs cletectives assigned to look into other issues surrounding the birth
certificate," Jones told Martinson, in a blog item posted February 10. "However, they are
not investigating the birth certificate issue itself."
Later, Joes walked back his comments to Martinson, sending the blogger an e-mail,
which Martinson used in a screen shot to a follow-ttp post.
"Mitch, I was misinformed," Jones statecl. "The detectives are not working on anything
regarding the birth certificate. Not even surrounding. Mr. Zullo was incorrect: They are
working on other serious cases not even t'elated'"
ht://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muray-.
RE 278
.. 5l2rl20l5
(334 of 1100)
of 10
Page 4
...
and
Using
Say,Page
Sources
DOJ,
Snow,
Murray
Federat
Judge G.
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
5 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
42 of
301
Who were these two detectives, what were they up to, and why is Zullo, a mere posse
member, privy to it?
Based on information given to me by longtime sources, the two detectives mentioned are
Brian Mackiewicz,the same deputy who made a taxpayer-fundecl run to Hawaii in May
z}l2,and Sergeant Travis Anglin, once a lieutenant with the notorious Maricopa AntiCorruption Effort who was demoted after an MCSO investigation into his private security
company ancl its use of MCSO detectives.
I)ennis Montgomery, in a mr'rgshot fiom a 2009 arrest

Riverside Count,v Sherif s Department
My sources -- one of whom is a former detective with the MCSO's Special Investigations
Divisio and is well-acquainted with SID and those in it -- say Anglin and Mackiewicz
were involved in an odd investigation dating back to October 2013.
Moreover, they say, the deputies have usecl as a confidential informant
scammer in the Seattle area.
notorious
What have they been investigating? According to my sources, Mackiewicz, Anglin, and the
informant are focused on U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, the Justice
Department, and abizarre conspiracy theory that the DOJ and Snow have conspired to
somehow "get" Joe Arpaio.
http:/iwww.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muray-
RE 279
5l2u20rs
(335 of 1100)
of 10
Page 5
...
Using
and
Say,Page
Sources
DOJ,
Snow,
G. Murray
Judge Document
Federal
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
6 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
43 of
301
The person who purportedly convinced Arapio of this paranoid fantasy, the sources say, is
comuter fraudsier Dennis L. Montgomery, the subject of a 2010 Playboy expos titled
"The Man Who Conned the Pentagon."
In that article, investigative reporter Aram Roston detailed how, in the wake of the 9/11
attacks, Montgomery snookered the CIA, the White House, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Air Force into believing he hacl software that could decode secret
messages to terrorists, supposedly embedded in broadcasts of the Al Jazeera Media
Network.
As crazy as this now sounds, Roston, using unsealed courl documents, reported that
etreppid Technologies, the Nevada software company Montgornery co-owned, scored
multimillion-dollar contracts for computer software touted by Montgomery.
In fact, Roston wrote, the United States went to Code Orange, the DHS' second-highest
terror alert, in 2003 basecl on data supplied to the CIA by Montgomety'
Iternational flights were delayed, sometimes canceled, because of Montgomery's work.

Based on Montg-omery's "intelligence gathering," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
told reporters at the time about the threat of "ner-term attacks" [hat could "rival or
exceed" those of 9/Il.
"Montgomery calls the work he was doing noise filtering," Roston wrote. "He was
churng out reams of data he called output. It consisted of latitucles and longitudes and
flight numbers."
This data was given to then-CIA Director George Tenet, according to Roston, and
"eventually encled up in the White House."
There was one big problem, Roston reported: "The communications Montgomery said he
was decrypting apparently didn't exist."
Roston wrote that Montgomery's eTreppid colleagues questioned his computer skills.
Company employees also claimed that Montgomery had faked demonstrations of
weapons-recognition software for representatives of the U.S. military.
With the help of a "branch of the French intelligence services," the CIA finally got wise to
Montgomery, realizing that there were no secret messages to bad guys in the Al Jazeera
broadcasts.
Montgomery leff eTreppid, wrote Roston, and went on to work for software companies
backed by a wealthy hiress; to accuse Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons of taking a bribe
(GibbonJlater was cleared of wrongdoing);to lose big at a Rancho Mirage, California
casino (422,000 in one day); and to declare bankruptcy.
Now, Montgomery lives in Yarrow Point, Washington, a short drive from downtown
Seattle. Vyiour:ces report that MCSO cletectives Anglin and Mackiewicz have spent a lot
of time this year in Setle with Montgomery, who, the sources say, has convinced the
sheriff that he has information suggesting an anti-Arpaio conspiracy between Judge Snow
and the DOJ.
RE 280
ht:/iwww.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-murray-
5t2U2015
(336 of 1100)
of 10
Page 6
...
and
Using
Say,Page
DOJ,
Sources
Snow,
Federal
Judge Document
G. Murray
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
7 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
44 of
301
These sources say there is no report number assignecl to the case, that fu'paio himself is
running it, and that the investigation has been financed with funds for confidential
informants, RICO funds.
Montgorrrery has been assigned a "confidential infornlant nunlber" or "control number,"

the idntity of which is known only to Arpaio, a few MCSO brass, and those in Special
Investigations, accorcting to my sources, who claim Montgomery has been paid about
$100,000 to date by the MCSO.
The situation gives Arpaio ancl the MCSO a degree of deniability becar,rse the department
is allowed to keep the identities of confidential informants secret in most instances.
Though there should be MCSO paperwork associated with such payments, it would show
a paymetlt to a control number, not a name.
The MCSO's official policy on "inf'ormant management" states that control numbers must
be maintained in a confidential-informant log "monitored by the [Special Investigations
Divisionl commander or his designee."
It further states that all informant files be kept in a "secured area within the SID." The
policy notes that the MCSO "will protect [hese sources through al available and
reasonable legal means."
Such "informant files" are retained as "pertnanent records" of SID, "unless the division
commauder determines that the records may be purged."
My sources say Mackiewicz has received, to date, $50,000 in overtime pay and Zullo has
gotten about $5,000 in PaYments.
Zullo's role is unclear, though he currently is involved in the investigation, according to
these sources, as well as the perpetual birther probe.
Additionally, they say the MCSO made about a $50,000 purchase of computer equipment
for Montgomery sometime [his year from a store in Washington state.
Accorcling to the MCSO's policy regarding "Undercover and Investigative Funds
AccountaLility," an expenditure of up to $6,000 for uudercover and investigative work
can be approved by a division cofflmander'
Anything over $6,000 must be approved by a bureau commander.

As
for funds specifically paid to confidential informants, the reins are even tighter.
Payments to a CI of nrore than $300 must be approved by a division commander "prior to

th expediture of te funds," according to the MCSO's informant-management policy.
The amount of money involved in detectives Anglin and Mackeiwicz's Seattle quest has
raised red flags with MCSO accountants, I've been told.
These sare MCSO accountants reportedly have expressed concern internally about the
procurement of the computer equipment, excessive CI payments, the amount of overtime
involved, and the money spent on airfare and stays in Seattle.
RE 281
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muffay-
512U2015
(337 of 1100)
of 10
Page 7
...11
and
Using
Say,
DOJ,
Sources
Snow,
G. Murray
Judge Document
Federal
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
8 of
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
Page
45 of
301
In several broadly worded public-records requests sent to the MCSO in February, I asked
for any and all e-mails traded among the players involved, as well as any anc all records
regarcling MCSO employees' trips to Seattle, payments of informant t'unds to Dennis
Montgomery, and Mackiewicz's overtime requests.
In each case, I was advised by MCSO spokesman Jones that "this is an ongoing
investigation. . . uo records can be released at this time."
In March, I called Zullo at his home phone number. I asked him about the work he was
said to be doiug with Montgomery.
He claimed not to know what I was talking about. Whetr I pressed him, he said all such
inquiries should go through the MCSO.
"l have no comment to make, especially to the New Tintes," he told me before hanging up'
The opportunity to question Ar:paio about the Montgomery caper caffIe as he munched on
cheese at a recent fundraiser for embattled Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne at the
University Club in Phoenix.
I aslced the sheriff about Montgomery ancl the work that my sources tell me he has done
for rhe MCSO.
At first, he played dumb, asking if I rneant County Attorney Bill Montgomery'
"No, Dennls MorTtgolTtety," I reptied. "The computer guy in Seattle who is helping you
investigate Judge Snow and the DOJ. You are investigating Snow and the DOJ, aren't
you?"
As he hit the cheese platter again, Arpaio looked over his shoulder at me with a grin. But
he said nothing.
I kept after him, asking why deputies Mackiewicz and Anglin had spent so much time in
Seattle.
"l clunno, maybe they like the weather up there," he said over his shoulcler, "or the snow
crb."
True to form, the sheriff was cagey, but there was no denial.
The ex-special Investigations source I know tells me that the joke around Arpaio's office
is that Montgomery's referred to as "Snowden," after Edward Snowden, the American
computer geek responsible for a massive 2013 leak of classified documents from the
Natinal Scurity Agency that exposed Orwellian surveillance programs run by the U.S.
government.
"[Montgomery] says he worked for the CIA on a pr:oject called Hammer [and] collected
data similar to Snowclen's," the source says. "[Montgomery] claims he can prove there was
a conspiracy between [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder and Judge Snow . . . a
conspiracy against ArPaio."
Montgomery, who is mictclte-agecl and stocky with a shock of white hair, is no Snowden'
Whatver you think of Snowden, at least the information he released generally has been
confirmed as legitimate.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muray-.
..
RE 282
5l2ll20l5
(338 of 1100)
Page I of 10
and
Using
Say,Page
DOJ,
Sources
Snow,
Judge Document
G. Murray
Federal
'.'
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2
Filed
05/22/15
Page
9 of
11
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
46 of
301
As with the gibberish Montgomery reportedly gave the CIA in the early 2000s, he has,
according to rny sources, produced many printouts for the MCSO that seem off point, with
dates going back [o 1999 and earlier.
Obviously, that's long before Arpaio took up the cause of illegal immigration, long before
he was investigated or sued by the DOJ, and long before he became the subject of the
ACLU's big racial profiling lawsuit Melendres v. Aryao.
One source informs me that at least one unclerling told Arpaio recently that what
Montgomery provicled the MCSO is worthless, that Joe is getting played -- which caused
the sheriff to erupt into a fit of anger.
Wlren Montgomery was approached by a freelauce reporter on behalf of New Tmes in

April, he was nonplussed.
Montgomery came to the door of his Yarrow Point home,

someone about computer equipment.
a cell phone at his ear,
talking to
The reporter identified himself, and Montgomery asked for a carcl, which the reporter
presented.
"l really don't wanna talk to YoU," Montgomety said, ending his call.
"Okay, about Phoenix
. . .,"
the reporter began.
"No comment," Montgolnery shot back.
"Arizona...," the reporter started again.

"No comment," Montgomery repeated. "Who sent yott up here?"
"
Phoenix New Tintes," the reporter explained.
"Yeah, "
growled Montgomety.
"l-lave you done any work for Joe Arpaio?" the reporter asked.
"I, I, I have no comment," Montgomery said, moving away. "l'll call you later. I'll think
about it."
Montgomery went back into his house and shut the door, ending the conversation on a
rnysterious note. As with Arpaio, there was no denial.
Is Dennis Montgomery Joe Arpaio's Snowden? I cannot say absolutely.
But i['s not f'ar-fetched to think that Arpaio would investigate any powerful public official.
He continues to ilvestigate the president. He and now-disbarred former County Attorney
Anclrew l'homas investigated Superior Court judges perceived to be thwarting their antiun documentecl-immigrant p olicies'
'llhat is, it fits a pattern cultivatecl over his reign of more than 20 years.
Among Arpaio's bogus investigations have been:
. One targeting former \.rizona Attorney General Terry Goddard for alleged bribery. The
probe began in2007 ancl didn't seem to end until Goddard left office.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-muray-...
RE 283
5l2rl20l5
(339 of 1100)
of 10
Using
and
Say,Page
Sources
Snow,
G. Murray
Federal
Judge Document
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
1117-2DOJ,
Filed
05/22/15
Page
of Page
11 9
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3,
4710
of ...
301
. One that brought the 2008 indictrnent of then-county Supervisor Don Stapley on 118
criminal coun[s related to his allegedly not properly disclosing sources of income. All
counts were dismissed ultimately.
. An infamous December 2009 RICO suit brought by Arpaio and'l'homas against the
entire Board of Supervisors, various county employees and certain Superior Court judges.
Supposedly, they all were part of a conspiracy involving the county's new court tower. The
suit was a disaster that finally got dismissed by Thomas himself.
. A probe resulting in the fiting of false bribery charges in 2009 against former Superior
Court Judge Gary Donahoe. Arpaio ancl Thomas ginned up these charges as retaliation
against Donahoe for aclverse rulings and to make Donahoe vacate a hearing that Arpaio
ancl Thornas didn't want to take place.
And now Juclge Snow, who in 2013 found the MCSO guitty of racial profiling and assigned
a monitor to make certain that Arpaio was obeying court orders on reforming and reeduca[ing deputies so that the agency does not profile Latinos or any other rninority
again?
As for l-lolder, the DOJ remains engaged in a lawsuit accusing Alpaio of abuse of power
and prejudiced policing.
the sheriff faces the ignominy of ending his law enforcement careel' as a
disgraced political colossus.
At age
82,
All -- in his mind -- because of Snow and the DOJ.

Why not attempt an investigation aimed at discrediting his perceived nemeses?
Though there never will be any pink handcuffs in Snow's or Holder's future, Arpaio's
racist, wing-nut supporters would consider it an act of bravery that their hero is
ivestigatig fecleral officials getting in the way of keeping despised Latinos in their place.
Meaning fftore money in the sheriffs perpetual re-election kitty and proving that bogus
investigations continue to pay off.
My dream, of course, is that Snow blows a gasket and perp-walks the aged autocrat. We'll
see.
RckAnderson in Seattle contrbuted to ths story.

Sponsor Content
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-murray-
RE 284
sl2v20l5
(340 of 1100)
of 10
and Usin... Page 10

Say,Page
Sources
Snow, DOJ,
Judge Document
Federal
G. Murray
Investigating
Joe Arpaio's
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
1117-2
DktEntry:
Filed
05/22/15
13-3,
Page
4811
of 301
of 11
ht://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaios-investigating-federal-judge-g-murray-..
RE 285
5l2Il20l5
(341 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
49 of
1 301
of 9
EXHIBIT 3
RE 286
(342 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-3
Filed 05/22/15
Page
2 301
of 9
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
50 of
Page 512

Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
vs.
Phoenix, Arizona
April 23, 2015
8:34 a.m.

Defendants.

Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263

RE 287
(343 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-3
Filed 05/22/15
Page
3 301
of 9
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
51 of
Page 643
Q.
A.
He may -- I may remember that,
Q.
yes.
Let me
10
clerk.)
11
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:

BY THE COURT:
14
Q.
15
16
17
it.
18
19
20
21
22
BY THE COURT:
23
Q.
?4
A.
L5
Q.
And I
just want to ask you some questions about the article
RE 288
(344 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-3
Filed 05/22/15
Page
4 301
of 9
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
52 of
Page 644
1

2
3
tell him.
10
And I trust that
correct?
11
12

14
A.
15
there, yes.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
Q.
19
A.
A detective.
20
Q.
Is he in your
21
risk detail?
22
A.
23
Q.
I understand that.
~4
L5
A.
is he assigned to you personally, your
Yes.
RE 289
(345 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
53 of
5 301
of 9
Page 647
1
Q.
A.
Had to do with computer tampering and also bank fraud,
type of thing.
Q.
that
A.
It's not true.
Q.
All right.
by anyone?
10
A.
You investigated?
11
Q.
Yes.
12
A.
No.
Q.
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
16
A.
17
Q.
Yes.
18
A.
Not by our office.
19
Q.
20
21
A.
22
office.
23
Q.
~4
A.
L5
Q.
No.
Or anybody.
RE 290
(346 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
54 of
6 301
of 9
Page 648
1
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
It was the counsel.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
Mr. Casey.
10
Q.
Mr. Casey.
11
A.
Pardon?
12
Q.
my family,
or members of my family.
14
A.
15
Q.
16
A.
We were investigating some comments that carne to our
17
attention.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Through e-mail.
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
~4
L5
Let me ask, in his article Mr. Lemons indicates

Your testimony is
RE 291
(347 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
55 of
7 301
of 9
Page 649
that correct?
A.
Q.
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
A.
Q.
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
12
14
A.
15
16
17
confidence in.
18
Q.
19
A.
20
Q.
All right.
21
infiltrated?
22
A.
23
?4
Q.
L5
A.
By someone.
No.

That's
RE 292
(348 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
56 of
8 301
of 9
Page 654
1
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
I'm not sure.
to keep it quiet.
Q.
10
11
A.
12
Q.
A.
I believe there was a, as I say, e-mail that carne to me.
14
Q.
15
A.
16
Q.
17
18
recollection?
19
A.
20
21
Q.
22
A.
23
Q.
Grissom?
?4
A.
Grissom.
25
Q.
Okay.

RE 293
(349 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-3
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
57 of
9 301
of 9
Page 655
1
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
investigator do?
A.
He investigated it.
Q.
10
A.
11
restaurant and con
12
four,
Q.
guess talked to the witnesses, three or
that confirm that remark was made.
All right.
14
that. investigation?
15
A.
We should have.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
All right.
19
Thank you.
20
21
22
23
A.
?4
L5
Q.
RE 294
(350 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-4
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
58 of
1 301
of 6
EXHIBIT 4
RE 295
(351 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-4
Filed 05/22/15
Page
2 301
of 6
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
59 of
Page 817

Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
vs.
Phoenix, Arizona
April 24, 2015
8:41 a.m.

Defendants.

Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
( 602) 322-7263

RE 296
(352 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-4
Filed 05/22/15
Page
3 301
of 6
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
60 of
Page 962
THE COURT:
1
2
And did it make allegations that I was
doing something illegal?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
in this litigation?
No, sir.
Did it make allegations that I was biased
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
All right.
You may go ahead and answer.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Do you remember the question?
10
A.
Could you please repeat it?
11
Q.
Sure.
12
went to the sheriff's office, and I asked you what was the
You were talking about this Facebook message that
content of the message.
14
A.
Yes.
I can't quote it verbatim, but it was -- I know
15
Judge Snow's wife.
16
see you out of office.
17
Q.
Did you identify who that message was from?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Karen Grissom.
20
Q.
21
Ms. Grissom came to get this information that Judge Snow's wife
22
said that Judge Snow hates the sheriff and wants to get him out
23
of office?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am .
.5
Q.
What did you -- what did you learn subsequently?
She told me he hates you and he wants to
The header from the individual that it came from was
Did you learn -- subsequently learn more about how
. I
RE 297
(353 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-4
Filed 05/22/15
Page
4 301
of 6
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
61 of
Page 966
1
because he sent it to my office.
while acknowledging that he has duties to you and not
commenting on it, denies that he was involved in any way, or he
says -- he doesn't deny anything, but he says something to the
effect that he's confidant that when the materials are
evaluated he was not involved in any way in the investigation
of me or a member of my family.
8
9
You're aware that Mr. Casey,
And is it your view that you were at a conversation in

which that just simply isn't true?
That if I read it that way,
10
my understanding is wrong?
11
A.
12
depends on how you define "investigated your wife," because
Your Honor, that -- that's where I started out saying it
no one, no one ever went any further than just verifying that
14
conversation --
15
Q.
All right.
16
A.
-- occurred.
17
Q.
Mr. Casey hired, if not an investigator, somebody?
18
A.
That's correct.
19
Q.
And that somebody went and talked to Ms. Grissom?
20
A.
Correct.
21
THE COURT:
22
Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
23
BY MS. IAFRATE:
24
Q.
And also spoke to her husband and her grown son?
.5
A.
Correct.
RE 298
(354 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-4
Filed 05/22/15
Page
5 301
of 6
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
62 of
Page 1003
1
Indonesia and back within seconds.
And it comes back in your
computer, the system puts it back together.

Montgomery has that data, or he says he does, in
those -- in that format.
supercomputers to put that information together.
have one.
forever to run programs.
information.
He needs
or he says he needed
He doesn't
He's got this huge one in his garage, and it takes

And so he would come back with
Our primary focus,
Your Honor, was the fraud, the bank
10
fraud, the -- excuse me, the computer fraud of him hacking into
11
person -- people's personal bank accounts.
12
Q.
Are you uncomfortable telling me who the target of this
investigation was?
14
A.
No, because there were about 50,000 people.
Some of them
15
very prominent people.
16
Q.
17
Department of Justice.
18
A.
I -- I'm sorry, I don't.
19
Q.
Oh.
20
investigations?
21
A.
I don't --
22
Q.
When I say the target of the investigation, in other words,
23
he thought the Department of Justice was doing the bugging.
~4
you remember that?
L5
out the Department of Justice's bugging of judges and your
Well, the sheriff told me that the target was the

Do you remember that?
Who would have had to sign off on these
Do
And the investigation was trying to find
RE 299
(355 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-4
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
63 of
6 301
of 6
Page 1006
1
A.
No, but when the -- somebody leaks to members of the media
who he is, he's no longer confidential.
Q.
confidential for?
A.
Well, it could have shown --
Q.
He hadn't infiltrated organized crime, had he?
A.
Could have shown that either the Department of Justice or
the CIA was breaching American citizens' personal information,
and he had at least 50,000, that I remember, of citizens that
Well, but what was he doing that he needed to be
10
lived here in Maricopa County.
11
Q.
12
what a confidential informant is anywhere in your operations
But I still don't understand.
Do you have a definition of
manual?
14
A.
Yes, sir, we do.
15
Q.
And is it written so broadly that Dennis Montgomery
16
qualifies?
17
A.
I believe so.
18
Q.
Who all has to sign off -- you purchased a bunch of
19
equipment for him.
20
A.
We did, but we never gave it to him.
21
Q.
You authorized travel and overtime and pay for your
22
detectives to go to Seattle?
23
A.
Yes, sir.
?4
Q.
Why were you doing this out of Seattle?
L5
A.
That's where he lives.

RE 300
(356 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-5
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
64 of
1 301
of 2
EXHIBIT 5
RE 301
(357 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-5
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
65 of
2 301
of 2
RE 302
(358 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
66 of
1 of
301
31
EXHIBIT 6
RE 303
(359 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
2 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
67 of
301
Transcript of
Recorded Interview of Karen Grissom
Conducted by Don Vogel
on October 26 , 2013
DESERT HILLS REPORTING, INC .

2415 E. CAMELBACK ROAD
SUITE 700
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
BY:
TERESE M. HEISIG/ RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 50378
TRANSCRIPTIONIST
RE 304
(360 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
3 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
68 of
301
Page 2
Karen Grissom
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay.
The tape recorder is
going.
It is Saturday morning, October 26th.
just about 9 o'clock in the morning.
Vogel.
tape?
It is
My name is Don
And can you go ahead and say your name for the
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Karen Grissom.
Okay.
Karen, just to kind of
bring the tape up to speed, I've been here somewhere in
the neighborhood of five to ten minutes .
10
KAREN GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL :
Yes.
Urn, I explained to you that I was
12
here because of some information that has been kind of
13
passed to me through some different channels of
14
Mr. Casey's office that, urn, you may have heard a
15
conversation in a restaurant some time back when you
16
were with your husband, and it may involve a situation
17
involving Sheriff Arpaio.
18
KAREN GRISSOM:
19
DON VOGEL:
Yes .
And I've told you that I do not
20
work for the sheriff's office.
I'm a licensed private
21
investigator.
22
my background so that you could be comfortable.
23
you that I have -- I have been retired from a local
24
police department, not the sheriff's office, for
25
eight years.
I -- I spoke with you a little bit about

I told
And we just kind of talked about wanting

Desert Hills Reporting, Inc.
602.999.3223
RE 305
(361 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
4 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
69 of
301
Page 3
Kare n Grissom
10 / 26 / 2013
to, I guess, get a -- get a n unders tanding of exactly
what it is that you heard on tape, and you have
knowledge that this is being recorded.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
Yes.
Okay .
Is there anything that we
talked about that I haven't kind of included i n the
summary?
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10
No.
Okay .
Karen, how old are you
roughly, if you don't want to say.
11
KAREN GRISSOM :
12
DON VOGEL:
I just turned 64 .
Okay.
Urn, and I know you are
13
short on time this morn ing, so we will do this as
14
quickly as we can.
15
up some of the details when we talk with your -- with
16
your husband Dale.
17
this conversation -- we haven't discussed it, but this
18
conversation that, obviously , I' m here to talk wi th you
19
about.
We may have to come back and touch
But, urn, you had -- do you remember
20
KAREN GRISSOM :
21
DON VOGEL:
22
23
Yes .
When -- do you remember when that
occurred?
KAREN GRISSOM:
It was last year.
I don't
24
know -- I don't remember i f it was in the summe r or
25
beginning of the summer.

Desert Hills Reporting, Inc .
602 . 999.3223
RE 306
(362 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
5 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
70 of
301
Page 4
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DON VOGEL:
10
11
were you at?

KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
KAREN GRISSOM:
Okay.
DON VOGEL:
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
25
It had to have been probably
on a Saturday.
20
24
Lunchtime, because we were
there for lunch.
18
23
Do you remember
approximately what time of day it was.
DON VOGEL:
22
No, I don't .
Okay .
17
19
Do you remember what day
of the week it was .
13
16
On Mill Avenue and Baseline.
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
At Sombrero's Restaurant.
And which Sombrero's Restaurant
12
14
And where did the
conversation occur .
KAREN GRISSOM:
Yes.
Okay.
So somewhere in the area
of maybe 13 to 16 months ago.
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay.
3:00, you know,
that is when
we probably go.
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And, urn, you were with
your husband, obviously.

KAREN GRISSOM:
Yes.

602.999.3223
RE 307
(363 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
6 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
71 of
301
Page 5
Karen Grissom
DON VOGEL :
Was there anybody else with you
when you got to the restaurant .

KAREN GRISSOM :
There were - - I think our son
was with us.
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10
10 / 26 / 2013
And what is your son's name.

Scott Grissom.
And how old is Scott .

He is 40.
Okay .
And where does Scott
reside.
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL:
13
KAREN GRISSOM :
14
DON VOGEL:
In California.
Can you tell me what city.

He is in Oxnard.
Okay.
And if it would become
15
necessary, would you be able to give me his cell phone
16
number for him.
17
KAREN GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL :
Yes.
Okay .
So you, your husband, and
19
your son Scott were at Sombrero's Restaurant .
20
remember what you were doing on that side of town?
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
Do you
Ah, we go over there quite a
22
bit to eat, and, urn, we were - - that is why we go there.
23
We have been going there since they opened.
24
25
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And even though you live
here on the west side, that is really not that far of a

602.999.3223
RE 308
(364 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
7 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
72 of
301
Page 6
10 / 26 / 2013
Karen Grissom
1
drive from here .
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
Urn, where were you seated at in the

restaurant?
I'm pretty familiar with that restaurant.

KAREN GRISSOM:
Within 10 to 15 minutes probably,
maybe 15 minutes.
5
6
No, it is not.
We were over on the south
side of the door

DON VOGEL :
Okay.
So when you --
10
KAREN GRISSOM:
at the window .
11
DON VOGEL:
So when you walk in, there
Okay.
12
is a tremendous amount of seating to your left, and
13
there is just a few tables off to your --
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
DON VOGEL:
16
right.
And you were off to
the right?
17
KAREN GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL :
19
On the right.
Right next to the window.
Okay.
And do you remember if
that is a booth or a table.
20
KAREN GRISSOM:
21
DON VOGEL:
22
KAREN GRISSOM:
Table.
Okay.
Urn, what happened?
We were just sitting there
23
eating our lunch, and, urn, this girl, tall girl comes
24
up.
25
says, no , I ' m Karen.
I didn't know who she was, and she asked, Irene?

602.999.3223
RE 309
(365 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
8 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
73 of
301
Page 7
Karen Grissom
1
2
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay .
So she asked you if you
were Irene?
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
My sister, my younger sister .
Okay.
Is Irene - - and you had
mentioned when I got here that Irene -- one of your
sisters is a paralegal.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Is that -- okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
Irene.
Winterburn.
Okay .
So she asked if you were
Do you look like Irene?
13
KAREN GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL:
15
What last name
does she go by now .
10
12
That is her .
Yes.
Okay .
So is -- does that -- does
that happen in the past, where people have --
16
KAREN GR I S SOM:
17
DON VOGEL:
18
KAREN GRISSOM:
19
DON VOGEL:
Yes.
confused you guys?
Even -- yeah , even at church.
Okay.
Urn, so she asked if you
20
were Irene, and you were -- that is nothing new , so you
21
immediately knew that --
22
KAREN GRISSOM:
23
DON VOGEL:
24
25
your sister.
M'hum.
somebody was confusing you and
What happened next.
KAREN GRISSOM :
And she
and then I asked

602.999.3223
RE 310
(366 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
9 of
31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
74 of
301
Page 8
Karen Grissom
1
her who she was, and she said Sheri Smoch -- Snow.
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay .
She said Sheri Srnoch.
she say know, too, or are you just adding that .

KAREN GRISSOM :
No.
Urn, she said Sheri, urn,
Snow, and I says, well, I don't know you.
said I'm Sheri Srnoch .
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10
11
Okay.
13
KAREN GRISSOM :
14
DON VOGEL:
15
KA.REN GRISSOM:
What was the dad's name?
He was a railroad -- he
worked in railroad.
DON VOGEL:
18
KAREN GRISSOM :
19
DON VOGEL:
20
KAREN GRISSOM:
mother.
Oh , okay .
Railroad .
Okay.
And, urn -- and I remember her
I don't remember her mother's name.
22
DON VOGEL:
23
KAREN GRISSOM :
25
Urn, I don't remember.
I thought you just said it.
17
24
I said, oh, yeah, I remember
He was a railroad man .

DON VOGEL:
21
From Yuma.
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
your dad .
And, oh, she
Remember my family .
12
16
Did
Okay.
I remember her stepmother was
my piano teacher in college .

DON VOGEL :
Okay .
Desert Hills Reporting , Inc.

602 . 999.3223
RE 311
(367 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
7510
of 301
Page 9
Karen Grissom
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
What city was she murdered in.
Now, are you from Yuma .
Yes.
What year did you -- were you
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
No.
Did -- when did you live there.

Urn, since I was about
six years old.
13
DON VOGEL:
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
DON VOGEL:
Until when .
1970 we moved away.
So you lived there for quite some
time.
17
KAREN GRISSOM :
18
DON VOGEL:
19
KAREN GRISSOM:
20
DON VOGEL:
21
In Yuma.
Okay.
10
16
born in Yuma.
12
But she was murdered.
don't know if they ever found out who did it.
10 / 26 / 2013
Yes.
So what year were you born.

' 49.
So you lived there from , like,
194- -- excuse me, 1955 until '77 -- until 70.
22
KAREN GRISSOM :
23
DON VOGEL:
Somewhere around there .
Okay .
So you lived there for
24
quite some time .
Urn, so she ident- -- she told you her
25
name was Sheri Snow, and then you were kind of puzzled.
602 .9 99 . 3223
RE 312
(368 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
7611
of 301
Page 10
Karen Grissom
10 / 26 / 2013
And what was her maiden name, again.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
S - m-o-c-h or k .
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
Had you known her growing
Growing up, yes .
We just
lived a few blocks away from her.

DON VOGEL:
10
Do you know how to spell that.
up.
Smoch .
Were you friends, or did you just
kind of know each other .
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
We were friends.
I would go
12
over to her mother -- to her house and -- and we would
13
play.
14
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
15
KAREN GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL:
We were a different age .
Okay .
So after she introduced
17
herself and kind of figured out who everybody was, what
18
happened .
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
Urn, she -- and then I said,
20
well, what do you do?
She said, well, I used to be a
21
teacher.
22
And I think that is where she said she met her husband,
23
and he is a federal judge .
I was a teacher .
24
DON VOGEL:
25
KAREN GRISSOM:
I went to BYU, she said.
Okay .
Snow.

602 . 999.3223
RE 313
(369 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
7712
of 301
Page 11
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
Did she say his first name.

I don't think so.
Okay .
Did you know he was a
federal judge before that, or did she
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
No.
offer that to you.
No.
Okay.
She brought that up.

What happened next.
And, ah
and, oh -- and I
10
said, oh, he is the one that is after Joe, the sheriff.
11
Oh, yes, he is.

DON VOGEL:
12
13
sheriff."
14
15
Now, you said, "after Joe, the
What did you mean by that.

KAREN GRISSOM:
the judge on the -- on the
16
DON VOGEL:
17
KAREN GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL:
19
KAREN GRISSOM:
20
Umr what I meant is 1 he is
on the news.
Okay.
that he had a lawsuit.
Okay.
I've seen it on T- -- on --
That is all I knew .
DON VOGEL :
21
on the case that - -
Okay.
Now/ did you remember
22
if -- if she said he is the one after Joe
23
one that is on the case involving Joer or don't you
24
remember.
25
KAREN GRISSOM:
or he is the
I think it was probably
Desert Hills Reporting/ Inc.

602.999.3223
RE 314
(370 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
7813
of 301
Page 12
Karen Grissom
1
10 / 26 / 2013
after.
DON VOGEL :
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Not that .. .
Okay.
Urn, now, were you
following that case in the news, or was it just
something that you would s e e from - -
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM :
I had seen on the news.
DON VOGEL:
So it wasn't something you
10
11
It is just
time to time.
Okay .
watched for on
12
KAREN GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
14
KAREN GRISSOM :
Because I like -the news every night .

Joe, and I don't -- I
15
didn't like the way he, you know, has been treated, you
16
know.
17
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
18
KAREN GRISSOM:
And, ah -- and then she
19
started, yeah, my husband, urn, doesn't like him .
20
wants him out of the - - out of his office.
21
anything he can do to get him out of the office .

DON VOGEL:
22
23
24
25
Okay.
He
And he
Urn, how did you respond to
that.
KAREN GRISSOM :
I didn ' t respond to anything
to it, because I didn ' t want to voice my opinion about

602.999.3223
RE 315
(371 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
7914
of 301
Page 13
Karen Grissom
1
2
it.
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
Yes, he did.
Did your son hear it.

I don't know.
Okay.
I didn't -- I haven ' t never
talked to him --
10
DON VOGEL:
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
about it .
Was there any reason that your
13
son wouldn't have heard it?
14
he talking to somebody else?
15
16
17
18
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DON VOGEL :
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
25
So he was there and
present for the conversation .
20
24
Was
Urn , probably -- he probably
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
23
Was he on the phone?
would have heard it if
19
22
Now, do you think your
husband heard that comment that you made.
10 / 26 / 2013
Yes.
Okay .
Urn .
At the time, I think he was
living with us.

DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Do you remember why he was
living with you.

KAREN GRISSOM:
His wife kicked him out.

602.999.3223
RE 316
(372 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
8015
of 301
of 31
Page 14
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay.
So is he back together.
No.
Didn't work out .

No.
I'm sorry.
They are divorced now.
Okay.
Urn, what does your son do
in Oxnard.
KAREN GRISSOM:
He, ah, worked for a company.
10
He is a project manager.
11
that takes care of the streets down by the ocean from
12
the streets on the
13
DON VOGEL:
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
DON VOGEL:
16
KAREN GRISSOM:
17
18
19
They - - he is over the crew
Okay.
No.
So he works for the city.

It is a contract job.
Okay.
Because I don't know the
company.
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Urn, so she said that --
that her husband wanted Joe out of office.
20
KAREN GRISSOM:
21
DON VOGEL:
22
KAREN GRISSOM:
M'hurn.
What happened next.

Oh, we just talked, and she
23
talked about her daughter going to - - leaving for BYU
24
when school starts.
25
conversation.
And that is pretty much the
Desert Hills Re porting, Inc.

602.999.3223
RE 317
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8116
of 301
(373 of 1100)
Page 15
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
Was anybody with her.
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM :
Do you remember which one.
Oh, in her 20s, maybe not
even that.
12
KAREN GRISSOM :
Okay .
Probably just out of high
school or that .
14
DON VOGEL :
Okay .
Can you describe Sheri for
me?
16
KAREN GRISSOM :
17
DON VOGEL :
18
Kind of sandy blonde hair.
How old .
DON VOGEL :
15
No .
Can you describe her for me?
11
13
She had one of her - - one of
h e r daughters with her.
10
10 / 26 / 2013
She had short hair.
Okay.
Is she -- is she white,
Hispanic?
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
20
DON VOGEL :
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
22
DON VOGEL:
23
KAREN GRISSOM:
24
DON VOGEL:
25
KAREN GRISSOM:
She is white .
Okay .
So she is a white female.
M' hum.
About how old.

She is probably about 55, 56.
Okay .
About how tall .
Oh, she is probably about 5'

602 . 999 . 3223
RE 318
(374 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8217
of 301
Page 16
Karen Grissom
1
9",
5'
10 / 26 / 2013
10" .
DON VOGEL:
And is she heavy?
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM:
Is she thin.
She is -- she is thin.
Okay .
And what color hair.
It looked like a -- it wasn't
quite blonde, but it was -- it had blonde streaks in it.
Sandy blonde or --
DON VOGEL :
Was the rest of it lighter, the
part that didn't have blonde streaks .
10
KAREN GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
Yeah, it was darker.
What color would you say the
12
if you had to tell me what color hair she had, what
13
color hair did she have.
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
DON VOGEL:
16
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL:
No.
Okay.
Do you remember what color
shirt she was wearing.
20
KAREN GRISSOM:
21
DON VOGEL:
22
KAREN GRISSOM:
23
DON VOGEL:
24
KAREN GRISSOM:
25
Urn, and did she have any
distinguishing characteristic s about her.
17
19
Ah, light brown .
No.
Urn.
She had a white dog with her.
She had a - - what kind of dog .

Urn, probably a, I don't know,
a lab short -- real short hair.

602 . 999.3223
RE 319
(375 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8318
of 301
Page 17
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM :
Big dog or little dog .
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
And the daughter that was
in was also a white female .
13
DON VOGEL:
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
Yes .
And she was how old, did you say?

Oh, probably in her 20s.
don't --
16
DON VOGEL:
17
KAREN GRISSOM :
18
DON VOGEL:
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
long hair .
Mid, early, late?

Mid 20s, early 20s .
Do you remember what color hair .

She had -- I think she had
It is was blonde.
21
DON VOGEL:
22
KAREN GRISSOM:
23
Or it was -- you know, I
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
20
Another daughter, I believe .
Okay.
12
15
Was anybody outside
think another daughter was outside.
10
11
They had
watching the dog.
It was a big dog .
it outside .
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay .
Any -- urn, about how tall?
About same tall -- height as
her mother.
24
DON VOGEL:
And was she thin, heavy --
25
KAREN GRISSOM:
Thin.

602.999.3223
RE 320
(376 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8419
of 301
Page 18
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
conversation.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
9
10
No.
Did she say anything in the
Do you remember what
color -- what clothing she had on.
10 / 26 / 2013
No, I don't think so.
Was she close enough to the table
to hear what was going on .

KAREN GRISSOM:
She was, ah, kind of back.
She probably would have --
11
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
12
KAREN GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
was there.
Would it surprise you if, with
14
the activity in the restaurant, based on her position,
15
if we asked her if she heard this comment, would you
16
expect her to be able to have heard it, or would you be
17
surprised if she said she didn't hear it.
18
19
20
KAREN GRISSOM :
I would be surprised if he
didn't hear it.

DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Did -- when she said that
21
comment was there a l ot o f emotion behind it?
22
making any faces or anything.
23
KAREN GRISSOM:
No, uh-uh.
Was she
Just like that
24
was just her - - she just was, ah, talking with us, you
25
know, about him and

602.999.3223
RE 321
(377 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8520
of 301
Page 19
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
Kind of matter of factly.
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10
Kind of bragging about her
husband.
10 / 26 / 2013
Bragging about her husband.

Yes.
Okay.
That he was a judge.
Okay.
Urn, would you have any
problems responding to a subpoena if you were issued a

subpoena to talk about this.
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL:
No.
Okay.
Urn, and something I want
13
to ask you, and, obviously, you know this is being
14
taped .
15
never ask you to keep any secrets from your husband, but
16
I -- but I would like you to not tell him about the
17
content of what we talked about.
18
going to tell him I was here.
It is very important, urn, I certainly would
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
20
DON VOGEL:
Certainly, you are
Yes.
Certainly, you are going to tell
21
him it was about this situation in the restaurant .
22
if you could not go into specifics about what we talked
23
about, I think that would be best.
24
KAREN GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL:
But
Yeah.
And then, urn, as well with your

602.999.3223
RE 322
(378 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8621
of 301
Page 20
Karen Grissom
1
son .
us contact him.
Maybe not even contact your son about this.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
question .
Urn, that is my next
Who else have you told about this.
husband and I.
J u st -- just between my
That is all .
DON VOGEL :
Now, did you make an entry on a
10
Facebook page about this .
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL :
13
KAREN GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL :
15
KAREN GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL:
17
I haven't done anything, even
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
Let
my sister.
10 / 26 / 2013
Yes.
Okay.
When did you do that .
Oh, it was just
How long after the incident.

It has been a while .
Why did -- what prompted you to
make the entry into the Facebook page.

KAREN GRISSOM:
18
It was after, ah, some ruling
19
that -- in court about something being dismissed and
20
not -- had to do with immigration.
21
remember .
22
when -- after she had said that and then knowing that he
23
was the federal judge on the case .
24
that, because she wouldn ' t be saying that unless her
25
husband was talking about it.
It was -- I don't
But it just bothe red me all the time that
And for her to say

602 . 999.3223
RE 323
(379 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8722
of 301
Page 21
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
10 / 26 / 2013
Okay.
And things like that, we were
always brought up to, if there is a problem, you tell
the truth, and, you know, you tell somebody.

DON VOGEL:
So when you made that
Facebook entry, it was as a result -KAREN GRISSOM:
Okay.
It was of concern.
It was a
big concern.
DON VOGEL:
Because of you were following
10
some different rulings by the Court from -- did you ever
11
go down to court and watch it
12
KAREN GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
14
KAREN GRISSOM:
15
DON VOGEL:
No.
or did you just see it on TV.
No, just news.
So you saw it on TV, and then
16
because of the particular ruling that was -- I'm
17
assum1ng was that adverse to Sheriff Arpaio?

KAREN GRISSOM:
18
M'hum .
I messaged him
19
personally on because -- Facebook, because I didn't want
20
it to be publicized.
DON VOGEL:
21
22
Okay .
as a personal message .
23
KAREN GRISSOM:
24
DON VOGEL :
25
So that entry was to him
Yes.
It wasn't out for the world to
see.
602.999.3223
RE 324
(380 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8823
of 301
Page 22
10 / 26 / 2013
Karen Grissom
1
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
Ha ve you been contacted by
anybody at all prior to me .
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
No.
Okay .
Mr . Casey spoke with
you --
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
KAREN GRISSOM :
10
11
No, it was n' t .
No .
Yes -by te l e p hone about
DON VOGEL :
- - Mr. Casey .
this.
Any -- anyone other
than myse l f or Mr . Casey --
12
KAREN GRISSOM :
13
DON VOGEL :
speak with you .
14
If I -- okay .
Have you made any other
15
special messages to Sheriff Arpaio?
16
KAREN GRISSOM :
17
DON VOGEL :
18
No.
Okay .
Have you made any phone
calls to him .
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
20
DON VOGEL:
21
KAREN GRISSOM :
22
DON VOGEL:
23
No.
No.
Have you ever met him.

No .
Do you have any relationship with
him at a l l .
24
KAREN GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL:
No.
Does your husband or your son

602.999.3223
RE 325
(381 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
8924
of 301
Page 23
Karen Grissom
1
have any relationship with him.
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
would be making a false statement about this.

KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM:
11
KAREN GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL :
son.
15
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
Before I leave, could I
Urn, my phone is not working
right now.
DON VOGEL :
19
No - - oh, so you can't get it off
your phone?
KAREN GRISSOM:
22
iCloud and passwords.
23
know, it 1s --
25
No.
get a cell phone number from your son.
17
24
No.
How about your husband or your
KAREN GRISSOM :
21
No .
No criminal convictions.
14
20
No.
Have you ever been arrested.
DON VOGEL:
18
No.
Have you ever been in trouble.
10
16
No .
Is there any reason that you
13
10 / 26 / 2013
DON VOGEL :
It has something to do with
It is an Apple phone.
I don't
If you want , I ' ve been through
that within the last few days.

602.999 . 3223
RE 326
(382 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
9025
of 301
of 31
Page 24
Karen Grissom
1
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
3
4
5
6
10 / 26 / 2013
Oh.
I might be able to help you, if
you want me to.

KAREN GRISSOM:
I 1 ve been trying to get - - do
it o n the internet.
DON VOGEL:
I might be able to help you with
your phone, because I just when through it.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Oh.
So - - but I don 1 t want the tape
10
on while I 1 m going
you know, that would just create a
11
lot of unnecessary time.
12
KAREN GRISSOM:
13
for the State of Arizona.
14
He was in the motor vehicle -- well, it is not motor
15
vehicle anymore, but he was a sergeant, and he kind of
16
used a credit card when
17
DON VOGEL:
18
KAREN GRISSOM:
19
when he wasn 1 t supposed
to, and he recently ...

DON VOGEL:
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
22
have the lights.
23
trucks inspection .
25
He did get in some trouble.
Was
20
24
My son, I did -- he did work
Was he a policeman?
No.
Urn, he was a -- he did
He was for the heavy, you know, larger
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Urn, anything like that
administratively ever happen to you o r your husband.

602.999.3223
RE 327
(383 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
9126
of 301
Page 25
10 / 26 / 2013
Karen Grissom
1
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Urn, and was your son charged
criminally.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
No, nothing.
No, not that I know of.
Okay .
But he lost his job over
it.
KAREN GRISSOM:
He resigned over it.
golng through some marital problems, and his wife
expected too much, I think, of him.

DON VOGEL:
10
11
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
21
22
It was on Channel 5.
I 1 m sorry to hear that .
He just -- it was a $2,000
credit card.
DON VOGEL :
Urn , how long have you lived in
this house.
KAREN GRISSOM:
19
20
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
17
18
No.
Urn.
15
l6
Urn, was that in the
newspapers.
12
14
He was
We 1 ve been here, urn,
two years.
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Urn, is it a problem if I
come back and see you to clarify anything
23
KAREN GRISSOM:
24
DON VOGEL:
25
KAREN GRISSOM:
No.
that may - No.

602.999 . 3223
RE 328
(384 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
9227
of 301
of 31
Page 26
Karen Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
KAREN GRISSOM :
good .
eye.
Urn, do you have any hearing aids?
DON VOGEL :
So your hearing is good.
KAREN GRISSOM:
Ah, it was probably my
favorite.
15
KAREN GRISSOM:
Okay.
Enchilada and taco and beans
and rice.
DON VOGEL:
17
Okay.
You are saying probably,
but is it because that is what you usually have, or --
19
KAREN GRISSOM :
20
DON VOGEL:
21
Urn, it was -- yes, it is
Do you remember what you had for
DON VOGEL :
18
Yes.
Urn, your vision 1s good.
14
16
No .
lunch that day.
12
13
-- or may not come up?
I just have a macular degeneration in the left
10
11
10 / 26 / 2013
That is
that is what you remember
having.
22
KAREN GRISSOM :
what I usually have.
23
DON VOGEL:
Do you remembe r what you
24
25
Okay.
were wearing that day .

KAREN GRISSOM:
No.

602 . 999.3223
RE 329
(385 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
9328
of 301
Page 27
10 / 26 / 2013
Karen Grissom
DON VOGEL:
1
2
Do you remember what car you went
in that day.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
KAREN GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
and if I did, I apologize.
with Ms. Snow that day.

KAREN GRISSOM:
10
No.
And I may have asked you this,
How long was your contact
Maybe less than 10,
5 minutes.
12
DON VOGEL:
13
KAREN GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL:
15
Urn, is there anything else
that you remember about that that we haven't discussed.
11
Our van .
That is a long time .

Yeah.
So she was -- what else did talk
about.
KAREN GRISSOM:
16
We were just -- she would
17
she was just talking about her career, what she did.
18
She taught school for a while .
19
going to school.
20
working on my masters .
22
I finished my bachelor's, and I was
DON VOGEL:
21
Where did she tell you she taught
school at.
23
KAREN GRISSOM:
24
DON VOGEL:
25
And I told her I was
I don't remember .
Okay.
Do you remember what high
school, college, university, grammar school?

602.999.3223
RE 330
(386 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
9429
of 301
Page 28
1
2
10 / 26 / 2013
KAREN GRISSOM :
Urn , I don 1 t remember what
school it was or what grade it was.

DON VOGEL :
Karen Grissom
Do you remember what subject
matter she taught .
KAREN GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
No.
Urn, do you remember anything else
that she told you about -- during that conversation
about her or her life or her family?
she offer in the conversation?

KAREN GRISSOM:
10
Or what else did
Just, ah, where she went to
11
school, urn, and that she came back here and taught
12
school for a while.
13
married to .
14
our conversation came up to Joe Arpaio and what she had
15
said, he wanted her out -- wanted him out .
16
like him.
17
to go, because she had a dog outside waiting, and they
18
were going back home .
19
DON VOGEL :
20
And I don 1 t
-- and who she was
And then I recognized the Snow, and then
He didn 1 t
And then we changed the subject, and she had
Okay .
Do you remember what she
changed the subject to.
21
KAREN GRISSOM:
22
DON VOGEL:
No, I don 1 t.
Okay.
All right.
Well, if I
23
need to clarify anything, again, it is okay for me to
24
come back and see you.
25
KAREN GRISSOM :
Yes .

602 . 999.3223
RE 331
(387 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
9530
of 301
Page 29
Karen Grissom
DON VOGEL:
10 / 26 / 2013
And you understand that this was
recorded today
KAREN GRISSOM:
Yes .
DON VOGEL:
I'm going to go ahead and turn my tape off.
correct.
Urn, the clock on my tape recorder shows that we've been
on just about 20 minutes and 15 seconds.
didn't - - I never turned the tape recorder on and then
off and --
10
KAREN GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
12
through our entire conversation.

KAREN GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL:
16
That's right .
it was continually running
13
15
And, urn, you
Yes .
Okay.
I will turn the tape off.
It now says 20 minutes and 29 seconds.

(End of tape. )
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

602 . 999 . 3223
RE 332
(388 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-6DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
of 31
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
9631
of 301
Page 30
10 / 26 / 2013
Karen Grissom
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)ss.
)
I, TERESE M. HEISIG, Certified Reporter No .
50378, Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that the
foregoing pages constitute a full, true, and
accurate transcript, from electronic recording, of the
proceedings had in the foregoing matter, all done to the
best of my skill and ability.
10
11
SIGNED and dated this 6th day of November,

2013.
12
13
14
15
16
TERESE M. HEISIG, RPR, CSR, CPE

Certified Court Reporter / Transcriptionist
CR #50378
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
602.999.3223
RE 333
(389 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
97 of
1 of
301
29
EXHIBIT 7
RE 334
(390 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
2 of
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
98 of
301
Transcript of
Recorded Interview of Dale Grissom
Conducted by Don Vogel
on October 28, 2013
DESERT HILLS REPORTING, INC.

2415 E. CAMELBACK ROAD
SUITE 700
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
BY:
TERESE M. HEISIG / RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 50378
TRANSCRIPTIONIST
RE 335
(391 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
3 of
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
99 of
301
Page 2
10 / 28 / 2013
Dale Grissom
DON VOGEL:
October 28th .
name 1s Don Vogel .
name for the tape, sir.
Okay .
It is Monday,
It is just about 9:25 in the morning .
My
And can you go ahead and state your
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
I'm Dale Grissom.
Okay .
Dale, I've been here just
a couple minutes .
And just to get everything on the
tape, we just kind of got to know each other, just
chatted about the weather.
I explained to you that I'm
10
working for an attorney by the name of Tim Casey.
11
represents Mr. Arpaio in this -- in this ongoing matter.
12
And I'm not employed by the sheriff's of fice.
13
never been employed by the sheriff's office .
14
private investigator .
15
off icer, but nothing to do with the Maricopa County
16
Sheriff's Office.
17
18
And I'm a
Is that pretty accurate as far as what we

discussed?
DALE GRISSOM:
20
DON VOGEL:
Yes.
Okay .
Urn .
Your first name,
Dale?
22
DALE GRISSOM:
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
I've
I am a retired law enforcement
19
21
Tim
Dale .
Dale.
Dale , how old are you.
Ah, well, I'm 64, but I will
be 65 in about three weeks .

602.999 . 3223
RE 336
(392 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
1004ofof301
Page 3
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
At 2005 West Harwell?
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
How long have you lived here for.
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
Urn, how long have you been
Well
we've been back for - -
for about three or four years.

DON VOGEL:
15
DALE GRISSOM:
Okay.
We lived here all our lives,
so ...
17
DON VOGEL:
18
DALE GRISSOM:
You left for a period of time.

Yeah .
We left -- we moved up
to Utah for about 13 or 14 years, something like that.

DON VOGEL:
20
21
We lived out in Goodyear.
Okay.
14
19
jeez, two and a half
in the Valley for, or 1n Arizona.
12
16
Ah,
And where did you guys live
DALE GRISSOM :
10
13
M'hum, yeah.
before this.
11
And where is your home?
years, two years, something like that.
7
8
10 / 28 / 2013
What cities in Utah did you
reside at.
22
DALE GRISSOM:
Cedar City.
23
DON VOGEL :
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
outside of Cedar City called Enoch.
Okay.
Well/ it was a little town

602.999.3223
RE 337
(393 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
1015ofof301
Page 4
Dale Grissom
DON VOGEL :
And can you spell that town for
me.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Urn, and your wife told you
that I was here Saturday.

DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
E-n-o-c - h.
Okay .
10 / 28 / 2013
M'hum.
Obviously, I spoke with her, your
wife Karen.
Can -- can you tell me what she told you
10
about my visit with her?
11
DALE GRISSOM :
12
DON VOGEL:
13
DALE GRISSOM :
Not much.
Okay.
What is not much.
Well, she said that you were
14
going to come by today and talk about the incident that
15
we had out at Sombrero's .
16
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Urn, did she tell you --
17
did you guys talk in detail about the incident about
18
what -- what happened out there?
19
DALE GRISSOM:
20
DON VOGEL:
21
22
23
No.
Okay .
Urn, do you remember that
day very well.

DALE GRISSOM :
Ah, not real well, but I can
kind of remember --
24
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
25
DALE GRISSOM:
kind of what went on,

602.999.3223
RE 338
(394 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
1026ofof301
Page 5
Dale Grissom
1
and ...
2
3
DON VOGEL:
Do you remember where you were
before you went to Sombrero 1 s that day?

DALE GRISSOM:
Oh, jeez.
Ah, I think we were
horne, and we went with my son out there, I believe.
DON VOGEL :
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
DALE GRISSOM:
10
11
10 / 28 / 2013
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
I think he was with us.
And what is your son 1 s name.

Scott.
And Scott, what is his middle
name.
12
DALE GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
14
your wife, and Scott.
Eugene Grissom.
And -- Grissom .
15
DALE GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
So you,
M1 hurn.
Went out to Sombrero 1 s.
Do you
17
remember what time of day it was, if it was lunch or
18
dinner?
19
20
21
22
23
DALE GRISSOM :
Oh, it was probably lunch, a
little after lunch, I think.

DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Do you remember what day
of the week it was or if it was a weekend or a weekday.

DALE GRISSOM:
24
probably a weekend .
25
don 1 t remember.
If he was here, it was
I don 1 t know for sure, though . . I

602.999.3223
RE 339
(395 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
1037ofof301
29
Page 6
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
when this was?
10 / 28 / 2013
Okay.
I mean, I
Do you remember around

I don't expect --
DALE GRISSOM:
Oh
DON VOGEL:
you to be able to give me a
5
6
date, but can you - DALE GRISSOM:
I had my knee done on the 12th
of April, so it was probably about first part of May,
end of April, May, right in there .
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And I can see your right
10
knee has quite a scar on it.
Urn, do you -- d o you kind
11
of relate this situation back to during the time of your
12
recovery with your knee?
13
DALE GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL:
15
DALE GRISSOM:
Ah, yeah , somewhat.
Why is that?
Well, it was still kind of
16
tender and, you know, still -- I think I still had a
17
walker getting around.
18
19
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
were -- did you drive to Sombrero ' s.
20
DALE GRISSOM:
21
DON VOGEL:
22
No.
Okay.
My wife drove .
If you were to go to
Sombrero's today, who would drive.
23
DALE GRISSOM :
24
DON VOGEL :
25
Do you remember if you
I would.
Okay.
But your wife drove .
Was
that because of your knee .

602.999 . 3223
RE 340
(396 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
1048ofof301
29
Page 7
Dale Grissom
1
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
4
5
10 / 28 / 2013
Yeah.
Okay .
Either her or my son, and I
don't remember.
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
But you remember you
didn't drive because of --
DALE GRISSOM:
Yeah.
DON VOGEL:
your
you were convalescing
your knee -- knee surgery?
10
DALE GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
Yeah .
Okay.
Urn, when you got there --
12
urn, I've been to that Sombrero's many times.
13
good restaurant .
14
When you walk in, there are some tables to your right,
15
and there is more tables to your left, and there is also
16
a great deal of seating outside.
17
It is a
Would you remember where you sat?
DALE GRISSOM:
When we walked in, we sat at a
18
longer table on the right, and it was the second one in
19
from the window.
20
DON VOGEL:
21
DALE GRISSOM:
22
Okay.
It is -- well, I guess it is
the first window when you go in there on the right.
23
DON VOGEL:
24
actually abuts up to the window.
25
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM:
No.
So the part of the table
It is the second one back

602.999.3223
RE 341
(397 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
DktEntry:
13-3, Page
1059ofof301
Page 8
Dale Grissom
1
out from the window table.

DON VOGEL:
So it sits in the middle of the
floor.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DON VOGEL:
Yeah, I think so.
Okay.
Do you remember what you
had that day.
10
DALE GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
No.
Okay .
Was the -- was the
restaurant crowded.
13
DALE GRISSOM:
14
DON VOGEL:
15
Urn, so you , your wife, and
your son Scott, had you ordered your food yet?

DALE GRISSOM :
12
Yeah .
Okay.
10 / 28 / 2013
Not too much, no.
Okay .
When you go to Sombrero's,
how do you pay.
16
DALE GRISSOM:
17
DON VOGEL:
18
who would pay, you or your son?
19
Usually debit.
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM:
And who -- who usually --
Well , my son don't pay.
But
20
I -- I think I gave him the debit card, and he paid that
21
way.
22
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Would you be open to
23
helping us try to track down your bank records from any
24
Sombrero's purchases in April or May of 2012 .
25
DALE GRISSOM :
Sure.

602.999 . 3223
RE 342
(398 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
10610
ofof
301
29
Page 9
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM :
Okay.
Who do you bank with .
Ah, it is this Wells Fargo
right over here.
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
10 / 28 / 2013
Okay.
We just changed, but that is
the one that we were using.

DON VOGEL:
Have you had your account with
Wells Fargo -- have you been with Wells Fargo for
several years.
10
DALE GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
12
DALE GRISSOM:
13
DON VOGEL:
14
DALE GRISSOM:
15
16
17
Yes.
Okay.
M'hum .
Do you have your wallet with you.

Sure .
I don't, but I can get
it for -DON VOGEL:
Well, let's get it after this.
After this, I will get your debit card number .
18
DALE GRISSOM :
19
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And then maybe we can, ah, draft
20
a letter for you, and you can send it to the bank to get
21
the records.
And then , when you get the records - -
22
DALE GRISSOM:
Now --
23
DON VOGEL:
I can come back and get them .
24
DALE GRISSOM:
-- usually my wife has those
25
on the computer.
602.999.3223
RE 343
(399 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
10711
ofof
301
29
Page 10
10 / 28 / 20 13
Dale Grissom
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Maybe we could look for
that today.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
Yeah, probably.
So, ah -- so you are there.
believe you may have ordered your food .
happened?
know you were seated to the right.

DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL :
DALE GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
12
DALE GRISSOM:
M'hum.
It is chairs .
Okay.
Urn, my wife was on the right
13
side.
14
but on the west side of the table.
15
sitting right beside her.
I was on the second -- well, she was on the end
16
DON VOGEL:
17
DALE GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL:
21
22
Is it benches or chairs?
10
20
Urn, what
What started -- or where were you seated?
19
You
And then I was
So you were sitting to her right .

Her left.
Her left.
And where was your
son.
DALE GRISSOM:
Ah, I think he was right
across from us.

DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And if I went back over to
23
the restaurant, if it became necessary, and I took some
24
pictures, would you be able to point to the table and
25
then assign the seats to where everybody was

602.999 . 3223
RE 344
(400 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
10812
ofof
301
Page 11
Dale Grissom
10 / 28 / 2013
DALE GRISSOM:
Oh, yeah.
DON VOGEL :
seated.
DALE GRISSOM :
Yeah .
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
Okay.
And I'm not sure my son was
there, but I'm pretty sure he was.

DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Did you talk to your wife
about -- about who was there since I've been here to see
your wife on Saturday.
10
DALE GRISSOM:
11
DON VOGEL:
No.
Okay.
So the son 1s something
12
that you -- that you guys didn't discuss.
13
believe that that is how it happened.
14
DALE GRISSOM :
15
DON VOGEL:
16
eating?
You just
Yeah.
Okay .
So what, you guys are
Is that how it is going?
What is
17
DALE GRISSOM :
Yeah .
18
DON VOGEL:
going on?
19
DALE GRISSOM:
I think we were still waiting
20
on our food, and the lady that sat on the table by the
21
window knew Karen's sister, which was Irene.

DON VOGEL:
22
23
Okay .
So she was already seated
inside?
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL:
Yeah.
Urn, now, was she by herself, or

602.999.3223
RE 345
(401 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
10913
ofof
301
Page 12
10 / 28 / 2013
Dale Grissom
1
was somebody with her.

DALE GRISSOM:
No, there was someone with
And I dont remember if there was two people with
her.
her inside.
her daughter and somebody, maybe her daughters husband
or boyfriend, and they had a dog.
just right outside that window.

DON VOGEL:
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM:
I think she said
So they were sitting
Urn, so how did -- how did
Well, she thought my wife was
Irene, so she said, Irene.
12
DON VOGEL:
13
DALE GRISSOM :
14
--
contact become initiated between these folks.
10
11
But outside there was
Okay.
Now, who is Irene.
Irene is Karens sister, the
younger one .
DON VOGEL:
15
Okay.
Does it - - do they get --
16
is there a confusion often that people come up to your
17
wife and call her Irene.
18
DALE GRISSOM:
19
Yup.
They look pretty much
alike.
20
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
21
DALE GRISSOM:
Karen is a little bit older,
22
but they have the same features
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM :
25
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
and everything .
So this woman -- did you know

602.999. 3 223
RE 346
(402 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11014
ofof
301
Page 13
10 / 28 / 2013
Dale Grissom
1
this woman prior to today?
Like when you sat down did
you think, boy, she looks familiar?
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM :
No, I didn't know her at all.
Okay.
Until they started talking,
and then she told -- I believe she told Karen her name
or Karen told me her name or -- I don't know how exactly
that happened right there.
10
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Were you -- could you hear
everything that was going on in the conversation.
11
DALE GRISSOM:
12
DON VOGEL:
Yeah, pretty much.
Okay.
So you're - - you're -- do
13
you remember, urn, how it kind of -- how the conversation
14
got going specifically, what they were talking about, or
15
just that they --
16
DALE GRISSOM :
Wel l , I think they were
17
talking about her and Irene I think went to the same
18
church, and that is kind of how things started .
19
thought that my wife was Irene.
20
started that way.
21
it kind of got into that, the best I can remember.
22
then they -- I don't remember exactly how it got into
23
Joe Arpaio and her husband.
24
remember, she says, yeah, my husband wants to get him or
25
wants him to go down or something like that.
She
So they kind of got
And then she knew their mother, and

And
But it carne back, what I

602.999.3223
RE 347
(403 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11115
ofof
301
Page 14
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL :
specifically what she
10 / 28 / 2013
Okay.
You dont remember
DALE GRISSOM :
No, I
DON VOGEL :
s aid, though .
DALE GRISSOM:
No , I dont .
DON VOGEL :
But that was the idea of what she
said.
DALE GRI SSOM:
DON VOGEL :
10
Do you remember, was there any
any -- did she say it with a ny emot i on, or was it
11
12
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
14
DALE GRISSOM :
15
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
And who is her husband.
Ah , is that Judge Snow?
Okay .
Urn, do you know - - have
y ou been following the Arpaio case before this .
17
DALE GRISSOM :
18
DON VOGEL :
19
Ah, not really, I guess .
don t remember .
13
16
Mhum.
Oh, yeah.
How were you -- how did you
follow it.
20
DALE GRISSOM :
I followed it right along with
21
everything he did, because I approved of most everything
22
he did.
I didn t have any problems.
23
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
So did you - - but did you
24
fol l ow it by going down to t he cou r t house and watching ,
25
or watching
602 . 999 . 3223
RE 348
(404 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11216
ofof
301
Page 15
Dale Grissom
10 / 28 / 2013
DALE GRISSOM:
No, no.
DON VOGEL:
the news or reading about it.
DALE GRISSOM:
Yes, it was the news.
4
5
6
7
watched it on the news and Facebook and stuff like that.

DON VOGEL:
Okay.
Snow was involved in the case?

DALE GRISSOM:
Did you know that Judge

Did you know his name?
Not really, huh-uh.
Not
until, actually, I heard that, and then I started
getting a little more in it.
And then here lately when
10
he -- he was -- him and Judge Snow was kind of at it, I
11
guess you could say.
12
DON VOGEL:
But ...
So when she said that her husband
13
was the judge on the case, it wasn't like you
14
immediately knew, oh, that would be Judge Snow.
15
DALE GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL:
17
DALE GRISSOM :
18
No.
Okay.
I didn't know that until I
found out her name.
19
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
20
DALE GRISSOM :
And I think Karen was saying,
21
well, that is Judge Snow's wife or her name was Snow, or
22
something like that.
I --
23
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL:
I don't remember.
So she said that -- that her

602 . 999.3223
RE 349
(405 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
11317
ofof
301
29
Page 16
Dale Grissom
10 / 28 / 2013
husband wanted Sheriff Arpaio to, and you used some
words, go down or something like that, but you dont
remember exactly what she said.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
I - - I dont.
Did -- did she ever tell you
where she -- why she believed her husband wanted
Judge
DALE GRISSOM:
wanted Joe Arpaio to not do so wel l ?
know.
It seems like, ah
I dont
It sounded to me l ike he was telling her
10
everything that was going on, and she just kind of,
11
yeah, well, he needs to go down because he is doing all
12
this stuff, and people don t l ike him.
13
DON VOGEL:
Did it sound to you l ike Judge
14
Snow told his wife that he didnt l ike Joe Arpaio , and
15
he wanted Joe Arpaio to, and Im using your words, to go
16
down?
17
DALE GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL :
19
DALE GRISSOM:
20
DON VOGEL :
I would think so .
Okay.
I mean
But did she ever say, my husband
21
told me he doesnt like Joe, and he wants Joe to go
22
down, or dont you remember that.
23
DALE GRISSOM:
24
have come up, but I dont remember .
25
DON VOGEL:
I don t remember .
That may
Okay .

602 . 999.3223
RE 350
(406 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11418
ofof
301
Page 17
10/28/2013
Dale Grissom
DALE GRISSOM:
I just didn't pay attention
like I probably should have, thinking, you know, maybe
later something would come up.
remember bits and pieces along the way .

DON VOGEL:
But I just kind of
But you remember she told you
that her husband, who was the federal judge, didn't like
Mr. Arpaio, and he - - and using your words, he wanted
Mr. Arpaio to go down.

DALE GRISSOM:
Yeah.
10
that, how would I say?
11
was telling my wife this stuff.
12
DON VOGEL :
13
conversation were you?
14
table.
And that was something
She didn't say it to me.
She
How far away from the

You were seated at the same
15
DALE GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL:
17
DALE GRISSOM:
It's the aisle.
18
DON VOGEL:
hands up about three -- about
DALE GRISSOM:
Yeah.
19
About this far away.
And you are opening your
three feet.
20
Between the tables, you
21
know, it is a little walkway there, and it is about
22
three feet.
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM :
25
DON VOGEL:
So you had no difficulty hearing.

No.
Okay.
Could you identify this
Desert Hills Reporti ng , Inc.

602 .9 99 . 3223
RE 351
(407 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11519
ofof
301
Page 18
Dale Grissom
1
10 / 28 / 2013
woman if you saw her again?

DALE GRISSOM :
You know, I don't know if I
could or not.
like she had kind of short hair, and she was wearing
like a -- oh, a sweatpants - type thing, I think.

DON VOGEL:
I kind of remembered she had -- seemed
Well, let's talk about this .
she a white woman, a Hispanic woman?
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
10
11
12
About how
old is she.
DALE GRISSOM :
She is about 51 or 2, 3 .
She
was the same age as Karen's sister, so

DON VOGEL:
14
DALE GRISSOM :
15
DON VOGEL:
16
DALE GRISSOM:
17
DON VOGEL:
18
DALE GRISSOM:
19
DON VOGEL:
21
Yeah, she is white .
A white woman, okay.
13
20
Is
Okay.
that is about the same age .
Early 50s.
Yeah.
Urn, what color hair?

It was dark .
Urn, do you remember about how
tall she is.

DALE GRISSOM:
I don't know that she ever
22
stood up, that I can remember.
Yeah, she did stand up
23
when they le f t before we did, I thi nk.
24
5' 5", 5' 6", 5' 7", someplace in that -- I don't think
25
she was taller than me.
She was probably
Desert Hills Report i ng, Inc .

602.999.3223
RE 352
(408 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11620
ofof
301
Page 19
10 / 28 / 2013
Dale Grissom
DON VOGEL:
was Mrs. Snow still
So was
seated at her table having a conversation with your wife
across the aisle.

DALE GRISSOM:
No.
My wife was standing up,
I think, and talking to her.
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM :
And they sat down and -- and I
think they said a few words back and forth after that,
but ...
10
DON VOGEL:
And, again, can you clarify how
11
many -- if you remember, how many people were seated
12
inside with Mrs. Snow during this .
13
DALE GRISSOM:
I think it was her and two
14
people on the west side of that table.
15
was two.
16
believe, two outside with the dog.

DON VOGEL:
17
18
I know there was one.
Okay.
And then there was, I
And the people inside, do
you remember if they were male or female.
19
DALE GRISSOM:
Ah, seemed like they were
20
female.
21
I didn't pay attention to who was --
There may have been one male on that far side .
22
DON VOGEL:
23
DALE GRISSOM:
24
DON VOGEL:
25
I think there
Okay.
there.
So I'm still a little unclear.
You think there were two people inside .

602.999 . 3223
RE 353
(409 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
11721
ofof
301
29
Page 20
10 / 28 / 2013
Dale Grissom
1
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
4
5
Okay .
DON VOGEL :
Mrs . Snow, excuse me, and two
others; correct?
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
10
11
12
13
Well, yeah, Mrs . Snow and two,
I think.
Yeah.
people outside.
Yeah.
And then -- and then additional
Do you think the two people inside were
in a position to hear that conversation.

DALE GRISSOM :
Well, I would think so.
They
were sitting right across the table.

DON VOGEL:
Okay .
But you are really -- you
14
are really not 100 percent sure if both were female or a
15
male and a female, or what.
16
DALE GRISSOM:
Yeah, I'm not sure.
Seems
17
like the one closest to us on the west side of the table
18
was a female, and the other one may have been a male.
19
20
DON VOGEL:
Okay.
And do you think you can
identify those two people if you saw them again.
21
DALE GRISSOM :
22
DON VOGEL :
I doubt it .
Okay.
If you were to walk
23
into -- if you were to be in Circle K today and
24
Mrs. Snow were to walk in, do you think you would
25
realize, hey, there is Mrs . Snow, the woman I had this

602 . 999.3223
RE 354
(410 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11822
ofof
301
Page 21
Dale Grissom
1
10 / 28 / 2013
conversation with .
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
No .
Okay.
If she walked up and said
something that would make me remember, you know, kind
of -- I would say, oh, that is who you are .

DON VOGEL:
Okay .
But you wouldn't just pick
her out of the crowd at the ballpark.

DALE GRISSOM:
10
DON VOGEL:
Probably not, no.
Okay.
Urn, have -- did you and
11
your wife talk about - - and Scott talk about what she
12
said, you know, after the -- after the fact?
13
DALE GRISSOM:
14
about it after she left.
15
even think -- I think all that we knew at the time was
16
her husband was a judge.
17
DON VOGEL:
18
DALE GRISSOM :
I don't know if we talked

And you know what, I don't
Okay.
And that is kind of the best I
19
can remember.
That is kind of where that was kind of
20
left.
21
Judge Snow doing - - you know, putting all this stuff
22
against Arpaio, then we -- to me, it clicked.
And then, later on, when we started seeing this
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
Okay .
Karen may have known before .
I don't know.
Desert Hills Repo rting, Inc.
602.999.3223
RE 355
(411 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
11923
ofof
301
Page 22
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL:
10 / 28 / 2013
Ha ve you t al k e d to anybody
outside of your wife and - - and your son Scott about
this incident.
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
No .
Okay .
Have you talked to Scott
about this incident since that day.
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
I haven 1 t .
Have you t a l ked to your wife
occasionally about it .
10
DALE GRISSOM :
11
DON VOGEL:
12
DALE GRISSOM :
13
DON VOGEL:
Oh, yeah .
I t comes up.
Ye ah, it comes up .
Urn, did you - - did you send any
14
messages through Facebook or e-mail or anything like
15
that about t his .
16
DALE GRISSOM:
17
DON VOGEL:
18
DALE GRISSOM:
19
DON VOGEL :
No .
Do you know your wife did .

I don 1 t.
Okay .
Urn, did anything , that you
20
know of, happen or through conversation with your wife,
21
why would this have come up here in the last couple of
22
months to be -- you know, to get to the point to where
23
you guys fee l it was needed to be reported now as
24
opposed to when it happened?
25
DALE GRISSOM :
We l l, I think it was because
Desert Hi l ls Reporting, Inc.

602.999.3223
RE 356
(412 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
12024
ofof
301
29
Page 23
Dale Grissom
10 / 28 / 2013
we -- we started seeing Judge Snow in court and putting
these injunctions and all this stuff down on Arpaio.
then that is kind of when we said, hey, you know, this
is not right.
What is going on?
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM:
Okay.
What we thought was not right
was his wife telling people that -- that Judge Snow
wanted to do away with Arpaio and get rid of him or
whatever, whatever it was.
10
So
DON VOGEL:
Okay .
Do you know that your wife
11
had a conversation with Tim Casey about this, and he is
12
an attorney.
13
DALE GRISSOM :
14
DON VOGEL:
Yeah, I did.
Now, urn, I know that Tim has made
15
some - - some attempts to recontact your -- your wife,
16
and those have gone without any response.
17
you know why your wife chose not to call Tim back.
18
DALE GRISSOM:
19
DON VOGEL :
20
DALE GRISSOM:
Do you -- do
I don't.
Are you -I know -- now, I know that
21
several times that we tried to talk to him, we were in
22
the area, the phone wouldn't work.
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
M'hum.
And so we just -- I don't know
that she tried to call him back or -- or what.

602.999.3223
RE 357
(413 of 1100)
Case
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Document
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
Page
29
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-3, Page
12125
ofof
301
Page 24
Dale Grissom
1
DON VOGEL :
10 / 28 / 2013
But since that day, are you aware
of any -- any efforts by Mr. Casey to get i n touch with
your wife or your wife making a conscious decision not
to return any calls to him .
DALE GRISSOM :
you know , I thought she
did return his call once after that --
DON VOGEL :
Okay.
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
that time.
Okay.
Now, I m going to read
10
something to you that I got o f f of Facebook .
11
it is from -- it says:
12
t alked with her one day .
13
childhood, and she told me that her husband hates you
14
and will do anything to get you out of office.
15
bothered me since last year when I saw her.
16
It is --
Judge Snow, I know his wife and

She recognized me from our
This has
Urn, now, your wife -- this is from your
17
wifes Facebook account .
18
DALE GRISSOM :
19
DON VOGEL :
Okay .
And it went to Mr . Arpaio .
Now,
20
you know, we talked about it, and did she ever say that
21
she hated Joe?
22
DALE GRISSOM:
23
DON VOGEL:
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL :
Who?
Mrs. Snow.
Oh .
Okay .
I
Do you know if he -- if

602 . 999 . 3223
RE 358
(414 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
12226
ofof
301
29
Page 25
Dale Grissom
10 / 28 / 2013
she ever told you that her husband said that he would do
anything to get him out of office, or is the only part
of that conversation you remember what you've already
told me.
DALE GRISSOM:
all I remember.
DON VOGEL:
DALE GRISSOM :
I think that is pretty much
Okay .
And there was -- there was a
lot of stuff going on, and some of it I was kind of - -
10
you know, after a little bit, I tried to listen, and
11
then I just --
12
DON VOGEL:
13
DALE GRISSOM :
14
DON VOGEL:
I get it.
Do you have any -- do
you have any criminal record.
17
DALE GRISSOM:
18
DON VOGEL:
19
It is one of those things, you
know, you just, whatever .
15
16
Kept --
No.
Have you ever received any -- any
court ordered psychological treatment.
20
DALE GRISSOM:
21
DON VOGEL:
No .
Do you have any -- any reason
22
that
23
that you have a reason to lie about this .
anything in your background that would suggest
24
DALE GRISSOM:
25
DON VOGEL:
No.
Are you lying about this .

602 . 999.3223
RE 359
(415 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
12327
ofof
301
29
Page 26
Dale Grissom
1
DALE GRISSOM :
DON VOGEL:
10/28 / 2013
Nope .
Would you honor a subpoena if we
were to give one to you.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL :
DALE GRISSOM:
whatever I can remember about this.
Sure .
Okay .
DON VOGEL :
DALE GRISSOM:
I would be glad to say
Okay .
Whatever it is.
I like Joe
10
Arpaio, but I 1 m not going to put my neck out on the, you
11
know, thin robe somewhere to ...
12
DON VOGEL:
And you understand -- and have I
13
ever asked you to say anything other than the absolute
14
truth.
15
DALE GRISSOM:
16
DON VOGEL:
No.
Okay .
Urn, now, my tape recorder
17
shows we have been on just coming up -- it says right
18
now 20 minutes and 18 seconds.
19
one, to go inside, and maybe we can take a look and see
20
if we can get those bank records, and then also get a
21
phone number for your son Scott?
22
DALE GRISSOM :
23
DON VOGEL :
Would it be possible,
Yeah, sure.
Okay.
I 1 m going to go ahead and
24
turn the tape off.
Have I -- have I stopped and started
25
the tape at any point in t i me during this conversation.

602.999.3223
RE 360
(416 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
12428
ofof
301
29 27
Page
Dale Grissom
1
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
continuously running.
DALE GRISSOM:
DON VOGEL:
and 41 seconds.
No.
Okay.
10 / 28 / 2013
So it has been
Yes.
Okay.
My tape shows 20 minutes
I'm going to turn it off .
(End of tape. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

602.999.3223
RE 361
(417 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-7DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
12529
ofof
301
29
Page 28
Dale Grissom
10/28/2013
STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)ss.
3
I, TERESE M. HEISIG, Certified Reporter No .
50378, Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that the
foregoing pages constitute a full, true, and
accurate transcript, from electronic recording, of the
proceedings had in the foregoing matter, all done to the
best of my skill and ability.
10
11
SIGNED and dated this 6th day of November,

2013.
12
13
14
15
16
TERESE M. HEISIG, RPR, CSR, CPE

Certified Court Reporter / Transcriptionist
CR #50378
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
602.999.3223
RE 362
(418 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-8
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
126 of
1 of
301
4
RE 363
(419 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-8
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
127 of
2 of
301
4
RE 364
(420 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-8
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
128 of
3 of
301
4
RE 365
(421 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-8
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
129 of
4 of
301
4
RE 366
(422 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
130 of
1 of
301
6
EXHIBIT 9
RE 367
(423 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
131 of
2 of
301
6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
May 14, 2015
9:35 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263

RE 368
(424 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
132 of
3 of
301
6
49
department-wide.
8
9
10:38:46

10
11
12
13
14
faith.
15
10:39:05
16
17
18
19
20
21
10:39:18

It is
22
23
24
25
10:39:35
10:39:54
RE 369
(425 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
133 of
4 of
301
6
51
allowed to investigate these matters that are pertinent to the
current contempt findings.
broad leeway in determining what those are.
and I'm going to authorize him to conduct such investigations,
and the defendants will completely cooperate in those
investigations.
He will have to, of course, have

He has authority
10:41:57
Of course, when the monitor is conducting an interview
of an MCSO employee, counsel will be informed and may be
present if they wish to be.
And by "counsel" I don't just mean
10
defense counsel.
11
mean special appearing counsel; and Mr. Como, of course, you're
12
welcome.
I mean plaintiffs' counsel; I, of course,
10:42:13
13
Even if the monitor is conducting interviews of
14
persons who are not MCSO employees, all parties may have
15
transcripts of all of his interviews if they wish to pay for
16
them.
17
documents and seeking to obtain additional depositions if they
18
wish to do so, or making additional document production
19
requests.
20
10:42:29
That does not prohibit the parties from looking at the
Certainly, you may proceed with the depositions of the
21
attorneys that I've already basically authorized.
22
conducting such depositions, I'm going to require you to check
23
with the monitor and obtain his approval to make sure that it
24
does not foul up his investigative plan.
25
10:42:48
But before
As we approach the hearing, if his investigations make
10:43:10
RE 370
(426 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
134 of
5 of
301
6
53
would like to take before the June dates, but those have been
subject to revision as we are still getting documents from the
defendants.
submit the list of proposed depositions to the Court.
So we would, I guess when we're ready to do that,
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
The investigative areas that you're talking about
THE COURT:
10
Your Honor, I have a couple questions.
I'm not going to limit it.
MS. IAFRATE:
Well, is there any way for us to
10:45:22
understand the list of areas of investigations?
12
THE COURT:
Well, the monitor will inform you who he
13
wants to investigate.
14
to know anything else?
15
16
10:45:09
currently involves PSB, correct?
11
Ms. Iafrate.
I don't know, do you want -- do you want
MS. IAFRATE:
I want to know the issues that are being
investigated.
17
THE COURT:
Well, they're going to be relevant to
18
the -- I suppose if you're saying -- well, I'm not going to
19
limit the monitor's authority, and I'm not going to require him
20
to provide you with advance notice of what he wants to inquire
21
into.
22
MS. IAFRATE:
anything that the monitor wants to investigate, he can
24
investigate.
THE COURT:
10:45:48
Well, so, Your Honor, essentially
23
25
10:45:35
No.
You have the right to object if you
10:45:59
RE 371
(427 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-9
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
135 of
6 of
301
6
56
witnesses about, it ain't happening --
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
No, Your Honor, I --
-- but you can object to it.

Your Honor, I was asking you to provide
us with a list of what areas, what issues, what are at issue as
we approach this June OSC continuation.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Well -What are the issues?
My clients have a
right to know what they are.
10
THE COURT:
I think I indicated to you that as we
10:48:49
11
approach the June hearing, I'll tell you what issues I believe
12
are relevant and concern me.
13
because I have not had the opportunity to know everything
14
that's in Mr. Montgomery's files.
15
is not my intent to explore all the various things that may or
16
may not be in there except as they relate to the order to show
17
cause.
18
But I don't know that now,
And it is, I assure you, it

10:49:04
However, the monitor also has independent
19
investigative authority pertaining to previous orders, and I'm
20
not going to unduly shackle him as long as it falls within his
21
authority under those previous orders to prevent him from doing
22
his investigation.
23
MS. IAFRATE:
24
THE COURT:
25
10:48:34
can make them.
10:49:22
Well, Your Honor --
Nevertheless, if you have objections, you

10:49:35
RE 372
(428 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
DktEntry:
Filed 05/22/15
13-3, PagePage
136 of
1 of
301
54
EXHIBIT 10
RE 373
(429 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
137
22of
2ofof
301
83
54
RE 374
(430 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
138
23of
3ofof
301
83
54
RE 375
(431 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
139
24of
4ofof
301
83
54
RE 376
(432 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
140
25of
5ofof
301
83
54
RE 377
(433 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
141
26of
6ofof
301
83
54
RE 378
(434 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
142
27of
7ofof
301
83
54
RE 379
(435 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
143
28of
8ofof
301
83
54
RE 380
(436 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed
05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
144
29of
9ofof
301
83
54
RE 381
(437 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
145
3010
ofof301
of8354
RE 382
(438 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
146
3111
ofof301
of8354
RE 383
(439 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
147
3212
ofof301
of8354
RE 384
(440 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
148
3313
ofof301
of8354
RE 385
(441 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
149
3414
ofof301
of8354
RE 386
(442 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
150
3515
ofof301
of8354
RE 387
(443 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
151
3616
ofof301
of8354
RE 388
(444 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
152
3717
ofof301
of8354
RE 389
(445 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
153
3818
ofof301
of8354
RE 390
(446 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
154
3919
ofof301
of8354
RE 391
(447 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
155
4020
ofof301
of8354
RE 392
(448 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
156
4121
ofof301
of8354
RE 393
(449 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
157
4222
ofof301
of8354
RE 394
(450 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
158
4323
ofof301
of8354
RE 395
(451 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
159
4424
ofof301
of8354
RE 396
(452 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
160
4525
ofof301
of8354
RE 397
(453 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
161
4626
ofof301
of8354
RE 398
(454 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
162
4727
ofof301
of8354
RE 399
(455 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
163
4828
ofof301
of8354
RE 400
(456 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
164
4929
ofof301
of8354
RE 401
(457 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
165
5030
ofof301
of8354
RE 402
(458 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
166
5131
ofof301
of8354
RE 403
(459 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
167
5232
ofof301
of8354
RE 404
(460 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
168
5333
ofof301
of8354
RE 405
(461 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
169
5434
ofof301
of8354
RE 406
(462 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
170
5535
ofof301
of8354
RE 407
(463 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
171
5636
ofof301
of8354
RE 408
(464 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
172
5737
ofof301
of8354
RE 409
(465 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
173
5838
ofof301
of8354
RE 410
(466 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
174
5939
ofof301
of8354
RE 411
(467 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
175
6040
ofof301
of8354
RE 412
(468 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
176
6141
ofof301
of8354
RE 413
(469 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
177
6242
ofof301
of8354
RE 414
(470 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
178
6343
ofof301
of8354
RE 415
(471 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
179
6444
ofof301
of8354
RE 416
(472 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
180
6545
ofof301
of8354
RE 417
(473 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
181
6646
ofof301
of8354
RE 418
(474 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
182
6747
ofof301
of8354
RE 419
(475 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
183
6848
ofof301
of8354
RE 420
(476 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
184
6949
ofof301
of8354
RE 421
(477 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
185
7050
ofof301
of8354
RE 422
(478 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
186
7151
ofof301
of8354
RE 423
(479 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
187
7252
ofof301
of8354
RE 424
(480 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
188
7353
ofof301
of8354
RE 425
(481 of 1100)
Case
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-10
1058 DktEntry:
Filed
Filed05/07/15
05/22/15
13-3, Page
Page
Page
189
7454
ofof301
of8354
RE 426
(482 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-11
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
190 of
1 301
of 2
1
2
3
4
5
Michele M. Iafrate, Bar #015115

Iafrate & Associates
Tel: 602-234-9775
7
8
9
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
v.
Certification of Michele M. Iafrate
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,,

Defendant.
13
14
STATE OF ARIZONA
15
County of Maricopa
)
)
)
ss.
16
Michele M. Iafrate, being first duly sworn upon her oath, says:
17
1.
I am a member of the law firm of Iafrate & Associates, attorneys of
18
record for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio in the above referenced action. I have personal
19
knowledge of the statements contained herein.

2.
20
21
The associated affidavit of Joseph M. Arpaio for the recusal of Judge
G. Murray Snow is made in good faith.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4272950.1
5/22/15
RE 427
(483 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-11
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
191 of
2 301
of 2
1
2
3
4
5
By s/ Michele M. Iafrate
Michele M. Iafrate
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4272950.1
5/22/15
2
RE 428
(484 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-12
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
192 of
1 301
of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
A. Melvin McDonald, Bar #002298

Telephone: (602) 263-1700
Fax: (602) 200-7847
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
Certification of A. Melvin McDonald
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144.
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
STATE OF ARIZONA
County of Maricopa
19
20
21
22
ss.
A. Melvin McDonald, being first duly sworn upon his oath, says:
17
18
)
)
)
1.
I am a member of the law firm of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
attorneys of record for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio in the above referenced action. I
have personal knowledge of the statements contained herein.
2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
4274856.1
5/22/15
RE 429
(485 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-12
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
193 of
2 301
of 2
1
2
3
4
5
By s/ A. Melvin McDonald
A. Melvin McDonald
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4274856.1
5/22/15
2
RE 430
(486 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-13
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
194 of
1 301
of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Barry Mitchell Bar #013975

Lee Stein Bar #12368
Telephone: (602) 358-0290
Fax: (602) 358-0291
barry@mitchellsteincarey.com
lee@mitchellsteincarey.com
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10

Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
Certification of Barry Mitchell and
Lee Stein Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
144.

Defendant.
14
15
STATE OF ARIZONA
16
County of Maricopa
)
)
)
ss.
17
Barry Mitchell and Lee Stein, being first duly sworn upon their oath, says:
18
1.
We are members of the law firm of Mitchell, Stein Carey, PC
19
attorneys of record for Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan in the above referenced action. We
20
have personal knowledge of the statements contained herein.
21
22
2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
4274857.1
5/22/15
RE 431
(487 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1117-13
DktEntry:
Filed 13-3,
05/22/15
PagePage
195 of
2 301
of 2
1
2
3
MITCHELL, STEIN , CAREY PC
4
5
By s/ Barry Mitchell
Barry Mitchell
Lee Stein
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4274857.1
5/22/15
2
RE 432
(488 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
1961 of
of 301
33
RE 433
(489 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
1972 of
of 301
33
RE 434
(490 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
1983 of
of 301
33
RE 435
(491 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
1994 of
of 301
33
RE 436
(492 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
2005 of
of 301
33
RE 437
(493 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
2016 of
of 301
33
RE 438
(494 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
2027 of
of 301
33
RE 439
(495 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
2038 of
of 301
33
RE 440
(496 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
2049 of
of 301
33
RE 441
(497 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
205
10ofof301
33
RE 442
(498 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
206
11ofof301
33
RE 443
(499 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
207
12ofof301
33
RE 444
(500 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
208
13ofof301
33
RE 445
(501 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
209
14ofof301
33
RE 446
(502 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
210
15ofof301
33
RE 447
(503 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
211
16ofof301
33
RE 448
(504 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
212
17ofof301
33
RE 449
(505 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
213
18ofof301
33
RE 450
(506 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
214
19ofof301
33
RE 451
(507 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
215
20ofof301
33
RE 452
(508 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
216
21ofof301
33
RE 453
(509 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
217
22ofof301
33
RE 454
(510 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
218
23ofof301
33
RE 455
(511 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
219
24ofof301
33
RE 456
(512 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
220
25ofof301
33
RE 457
(513 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
221
26ofof301
33
RE 458
(514 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
222
27ofof301
33
RE 459
(515 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
223
28ofof301
33
RE 460
(516 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
224
29ofof301
33
RE 461
(517 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
225
30ofof301
33
RE 462
(518 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
226
31ofof301
33
RE 463
(519 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
227
32ofof301
33
RE 464
(520 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1112 DktEntry:
Filed 05/19/15
13-3, Page
Page
228
33ofof301
33
RE 465
(521 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2291 of
of 301
13
RE 466
(522 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2302 of
of 301
13
RE 467
(523 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2313 of
of 301
13
RE 468
(524 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2324 of
of 301
13
RE 469
(525 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2335 of
of 301
13
RE 470
(526 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2346 of
of 301
13
RE 471
(527 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2357 of
of 301
13
RE 472
(528 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2368 of
of 301
13
RE 473
(529 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2379 of
of 301
13
RE 474
(530 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
238
10ofof301
13
RE 475
(531 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
239
11ofof301
13
RE 476
(532 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
240
12ofof301
13
RE 477
(533 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
241
13ofof301
13
RE 478
(534 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2421 of
of 301
60
RE 479
(535 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2432 of
of 301
60
RE 480
(536 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2443 of
of 301
60
RE 481
(537 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2454 of
of 301
60
RE 482
(538 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2465 of
of 301
60
RE 483
(539 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2476 of
of 301
60
RE 484
(540 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2487 of
of 301
60
RE 485
(541 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2498 of
of 301
60
RE 486
(542 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
2509 of
of 301
60
RE 487
(543 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
251
10ofof301
60
RE 488
(544 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
252
11ofof301
60
RE 489
(545 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
253
12ofof301
60
RE 490
(546 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
254
13ofof301
60
RE 491
(547 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
255
14ofof301
60
RE 492
(548 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
256
15ofof301
60
RE 493
(549 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
257
16ofof301
60
RE 494
(550 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
258
17ofof301
60
RE 495
(551 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
259
18ofof301
60
RE 496
(552 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
260
19ofof301
60
RE 497
(553 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
261
20ofof301
60
RE 498
(554 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
262
21ofof301
60
RE 499
(555 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
263
22ofof301
60
RE 500
(556 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
264
23ofof301
60
RE 501
(557 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
265
24ofof301
60
RE 502
(558 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
266
25ofof301
60
RE 503
(559 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
267
26ofof301
60
RE 504
(560 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
268
27ofof301
60
RE 505
(561 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
269
28ofof301
60
RE 506
(562 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
270
29ofof301
60
RE 507
(563 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
271
30ofof301
60
RE 508
(564 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
272
31ofof301
60
RE 509
(565 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
273
32ofof301
60
RE 510
(566 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
274
33ofof301
60
RE 511
(567 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
275
34ofof301
60
RE 512
(568 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
276
35ofof301
60
RE 513
(569 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
277
36ofof301
60
RE 514
(570 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
278
37ofof301
60
RE 515
(571 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
279
38ofof301
60
RE 516
(572 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
280
39ofof301
60
RE 517
(573 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
281
40ofof301
60
RE 518
(574 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
282
41ofof301
60
RE 519
(575 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
283
42ofof301
60
RE 520
(576 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
284
43ofof301
60
RE 521
(577 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
285
44ofof301
60
RE 522
(578 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
286
45ofof301
60
RE 523
(579 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
287
46ofof301
60
RE 524
(580 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
288
47ofof301
60
RE 525
(581 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
289
48ofof301
60
RE 526
(582 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
290
49ofof301
60
RE 527
(583 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
291
50ofof301
60
RE 528
(584 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
292
51ofof301
60
RE 529
(585 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
293
52ofof301
60
RE 530
(586 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
294
53ofof301
60
RE 531
(587 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
295
54ofof301
60
RE 532
(588 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
296
55ofof301
60
RE 533
(589 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
297
56ofof301
60
RE 534
(590 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
298
57ofof301
60
RE 535
(591 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
299
58ofof301
60
RE 536
(592 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
300
59ofof301
60
RE 537
(593 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1081 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-3, Page
Page
301
60ofof301
60
RE 538
(594 of 1100)
CASE NO. 15-16440


v.
and
Case No. CV-07-2513
Volume III of IV
Pages 539 to 838
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
Tel: (310) 595-0800
(595 of 1100)
VOLUME I
Docket
1312
1199
1192
1173
1164
Date
9/8/15
7/28/15
7/24/15
7/15/15
7/10/15
1167
1133
7/10/15
5/29/15
1134
5/29/15
1093
1115
1079
1060
1064
1053
1046
1032
5/14/15
5/21/15
5/13/15
5/8/15
5/8/15
5/7/15
5/4/15
4/27/15
4/23/15
4/24/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
Disqualification
I
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Page No.
1-2
3-4
5
6-10
11-50
51-56
57
58
59-61
62-80
81-82
83-91
92-95
96-119
120-122
123-124
125-149
150-169
170-185
186-209
210-227
228-242
(596 of 1100)
VOLUME II
Docket
Date
1198-2
7/28/15
1117
5/22/15
1112
5/19/15
1080
5/13/15
1081
5/13/15
Description
Vol.
Support Thereof
II
Page No.
243-245
246-432
433-465
466-478
479-538
(597 of 1100)
VOLUME III
Docket
Date
1057
5/7/15
1067
5/7/15
1058
5/7/15
5/2/15
1035
Judicial
Notice
Reques
ted
4/28/15
3/20/15
4/23/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
II
28 U.S.C. 144
Intervenor
Dennis
L.
Montgomery's
III
case)
III
III
Page No.
539-551
552-556
557-639
641-642
644-649
650-659
660-699
700-725
726-749
749-823
824-838
(598 of 1100)
VOLUME IV
Docket
Date
Description
Vol.
III
Page No.
839-1035
(599 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6 1ofof305
13
RE 539
(600 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7 2ofof305
13
RE 540
(601 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8 3ofof305
13
RE 541
(602 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9 4ofof305
13
RE 542
(603 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
105ofof305
13
RE 543
(604 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
116ofof305
13
RE 544
(605 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
127ofof305
13
RE 545
(606 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
138ofof305
13
RE 546
(607 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
149ofof305
13
RE 547
(608 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page1510ofof305
13
RE 548
(609 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page1611ofof305
13
RE 549
(610 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page1712ofof305
13
RE 550
(611 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1057 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page1813ofof305
13
RE 551
(612 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1067DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
19 1ofof305
5
RE 552
(613 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1067DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
20 2ofof305
5
RE 553
(614 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1067DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
21 3ofof305
5
RE 554
(615 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1067DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
22 4ofof305
5
RE 555
(616 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1067DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
23 5ofof305
5
RE 556
(617 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
241ofof305
83
RE 557
(618 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
252ofof305
83
RE 558
(619 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
263ofof305
83
RE 559
(620 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
274ofof305
83
RE 560
(621 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
285ofof305
83
RE 561
(622 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
296ofof305
83
RE 562
(623 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
307ofof305
83
RE 563
(624 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
318ofof305
83
RE 564
(625 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
329ofof305
83
RE 565
(626 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3310ofof305
83
RE 566
(627 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3411ofof305
83
RE 567
(628 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3512ofof305
83
RE 568
(629 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3613ofof305
83
RE 569
(630 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3714ofof305
83
RE 570
(631 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3815ofof305
83
RE 571
(632 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page3916ofof305
83
RE 572
(633 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4017ofof305
83
RE 573
(634 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4118ofof305
83
RE 574
(635 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4219ofof305
83
RE 575
(636 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4320ofof305
83
RE 576
(637 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4421ofof305
83
RE 577
(638 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4522ofof305
83
RE 578
(639 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4623ofof305
83
RE 579
(640 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4724ofof305
83
RE 580
(641 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4825ofof305
83
RE 581
(642 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page4926ofof305
83
RE 582
(643 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5027ofof305
83
RE 583
(644 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5128ofof305
83
RE 584
(645 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5229ofof305
83
RE 585
(646 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5330ofof305
83
RE 586
(647 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5431ofof305
83
RE 587
(648 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5532ofof305
83
RE 588
(649 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5633ofof305
83
RE 589
(650 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5734ofof305
83
RE 590
(651 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5835ofof305
83
RE 591
(652 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page5936ofof305
83
RE 592
(653 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6037ofof305
83
RE 593
(654 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6138ofof305
83
RE 594
(655 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6239ofof305
83
RE 595
(656 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6340ofof305
83
RE 596
(657 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6441ofof305
83
RE 597
(658 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6542ofof305
83
RE 598
(659 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6643ofof305
83
RE 599
(660 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6744ofof305
83
RE 600
(661 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6845ofof305
83
RE 601
(662 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page6946ofof305
83
RE 602
(663 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7047ofof305
83
RE 603
(664 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7148ofof305
83
RE 604
(665 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7249ofof305
83
RE 605
(666 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7350ofof305
83
RE 606
(667 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7451ofof305
83
RE 607
(668 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7552ofof305
83
RE 608
(669 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7653ofof305
83
RE 609
(670 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7754ofof305
83
RE 610
(671 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7855ofof305
83
RE 611
(672 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page7956ofof305
83
RE 612
(673 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8057ofof305
83
RE 613
(674 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8158ofof305
83
RE 614
(675 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8259ofof305
83
RE 615
(676 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8360ofof305
83
RE 616
(677 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8461ofof305
83
RE 617
(678 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8562ofof305
83
RE 618
(679 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8663ofof305
83
RE 619
(680 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8764ofof305
83
RE 620
(681 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8865ofof305
83
RE 621
(682 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page8966ofof305
83
RE 622
(683 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9067ofof305
83
RE 623
(684 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9168ofof305
83
RE 624
(685 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9269ofof305
83
RE 625
(686 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9370ofof305
83
RE 626
(687 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9471ofof305
83
RE 627
(688 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9572ofof305
83
RE 628
(689 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9673ofof305
83
RE 629
(690 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9774ofof305
83
RE 630
(691 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9875ofof305
83
RE 631
(692 of 1100)
Case
Case:
2:07-cv-02513-GMS
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page9976ofof305
83
RE 632
(693 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
100
77ofof305
83
RE 633
(694 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
101
78ofof305
83
RE 634
(695 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
102
79ofof305
83
RE 635
(696 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
103
80ofof305
83
RE 636
(697 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
104
81ofof305
83
RE 637
(698 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
105
82ofof305
83
RE 638
(699 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1058 DktEntry:
Filed 05/07/15
13-4, Page
Page
106
83ofof305
83
RE 639
(700 of 1100)
Case
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
13-4, Page
Page
107
12ofof305
13
RE 640
(701 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-4, Page
1088 of
Case
Document
1080DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
Page
of 305
13
RE 641
(702 of 1100)
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
ID: 9731587,
13-4, Page
109
Case
Document
1080 DktEntry:
Filed 05/13/15
Page
10ofof305
13
RE 642
(703 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1101ofof305
7
1
2
3
4
5

(602) 234-9775
Michele M. Iafrate, #015115
Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
12
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS
DEFENDANTS JOSEPH M.
ARPAIO AND MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICES
OBJECTION TO COURTORDERED DISCLOSURE
PROCEDURE
13
Pursuant to this Courts April 27, 2015 Order (Doc. 1032), Defendants Sheriff
14
Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (Defendants) object to the unorthodox
15
16
17
process instituted in the evidentiary hearing and to the procedure extended after the
evidentiary hearing to disclose documents. Defendants object to disclosing the
18
documents within the timeframe that the Court ordered because it denies them the
19
benefit of review for privileged communication and work product, and redaction of
20
confidential personal and financial information. Defendants support their objection
21
with the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
22
///
23
///
24
///
1
RE 643
(704 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1112ofof305
7
1
2
3
4
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I.
INTRODUCTION
On April 23, 2015, the Court questioned Defendant Arpaio about the areas of
contempt it identified in its Order to Show Cause (Doc. 880) regarding previous
investigations that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Special Investigations
Divisions conducted. (Evidentiary Hearing transcript-day 3, 635:23-642:12). The

7
Court then discussed a blog that New Times reporter, Stephen Lemmons published.
8
9
10
(Id. at 642:17-22). The Court handed a printed copy of the blog to Defendant
Arpaio. (Id. at 643:5-7). This blog was not previously identified as an exhibit. The
11
Court told Defendant Arpaio that the article was long and that if you need to take
12
the time to read it, you can do that. (Id. at 643:14-15). However, the Court did not
13
allow Defendant Arpaio the time to read the document; instead, the Court continued
14
to question Defendant Arpaio about the article and the statements in it. (Id. at
15
643:15-25; 644:1-25). After the Court finished questioning Defendant Arpaio about
16
the investigations about which Stephen Lemmons blogged, the Court stated that a
17
18
hold should be placed on all records that related to the subject investigations
including electronic data, funding of the operation, all phone records, e-mails,
19
reports, etc. (Id. at 659:1-24). The Court next sent the monitor to take possession
20
of those records. (Id. at 659:25-660:3). Next, two Deputy County Attorneys

21
22
23
24
performed an expedited and cursory review of over 3,300 pages of documents that
contained, among other things, financial documents bearing individuals account
numbers and social security numbers and documents deemed for law enforcement
RE 644
(705 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1123ofof305
7
use only. The attorneys had only a few hours to review the documents because the
Court ordered that they be released to the monitors immediately.
II.
4
5
LAW AND ARGUMENT

A.
Sheriff Arpaio was Entitled to Notice Regarding The Courts Line

of Questioning and the Previously Undisclosed Document Placed
Before Him.
At a minimum, a Court must provide an alleged contemnor with notice and an

7
opportunity to be heard. Intl Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell,

8
9
10
512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). The concept of notice includes prior disclosure and
provision of documents used at trial and prior identification of areas of examination.
11
See generally, Stuart v. United States, 813 F.2d 243, 251 (9th Cir.1987), rev'd on
12
other grounds, 489 U.S. 353 (1989); DP Aviation v. Smiths Indus. Aerospace & Def.
13
Sys. Ltd., 268 F.3d 829, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2001). Such advance notice is consistent
14
with an alleged contemnors right to present a defense. See United States v.
15
Powers, 629 F.2d 619, 625 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, the law requires progressively
16
greater procedural protections for indirect contempts of complex injunctions that
17
18
necessitate more elaborate and in-depth factfinding as in this case. See Intl Union,
United Mine Workers of Amercia v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 at 833-34. Here,
19
although Defendant Arpaio testified that he previously read the article (Transcript,
20
643:23-24), the Court nor any other party previously provided it to Defendants nor
21
22
23
24
gave notice that Defendant Arpaio would be questioned about it. It was not
identified as an exhibit. Nor was Defendant Arpaio provided notice that this subject
area would be addressed. In contempt proceedings, procedural protections such as
RE 645
(706 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1134ofof305
7
prior notice are crucial in view of the heightened potential for abuse posed by the
contempt power. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 498 (1974).
B.
Defendants Are Entitled to Preserve the Attorney-Client and Work

Product Privileges.
The procedure outlined by the Court in its Order (Doc. 1032) places Defendants
5
6
in an untenable position in which they must immediately provide documents
pursuant to the Courts Order in such a way that sacrifices the attorney-client and
work product privileges. The two Deputy County Attorneys who quickly reviewed
documents on April 23, 2015 made random selections throughout the documents to
10
11
12
discern what the documents were and made a cursory check for any privileged
documents. They did not view any privileged documents; however, time did not
allow for a careful or thorough review. It is possible that privileged documents were
13
given to the monitors. This Court, could however, order pursuant to Federal Rules
14
of Evidence 502, that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure. As to

15
16
17
documents containing financial information, social security numbers, and those

marked as for law enforcement use only, Defendants ask that the Court designate
18
these documents, at a minimum, for attorney eyes only.
19
III.
20
CONCLUSION
Based on Defendants arguments above, Defendants request the following: 1)
21
that the Court allow them sufficient time to review the documents disclosed to the
22
monitors for attorney client and/or work product privilege and any other privilege that
23
may apply; 2) allow Defendants additional time to review the documents contained
24
on the external hard drive (two terabytes of data) provided to the monitors, that the
4
RE 646
(707 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1145ofof305
7
Court either allow defendants time to redact account numbers and social security
numbers from the documents or designate them for attorney eyes only.
3
4
5
Finally, Defendant Arpaio objects to the unorthodox manner that violated

Defendant Arpaios due process rights by questioning Defendant Arpaio on areas on
which he did not receive prior notice.
DATED this 28th day of April, 2015

7

8
9
By:
10
11
12
s/Michele M. Iafrate
Michele M. Iafrate
Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.
Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriffs
Office
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed

this 28th day of April, 2015, with:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130, SPC 1
COPIES of the foregoing e-mailed via ECF
this 28th day of April, 2015, to:
Stanley Young
Covington & Burling
333 Twin Dolphin Road
23
24
RE 647
(708 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1156ofof305
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Daniel J. Pochoda
Joshua D. Bendor
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 North 7th Street, Ste. 235
Cecillia Wang
ACLU Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
Andre Segura
ACLU Immigrants Rights Project
Anne Lai
University of California
Irvine School of Law-Immigrant Rights Clinic
401 E. Peltason Drive, Ste. 3500
Irvine, California 92616
Jorge M. Castillo
MALDEF
Richard K. Walker
Walker & Peskind, PLLC
16100 N. 71st Street, Ste. 140
Attorney for Maricopa County
21
22
23
24
A. Melvin McDonald
Attorney for Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
RE 648
(709 of 1100)
Case:
15-16440, 10/23/2015,Document
ID: 9731587,
1035DktEntry:
Filed 04/28/15
13-4, Page
Page
1167ofof305
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
Gary L. Birnbaum
David J. Ouimette
Dickenson Wright PLLC
1850 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1400
Attorneys for Deputy Chief John MacIntyre
Lee Stein
Barry Mitchell
Mitchell Stein Carey, PC
2 North Central Ave., Ste. 1900
Attorneys for Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Dennis I. Wilenchik
John D. Wilenchik
Wilenchik & Bartness
2810 North 3rd Street
Attorneys for Brian Sands
Greg S. Como
Dane A. Dodd
M. Craig Murdy
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
2929 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1700
Attorneys for Brian Sands
David Eisenberg
David Eisenberg, PLC
2702 N. Third Street, Ste. 4003
Attorney for Joseph Sousa
Christopher T. Rapp
Ryan Rapp & Underwood, PLC
3200 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1600
Attorney for Brett Palmer
By:
s/Jill Lafornara
7
RE 649
(710 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page117
1 ofof10
305

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
Case Nos: 1:13-cv-851-RJL

1:13-cv-881-RJL
1:14-cv-092-RJL
BARACK OBAMA, President of the United

States, et al.,
Assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR IN CHAMBERS AND EX PARTE INTERVIEW

OF WITNESS DENNIS MONTGOMERY
Plaintiffs hereby move the Court to present a key witness and whistleblower to the Court
for an in chambers, ex parte interview of Dennis Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery can testify
about the unconstitutional and illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency
(NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that is highly relevant and of crucial
importance to the above-styled lawsuits, as he worked closely with these agencies following the
tragedy of September 11, 2001.
As shown below, Montgomery has attempted to alert appropriate government authorities
that surveillance goes beyond what whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed. In fact, the
surveillance has even harvested the records of judicial, congressional, and executive government
officials. Indeed, this is confirmed in no small part by Senator Diane Feinstein, previously the
Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who revealed that the CIA had illegally harvested
emails and other information of her and her staff.
The Courts interview of Dennis Montgomery in chambers and ex parte is needed to take
control and implement appropriate protective measure to preserve Montgomerys testimony and
RE 650
(711 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page118
2 ofof10
305
to prevent witness tampering and obstruction of justice, including the issuance of appropriate
injunctions and/or protective orders. Montgomery has already been subject to witness tampering
and attempted obstruction of justice, threats, retaliation, and intimidation. He feels that even his
life and the safety of his family are in danger.
The Court must respectfully take whatever actions are within the powers of the federal
court to protect this witness and to reassure him to come forward and testify against the weight
of the intimidation and threats to the contrary.
I. INTRODUCTION: PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The lawsuits before this Court arose from uncontroverted public revelations that the
federal government, through the NSA and CIA, with the participation of certain
telecommunication and Internet companies, have secretly conducted overreaching and unlawful
surveillance of not just Plaintiffs but all American citizens within the United States, while
gathering and collecting certain highly-revealing, confidential, and highly-intrusive data about
individuals' telephone, email, social media and Internet activity.
In June, 2013, Plaintiffs brought two related lawsuits, Klayman v. Obama, Civil Action
No. 13-0851 (Klayman I), and Klayman v. Obama, Civil Action No. 13-0881 (Klayman II)
challenging the constitutionality and statutory authorization of certain intelligence-gathering
practices by the U.S. government relating to the wholesale collection of the phone, email,
Internet and social media metadata of virtually all U.S. citizens. In Klayman I, this Court issued a
preliminary injunction against the Government Defendants on December 16, 2013, which is now
on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See Klayman v.
Obama, et al., Nos. 14-5004, 14-5005, 14-5016, 14-5017 (D.C. Circuit).
Plaintiffs in Klayman II challenged the Government's secret and expansive government
scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of communications from Internet and electronic
service providers, through highly classified surveillance programs, such as "PRISM." Klayman II
2
RE 651
(712 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page119
3 ofof10
305
Am. Compl. 3-6. PRISM is an internal government computer system implemented under Section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is used to spy on, gather, and access
domestic and foreign intelligence collected from the Internet and other electronic service
providers. Klayman II Am. Compl. 2, 4-5. Thus far, none of Snowdens revelations have been
disproved by the Government Defendants, causing even Defendant President Barack Obama to
concede and disingenuously recommend, under intense pressure and to deflect criticism, NSA
surveillance reform.
Plaintiffs brought a third lawsuit, Klayman v. Obama, Civil Action No. 14-0092
(Klayman III), which alleged many of the same facts and plead similar causes of action as the
first two related lawsuits but was brought as a class action to address the constitutional violations
for all affected U.S. citizens.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
A. Need to Take Expedited Action to Protect Montgomery
Montgomery is in poor health. He suffered a brain aneurysm and a related multi-infarct
stroke on May 12, 2014. He suffered both a hemorrhagic stroke (caused by ruptured blood
vessels that cause brain bleeding) and ischemic stroke (loss of blood flow). This type of stroke
has a 70-80% death rate in the first 28 days, which miraculously Montgomery survived. He was
in the hospital for two months, through July 2014. He has been left permanently disabled and
partially paralyzed. During two months of hospitalization he had only a limited ability to
communicate but he slowly recovered to some extent. See Exhibit 1.
Montgomery could suffer a similar or repeated event causing him to die at any time. He
could also lose the ability to communicate from the brain injury already experienced or from a
related, repeat neurological event. There is a continuing danger that complications or related or
repeat stroke events could injury his memory. Defendants actions to harass and harm
RE 652
(713 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page120
4 ofof10
305
Montgomery to suppress his testimony has also caused severe emotional and physical stress on
him, which could be fatal under these medical circumstances. Id.
B. Background and Whistleblower Status
The U.S. Government approached Montgomery, Warren Trepp, and their company
eTreppid urging them to divert their efforts away from commercial applications of their
technology and expertise and away from negotiations with private companies for commercial
business. Trepp and Montgomery were eventually persuaded after the importance was explained
by U.S. Government officials to postpone their commercial work to help national security.
Later, upon learning of the vast constitutional violations being committed by government
agencies, Montgomery attempted to do the honorable and patriotic thing by filing whistleblower
complaints with the Inspectors General of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of
Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Director of National
Intelligence, and Internal Revenue Service. Montgomery received letters summarily dismissing
his whistleblower complaints. In fact, nobody ever interviewed him to be able to evaluate or
analyze his whistleblower claims. Montgomery was unable to get the signers of the denial letters
on the phone. Montgomery also sent whistleblower complaints (reports) to Congressional
Committees such as the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and to the White House under the
then-new administration of President Barack Obama, who had run for election on a promise of a
new air of transparency and an end to excessive surveillance activities. See Exhibit 2 - Kelly
Riddell, Chairman of Judiciary Committee blasts FBIs handling of whistleblowers, The
Washington Times, March 12, 2015.
C. Factual Context of Testimony For This Case
Montgomery is a witness as significant as whistleblower Edward Snowden, in particular
terms of the issues relevant in the instant cases. The elements of these lawsuits that have been
most discussed and addressed are within firsthand knowledge of Montgomery. Unlike Snowden,
4
RE 653
(714 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page121
5 ofof10
305
Montgomery has not fled the country, is available as a witness, and is willing to present himself
to the Court in the pursuit of justice.
Montgomery, previously avoiding any public role and not a public figure, has now come
forward and filed a lawsuit in response to calculated defamation and attacks by Defendants upon
his character and professional conduct. The lawsuit, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3, is
for defamation by New York Times reporter James Risen arising in part out of Risens book Pay
Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War. The lawsuit is Dennis Montgomery v. James Risen,
et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 1:15-cv-20782. In
Risens book, Risen acknowledges that he had received classified information from the
intelligence agencies of the U.S. Government. However, this information was falsified in order
to harm Montgomery and destroy his reputation.
More importantly, the content and nature of Risens writings about Montgomery portray
high-level conversations, meetings and decisions within the U.S. intelligence apparatus
concerning Montgomerys detection and analysis of foreign policy threats to the United States.
Risens reports include meetings, decisions, and conversations involving the highest levels of
Government. Risen also writes that Montgomery had direct access to the Oval Office and the
President of the United States. Risen would have no way of knowing about this access much
more what was discussed in the Oval Office unless those conversations were leaked to him by
U.S. Government officials at the highest levels. In this regard, Montgomery worked closely with
several high level officials such as CIA director John Brennan and Director of National
Intelligence, James Clapper, and many others. Further, by Risens own tacit acknowledgement
and actions, intelligence officials in the U.S. Government have sought to destroy Montgomery
professionally and personally in order to silence him and/or discredit him if he should speak and
testify in the national interest, as Snowden has done.
RE 654
(715 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page122
6 ofof10
305
Importantly, Vice President Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by reporter James
Rosen of Playboy magazine regarding the intelligence activities ordered by President W. Bush
after September 11, 2001. As shown above, Montgomery was an integral part of the
Bush/Cheney White Houses intelligence operations. When asked about Risen, here is what
Cheney told Rosen: I dont have much confidence in Risen and I dont give any credence to
what Risen says. See Exhibit 3 James Rosen, Playboy Interview: Dick Cheney, Playboy,
March 17, 2015. Accordingly, Risen was used as a tool by the NSA and the CIA to try to
destroy Montgomery and undercut his whistleblowing status in order to save their own skins.
D. Witness Tampering and Obstruction of Justice
Accordingly, in retaliation to Montgomerys efforts to deal with his concerns honorably
and lawfully, Montgomery has been the target of a campaign to destroy his credibility and
professional reputation, and to threaten, intimidate and terrorize Montgomery as a likely witness
in cases like the instant ones before this Court now. Montgomery was abruptly attacked with a
variety of scatter-shot false charges and smears. His livelihood has been destroyed, resulting in
impoverishment. He has suffered the foreclosure of his home and eviction from his prior place
of residence.
Montgomery believes that his attempts to blow the whistle have also resulted in
unfounded and unlawful retaliation against him by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The
IRS was at his home with the FBI conducting a raid later ruled to be illegal by a Federal judge.
The U.S. Government then seized documents from his attorneys in 2010 without a court order
allowing them to do so. The DOJ conducted this raid and seizure under special orders from the
CIA. In violation of records retention laws, the U.S. Government has been destroying evidence
in Montgomerys case for years.
In sum, Montgomery has endured repeated raids on his home and business files. He has
had to go to court to get his property back. Although it has cost him enormous sums in
6
RE 655
(716 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page123
7 ofof10
305
attorneys fees, he has been successful in prevailing against the Government agencies which
abused him. He has been driven into bankruptcy and personal financial and professional ruin as
a result of the retaliation against him as a whistleblower and potential witness. When the stress
and emotional pressure have left him struggling to cope, he has been persecuted and
misrepresented about the slightest imperfection in his personal life.
Only recently, an anonymous poster at Wikipedia kept repeatedly posting private
information about Dennis Montgomerys children on a Wikipedia article about Dennis
Montgomery, re-posting the details about his children as fast as Montgomery acted to remove
those names from Wikipedia. Naturally, Montgomerys children are not relevant to the posting
at Wikipedia. But more disturbing to Montgomery are the questions of who, but the NSA and
CIA, would know this private information about his children and why they would be so
determined to repeatedly post it on the internet at Wikipedia and harm him and his loved ones.
III. REQUESTED ACTION BY THE COURT.
The Court should take direct supervision of this matter and take action to protect
Montgomery because the record of conduct shows efforts at obstruction of justice and witness
tampering, including attempts to directly interfere with the claims in these cases.1 The full extent
of this and the direct relevance to key issues in this case will become clear upon interviewing
Montgomery. Montgomery has direct knowledge and evidence going to prove Plaintiffs case.
There is precedent for this procedure in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth took information in camera without parties or
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this matter not be referred to the Department of Justice or the
FBI as of yet. The DOJ are the lawyers for the Defendants in this case. In addition, the DOJ has
been shown to be compromised under the Obama Administration, with scandals such as the IRS
scandal, the Fast and the Furious scandal, and the Benghazi scandal. See Exhibit 2 - Kelly
Riddell, Chairman of Judiciary Committee blasts FBIs handling of whistleblowers, The
Washington Times, March 12, 2015. Thus, subject to being interviewed in camera by the Court,
Plaintiffs request that witness Dennis Montgomery be taken under the Courts protective wing.
7
RE 656
(717 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page124
8 ofof10
305
counsel present in the cases of Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce, Case No. 950133 (D.D.C. July 29, 2005) which involved national security briefings by the CIA of suspected
communist Chinese spy John Huang at the Clinton Commerce Department.
In the same manner as Judge Lamberths precedent, this Court should now interview
Montgomery in camera under and pursuant to the security clearance of the district judge without
attorneys or parties present at this stage. The judge may then inform counsel and the parties
through a non-classified summary.
Prima facie evidence has been presented of multiple incidents of witness tampering and
obstruction of justice by retaliation of Montgomery, as presented in the Complaint filed by
Montgomery in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Exhibit 4), and as
presented in the writings and admissions by reporter James Risen that he was leaked what ineffect was falsified and defamatory information about Montgomery by the NSA, CIA, and other
U.S. Government intelligence services.
In summary, the Courts interview of Dennis Montgomery in chambers and ex parte, is
needed to take control and issue appropriate protection to preserve Montgomery against further
witness tampering and obstruction of justice, including the issuance of appropriate injunctions
and/or protective orders. The Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to take supervision and take
action to protect the important and necessary testimony of Montgomery on an exigent basis
given the threats to Montgomery and his poor health, resulting in the possibility that he could die
before he could come forward as a witness at trial. The Court and the parties will need to craft
procedures and rules to manage any classified information that may be disclosed to the Court
during the in camera interview and thereafter.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully request the Court to craft an appropriate procedure to
interview Dennis Montgomery in chambers ex parte.
8
RE 657
(718 of 1100)
Case:
Case 15-16440,
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page125
9 ofof10
305
Plaintiffs sought consent for this motion from Defendants counsel. Defendants counsel
indicated that they oppose this motion.
Dated: March 20, 2015
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Freedom Watch, Inc.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
Tel: (310) 595-0800
RE 658
(719 of 1100)
Case:
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL
15-16440, 10/23/2015,
Document
ID: 9731587,
129 DktEntry:
Filed 03/20/15
13-4, Page
Page126
10 of
of 10
305
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of March, 2015, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Plaintiffs Motion For In Chambers And Ex Parte Interview Of Witness Dennis
Montgomery (Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-851, 13-cv-881, and 14-cv-92) was submitted
electronically to the District Court for the District of Columbia and served via CM/ECF upon the
following:
James J. Gilligan
Special Litigation Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
(202) 514-3358
Email: James.Gilligan@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants.
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
Klayman Law Firm
Tel: (310) 595-0800
10
RE 659
(720 of 1100)
512
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
April 23, 2015
8:34 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 660
(721 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
7

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
Stanley Young, Esq.
Hyun S. Byun, Esq.
(650) 632-4700
8
9
10

3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
(602) 650-1854
11
12
13
14

FOUNDATION
(212) 549-2676
15
16
17
18
For the Defendants:
19
20

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
21
22
23
24
25

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
RE 661
(722 of 1100)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(602) 263-1700

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
11
12
13
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
14
17

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
18

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Robert Warshaw

Chief John Girvin
Chief Raul Martinez
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 662
(723 of 1100)
I N D E X
Witness:
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young

Redirect Examination by Mr. Young
Examination by the Court
Page
518
587
614
625
6
JOSEPH SOUSA
7
8
9

Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
661
757
779
789
797
10
11
12
E X H I B I T S
13
No.
Description
Admitted
78
MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Raid

561
Phoenix Business for Employees using False ID,
All Arrested Suspected of Being in US Illegally
dated 9/20/2012
84
MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Execute

Search Warrant at Concrete Company in Glendale
dated 10/18/2012
565
85
MCSO Shift Summary (Sonoran Concrete)

DR 12-156907 dated 10/18/2012
(MELC157123 - MELC156125)
565
87
MCSO News Release, 72st Operation Targeting

False Identifications Used to Gain Employment
dated 3/14/2013
570
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 663
(724 of 1100)
E X H I B I T S
No.
Description
88
MCSO Shift Summary (America's Taco Shop)

DR 12-108378, DOJ Ex. 284 dated 3/14/2013
(MCS001291219 - MCS001291221)
571
132
E-mail chain from Sousa re "FW: Updated stats"

and attaching "Criminal Employments stats
03-28-12.doc; 03-28-12.doc" dated 3/28/2012
(MELCl14928 - MELCl 14931)
756
168
MCSO Memorandum from Sousa re "Document

Production Request Regarding Request IAM-22"
dated 1/12/2015 (MELC 114948)
706
169
E-mail chain from Sousa re "Current HSU Ops

Manual" originally dated March 27, 2012, then
January 13, 2015, and attaching HSU ops manual
(MELCl14960 - MELCl14967)
677
180
MCSO News Release, West Valley

Asian/International Supermarket Under
Investigation by Sheriff's Office, Arpaio
Says dated 1/17/2013 (MELC109370 - MELC109371)
568
182
MCSO News Release, 6 Adults and One Juvenile

Detained in Human Smuggling Operation dated
5/18/2013 (MELC167859 - MELC167860)
572
193A
A Video Clip 1 of Story re Crime Sweep,

October 19, 2013
580
193B

October 19, 2013
582
193C

October 19, 2013
582
195A
Video Clip 1 of KNVX after 1070 Decision,

June 25, 2012
527
196A

545
4
5
6
Admitted
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 664
(725 of 1100)
E X H I B I T S
No.
Description
Admitted
196C

547
196D

548
196E

550
197A
Video Clip 1 of Fox News after after 1070

Decision, June 26, 2012
536
198A

June 25, 2012
529
198B

June 25, 2012
530
12
199A
533
13
199B
534
14
200A
Video Clip 1 of Fox Cavuto June 25, 2012
539
15
201A

April 13, 2012
521
201B

April 13, 2012
524
203
Video Excerpt from The Joe Show, released

February 26, 2014
585
212`
Email Chain from J. Sousa to J. Spurgin, et.

al., re "Master Stat Sheet for Op Desert Sky"
dated March 31, 2011 (MELC172485 - MELC172503)
Sousa Depo Exhibit 192
725
216
Email from J. Sousa to M. Trowbridge, et al.,

re "The Saving of Emails for Ongoing Lawsuits
per Att Tim Casey" dated March 27, 2012
(MELC173868 - MELC173870)
668
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 665
(726 of 1100)
518
2
3
THE CLERK:
All rise.
The United States District
Court for the District of Arizona is now in session, the
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Civil case number 07-2513, Melendres v.
Arpaio, on for continued evidentiary hearing.

THE COURT:
9
10
Do we have any matters of business,
housekeeping to take up?
11
MR. YOUNG:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
08:34:20
08:34:34
Nothing from plaintiffs, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor.
Nothing from the County at this time,
Your Honor.
15
MR. COMO:
No, Your Honor.
16
THE COURT:
Please proceed, Mr. Young.
17
MR. YOUNG:
08:34:49
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
18
19
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
20
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
21
DIRECT EXAMINATION
22
BY MR. YOUNG:
23
Q.
Good morning, Sheriff.
24
A.
Good morning.
25
Q.
In the early part of 2012 you believed that illegal
08:34:56
RE 666
(727 of 1100)
519
immigration was your job, and you continued -- and you intended
to continue to do that job, correct?
A.
Certain functions, yes.
Q.
You focused on illegal immigration because many people
thought it was important, right?
A.
I can't hear you.
Q.
You did that because many people thought that illegal
immigration was an important issue, is that right?
A.
08:35:13
Could you repeat that?
That's one of the reasons.
The other reason is to enforce
10
the laws.
11
Q.
12
TV Online in April 2012, correct?
13
A.
I don't recall.
14
Q.
Well, I'm going to ask you to take a look at PX --
15
Exhibit 201A.
16
A.
08:35:27
You did an interview with Hector Maldonado of Conservative
08:35:47
Is that in here?
17
THE COURT:
Do you want it played, Mr. Young?
18
MR. YOUNG:
Yes.
19
We're having a little trouble with
the sound, Your Honor, apologies.
20
(Video clip played as follows:)
21
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
22
08:36:24
So I have a job to do, illegal
immigration.
23
(Video clip stopped.)
24
MS. IAFRATE:
25
THE COURT:
This is not in evidence.
Yes.
Shall we deal with -- I'm going to
08:36:48
RE 667
(728 of 1100)
Arpaio - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/23/15
Q.
command, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you're the top link in that chain of command?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you have people that report to you, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Back in 2011, can you tell me which chiefs directly
reported to you?
602
Sheriff, at the sheriff's office there's a chain of
10:54:08
10
A.
11
deputy.
12
Q.
13
others directly report to you?
14
A.
15
directly to me.
16
the jails that I'm responsible for, but I do it through
17
delegating authority.
18
Q.
19
familiar with that unit?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Who was the supervisor of that unit?
22
A.
I believe it was Chief Brian Sands.
23
Q.
Did he directly report to you?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
In the human -- the Human Smuggling Unit wasn't housed in
I believe it was Chief Deputy Sheridan.
He was the chief
10:54:27
And then would he be the only direct report to you, or did
I believe I had the public information officer reporting

We do have about 4500 employees, plus 8,500 in
There was a group called the Human Smuggling Unit.
10:54:50
Are you
10:55:15
10:55:28
RE 668
(729 of 1100)
603
the same building that you were at, correct?
A.
No, it was not.
Q.
How did you get your information regarding what was
occurring with the Human Smuggling Unit?
A.
officer that would receive calls on these type of situations,
and sometimes I would probably get it from Brian Sands.
Q.
were housed?
Well, sometimes I would get it from our public information
10:55:55
Did you ever go out to the Human Smuggling Unit where they
10
A.
I may have a couple times.
11
Q.
Did you receive briefings from anyone from the Human
12
Smuggling Unit?
13
A.
May have, but I don't recall.
14
Q.
I want to show you what was shown to you in direct
15
examination, Exhibit 78.
16
10:56:22
10:56:48
Sheriff, are you familiar with the different types of
17
duties that occurred at the Human Smuggling Unit?
18
A.
Are you referring to the rank?
19
Q.
No.
20
interdictions, correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Traffic stops?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And then also there were search warrants executed regarding
25
employer ID and identity thefts, correct?
For example, what they did.
You -- we've heard about

10:57:28
10:57:39
RE 669
(730 of 1100)
604
A.
Yes.
Q.
Those employer search warrants regarding identity thefts,
that was another area of the law that you could continue to
enforce, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
These search warrants, for example, the ID theft raid
discussed in this Exhibit 78, that wasn't the result of a
traffic stop, correct?
A.
No.
10
Q.
Sheriff, when did you become aware that some of your
11
previous actions from MCSO violated the preliminary injunction?
12
A.
13
many, many months later.
14
the time of the -- was it 1913, May 1913?
15
Q.
2013?
16
A.
2013.
17
Q.
When the judge issued its findings of fact and conclusions
18
of law?
19
A.
20
employees regarding the judge's decision.
21
Q.
22
talking about some sort of Briefing Board?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And why did you send out a Briefing Board in May 2013?
25
A.
It had to do with detainment and also using race.
10:57:53
10:58:37
I don't have the time frame, but it was, as I say, many,
Yes.
Could have been before the -- around
10:59:11
And that's the time I sent a newsletter to all the
You're saying that you sent out a newsletter.
10:59:27
Are you
Those
10:59:44
RE 670
(731 of 1100)
605
are two issues that I wanted to get across to our people.
Q.
your people in May 2013 regarding --
A.
That it should not be done.
Q.
That what should not be done?
A.
By using race or detaining people illegally.
Q.
You were not familiar with those concepts in the
preliminary injunction until May 2013?
A.
No.
10
Q.
My statement was accurate?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
There came a time where a monitor was appointed, correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Did you express what your involvement with the monitor
15
would be to your organization?
16
A.
17
believe it was around January 1914 -- 2014.
18
discussion.
19
something in common.
Well, explain more.
What were you trying to get across to
11:00:07
11:00:25
11:00:54
If I recall, I think the monitor came to my office, I
20
We had a nice
He has a law enforcement background, so we had
And I believe he mentioned that he would rather deal
21
with my staff, realizing that I had a large organization to
22
run, and I said, you know, that's a good idea.
23
staff.
24
Q.
25
to block him from doing his job?
11:01:17
Talk to my
And I believe that's what's been going on ever since.
Since the monitor has been appointed have you done anything
11:01:47
RE 671
(732 of 1100)
606
A.
No.
Q.
Have you been open and honest with him?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Have you encouraged your staff to be open and honest with
him?
A.
Yes.
Q.
There was a portion of the 2014 order that called for
community outreach.
11:01:59
Do you recall that?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And it was ordered that your office was to do some meetings
12
regarding community outreach.
13
11:02:11
Do you recall that?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And your lawyers objected to that based on the First
16
Amendment and your First Amendment to either speak or not
17
speak, correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And ultimately the judge rescinded that piece of the order,
20
correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
On direct examination you were played an approximately
23
10-second clip in which you talked about community outreach.
24
25
11:02:24
11:02:43
Do you recall that?

A.
Yes.
11:02:57
RE 672
(733 of 1100)
Q.
by that statement?
A.
Is that the one where I had an officer that was killed?
Q.
Yes.
talked about community outreach.
607
Although it was a small clip, do you recall what you meant
And on the tape, the portion that was played for you
11:03:18
Do you recall what you were referring to?
A.
whether you want to call it outreach or not, I personally
stopped two vehicles with the four Hispanics in each vehicle.
I was really occurring -- talking about myself, because
10
They had no problems.
They were very friendly.
11
wanted my photograph.
I let them take my pictures.
12
Came out,
11:03:48
I call that my outreach where I actively got involved,
13
because I was there trying to give support to my deputies to
14
get intelligence on gang members that we believe killed my
15
officer.
16
Q.
17
violate the preliminary injunction, did it?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Trying to find who killed that officer didn't violate the
20
preliminary injunction, did it?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Were you involved in any way prior to the original trial in
23
gathering evidence?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Did anyone ever ask you to review documents and videos in
11:04:13
Investigating a shooting of one of your officers didn't
11:04:34
11:05:08
RE 673
(734 of 1100)
608
preparation for the original trial?
A.
No.
Q.
When a request for documents and/or videos comes into the
sheriff's office, where does it normally go?
A.
It would -- are you talking about legal documents?
Q.
So there's a request that someone in your agency gather
documents.
A.
it's other situations, it would go to the people responsible
11:05:43
Where would that request go?
I presume if it's legal it will go to our legal office.
If
10
for that request, I guess.
11
Q.
12
of discovery requests?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
That's up to your legal liaison's office, normally?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Those are the people that process the paperwork?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
I want to talk to you about the May 2014 hearing that you
19
attended.
11:06:06
You don't get involved in the gathering and disseminating
20
11:06:26
Do you recall that?
11:06:44
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
It was a hearing that you attended, and you had interaction
23
with Judge Snow, correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And you all were talking about gathering some videotapes.
11:07:03
RE 674
(735 of 1100)
609
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you recall what Judge Snow's directive was of you in
relation to gathering those videotapes?
A.
session, but I believe he mentioned something about the
monitor, cooperate with the monitor.
Q.
Then following that hearing, where did you go?
A.
I went back to my office.
10
Q.
And what did you do there?
11
A.
Well, eventually we had a meeting, I believe, with the
12
chief deputy, counsel Tom Liddy and Tim Casey, and I believe
13
there was another lawyer in the room.
14
Q.
Christine Stutz?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
At some point we heard Chief Trombi say that he was
17
summoned into the room.
Well, if I recall, it was like a two-and-a-half-hour
18
11:07:18
11:07:41
11:08:05
Do you recall that?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And he was told to send out an e-mail.
21
11:08:16
Do you recall that?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
You weren't the one that told him to send out an e-mail,
24
correct?
25
A.
I did not.
11:08:23
RE 675
(736 of 1100)
610
Q.
Chief Sheridan told him to send out the e-mail?
A.
I believe he did.
Q.
Did anyone in the room object to that directive?
A.
No.
Q.
Not even counsel?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you know what happened as a result of that e-mail that
was sent out by Chief Trombi?
A.
You mean after the fact?
10
Q.
Yes.
11
A.
Well, I don't directly know, but I believe they were trying
12
to obtain videos.
13
Q.
Do you know if videos were obtained?
14
A.
I believe they were.
15
Q.
Sheriff, on direct examination you were asked do you think
16
there should be consequences for your actions.
17
18
11:08:34
11:09:12
11:09:25
Do you recall that?

A.
19
Yes.
MS. IAFRATE:
And in fact, can you put up 71, page 2.
20
BY MS. IAFRATE:
21
Q.
22
In fact, in this document that was filed, with your permission
23
and your consent, says, on the second line, that there are
24
consequences for these violations, correct?
25
A.
11:10:11
This was the document that we started your testimony with.
What number --
11:10:32
RE 676
(737 of 1100)
611
Q.
It's the --
A.
-- paragraph?
Q.
-- first full sentence.
A.
Yes.
Q.
You admit that there should be consequences, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Sheriff, you weren't hiding that the Human Smuggling Unit
continued to do interdictions, correct?
A.
Hiding?
10
Q.
Right.
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
You weren't -- you weren't -- you were continuing to talk
13
about it to the press, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
The Human Smuggling Unit continued to generate paperwork as
16
a result of their operations, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You didn't direct anyone not to talk about it, correct?
19
A.
No.
20
Q.
With all this press releases and documents that were
21
generated, were you willfully violating the Court's order, the
22
preliminary injunction?
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
Were you knowingly violating the Court's preliminary
25
injunction?
11:10:44
11:11:04
11:11:12
11:11:31
11:11:48
RE 677
(738 of 1100)
612
A.
No.
Q.
There is a statement that was read to you that said, "If I
had to do it all over again under the same circumstances, I'd
do it again."
A.
Yes.
Q.
What did you mean by that?
A.
I believe it had to do with an operation in Guadalupe,
could have been 2008.
did a crime suppression operation.
10
Do you recall that?

11:12:04
Had information about violence, so we
In the meantime, we had the authority under 287(g) to
11
enforce that type of law.
12
Washington there doing this operation.
13
people for different types of crimes, and six or seven were
14
here illegally that were booked in for those state charges, and
15
I believe two others we did not have any state law, so they
16
were turned over to ICE pursuant to our 287(g) authority.
17
11:12:26
We had two top officials from

We arrested about 45
11:13:02
But that operation had to do with violent crime --
18
Q.
So --
19
A.
-- and when the news media asked me I did say, I may have
20
been wrong, but I was talking about in that same circumstance
21
way back in those years where we had the authority, or we
22
always had the authority to go after those that commit crimes,
23
that I would have done it over again.
24
Q.
25
to the laws, correct?
11:13:27
In 2008 you had the authority to do what you did pursuant

11:13:48
RE 678
(739 of 1100)
613
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
preliminary injunction, knowing what you know now, would you
have done the exact same things, activities, from 2011 to 2013
that your Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was conducting
interdictions and either holding people or turning them over to
ICE or Border Patrol?
A.
part of it is yes, you're right, we would not do it now.
So now, knowing what you know regarding the
11:14:08
We still would do the crime operations, but as far as that
10
Q.
You wouldn't do it the same.
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
You know that that violates the preliminary injunction?
13
A.
Yes.
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. WALKER:
11:14:29
I have nothing further.
Mr. Walker.
11:14:44
Your Honor, I was up to the wee hours of
17
this morning and came to the conclu- -- two conclusions.
18
Number one, that it just was not possible for me to prepare
19
competently to examine this witness at this time.
20
spoken to all counsel.
21
offer to be able to recall the witness and potentially take his
22
deposition in the interim.
23
THE COURT:
And I've
I'd like to take the Court up on its
11:15:02
Well, Mr. Walker, I -- I think that I will
24
at least allow you to make that request.
25
on it now.
I'm not going to rule
And the reason why is, as I think I've indicated
11:15:25
RE 679
(740 of 1100)
625
EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q.
respect for the federal court and for judges.
was intended to be included among that group when you said it?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
I want you to know that while we have disagreements, and I
think some sharp ones in the past, I respect you in your
position as the sheriff of Maricopa County, and recognize that
I do appreciate that you have indicated that you have

I assume that I
10
you have been elected by the people of this county and I want
11
to afford you that same respect.
12
11:30:41
So I'm going to have some questions, some of them may
13
be difficult to answer, and I'm going to certainly let your
14
attorneys participate if they have concerns, but I'm going to
15
try to ask you my questions with respect, and I hope you'll
16
afford me the same in response.
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Now, we began by discussing -- or you began your
19
testimony -- I can't even remember whether it was this morning
20
or last night -- by discussing the scope of the matters that
21
you had -- in which you admit that you're in civil contempt.
22
And there were actually three matters that I specified in my
23
order to show cause.
24
25
11:30:26
Do you remember those?

were?
11:31:01
11:31:15
Do you remember what they
Three separate matters that related to civil contempt.
11:31:30
RE 680
(741 of 1100)
642
Q.
Was that under the SID, Special Investigations Division?
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
Does the Special Investigations Division do investigations
with confidential informants?
confidential informants?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And does the captain of SID have to approve investigations
involving confidential informants in terms of payments to them?
A.
Are they -- do they handle

11:53:00
Your Honor, I don't know how far down it goes for that
10
authority, whether it's a lieutenant or the captain or deputy
11
chief.
12
Q.
13
are made to confidential informants?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Are there any exceptions to that policy?
16
A.
I'm not sure.
17
Q.
Well, do you remember that right at the time -- and it was,
18
as I recollect, in June of 2014 -- that you named
19
Captain Bailey to become captain over the Professional
20
Standards Bureau instead of the Special Investigations
21
Division, that there was a newspaper article, maybe a blog,
22
that was published by somebody named Stephen Lemons?
23
A.
I know who he is.
24
Q.
Do you usually read the articles that he writes about you?
25
A.
Once in a while, yes.
Okay.
11:53:17
But somebody in the SID has to approve payments that
11:53:30
11:53:50
11:54:08
RE 681
(742 of 1100)
643
Q.
A.
He may -- I may remember that, yes.
Q.
Let me
11:54:26
10
clerk.)
11:54:57
11
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:

13
BY THE COURT:
14
Q.
15
16
17
it.
18

11:55:44
19
20
21
11:56:01
22
BY THE COURT:
23
Q.
24
A.
25
Q.
And I just want to ask you some questions about the article
11:56:53
RE 682
(743 of 1100)
644
tell him.
11:57:10
10

And I trust that
correct?
11
11:57:24
12
13
14
A.
15
there, yes.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
Q.
19
A.
A detective.
20
Q.
Is he in your -- is he assigned to you personally, your
21
risk detail?
22
A.
23
Q.
I understand that.
24
25
A.
Yes.
11:57:40
11:57:52
11:58:09
RE 683
(744 of 1100)
645
Q.
And so you were aware when he was gone to the Seattle area?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what about -- I think there's a Mr. Anglin mentioned in
the article.
Seattle as well?
A.
I think for a short period of time he did.
Q.
And is zoo -- did you say Zulu?
member?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And did you pay funds from Maricopa County for Mr. Zullo to
11
go to the Washington area?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And then I assume you paid Anglin and Mackiewicz their
14
travel costs?
15
A.
We don't pay for Zullo, but --
16
Q.
But you paid Mackiewicz and Anglin.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you also hire a consultant in the Washington state
19
area to help you with this investigation or investigations that
20
Mackiewicz and Zullo were working with?
21
A.
Not that I know of.
22
Q.
Did you have a confidential informant in the Washington
23
area that they were working with?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And does the article accurately identify who that
Was he also an officer that was assigned to go to

11:58:23
Zullo.
Is he a posse
11:58:33
11:58:47
11:59:02
May have.
11:59:12
RE 684
(745 of 1100)
646
confidential informant was?
It says the name is Dennis Montgomery.
Is that the
confidential informant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so when Mr. Montgomery was a confidential informant, he
was some sort of a computer consultant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And as a confidential informant, his fees would have to be
paid, or approved, if in fact it was before the transfer of
10
Captain Bailey, his fees would have had to have been approved
11
by Captain Bailey, or any payments to him would have had to
12
have been approved by Captain Bailey?
13
A.
I'm not sure at the time period, Your Honor.
14
Q.
Now, the article says that you were personally conducting
15
these investigations and personally aware of them.
16
11:59:38
11:59:57
12:00:14
Were you?
17
A.
Well, on a certain issue I was.
18
Q.
And what issue was that?
19
A.
It was the president's birth certificate.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
into the president's birth certificate.
22
ever tell you -- or, well, did you ever use Mr. Montgomery to
23
investigate anything about the Department of Justice?
24
A.
25
certificate.
So you were -- Mr. Montgomery was doing research
12:00:25
Did Mr. Montgomery
I don't believe that Montgomery was involved in the birth

It was other violations that he was looking into.
12:00:46
RE 685
(746 of 1100)
647
Q.
A.
Had to do with computer tampering and also bank fraud, that
type of thing.
Q.
A.
It's not true.
Q.
All right.
by anyone?
12:01:12
10
A.
You investigated?
11
Q.
Yes.
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
16
A.
17
Q.
Yes.
18
A.
Not by our office.
19
Q.
20
21
A.
22
office.
23
Q.
24
A.
25
Q.
12:01:24
No.
12:01:31
Or anybody.
12:01:52
12:02:12
RE 686
(747 of 1100)
648
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
It was the counsel.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
Mr. Casey.
10
Q.
Mr. Casey.
11
A.
Pardon?
12
Q.
13
my family, or members of my family.
14
A.
15
Q.
16
A.
We were investigating some comments that came to our
17
attention.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Through e-mail.
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
24
25
12:02:30
12:02:42
12:02:56
12:03:10
Let me ask, in his article Mr. Lemons indicates -Your testimony is
12:03:33
RE 687
(748 of 1100)
649
that correct?
A.
Q.
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
A.
Q.
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
12
13
14
A.
15
16
17
confidence in.
18
Q.
19
A.
20
Q.
All right.
21
infiltrated?
22
A.
23
24
Q.
25
A.
By someone.
No.
12:03:55
12:04:09

That's
12:04:29
12:04:50
12:05:08
RE 688
(749 of 1100)
Q.
at the MCSO that the DOJ was inappropriately --
650
And so Mr. Montgomery proposed to -- who did he propose to
I assume it was of interest to you if they were
wiretapping my phone, among others?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And yours, too.
And mine, too.
12:05:33
And so were you conducting this investigation?
A.
No.
Q.
Who was in your department?
10
A.
This is Zullo and I think Mackiewicz.
11
Q.
What rank does Mackiewicz have?
12
A.
He's a detective.
13
Q.
Who did he report to about this investigation?
14
A.
I think he and Zullo worked together.
15
Q.
And who did they report to?
16
A.
And Jerry Sheridan.
17
Q.
They reported to Deputy Chief Sheridan?
18
A.
At one time, but let me just say that the information
19
we're -- we've been getting is the informer's not very viable.
20
Q.
21
that you became aware after a considerable amount of time that
22
the reporter was giving you junk.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Or the informer was giving you junk?
25
A.
Yes.
12:05:40
12:05:52
Well, I understand that, I think the article itself says,
12:06:11
Is that fair to say?
12:06:24
RE 689
(750 of 1100)
Q.
How much money did you spend on the informant?
A.
I don't recall.
Q.
How much money did you spend on the investigation?
A.
I don't have the figures.
Q.
Do you -- does the -- I guess I want to straighten some
things out to make sure that I understand them.
651
12:06:35
It's typical that confidential informants get control
numbers?
A.
I believe so.
10
Q.
And that they are maintained in a confidential informant
11
log and monitored by the Special Investigations Division
12
commander or his designee?
13
A.
I believe so.
14
Q.
And that for the time that this matter was going to be
15
investigated, or was being investigated, that would have been
16
Captain Bailey, correct?
17
A.
18
knew about it.
19
Q.
20
investigation began in October of 2013.
21
article, says that as of January 2015 he kept making document
22
requests to the MCSO, and the MCSO continued to say this is an
23
ongoing investigation, we're not going to give you anything.
24
So is this investigation still ongoing, or have you
25
determined pretty much that the informant was unreliable and
12:06:56
12:07:14
I'm still not sure on the time -- time frame, or whether he
Well, I will tell you that the article suggests that the
And Mr. Lemons, in the
12:07:29
12:07:51
RE 690
(751 of 1100)
652
it's not worth proceeding?
A.
Well, it's almost finished.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
It's almost finished on -- especially on his reliability.
Q.
All right.
A.
I'm not sure.
Q.
Well, I want to understand exactly what it is that
Mr. Mont -- your understanding of what it is that
Mr. Montgomery told you DOJ was doing that you were
Are you investigating him now?
12:08:06
10
investigating.
11
A.
12
penetrating in the e-mails of our local attorneys and others,
13
judges, that type of thing, which we can't prove.
14
Q.
All right.
15
A.
I think you were one of the judges.
16
Q.
And were you concerned then that that might be affecting my
17
judgment or neutrality in this lawsuit?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Who else was named by Mr. Montgomery as being targets of
20
this DOJ investigation?
21
A.
22
for us on the Department of Justice lawsuit.
23
Q.
Who else?
24
A.
You mean other judges around -- I don't remember.
25
Q.
Anybody that Mr. Montgomery said that -- that the DOJ was
12:08:23
Once again, he seemed to indicate that someone was
And was I one of those judges?

12:08:50
12:09:08
I believe the -- our local law firm, the attorneys working
12:09:34
RE 691
(752 of 1100)
653
bugging their phones, or otherwise intruding into their private
communications.
A.
Well, I know I was.
Q.
You were one.
A.
Jerry Sheridan, I believe.
officials.
Q.
And I was?
A.
You -- yes.
Q.
Did you keep any of the materials that Mr. Montgomery has
Your law firm was one.

And there's other local
12:09:53
10
provided you?
11
A.
I don't have them.
12
Q.
Who does?
13
A.
I believe Zullo does.
14
Q.
And is he subject to your control --
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
-- as a member of your posse?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
I'm going to direct you that you tell Mr. Zullo that he
19
keep all those documents.
20
A.
He what?
21
Q.
He keep and maintain all of those documents.
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
I'm going to direct you that nothing pertaining to any of
24
this investigation be destroyed, including confidential
25
informant numbers.
12:10:03
12:10:13
All right?
12:10:22
12:10:32
RE 692
(753 of 1100)
654
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
I'm not sure.
to keep it quiet.
Q.

12:10:51
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
A.
I believe there was a, as I say, e-mail that came to me.
14
Q.
15
A.
16
Q.
17
12:11:08
12:11:28
18
recollection?
19
A.
20
21
Q.
22
A.
23
Q.
Grissom?
24
A.
Grissom.
25
Q.
Okay.
12:11:43
12:12:02
RE 693
(754 of 1100)
655
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
investigator do?
A.
He investigated it.
Q.
10
A.
11
restaurant and con -- I guess talked to the witnesses, three or
12
four, that confirm that remark was made.
13
Q.
14
that investigation?
15
A.
We should have.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
All right.
19
All right.
12:12:28
12:12:37
12:12:59
Thank you.
20
21
22
23
A.
24
25
Q.
12:13:08
12:13:24
RE 694
(755 of 1100)
Mr. Montgomery or for the investigation?
A.
That's possible.
Q.
Well, I'm going to direct you, to the extent that any of
this material is in your control, that it be maintained.
656
12:13:45
A.
Yes.
Q.
Would Captain Bailey have been involved in any of these
investigations?
A.
I don't believe so.
10
Q.
But if he was the commander of Special Investigations
11
Division, he would have been aware of the investigations?
12
A.
I'm not sure.
13
Q.
The commander of the Special Investigations Division would
14
have to sign off on payments made to confidential informants?
15
A.
Yes, normally.
16
Q.
And would they have to sign off on payments made for
17
investigations in which confidential informants were involved?
18
A.
19
would do that.
20
Q.
21
Division?
22
A.
23
name, but -- I know that Trombi is the top guy in charge of all
24
these elements.
25
Q.
12:13:56
12:14:14
I'm not sure if he would do it, or a lieutenant, or who
Who is currently the director of the Special Investigations
12:14:34
Or the commander or the captain.
I can't re -- I can't remember his name.
It's an Italian
Will you make sure that everybody in your division that has
12:15:09
RE 695
(756 of 1100)
anything to do with any of this maintains all these records?
A.
657
Yes.
THE COURT:
I think, Sheriff, for the time being,
those are my questions.
lunch, so could you be back in an hour?
lunch break.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
It's probably time for us to break for

We'll have an hour
12:16:07
Yes, sir.
I appreciate your answers.

Thank you.
10
(Lunch recess taken.)
11
THE CLERK:
All rise.
12
THE COURT:
Thank you.
13
You ready to proceed?
14
MS. WANG:
15
THE COURT:
16
Oh, I'm sorry.
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
12:16:16

Please be seated.
Yes, Your Honor.

Sheriff, I just wanted to --
13:23:01
Yes, Your Honor.
I just wanted to reiterate some of the
19
things I said during my questioning of you to make sure
20
everybody was clear.
21
like Mr. Zullo -- Mr. Zullo's the head of one of your posses.
I was told over lunch that posse funds
22
THE WITNESS:
23
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE COURT:
13:23:11
Yes.
Is it the Cold Case posse?

Yes.
I was told that you also have various
13:23:23
RE 696
(757 of 1100)
sources of funding within the MCSO, like the Cold Case posse
has its own funds.
658
Is that possible?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
No.
Okay.
Do you know what the possible
funding sources were for the investigations that were related
to the Seattle operation?
When I say "operation," I mean the one involving
Mr. Montgomery and the investigations with Brian Mackiewicz and
Mr. Anglin.
10
THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure if it was our RICO, which
11
is drugs seized -- I mean moneys seized from drug peddlers, or
12
our general funds.
13
THE COURT:
be involved that fund various like, for example, the Cold Case
15
posse?
13:24:14
16
THE WITNESS:
17
THE COURT:
18
THE WITNESS:
19
THE COURT:
They're independent 501(c) --
501(c)(3).
-- and they raise their own money.
All right.
And you don't have any control
over those funds?
13:24:24
21
THE WITNESS:
22
THE COURT:
No.
What about asset forfeiture funds, would
23
any asset forfeiture funds have been involved in funding this
24
operation?
25
13:24:00
Were there other possible funds that might
14
20
13:23:34
THE WITNESS:
I don't know where their funding came
13:24:35
RE 697
(758 of 1100)
659
from.
THE COURT:
Well, the point is this, and I think I
made it clear, but I just want to make sure that I've made it
clear, to the extent that you have any control over any funding
records, over any reports, over any communications, over any
overtime records, travel documentation, any e-mails of any and
all people involved in the threat assessment unit or anywhere
else, any communications from and to Montgomery, any computers
or phones, cell phones or other information that in any way is
13:24:45
10
relevant or related to this investigation, I want you to direct
11
your people to put a hold on it immediately and preserve it.
12
And that includes any documentation or numbers that would
13
relate to Mr. Montgomery's confidential status.
14
You understand that?
15
THE WITNESS:
16
Your Honor, are you referring to this
13:25:39
investigation with the monitors and --
17
THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm referring to the
18
investigation that Mr. Montgomery was undertaking with
19
Mr. Mackiewicz, Mr. Anglin, Mr. Zullo, anybody else from your
20
staff, anybody else from the MCSO, or anyone else from the
21
posse.
22
electronic data or anything else, or the financing, funding of
23
that operation, all phone records, e-mails, reports, I want it
24
all preserved.
25
13:25:18
13:26:00
I want all records that in any way relate to it, all
And I think I will send the monitor to begin taking
13:26:18
RE 698
(759 of 1100)
possession of those records and we'll do it confidentially,
imminently.
records lost, inadvertently or otherwise.
660
But I don't want in the interim any of those
You understand what I'm saying?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Mr. Young?
10
MR. YOUNG:
No further questions, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate?
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
nothing, Your Honor.
Yes.
13:26:32
And you'll so direct your people?

Yes.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
13:26:39
Nothing, Your Honor.

Subject to my earlier reservation,
15
MR. COMO:
16
THE COURT:
17
Next witness.
18
MS. WANG:
19
THE CLERK:
20
and last name for the record.
I have no questions, Your Honor.

You may step down, Sheriff.
13:26:47
Thank you.
Your Honor, plaintiffs call Joseph Sousa.

Can you please state and spell your first
21
THE WITNESS:
22
(Joseph Sousa was duly sworn as a witness.)
23
THE CLERK:
Can you please take our witness stand.
24
THE COURT:
Please, Ms. Wang.
25
MS. WANG:
13:27:18
Joseph Sousa, J-o-s-e-p-h, S-o-u-s-a.
13:28:03
RE 699
(760 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
May 8, 2015
9:01 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 700
(761 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
(Telephonically)
5
6
7
8
(Telephonically)
9
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
Stanley Young, Esq.

Hyun Byun, Esq.
Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
13
16

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
23
24
25
RE 701
(762 of 1100)
2
3

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
4
5
6
7

Linda Tivorsak, Esq.
(602) 263-1700

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
18
15
16
19
20
21
22
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
23
24
25
RE 702
(763 of 1100)
2
3
(Telephonically)
5
6

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
7
For Tom Liddy, Ann Uglietta, and Douglas Schwab:
8
BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7700
9
10
11
Also present:
12
13
14
15
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)

Ms. Sandi Wilson
Karen Clark, Esq.
Ms. Cari Shehorn
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 703
(764 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
09:01:18
MR. YOUNG:
For plaintiffs,
Stanley Young, Covington & Burling.

MR. BENDOR:
Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona.
10
MR. POCHODA:
Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona.
11
MS. IAFRATE:
09:01:30
Michele
12
Iafrate, and with me is my law clerk, Cari Shehorn, on behalf
13
of Sheriff Arpaio.
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. BIRNBAUM:
16
Birnbaum.
17
MacIntyre.
Good morning.
Gary
09:01:39
I'm appearing specially for Deputy Chief John
18
THE COURT:
Good morning.
19
MR. BIRNBAUM:
20
MR. WALKER:
Thank you.
Richard Walker
21
appearing on behalf of that portion of the Maricopa County
22
government embodied by the board of supervisors, the county
23
manager, and the appointed county officers reporting to them.
24
25
THE COURT:
morning?
Good morning.
09:01:46
Is Ms. Wilson here this

09:02:01
RE 704
(765 of 1100)
19
and that's why we're making the request.
Ms. Iafrate did advise yesterday that she is still
considering our request for those documents, and so we have not
received defendants' position on that yet.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
May 5th in a letter.
8
9
Ms. Iafrate.
THE COURT:
week.
09:21:44
Your Honor, I received this request on

I would beg your indulgence --
You have it.
We're going to meeting every
Let me just say, and I was going to raise this later,
10
and perhaps I will raise it later, but it strikes me that
11
plaintiffs do have the opportunity, in light of the deficits
12
that have been discovered, to seek to reopen the nature of the
13
injunctive relief that I have requested.
14
also that, you know, Maricopa County can resist that, has the
15
right to resist it.
16
09:21:59
It does strike me
09:22:24
It seems to me the practical reality of that, though,
17
is I either make a determination based on this record that we
18
develop over the next couple of months or I reset this matter
19
for a whole new trial.
20
for the -- whatever else you're going to say, it seems to me
21
that civil contempt -- a civil contempt order is going to be --
22
at least a civil contempt order is going to be entered here at
23
least against some defendants.
24
25
It strikes me as being worth the effort

09:22:43
They've confessed it.
And again, I don't want to prohibit your rights,

Ms. Iafrate, I don't want to prohibit your rights, Mr. Young, I
09:23:00
RE 705
(766 of 1100)
20
don't want to prohibit your rights, Mr. Como, or anybody
else's, but it seems to me that it would be worthwhile for you
to talk and see what kind of remedies, Mr. Young, you would
propose, and see if those are acceptable to Ms. Iafrate.
And if they are -- and I realize that you may not be
able to provide specific ones until the evidence is developed,
but at least the general types of remedies -- because if they
are, I think it would be, arguably, to the benefit of all
parties, because I'm going to give, at a minimum, if Maricopa
10
County fights everything, I'm going to give a new trial to the
11
plaintiffs as -- it's extremely likely, and I'm not going to
12
make them wait and submit a fee award.
13
been very expensive, I will require monthly payments to be made
14
to the plaintiffs' counsel to pay for that trial since they
15
should not have to pay for it, in light of the fact that
16
this -- it would be part of a civil contempt award.
17
09:23:23
09:23:39
Since the trials have
09:23:58
And I don't say that to be threatening, I'm just
18
telling you what I'm thinking, so that it might make sense from
19
your perspective and from their perspective to either stipulate
20
to a field of discovery that they want, to discover this and
21
see if you can arrive at remedies that you can all live with,
22
because it does seem to me like, and we'll discuss this in
23
others respects, too, the option is a whole new trial of this
24
case from the beginning, or at least that's certainly one
25
option.
09:24:12
So I'd like to sort of set that in place so that you
09:24:33
RE 706
(767 of 1100)
1
2
21
can consider it.

But Ms. Iafrate, as you consider their request, I
guess to the extent any of that sort of musing of mine is
helpful, I wanted to give it to you.
raise it a little bit later on as it pertains to other issues,
because I think there are issues that we can do something about
and there are issues that we can't do much about, and of course
I want to have counsels' input on that.
And I think I wanted to
And if we can't do much about them in this hearing,
10
then I think that we need to figure out what the appropriate
11
response is but not waste a lot of time on it.
12
something about it and can agree, then we can eliminate issues,
13
and then we can try the issues that deserve to be tried and get
14
this matter resolved.
15
Mr. Young.
16
MR. YOUNG:
17
09:25:01
If we can do
09:25:19
Your Honor, I assume the new trial you're
referring to would be on the subject of remedies.
18
THE COURT:
That's correct.
19
MR. YOUNG:
Yes.
There is one more issue relating to
20
the February 12 order, and I'm going to ask Ms. Iafrate's
21
forgiveness, since this was in the May 5th order -- the May 5th
22
letter that we sent her, but I have not spoken to her about it
23
since then, which is the scope of disclosure with respect to
24
individuals who were detained outside the traffic stop context.
25
09:24:45
09:25:30
We did request in our May 5th letter that we receive
09:25:52
RE 707
(768 of 1100)
believe that in previous discussions with you, you believed
that these individuals did fit within the class.
Arpaio would object.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
23
Sheriff
I do have the class here, I think.

Beg your pardon?
09:27:35
The class is, quote, all Latino persons
who, since January 2007, have been, or will be in the future,
stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by MCSO agents while
driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking
10
area in Maricopa County, Arizona.
09:28:00
11
It does seem to me -- and again, I'm going to give you
12
a full opportunity to make your argument -- but it does seem to
13
me that if MCSO is detaining someone to take them to Border
14
Patrol because they have no state charge and they're doing it
15
in a motor vehicle on a public roadway, they're the ones that
16
have made them a member of the plaintiff class by definition.
17
18
19
20
09:28:14
And I did ask, I think I recall, I think you're right,

I think I recall asking, was it Lieutenant Jakowinicz that?
MS. IAFRATE:
I don't recall which witness, but I know
that it was solicited from your questioning, Your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
22
MS. IAFRATE:
23
THE COURT:
09:28:31
Well, yeah, I did question him about that.

Right.
And it -- just because it does seem to me
24
that when you've done, that you've created a -- I mean, it
25
seems to me that fits within the plaintiff class.
But I'll
09:28:46
RE 708
(769 of 1100)
1
2
allow you more time to make an objection on that point.

MS. IAFRATE:
do it orally or would you like me to do it in writing,
because if it's --
5
6
THE COURT:
I want to give you the chance to do it in
09:28:56
writing --
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
10
24
Thank you.
-- and we can take it up.

Thank you.
Just for a brief statement,
Your Honor, of course, I was not part of the original trial.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
16
MS. IAFRATE:
09:29:01
Right.
However --
Hardly anybody was any more.

Right.
Few people left standing, but --
Um-hum.
09:29:13
-- I can tell you that in my review of
17
not only the pretrial discovery, but also the testimony at
18
trial, and even afterward, everything was anticipated that it
19
was resulting from traffic stops and the --
20
THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
22
done by the Sheriff.
23
MR. SCHWAB:
Well --
09:29:25
-- interdiction patrols that were being
I don't think that's a misstatement of
24
the record, and so I'll let you make your argument, but the
25
class is what the class is and the class certified is the class
09:29:36
RE 709
(770 of 1100)
25
certified.
just seems to me that that fits within the definition of the
class.
the chance to make your -- make your record, and give you the
chance to do it in writing.
And the class was certified for a reason, and it
But I'm not arguing with you, and so I'm going to give
09:29:54
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
All right?
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, will there be a timetable for
that, given the hearings that are set for June?
10
11
THE COURT:
Yes.
When do you think you'll be able to
MS. IAFRATE:
13
THE COURT:
As to that issue?
To file your objection to the discovery
request filed by the plaintiffs.
15
MS. IAFRATE:
16
THE COURT:
Friday.
Okay.
09:30:16
So if you will make it Friday, then
17
we will resolve it the following status conference, if you can
18
get a response on.
19
MR. YOUNG:
So --
20
THE COURT:
So it would be Friday the fif- -- let's
21
see, today is what?
22
MS. IAFRATE:
23
THE COURT:
24
25
09:30:03
make it?
12
14
Okay.
09:30:25
Today is the 8th, Your Honor.
Okay.
So it would be Friday the 15th
you'll have it filed by.

MS. IAFRATE:
Yes.
09:30:34
RE 710
(771 of 1100)
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
MR. WALKER:
26
And we will resolve it at the May 22nd.

Very well.
Your Honor, just for the record, and I'm
sure you recall at our last hearing, my client also objects and
respectfully disagrees that the operations, what we call
worksite operations are within the scope of the class as
defined --
8
9
THE COURT:
issue.
All right.
09:30:47
You know, this raises another
I've been trying -- and I was going to discuss this
10
later, but I might as well raise it now since it's the issue.
11
I do think that one of the purposes of contempt is
12
compensation.
13
clearly it's to the defendants' interests to argue about how
14
broad or how narrowly those interests are defined.
15
Clearly, there have been lots of victims, and
But I'm trying to think, is there any way I can
09:31:27
16
compensate the victims of the sheriff's contempt in a realistic
17
way, and I'm having trouble with it.
18
this earlier.
19
anything I can do in this lawsuit that would restrict the right
20
of anybody to bring a class action or anything else they want
21
to bring.
22
09:31:05
I told the plaintiffs
I mean, I don't -- I don't know that there is
09:31:44
And I suppose that I could compel the creation of a
23
fund as against which claims could be made if somebody wanted
24
to surrender their claims, but I'm not sure -- you know, if I
25
were to do that, that would not have the benefit to the
09:32:09
RE 711
(772 of 1100)
27
defendants of eliminating liability.
the benefit of eliminating liability, then perhaps the
plaintiffs ought to either determine whether or not they wanted
to bring their own class action, whether they want to associate
class counsel, whether they want to provide some sort of
procedure whereby we could, if necessary, sever the
compensatory aspects of this in a class action that then would
be reassigned to me where arguments like this can be made.
And if it wouldn't have
09:32:25
MR. YOUNG:
Well, Your Honor, I can report --
10
THE COURT:
And you wouldn't have to -- you wouldn't
11
have to reinvent the wheel with a judge who isn't very familiar
12
with what's going on here.
13
I mean, it seems to me we have a lot of possibilities,
14
but they require some thinking.
15
to whether or not I'm going to -- just so nobody's confused by
16
it, if I feel like I can't give, and I'm not likely to be able
17
to give, any sort of adequate remedy to persons damaged by the
18
sheriff's violation of my preliminary injunction, that does
19
make some difference to me as to whether or not I ought to
20
order up this matter for criminal contempt, just so it's on the
21
table.
22
So Mr. Young?
23
MR. YOUNG:
24
25
09:32:44
And I will say, you know, as

09:32:59
09:33:20
Well, I can -- I appreciate the Court's
thoughts on this issue.
I can report on where we are.
We do intend, in the June hearings, to present
09:33:36
RE 712
(773 of 1100)
evidence on this issue of compensation.
an important, very important part of this proceeding, and we
appreciate, actually, the expedition that the Court has
expressed its desire to achieve.
28
We do believe that's
So we have also had some discussions with Mr. Walker
and Ms. Iafrate about having a discussion Monday, actually,
starting a discussion on whether we can agree on a process for
compensation of class members, the people who are victims of
the injunction.
We haven't yet fleshed that out, but
10
obviously, I mean, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say
11
that if someone obtains compensation in the course of that
12
process, whether it's agreed upon or imposed as a remedy by
13
this Court, that they wouldn't be free in some other lawsuit to
14
seek additional compensation.
15
So it would be our desire to have that compensation

for those people who were detained unlawfully in violation of
17
the injunction to obtain compensation as part of the remedy
18
process in this case.

THE COURT:
All right.
09:34:23
09:34:38
16
19
09:33:53
Well, I'd suggest, then, that
20
that be a matter that you discuss with defendants and see if
21
you can arrive at a procedure that I will buy.
22
to advise you that even if you buy it, and even if they buy it,
23
I might not buy it.
24
MR. YOUNG:
Understood.
25
THE COURT:
But I think it is worthwhile for you to
09:34:56
And I'm going
09:35:08
RE 713
(774 of 1100)
pursue.
another?
Have we resolved that topic?
29
Are we ready to go on to
The next is the status of defendants' compliance with
the Court's April 23rd-24th, 2015 orders relating to document
production.
09:35:27
I have noticed, Ms. Iafrate, that over the last day or
maybe two days, you've started to produce those documents and
provide them to all sides.
and he gave me a couple of concerns that, frankly, I hadn't
The monitor started to review them
10
been aware of, and I want to raise them with you, and I gather
11
that you'll probably have a couple of both logistical and
12
perhaps other concerns you want to raise.
13
09:35:42
Apparently, the materials that you are providing
14
involve records that I -- and, Bob, if I misstate this, tell
15
me -- but I believe the monitor on first cut thinks, based
16
partly on Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony, there was
17
something I hadn't anticipated.
18
Mr. Montgomery would have done a file dump with the MCSO of
19
those files that he apparently procured without authoriza- --
20
or claims to have procured without authorization from the CIA.
21
Is that an issue?
22
MS. IAFRATE:
23
THE COURT:
09:36:04
I had not anticipated that
09:36:25
That is an issue, Your Honor.
All right.
And in those files, at least
24
according to the initial review of my monitor, there is a
25
number of names, addresses, telephone numbers of individuals.
09:36:43
RE 714
(775 of 1100)
30
So I'm just going to instruct the parties, I've
instructed Ms. Iafrate, and I think she's doing her best to
comply, to review this material for attorney-client privilege
or work product immunity and do a privilege log, but if she
doesn't, but all the other documents she's providing in Bates
stamped order, and I gather that we may some need to discuss
and work that through to all parties so you're all getting
material that has peoples names, addresses, and telephone
numbers --
10
MS. IAFRATE:
11
banking documents, Your Honor.
As well as Social Security numbers and
12
THE COURT:
13
and Social Security numbers.
14
released without authorization of the Court.
15
can have it.
16
for this action.
17
release it without authorization of the Court.
18
Okay.
09:37:18
So there are some banking documents

None of that material can be
You can review it.
All right?
You
You can use it in preparing
09:37:31
But you cannot review it -- or you cannot
Ms. Iafrate, it occurred to me that if in -- and I
19
know that Chief Deputy Sheridan said that -- and again, Chief,
20
you're here.
21
trying to summarize essentially what your testimony was -- that
22
Mr. Montgomery, the MCSO has determined that he was not
23
credible.
24
you wish to.
25
09:37:04
I don't mean to put words in your mouth; I'm just
09:37:48
And again, you can correct that characterization if
And so it may be that -- well, I'm sorry.
It may be
09:38:06
RE 715
(776 of 1100)
31
that the doc -- it may be that his assertion that these
actually were documents that are a CIA dump are not correct.
But it occurs to me that if there is a chance that you believe
that you did receive CIA files, if you haven't already done it,
if you have not already done it, I'm going to ask you to
contact the chief counsel for the CIA and inform him that you
received these documents, the date you received these
documents, and see if they wish to intervene in this action and
take any protective measures with respect to these documents.
10
Do you have any problem doing that?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
Your Honor.
I think, I think that that would be prudent.
THE COURT:
14
order Ms. Iafrate to do that?
15
MR. YOUNG:
16
MR. WALKER:
17
MR. McDONALD:
18
MR. COMO:
19
THE COURT:
21
09:38:48
I do not have any problem doing that,
13
20
09:38:31
All right.
Any objection by anybody if I
None from plaintiffs, Your Honor.
09:38:59
No objection, Your Honor.

None, Your Honor.
I have none, Your Honor.

All right.
Other issues that you have,
Ms. Iafrate.
MS. IAFRATE:
09:39:08
I do have other issues regarding --
22
regarding that production.
I received a call from Chief Girvin
23
yesterday very concerned regarding the release of these
24
documents to others rather than the monitors, and I advised
25
them that I was ordered to do so by Your Honor in --
09:39:27
RE 716
(777 of 1100)
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
32
And you were.

-- docket 1032.
So --
No, no, you clearly were.
I hadn't
anticipated that you had a document dump like this, so you're
right, I did make that order.
MS. IAFRATE:
09:39:40
So the monitors have received documents
well before plaintiffs, because we were given the opportunity
to then review them and Bates stamp them and get them in order
to send them out to plaintiffs as well as the other attorneys.
10
There is a hard drive that has over two terabytes of data dump
11
on it in sub-folders.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
Are these the alleged CIA documents?

Yes.
This has --
Let me ask, are you -- and I'm sorry to
15
interrupt you -- are you able to segregate what the alleged CIA
16
documents are from other documents that were prepared by
17
Mr. Montgomery?
18
09:39:59
MS. IAFRATE:
To a point, Your Honor.
09:40:16
This hard drive
19
is the one that's most troubling, and I think that it -- I
20
think that the monitors would agree that it would be the most
21
troubling, not only the content that's on this hard drive is
22
personal in nature to hundreds of thousands of alleged victims
23
of identity theft, but also to duplicate it and get it in a
24
process that would be usable for plaintiffs and other attorneys
25
would require weeks of effort on the part of our third-party
09:40:33
09:40:58
RE 717
(778 of 1100)
33
vendor, and each shot would be approximately $87,000.
So the paper and the thumb drives and the other
information that has been provided to us, we have pushed that
out to plaintiffs, but this hard drive that I believe is
concerning -- and I won't speak for Chief Girvin, but he
expressed concern, too -- this is the bulk of the data dump
that I think that we should be most cautious about.
8
9
10
11
THE COURT:
All right.
09:41:22
Let me -- well, does anybody
have anything else they want to say before I venture some

thoughts?
09:41:42
It seems to me that we can do this.
In addition to
12
the concern that the monitor raised, he's also indicated to me,
13
at least based on a rough initial look, that there are clearly
14
documents in that file that are very relevant to this
15
litigation.
16
chance to look at that, and I guess -- so I don't want to
17
prevent them from looking at those things, but I see your point
18
that, you know, this data dump -- whether it's real, whether
19
it's false, whether it's partly real, partly false -- may be
20
very large, and may have lots of information.
21
And I believe that the plaintiffs have to have a
09:42:01
09:42:24
Does anybody object if I have my monitor coordinate
22
with Ms. Iafrate in terms of attempting to characterize
23
documents that you have in your possession, but I -- I guess
24
I'll just say just set them aside until the monitor coordinates
25
with Ms. Iafrate, looks at them, determines if their --
09:42:46
RE 718
(779 of 1100)
34
determines what their contents is in general, can disclose to
you what their content appears to be in general, and then you
can determine, or we can all determine in these status
conferences, what parts of that larger document file, if any,
are relevant to the ongoing proceeding here.
prevent you from looking at other documents that are not part
of that file.
Does that work for you, Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor.
And that will not
However, just to
10
complicate matters, I think that there are duplications from
11
the paper documents that have been provided --
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
15
09:43:31
Already?
Already, and there is some data dump in
those documents as well.

THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I think -- I think, and
16
tell me if you object to this, to the extent that you've
17
already done paper documents and put Bates stamps on them that
18
have been disclosed, we will let the plaintiffs look at those
19
subject to the protective order I just entered, which is they
20
are not to release them without order of this Court.
21
09:43:11
09:43:43
09:43:59
And then I guess I'm going to ask you, Ms. Iafrate,
22
would you please, unless you have an objection to doing so,
23
copy all counsel -- and the Court -- on your letter to -- or on
24
your communication, whatever it is, to counsel for the Central
25
Intelligence Agency?
09:44:23
RE 719
(780 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, I feel comfortable copying
you.
would like to be if you're ordering me to also provide it to
I need to think about whether I can be as candid as I
5
6
35
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, is there an issue you
09:44:37
want to talk to me about at sidebar on this?
MS. IAFRATE:
No, I'm just thinking out loud, Your
Honor, that this is a very sensitive matter that relates to CIA
intelligence, and potentially Mr. Montgomery's motive or
10
technique.
I'm just concerned that --
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
09:44:53
Well --- I'd like to be as candid as possible,
13
but I'm in an adversary position with plaintiffs' counsel as it
14
relates to my client.
15
THE COURT:
Mr. Young?
16
MR. YOUNG:
Well, Your Honor, plaintiffs have no
09:45:06
17
interest in receiving sensitive information that isn't relevant
18
to this case.
19
would be interested in it, and your suggested -- the Court's
20
suggested procedure to have the monitor make that
21
determination, or make it with the plaintiffs -- with the
22
defendants is fine with.
23
If it is relevant to the case, obviously, we
THE COURT:
All right.
24
letter.
25
going to send to CIA counsel?
09:45:21
Then I'm asking you about the
Do you care to receive the letter that Ms. Iafrate's

09:45:35
RE 720
(781 of 1100)
MR. YOUNG:
If Ms. Iafrate thinks that she can write a
better letter that's more informative to the CIA without
copying us on it, we're fine not getting it.
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
All right.
How about you, Mr. Como?
I don't need to be copied on that letter,
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Walker?
Your Honor, I don't think I need to have
a copy, although I must say I'm confused by this whole
10
discussion, probably primarily because I'm hearing a lot of
11
this for the first time.
12
13
14
15
16
THE COURT:
09:46:01
But the letter --
You were here, sir, with all the rest of
us; you were here.

MR. WALKER:
But to answer the Court's question
directly, I don't believe that I need to receive the letter.

THE COURT:
All right.
09:46:11
Well, you know, I think,
17
Ms. Iafrate, if you can't send it to the parties, I probably
18
ought not to receive it, either, but will authorize you to send
19
it to CIA counsel, ask you to retain a copy because it may
20
become relevant.
21
09:45:49
Your Honor.
36
09:46:28
And it does seem to me -- and I think that if you
22
would, and you can refer to the minutes of this hearing, you
23
can tell the CIA in a letter that we have an ongoing hearing.
24
It's my determination that allegations are relevant to the
25
ongoing hearing, and we're going to proceed with this ongoing
09:46:41
RE 721
(782 of 1100)
37
hearing.
going to be too late if it tries to assert them three or four
weeks from now.
So if it has interests that it wants to assert, it's
MS. IAFRATE:
relay a deadline for them?
made aware of this by my letter.
THE COURT:
I mean, they're just going to be
09:46:57
Well you can make them aware of it by the
letter and however else you want to do it.
And perhaps if the
press is here they'll make them aware of it, too, but -- well,
10
I -- but we can't rely on that.
11
they should notify -- they should notify us within two weeks if
12
they want to assert any privilege.
And so you can tell them that
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
15
Anything else relating to those matters, if we have
Very well.
I will let them know.
All right.
16
the monitor work these matters through with plaintiffs'
17
counsel?
18
MR. YOUNG:
09:47:19
09:47:39
Your Honor, there's one detail, and I'm
19
not sure whether Ms. Iafrate is the right person or not, but we
20
did notice in the sealed order that was filed yesterday by
21
Judge Boyle that there were some interview transcripts that
22
were referred to in the correspondence which were not part of
23
that set of documents that was given to Magistrate Boyle, and
24
it would seem to us and it would be our assumption that as part
25
of the production of the documents that Your Honor ordered
09:47:59
09:48:17
RE 722
(783 of 1100)
49
to operate, I'm not going to say so unless the parties don't --
don't request the depositions and I think it's absolutely
necessary.
In conjunction with that, and I'm not sure how many
parties will have received this and how many parties will not
have received this, but I received a request for admission
pro hac vice from a Jonathan Alden Moseley.
it is he indicated that he had provided copies of this request
for admission to all parties of record.
10
11
The reason I raise
He also provided me a
letter with that request for admission pro hac vice.
10:04:46
There are some parts relating to confidential matters
12
pertaining to whether or not I would admit him to practice
13
here, and he requests that they, for the most part, be kept
14
confidential unless they need to be known, and I think I want
15
to honor that request.
16
it's relevant, but my concern is this.
17
10:04:21
I don't see any reason that it -- that
10:05:08
Pursuant to Arizona rules, I admit somebody
18
pro hac vice only if I'm going to admit them as a party to a
19
particular action.
20
people here that are representing others, they are not parties
21
to the action.
22
he's provided inconsistent information, because in his
23
application he says -- I ask -- in his application for his
24
admission pro hac vice, he says I ask that the Court and the
25
parties consider that I, Jonathan Moseley, am not proposing to
Now, I have -- although there are a lot of

10:05:29
And Mr. Moseley I'm not sure -- well, he's --
10:05:57
RE 723
(784 of 1100)
50
actually participate in the conduct of this case, but merely to
sponsor the filing of an amicus curiae brief for Sheriff Joe
Arpaio by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.
And then, in a letter dated the same date, he says
that he wants to enter an appearance on behalf of Dennis
Montgomery because he says without naming who, but it must
either be Sheriff Arpaio or Sheriff Sheridan, that one of the
witnesses doesn't know what they're talking about with respect
to some of the testimony he's heard that they issued about
10
Dennis Montgomery's work, and that he wants to correct the
11
record and answer any questions, and he will be happy to do
12
that however the Court deems best fit.
13
14
10:06:16
10:06:35
Now, he tells me that he's copied all counsel of

record.
Have you all received this letter?
15
MR. YOUNG:
16
MS. IAFRATE:
17
MR. WALKER:
18
MR. COMO:
19
THE COURT:
Plaintiffs have not, Your Honor.
10:06:53

I'm not aware of receiving it.

Well, my concern, I'll just say it, is I
20
know that Mr. Klayman is representing Sheriff Arpaio in the
21
D.C. Circuit action, and it seems to me that if he's trying to
22
represent, and he may be trying to represent Sheriff Arpaio
23
here, he says he is.
24
Dennis Montgomery here, and he says that he's an associate with
25
Mr. Klayman in Freedom Watch.
10:07:02
But then he says he's trying to represent
10:07:22
RE 724
(785 of 1100)
51
Well, as I understand it, Freedom Watch is a special
interest law firm that's representing Sheriff Arpaio in another
action and cannot then take positions adverse to his
representation here.
So I have some real concerns about granting this
pro hac vice application.
application, copy it and provide it to all parties.
propose, unless anybody has an objection, that we set the
opportunity at our next status hearing for Mr. Klayman to
10:07:37
I will, if you haven't received this

But I
10
appear if he wishes to and seek to be admitted pro hac vice and
11
clarify who and what and why he wants to be admitted
12
pro hac vice; and how, if in fact he wishes to represent Dennis
13
Montgomery and be critical of testimony offered by the
14
defendants in this matter, he can do so without a conflict.
15
And that may be something, Ms. Iafrate, you may wish
16
to explore prior to that hearing.
17
available to all parties.
18
indicates he's willing to be deposed in this matter if any of
19
the parties believe that that deposition would be beneficial.
20
10:07:57
10:08:14
So I will make copies
I assume at least that that
I've already discussed with you some of my thoughts
10:08:38
21
about whether or not it wouldn't be worthwhile for you to talk
22
and see if there's ways to simplify this action in terms of
23
possible remedies, be they damages remedies to individual
24
plaintiffs, be they expansion of the relief that this Court is
25
entitled, and the scope of the injunction that needs to monitor
10:09:00
RE 725
(786 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
May 14, 2015
9:35 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 726
(787 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
7

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
Stanley Young, Esq.
Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
8
9
10
(Telephonically)
11
12
Tammy Albarran, Esq.

One Front Street, 35th Floor
(415) 591-7066
13
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
14
15
16
17
(Telephonically)
18
19
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676
20
21
22
23
24

Suite 140
(480) 483-6336
25
RE 727
(788 of 1100)
2
3

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
4
5
6
7

(602) 263-1700

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
17
18
19
20
21
22
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
23
24
25
RE 728
(789 of 1100)
2
3

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
4
5
6
7
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
Also present:

Deputy Monitor Sherry Kiyler
Ms. Cari Shehorn
8
9
10
11
12
(Telephonically)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 729
(790 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
This is CV 07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio,
on for status conference.
09:35:06
MS. WANG:
the ACLU for plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
Good morning.
10
MR. YOUNG:
11
12
13
14
15
MR. BENDOR:
MR. POCHODA:
plaintiffs.
09:35:26
going to announce, Your Honor.
I thought the people on the phone were
is my law clerk, Cari Shehorn.
20
MR. WALKER:
24
25
That's why I paused.
Michele Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
19
23
Josh Bendor,
17
22
09:35:14
ACLU of Arizona, for plaintiffs.
MS. IAFRATE:
21
Stanley Young,
16
18
Cecillia Wang of
With me
Richard Walker on behalf of the County as
09:35:40
I've defined in previous proceedings.

MR. McDONALD:
Mel McDonald, limited appearance for
Sheriff Arpaio.
MR. COMO:
behalf of former Chief Brian Sands.
Greg Como on
09:35:53
RE 730
(791 of 1100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
MS. CLARK:
Correct.
That's why I would suggest that
we need you there, Judge Snow.

THE COURT:
Well, it hasn't been scheduled yet.
If I
can be there, I will be.

MS. CLARK:
It will be very difficult for me to advise
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.
Now, I want to take up the application for admission
11
to practice pro hac vice of Mr. Jon -- oh, was there anybody
12
else who had anything to say on that?
13
practice pro hac vice of Mr. Jonathon A. Moseley.
15
and asked to appear telephonically.
16
appear telephonically but I did not hear him appear.
17
Are you there, Mr. Moseley?
18
All right.
20
10:12:36
I want to take up the application for admission to
14
19
10:12:27
him about how to answer in light of what you just said.
10
32
He called
We authorized him to
10:12:52
Mr. Moseley?
Let me tell you my concerns, and I guess
I'm going to lay them out.

Ms. Iafrate, Mr. Moseley is affiliated with Freedom
10:13:11
21
Watch, which represents Sheriff Arpaio in another action in the
22
district court of -- or in the D.C. Circuit now, so he has an
23
attorney-client relationship with Sheriff Arpaio.
24
Arpaio, and I believe Chief Deputy Sheridan, have both
25
testified in this action that the material they received from
Sheriff
10:13:35
RE 731
(792 of 1100)
Mr. Montgomery has been discredited, and I don't mean to put
words in their mouth but I think it's pretty clear they said
that on a number of occasions.
Sheriff Arpaio at one time called it junk.
word but he said yes.
33
At my invitation, I think
I mean, that was my
10:13:52
Is the sheriff -- are you withdrawing that testimony?
MS. IAFRATE:
8
9
No, Your Honor, we're not withdrawing
it.
THE COURT:
If that's the case, then it seems to me
10
like it's just not possible for Mr. Moseley, without creating a
11
conflict, to represent Mr. Montgomery in this action while
12
representing Sheriff Arpaio in another action and challenging
13
the validity of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan's
14
statements about Mr. Moseley in this action.
15
not appearing, and so it is my determination that I'm going to
16
deny his petition -- or application for admission to practice
17
pro hac vice, because it seems to me that it would create a
18
conflict in this case.
19
MS. IAFRATE:
10:14:04
And Mr. Moseley's

10:14:29
Well, Your Honor, it's unfortunate that
20
Mr. Moseley is not here because this is his motion, not mine.
21
However, all that I can tell you is that within his pleading
22
papers they're saying that there is no conflict.
23
to ask -- I was hopeful that Mr. Moseley would be on the phone
24
so that we could ask how could he say that.
25
appearing to answer those questions, I just have -- I have no
10:14:48
I would like
Without him
10:15:06
RE 732
(793 of 1100)
34
understanding regarding whether there is a conflict or there is
not a conflict.
THE COURT:
Well, I understand the position you're in,
but he's not here.
understand why I think there is an apparent conflict, despite
what he says.
We did authorize him to be here.
You can
I will say I've read his motion to intervene and I
don't think that's well taken.
to rule on it because I'm going to strike it because I'm not
But, of course, I'm not going
10
going to allow his admission.
11
prevent Mr. Montgomery from seeking to intervene if he wishes
12
to do so.
13
going to create a conflict by his very appearance, and it
14
surely seems to me like Mr. Moseley does that.
15
I'm certainly not going to
10:15:36
But he has to do so through counsel that is not
So how about we do this?
I'm going to deny
10:15:54
16
Mr. Moseley's application for admission to practice pro hac
17
vice without prejudice if he wants to appear and take it up.
18
But even if I admit him pro hac vice, we still have to then
19
deal with his motion to intervene, which strikes me, as I said,
20
to be a little bit problematic, anyway.
But that's --
21
Did you want to be heard on that, Mr. Young?
22
MR. YOUNG:
23
24
25
10:15:23
10:16:12
I do want to be heard on the motion for
pro hac vice admission, Your Honor.

Our view is that the Court has the discretion and
should exercise that discretion to deny the motion for
10:16:31
RE 733
(794 of 1100)
35
additional reasons beyond what Your Honor has just stated, and
I'll state those on the record now since the motion may be
renewed.
Under Local Rule 83.1(b)(2), this is a discretionary
issue for the Court under United States versus Ries,
100 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1996):
strongly suggests through his behavior that he will neither
abide by the court's rules and practices - thus impeding the
'orderly administration of Justice' - nor be readily answerable
"Where an out-of-state attorney
10
to the court, the Judge may ... deny the pro hac vice
11
application."
12
been made, it is our view that that likelihood exists.
13
10:16:47
10:17:09
And here already, based on the filings that have
I would refer first to Mr. Moseley's May 2nd letter,
14
which is attached to the Court's May 8 order.
15
notation there that counsel of record were copied.
16
8, I believe the Court asked counsel of record and none of them
17
had received it.
18
only have it because of the Court's order.
There is a
As of May
We still have not received the letter.
We
19
The letter also states that Montgomery was not engaged
20
in relation to this case; he was engaged to help research other
21
matters, not this case.
22
Mr. Moseley is false.
23
for now but we believe it is not correct.
24
25
10:17:28
10:17:45
We believe that statement by
We won't get into the substance of that
Mr. Moseley's May 2nd letter also says that his

appearance would be, quote, for the purpose of presenting
10:18:05
RE 734
(795 of 1100)
36
answers to the Court.
subsequently filed a motion to intervene.
providing information to the Court about the testimony of the
witnesses in the earlier hearing, but it's actually filing a
motion that's not anticipated or not mentioned in this letter.
So we believe that that letter by itself is indicative of
disruption and, frankly, the possibility of improper activity
if he were to be admitted.
That's also not true, because he

That's not just
Now, this has been -- some of this letter has been
10
later withdrawn, but I believe that you can't just make a
11
statement about something that's material to a matter before
12
the Court and just say, "Oh, sorry," later, and withdraw it
13
without even apologizing or offer much explanation.
14
THE COURT:
10:18:51
Well, for what it's worth, Mr. Young, I
15
noted that he wanted to withdraw it -- he might want to
16
withdraw it, but I've attached it to my order and I'm not
17
withdrawing it from my order.
18
MR. YOUNG:
19
see it ourselves, Your Honor.
20
10:18:23
10:19:08
And that's the reason why we're able to
There was also a sealed document which was
10:19:19
21
accompanied -- which accompanied the May 2nd letter, and as
22
Your Honor noted previously, that communication said that the
23
purpose of the filing by Mr. Moseley was to file an amicus
24
brief on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
25
been withdrawn through a clarification paper that was filed
That statement has also

10:19:37
RE 735
(796 of 1100)
37
late yesterday, with some explanation that relates to what
apparently was a word processing error on the part of
Mr. Moseley, but there wasn't even an apology for that error.
And again you have a material misstatement in a document filed
in this court.
this case yet, and I believe that just tells us that it would
not be a wise thing to have him admitted.
8
9
And he hasn't even been admitted to appear in
Even more seriously, although Mr. Moseley's letter

refers to a Virginia Supreme Court case relating to his earlier
10
suspension from practice for a period of six months in that
11
court, I believe looking at the Virginia Supreme Court decision
12
will disclose that there is a lot that has not been disclosed
13
to this Court, and the citation for it is 694 S.E.2d.
14
THE COURT:
Wait.
15
MR. YOUNG:
694 S.E.2d 586.
16
10:20:21
Give me that again.

And I have copies of the
10:20:43
decision if you would like to see them.
17
THE COURT:
Yes, please provide copies.
18
MR. YOUNG:
Now, what happened in the Virginia case
19
that caused Mr. Moseley's suspension was that there was a key
20
document with an arbitration clause which was not disclosed
21
prior to a hearing by Mr. Moseley.
22
10:19:57
10:21:15
At the hearing, and this is what Mr. Moseley does not
23
say, according to the Virginia Supreme Court, on
24
cross-examination Mr. Moseley's client admitted that he had
25
given a copy of that document to Mr. Moseley, and that that
10:21:34
RE 736
(797 of 1100)
38
contract did contain an arbitration clause, which would make
the action that Mr. Moseley had filed improper.
in Virginia decided, well, that's not proper behavior, and they
suspended him for that.
So the courts
In addition, the Virginia court noted -- and this is
also omitted from Mr. Moseley's letter to you -- the court
found that Mr. Moseley filed in excess of 80 pleadings and
motions in the case and used abusive discovery tactics and
filed frivolous pleadings.
10
The court also found that Mr. Moseley wrote letters to
11
the adverse party that were unprofessional and intended to
12
intimidate and harass.
13
in that case issued an absurd decision, was a wacko judge who
14
he believed was bribed, and he believed that opposing counsel
15
were demonically empowered.
16
10:21:54
10:22:14
And Mr. Moseley stated that the judge
10:22:36
The Virginia Supreme Court then said the following,
17
quote:
18
integrity of the judicial officer adjudicating his matters, and
19
those statements were made either with knowing falsity or with
20
reckless disregard for their truth or falsity."
21
information that we believe is highly relevant to any
22
application by Mr. Moseley to appear in this case.
23
"Moseley clearly made derogatory statements about the
Now, that's
10:22:56
Your Honor has already noted the conflict issue.
24
Mr. Moseley's clarification statement filed yesterday says,
25
quote:
"Neither Dennis L. Montgomery nor his counsel are
10:23:20
RE 737
(798 of 1100)
39
adverse to Sheriff Arpaio, his deputies, the Cold Case Posse or
the MCSO in any respect."
Your Honor has already noted, and for other reasons in some of
the documents that have been produced, which I won't go into,
that statement also is false.
We believe that for the reasons that
10:23:41
So for making all these false statements to the Court,
and for the behavior that led him to be suspended in the
Virginia bar, we believe that any application for pro hac vice
appearance in this case by Mr. Moseley should be denied.
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. IAFRATE:
Thank you.
Ms. Iafrate.
10:23:56
Your Honor, I'll leave it to your
12
discretion.
13
what Your Honor should do regarding the admission pro hac vice.
I do not advocate or have any opinion regarding
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. COMO:
16
17
Mr. Como?
I have no position on this issue, Your
10:24:12
Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
Then I'm going to deny the
18
application, and if he wants me to move to reconsider he can do
19
that, but the application is denied.
20
The last matter, and I have some fairly important
10:24:21
21
things to say here, and I think we've all recognized that this
22
is a very unusual case with permutations that are new, and I've
23
decided to handle this in this way.
24
defendants to produce certain documents, and I believe that
25
they have been doing so.
I have ordered the
Among those documents are the
10:24:53
RE 738
(799 of 1100)
40
documents that are apparently a data dump of some kind by
Mr. Montgomery to MCSO.
documents there are other documents about what I will call the
Seattle operations with Mr. Montgomery that are not data dumps.
And then in addition to those
Last week I ordered Ms. Iafrate to contact the CIA
10:25:20
since I think at least it was Chief Deputy Sheridan's
understanding, that I think has been confirmed by some of the
documents that I've seen, that at least Mr. Montgomery claims
that some of these documents were taken from the CS -- or the
10
CIA.
11
we've given the CIA another week to come lay any claim to any
12
sort of protection it wants.
And again, I don't know whether that's true or not, but
13
And so I'm going to order the parties, at least with
14
respect to those documents that are the Montgomery data dump,
15
do not disclose them in any way.
16
at them.
17
don't disclose them to anybody else.
18
United States another week in which to act if it wishes to do
19
so.
20
letter.
I'm not saying you can't look
10:25:55
If you choose to, look at them all you want, but

And that will give the
I've been credibly informed that they're aware of your

10:26:16
21
MS. IAFRATE:
22
I have a piece of information that I would like to
23
10:25:38
That's good to know, Your Honor.
share with you also when it's my time.
24
THE COURT:
Go ahead.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
I have heard that the CIA is aware of
10:26:27
RE 739
(800 of 1100)
41
the letter, and I filed a notice just so that you saw that the
letter actually did get sent out.
Yesterday I was contacted by phone several times, and
then by e-mail, from two people that said that they were part
of the Department of Justice and they wanted the letter.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
10:26:54
They wanted the letter you sent the CIA?

Correct.
So I said -- I asked them if
they were representing the CIA and they said no.
I asked them
if they had authority from the CIA for me to give them the
10
letter, if there was someone that I could talk to.
11
no.
12
if I don't have someone from the CIA saying that you have
13
authority.
They said
I said I feel uncomfortable providing you with this letter
14
Your Honor, this is all new territory to me.
They
15
didn't write me a letter requesting it.
16
specifically regarding whether they had authority on behalf of
17
the CIA, they said no.
18
THE COURT:
And when I asked
10:27:29
Well, let me just say isn't it a good
19
thing we live in a country where there's a separation of
20
powers?
21
hang on to the documents, and nobody's going to be taking those
22
documents.
23
sort of protective order.
24
fashion.
25
10:27:13
And I've told everybody, every party here, you can
You're going to have them.
10:27:43
They may be under some
We will proceed in an orderly
So -MS. IAFRATE:
Well, Your Honor, the reason --
10:28:02
RE 740
(801 of 1100)
THE COURT:
42
-- why don't you just direct them, if they
wish, to come to a proceeding or contact the Court or the
Court's monitor.
MS. IAFRATE:
Very well.
THE COURT:
We have had issues, apparently, lately with the
Okay.
10:28:10
County, Mr. Walker, about the County not being sure -- the
monitor has made requests to try and follow the financial trail
about payments that may have been made to Mr. Montgomery,
10
payments that may have been made to MCSO folks, and travel
11
costs and hardware costs and software costs that may have been
12
expended on this operation.
13
The folks at the County are not really sure about
14
whether or not they have such documents, in response to the
15
monitor's request.
16
see if the parties can live with it.
17
10:28:28
Let me just throw something out there and
Because we've had some past dealings with Sandi Wilson
18
in this case, I know she knows where the budgets are and where
19
things are kept if the County has them.
20
if the monitor contacts Ms. Wilson about where or not -- where
21
these documents may be found if they are in the possession of
22
the County?
23
10:28:46
MR. WALKER:
Is there any problem

10:29:05
Your Honor, I have no problem with
24
Ms. Wilson speaking directly with the monitor as long as I or
25
someone from my office can also be present.
10:29:23
RE 741
(802 of 1100)
43
If I could just elaborate a little bit, I think the
problem is the way expense documents are filed.
understand is they're filed by a vendor name.
management -- office management and budget is looking -- is
looking for a document, say one of my bills, and they know the
name of my firm, that's fairly easy.
name of the vendor it's like looking for a needle in a
haystack.
And what I
So if the office
If they don't know the
So the only problem I think we have is there's a
10
degree of coordination that needs to happen between
11
Ms. Wilson's office and the Sheriff's Office so that we have
12
the information we need so that a meaningful search for the
13
documents can be conducted.
14
10:29:50
THE COURT:
10:30:10
I think that's understandable and the
15
monitor can coordinate that with Ms. Wilson, with you, with
16
Ms. Iafrate, and whoever's handling document production at the
17
sheriff's Office.
18
problems, it sounds like a great solution.
10:30:25
If we can set up those meetings and avoid
19
Any problem with that, Chief?
20
CHIEF WARSHAW:
21
THE COURT:
No, sir.
Okay.
10:30:45
Now, I'd like to talk about how
22
we're going to go forward in light of these new documents.
23
There are a great number of them, even excluding the data dump.
24
And my monitor has had a chance to look at several of them but
25
far from the totality.
10:31:03
RE 742
(803 of 1100)
44
He has shown me several, 50 or so documents, that
cause me great concern.
plowing new ground here.
documents show, and I'm going to say that it is a concern that
I expect the MCSO to address in the resumption of our May
hearing, and I'm going to propose how we proceed.
And I acknowledge that we're all

But I'm going to say what those
10:31:23
The documents that I have seen pertain to what appears
to be some of the activities of the Seattle operation we
involve Dennis Montgomery as a confidential informant.
The
10
documents seem to reveal that as at least part of their
11
operations, the Seattle operatives attempted to construct an
12
alleged conspiracy that supposedly involved this Court; one of
13
this Court's former law clerks; Eric Holder, the attorney
14
general of the United States; Lanny Breuer, the Chief Deputy
15
Attorney General of the United States in charge of the criminal
16
division; Phil Gordon, the mayor of Phoenix; and Brian Sands,
17
the executive chief of the MCSO.
18
conspiracy was apparently to covertly investigate the MCSO and
19
deprive the sheriff and the MCSO of the due process of law in
20
this particular case and in a related case brought against the
21
sheriff by the DOJ.
22
10:31:43
10:32:02
The purpose of the alleged
10:32:22
This Seattle operation work product seems to purport
23
that by allegedly using a database of information harvested by
24
the CIA and confiscated by him, Mr. Montgomery was able to
25
reproduce fragments of e-mails that had been sent in 2009 and
10:32:40
RE 743
(804 of 1100)
45
2010 between persons within the Department of Justice, Mayor
Gordon, and Brian Sands.
As it pertains to this Court, the Seattle operation
work product, which was apparently prepared and revised over a
number of months, not a few, it began apparently -- the first
contact was in September of 2013.
December.
January, and at least their properties indicate that they have
been revised many times over a period of substantial months.
There were meetings in
These documents began being created in December and
10
Anyway, the documents purport to track telephone calls
11
between this Court, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and Dennis Burke
12
to reproduce those phone calls which occurred years earlier.
13
And between the Court and one of its former law clerks, who
14
apparently allegedly was supposed to have served as this
15
Court's liaison with the Department of Justice regarding this
16
case.
17
10:32:56
10:33:15
10:33:35
The documents appear to allege or suggest that this
18
Court had contact with the Department of Justice about this
19
case before the Court was ever assigned to it.
20
seems to suggest that when Judge Murguia recused from this
21
case, the random selection process of this Court was subverted
22
so that the case was deliberately assigned to this Court.
23
documents further suggest that thereafter this Court had
24
conversations with Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer about this
25
case, and it also alleges that this Court issued an order to
It further
10:33:48
The
10:34:05
RE 744
(805 of 1100)
46
tap the MCSO's phones after being assigned as the judge in this
case.
It also seems to allege that this Court had
conversations, as I've indicated, with the Department of
Justice, through one of its former law clerks as an
intermediary.
10:34:19
Now, I will tell you I've looked at these documents
closely and I think there are a great deal of problems with
them.
But I don't intend to put them on the screen and go over
10
those problems because I believe that Sheriff Arpaio and
11
Chief Sheridan have both acknowledged that the materials
12
received from Montgomery are not credible and/or are junk.
13
I'm not presuming at this point that the MCSO is alleging that
14
anything the documents contain in this respect are true.
10:34:35
So
15
If, Ms. Iafrate, you're going to assert that, I will
16
tell you that I'm going to require good faith assertions that
17
any of that information is true, and I have a number of
18
questions that you will have to respond to.
19
assuming, as I do, that the sheriff and Chief Sheridan both
20
will say that those documents are not credible, the very
21
existence of these documents in the MCSO's files causes this
22
Court some concerns.
23
10:34:53
Nevertheless,
10:35:16
In addition to their tendency to suggest that previous
24
testimony offered in this matter may have been untruthful, the
25
Court wonders why, when the MCSO should have been spending
10:35:33
RE 745
(806 of 1100)
47
their time, money, and resources in implementing its order,
they were funding a confidential informant as well as three
MCSO deputies or posse members to be in Seattle, Washington,
and other places, accruing overtime, travel, and salary
expenses, as well as significant technology costs, attempting
to construct some bogus conspiracy theory to discredit this
Court.
The Court notes that as of the monitor's last report,
the MCSO was only 29 percent in compliance with the injunctive
10
order entered a year and a half ago, approximately the same
11
time as this Seattle operation began.
12
explanation for all of this, I realize that these are only
13
documents in MCSO's file, but I'm going to require you to
14
address that in the hearing that's coming up in June.
15
10:35:51
10:36:06
There may be some
I also want to say that when upon the death -- I think
16
before I began questioning Sheriff Arpaio, I explained to him
17
why I was questioning about these things and how I viewed this
18
as being relevant to the contempt hearing, and I think it's
19
relevant for reasons I've already stated.
20
death of Deputy Armendariz it became clear to the Court that
21
the members of the plaintiff class in this case may have been
22
commonly subjected to deprivations not previously disclosed at
23
or prior to trial, and that this information as well as a great
24
deal of additional information sought prior to trial had never
25
been provided, this Court suggested to the MCSO that it arrange
10:36:25
But when upon the

10:36:46
10:37:02
RE 746
(807 of 1100)
48
for an independent investigation of these matters.
do so, the MCSO elected to conduct a self-investigation through
its own Professional Standards Bureau.
Rather than
This Court's orders were violated at the very start of
that investigation, and that is part of the notice contempt.
And even though many of the allegations of misconduct arose --
that were at issue in the Armendariz investigation arose from
the conduct of the HSU, the MCSO transferred in as the new
captain of the Professional Standards Bureau the previous
10
captain of the special investigation divisions -- Special
11
Investigations Division, which was over the HSU.
12
10:37:19
10:37:37
There is evidence that before his transfer to the PSB,
13
Captain Bailey was sent an inquiry memoranda regarding seized
14
identifications from within the HSU, which memorandum and
15
documents were subsequently sent for destruction.
16
Special Investigations Division had responsibilities for
17
operations like the Seattle operation and would likely have
18
played a role in the Grissom inquiries.
19
Further, the
10:37:56
Of course, Captain Bailey was supervised at both the
20
SID and the PSB by Chief Deputy Sheridan and by Sheriff Arpaio.
21
The Court has held repeated hearings regarding its concerns
22
about the inadequate investigations conducted by the PSB of
23
these matters.
24
facially inadequate explanations for the confiscation of
25
identifications of the members of the plaintiff class.
10:38:14
There is evidence that the PSB accepted
There
10:38:31
RE 747
(808 of 1100)
49
department-wide.
8
9
10:38:46

10
11
12
13
14
faith.
15
10:39:05
16
17
18
19
20
21
10:39:18

It is
22
23
24
25
10:39:35
10:39:54
RE 748
(809 of 1100)
50
beyond the scope of this contempt hearing and that I have no
intent to raise in this contempt hearing except to the extent
that it bears some relation to it.
focus of obliging the MCSO to comply with its orders and to
cure the existing and admitted contempts that have impaired for
a very long time the rights of the plaintiffs' class.
I do not want to lose the
I'm going to set forth my proposed solution to this
problem, and I will hear your comments on it if you have
suggestions.
I remind the parties that because of the
10
cooperation you made in the first week of the hearing where we
11
both -- where we were questioning witnesses at the same time,
12
we made substantial headway towards ending the hearing, and it
13
seems to me we shouldn't lose the focus on what the hearing is
14
about, recognizing that there now are other matters that may be
15
relevant.
16
But when the Armendariz investigation came forth I

made it clear, and it's on the record, and we have several
18
orders that supplement the monitor's original investigative
19
authority with his investigative authority to ensure the
20
integrity, the adequacy of MCSO's investigative operations.
21
has authority to investigate all matters pertaining to this
22
contempt hearing and to the MCSO self-investigations in the
23
previous orders.
25
10:40:35
10:40:56
17
24
10:40:14
He
10:41:12
I propose, and I am likely to order, that based upon

his ongoing review of the documents provided, that he be
10:41:36
RE 749
(810 of 1100)
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
July 20, 2015
11:03 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Status Conference)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

RE 750
(811 of 1100)
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:
Stanley Young, Esq.

Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
(Telephonically)

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
11
12
13
14
(Telephonically)
Jorge M. Castillo, Esq.

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Regional Counsel
(213) 629-2512
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 751
(812 of 1100)
2
3

4
5
6

(602) 263-1700
7
8
9
10
11
12

649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775

(480) 483-6336
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: David J. Ouimette, Esq.
Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
21
22
23
24
25

2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
RE 752
(813 of 1100)
2
3

Greg S. Como, Esq.
& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
4
5
6
7
8

9
Chase Tower
Suite 3300
(602) 254-9900
10
11
12
13
14
15
(Telephonically)
(Telephonically)
Lynnette C. Kimmins
Rosaleen T. O'Gara
Assistant United States Attorneys
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800
Tucson, Arizona 85701
(520) 620-7300
Raphael O. Gomez
Senior Trial Counsel
(202) 514-1318
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 753
(814 of 1100)
2
3

& WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7705
4
5
6
7
For Dennis Montgomery:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Also present:
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 345
(310) 595-0800

Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
Deputy Chief John MacIntyre
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 754
(815 of 1100)
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
5
6
7

MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:
MR. BENDOR:
11
12
Good morning.
Good morning.
MR. POCHODA:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
17
18
11:03:40
plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
16
Josh Bendor, ACLU of
Arizona, for plaintiffs.
13
15
Stanley Young,
10
11:03:26
Good morning.
I was waiting for those on the phone,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
11:03:48
Well, why don't we take everybody present
in the courtroom, and then we'll take those on the phone.

MS. IAFRATE:
Very well.
Good morning.
Michele
19
Iafrate on behalf of Joseph Arpaio and the alleged non-party
20
contemnors.
11:03:59
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
Good morning.
John Masterson
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. WALKER:
Good morning.
Richard Walker
11:04:08
RE 755
(816 of 1100)
and Charles Jirauch on behalf of that portion of the Maricopa
County government consisting of the Board of Supervisors, the
county manager, and the employees who work under their
supervision.
THE COURT:
MR. MITCHELL:
Good morning.
11:04:20
Barry Mitchell
and Lee Stein specially appearing on behalf of Chief Gerard
Sheridan.
9
10
11
12
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. McDONALD:
THE COURT:
How are you different, Mr. McDonald, from
Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio?
14
MR. McDONALD:
15
THE COURT:
17
I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
How are you different from Mr. Masterson
MR. McDONALD:
They are on the civil end working with
Ms. Iafrate, I am solely on the potential issue at the end of
19
the case, so we're playing different roles.
21
THE COURT:
All right.
Even though you're from the
11:04:55
same law firm?
22
MR. McDONALD:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. COMO:
25
11:04:43
and Mr. Popolizio?
18
20
11:04:32
making a special appearance on behalf of Joe Arpaio.
13
16
Mel McDonald
Even though we're from the same firm.
Okay.
representing Brian Sands.
Greg Como
11:05:07
RE 756
(817 of 1100)
1
2
3
MR. WOODS:
Terry Woods, Your Honor.
I represent the
nonparties Tom Liddy and Christine Stutz.

MS. HAMILTON:
April
Hamilton, Ridenour Hienton, representing non-party Maricopa
County Attorney's Office.
6
7
8
9
10
MR. OUIMETTE:
11:05:20
David Ouimette, specially appearing for
Deputy Chief MacIntyre, who is also here.

MR. EISENBERG:
Sousa, who is present.
11:05:31
THE COURT:
Good morning.
12
MS. CLARK:
THE COURT:
15
MR. KLAYMAN:
17
18
Karen Clark, ethics
counsel for Tim Casey.
14
16
David
Eisenberg, specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Joseph
11
13
Anyone else present in the courtroom?

Yes, Your Honor, Larry Klayman.
11:05:43
submitted a pro hac vice application on Friday.

MR. GOMEZ:
Raphael Gomez.
My name is
I represent the United States.
19
THE COURT:
Please approach a microphone, Mr. Gomez.
20
MR. GOMEZ:
My name is
11:06:08
21
Raphael Gomez.
I'm an attorney with the Department of Justice
22
and I represent the United States.
23
the Court's status conference today addresses the subject of
24
review and -- copying and review of the documents, which I'll
25
refer to as the Montgomery documents, and if the Court had
Item number 4 addresses, of
11:06:34
RE 757
(818 of 1100)
questions, I'm available today.
That's why I am present.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. GOMEZ:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Anyone else?
All right.
Those who are on the telephone?
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
here appearing telephonically for the plaintiff.

THE COURT:
10
All right.
MS. KIMMINS:
Andre Segura and I are
Good morning.
Anyone else?
Lynnette
11
Kimmins and Rosaleen O'Gara, specially appearing nonparties
12
from the U.S. Attorney's Office.
13
MR. CASTILLO:
14
11:06:48
Cecillia Wang of
11:07:08
This is Jorge Castillo with MALDEF on
behalf of the plaintiff.
15
THE COURT:
Anyone else?
16
All right.
I do note the presence of the monitor and
11:07:24
17
the Monitoring Team in the jury box.
18
witness box.
19
review and investigation and they are present.
20
The monitor's in the
This is one of their weeks of regular quarterly
We have a number of items to take up that I ordered
11:07:44
21
for the status conference today.
Since that time, the parties
22
have filed motions to stay -- a motion to stay, which has been
23
fully briefed.
24
the pleadings and I'm prepared to rule and explain my reasons
25
therefor.
Nobody requested oral argument.
I've reviewed
I might have a question or two to the parties
11:08:06
RE 758
(819 of 1100)
regarding that motion to stay.
first.
I think we ought to rule on it
Basically, last week the movants -Now, Mr. Popolizio, are you and Mr. Masterson on
behalf of the -- I'm not taking oral argument on this but I
have a few questions.
are you here on behalf of the defendants?
Are you here on behalf of the movants or
MR. POPOLIZIO:
This is a joint motion for stay.
THE COURT:
I'm here on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
Well, wait a minute.
Are you here
10
representing the defendants or are you here trying to represent
11
Sheriff Arpaio separately?
12
MR. POPOLIZIO:
13
Sheridan is on this motion also.
14
THE COURT:
Today both, Your Honor.
I know.
Are you representing any of the
alleged non-party contemnors other than Sheriff Arpaio and
16
sheriff -- or Deputy Chief Sheridan?
18
19
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11:08:41
Jerry
15
17
11:08:27
11:08:53
Well, I represent the defendants
civilly, Your Honor.

THE COURT:
All right.
Then I'll note that you filed
20
last week a motion for stay, which basically said you disagreed
21
with my ruling on the motion to recuse -- not a big surprise --
22
and that you asked that I enter a stay based upon that
23
disagreement and the importance of the issue to this case.
24
didn't cite any legal authority, and you didn't say why this
25
met with the legal authority.
11:09:08
You
11:09:29
RE 759
(820 of 1100)
Plaintiffs, in their response, filed legal authority,
and you, in your reply, then apparently accepted that authority
and joined the argument.
Normally, of course, we don't consider replies,
arguments raised in reply that weren't raised in the motion,
and so I'm inclined not to consider yours, except for I do
think that it's an important issue in this case.
8
9
11:09:44
Number one, whether you have made a strong showing

that you're likely to prevail on the merits, with all due
10
respect, I entered a 40-page order.
11
that your motion is filed in good faith, I developed in great
12
detail why I think the motion does not have any merit, let
13
alone any likelihood of success.
14
your motion is brought in bad faith.
15
what the Ninth Circuit will do and I respect that and
16
acknowledge it, but I do not think that you've shown a strong
17
likelihood of success on the merits.
18
And while I appreciate
11:09:59
That doesn't mean I think

The Ninth Circuit can do
11:10:16
Number 2, whether the applicant will be irreparably
19
injured absent a stay.
Well, as you do note, in fairness, the
20
supplemental injunctive relief has been largely affirmed by the
21
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, 784 F.3d 1254.
22
have twice admitted to being in contempt of my order.
23
Arpaio has admitted to being in contempt in all three aspects
24
of the notice of contempt, and sheriff -- Deputy Chief Sheridan
25
has admitted to being in contempt of two of them.
11:10:34
Your clients
Sheriff
11:10:53
RE 760
(821 of 1100)
And the matters of interest, particularly pertaining
to the Montgomery investigation, which is the only thing that
we might go forward on in addition to the other things that
your client was supposed to provide but hasn't, which is what
required the continuation of the contempt hearing in the first
place, I think they're going to be of interest to whoever the
presiding judge is, whether it's me or whether it's another
judge.
course, the whole story hasn't been told, and I'm not assuming
11:11:07
The attitude and the documents revealed -- and of
10
that it has been told.
11
explanation for those documents and I haven't made any
12
decisions about them.
13
suggest is going to be worth exploration, and so I can't see
14
how your clients will be injured absent a stay.
I've invited your clients to provide an
11:11:25
But it does seem to me that what they
15
Whether the stay will substantially injure the other
16
parties in the litigation, Mr. Young has set forth that these
17
are constitutional violations identifying and compensating
18
members of the plaintiff class whose rights were deprived by
19
your client will be more difficult the longer this goes on.
20
think that's almost undeniable.
21
and certainly suggested that -- or at least there have been
22
facts which would suggest that your own client and the MCSO
23
have not taken adequate steps to deal with the Armendariz
24
investigation and matters that have been revealed as a result
25
thereto.
11:11:45
And it's certainly undeniable
11:12:02
11:12:22
RE 761
(822 of 1100)
I certainly agree with you that the public interest
does stand in favor of the impartiality of the judiciary, and
that that's an important consideration.
interest also stands in favor of not having judges be
manipulated in favor of going forth with proceedings that have
already been going on for years and bringing an end to
litigation.
But the public
So as I look at all those factors and as I analyze
Nken, which apparently you acknowledge is the correct
10
authority, your motion to stay is denied, and you may
11
proceed -- I would also note that you asked me to evaluate a
12
motion to stay based on a writ of mandamus that you haven't
13
filed yet.
14
evaluation, but based on the matters you put in your reply I've
15
given them substantive consideration.
16
17
11:12:44
11:13:00
It's very difficult for me to make such an
11:13:17
Is there anything else you wanted to say on that

matter?
18
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Just one thing, Your Honor.
I know
19
that you're not granting oral argument, but I just wanted to
20
bring to the Court's attention --
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11:13:27
Would you please approach the microphone?

I know Your Honor is not granting oral
23
argument.
You were clear on that, and I'm just going to bring
24
to the Court's attention that there was a case that I found
25
over the weekend, and that case's name is Fiore versus Apollo
11:13:42
RE 762
(823 of 1100)
Education Group.
very similar to this with a brother-in-law who was an equity
partner in another firm on a firm that was before Judge Wake.
It was Judge Wake's decision on a situation
And he did side with your analysis and he cited you as
authority, but in that decision that I did not know about on
Friday when we filed the reply, that's why I'm bringing this to
the Court's attention, he wrote the Advisory Committee with
regard to the Advisory Opinion No. 58, and the Committee came
back and stated that it was grounds for recusal.
10
I just wanted to bring that to the Court's attention
11
so that could become part of the record that I realize that
12
this case existed -- exists now, but did not on Friday.
13
11:14:04
THE COURT:
Well, I do think to some extent your
14
motion reflects a misunderstanding of my order.
15
dealt with this three years ago, I believe that my
16
determination was that my brother-in-law has no substantial
17
interest, based on the facts set forward.
18
cuts out the Advisory Committee Note, although I did note that
19
the Advisory Committee Note violates the rule.
20
legal authority, including the Pashaian case out of the Second
21
Circuit, says as much.
22
Back when we
11:14:39
And that sort of
And the better

11:14:59
I have not, by the way, said that you waived any
23
argument as it pertains to (b)(4), but as to (b)(1) you have
24
waived, and the authority is clear on that point.
25
11:14:24
I appreciate your providing me the supplemental
11:15:14
RE 763
(824 of 1100)
authority.
file any supplemental briefing, you can certainly do that.
I will tell you in advance that the advisory opinion and what
the Advisory Committee does on this point is not going to
change my mind about something that we ruled on three years
ago.
If you want to
But
11:15:30
But you can file a supplemental brief if you wish.
7
8
I didn't know about it, either.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
I understand that, Your Honor, and
thank you for that opportunity.
THE COURT:
10
All right.
Thank you.
The motion for definition of -- oh, I do expect -- the
11
Monitoring Team is here, and I have lifted the stay, and I
12
expect all of the defendants and all of the movants to fully
13
and completely comply with the document requests that have
14
already been made, those clear back in February that have not
15
yet been complied with, those made in May that have not yet
16
been complied with, and the investigative requests of the
17
monitor.
18
disciplinary action needs to be taken, but I don't anticipate
19
that that will be necessary.
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:15:41
11:16:01
And I will be available if enforcement or
Motion for definition of plaintiff class.
That was
11:16:18
your motion, I believe, was it not, Mr. Walker?

MR. WALKER:
Yes, Your Honor.
And with the Court's
permission, I'd like Mr. Jirauch to address that issue.

THE COURT:
this matter?
Has Mr. Jirauch entered an appearance in

11:16:40
RE 764
(825 of 1100)
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
I have, Your Honor.
All right.
Well, Mr. Jirauch, I would ask
you to address documents 480, 488, and 489 in your oral
argument.
you're not completely out at sea, because I realize that many
of you don't have much history in this case.
And I will tell you what those documents are so
Back in 2011, December of 2011, parties filed motions
for summary judgment, and before I heard summary judgment I
asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing, and the
10
supplemental briefing I asked them to address:
11
legal basis is there, if any, for MCSO to assert that it has
12
the authority going forward to enforce civil violations of the
13
federal immigration law?
14
11:16:53
What good faith
11:17:15
The plaintiffs put forth a brief which set forth the
15
law as it has since been reaffirmed that you had none, and even
16
your own client in his supplemental brief indicated that he had
17
none, and so I entered the preliminary injunction as it
18
pertained to your client's ability to attempt to enforce civil
19
violations of the federal immigration law even if they had
20
knowledge that somebody was in the country without
21
authorization if they didn't have any basis to charge the
22
person based on state law.
23
argued, to the extent that Ms. Iafrate or Mr. Masterson has
24
argued, that the class doesn't include those people, I want to
25
know why it doesn't.
11:17:33
11:17:54
So to the extent that you have
They clearly fall within the definition
11:18:12
RE 765
(826 of 1100)
of the plaintiff class.
So to the extent you're trying to say that I'm
expanding the plaintiff class, I'm not; to the extent that
you're asserting that in some way this was not an issue that
was anticipated by the evidence, well, summary judgment was
granted on this issue in 2011 before there ever was any
evidence.
8
9
11:18:28
So I guess I invite you to tell me how I am expanding,

or how -- and I haven't made any ruling on this point; I'm not
10
sure I have to make any ruling on this point -- but how I'm
11
expanding the plaintiff class.
12
MR. JIRAUCH:
11:18:44
Well, Your Honor, due process requires
13
that parties be given notice of the claims that are going to be
14
asserted against them.
15
THE COURT:
And you don't think I gave you notice
16
prior to ruling on --
17
MR. JIRAUCH:
18
THE COURT:
19
20
11:18:56
Well, Your Honor, I --
-- summary judgment allowing supplemental
briefing?
MR. JIRAUCH:
-- I wasn't there, so I can't comment on
21
what happened.
22
into it in the last 60 to 90 days neither I nor Mr. Walker had
23
familiarity with and we're just learning it.
24
the pleadings in the case, based upon the evidence at trial,
25
and based upon the ruling that Your Honor made, they're all in
11:19:01
There is so much in this case that just getting
But based upon
11:19:15
RE 766
(827 of 1100)
1
2
the context of stops.

The language of the class definition refers to people
who are driving or sitting in a vehicle.
is reference to the passenger in a car; otherwise, it makes no
sense in the context of a traffic stop.
"Sitting" obviously
11:19:36
The detention itself refers, I believe, in the context
of the evidence that was presented at the trial, refers to a
detention that occurs as a consequence of a pretextual stop
that's discriminating in nature.
10
THE COURT:
The stops that occur --
Are you arguing for an exception that
11
would swallow the whole class?
12
MR. JIRAUCH:
13
THE COURT:
11:19:57
I'm sorry, Your Honor?
Are you arguing for an exception that
14
would swallow the whole class?
15
MR. JIRAUCH:
No, Your Honor.
We're only trying to
11:20:07
16
say that as to people who are detained as a consequence of work
17
force enforcement actions they are not pretextual in nature,
18
first; they are as a consequence of search warrants and arrest
19
warrants that are issued by the judiciary, the state courts;
20
they are the consequence of having detained someone who is
21
Latino, and believed possibly to be in the country illegally;
22
the Sheriff's Office policy was, insofar as we know, was
23
enforced in all cases but possibly one, that they would talk
24
with ICE or the Border Patrol and inquire as to the individual
25
and whether they were in the United States illegally.
11:20:24
11:20:44
RE 767
(828 of 1100)
Only when ICE or the Border Patrol did a search of the
federal database and came back and advised the Sheriff's Office
that these individuals were in the United States illegally were
they retained at the request of ICE and the Border Patrol.
no time did the Sheriff's Office exercise independent decision
making --
THE COURT:
says that that was Sheriff Arpaio's policy, in his own press
release, that the detention was a result of his policy?

MR. JIRAUCH:
Well, the facts are and the evidence
11:21:17
11
that developed -- all I can talk to is what the evidence was in
12
the United States versus Arpaio, because that case I have been
13
involved in for some period of time and I have familiarity with
14
it.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. JIRAUCH:
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. JIRAUCH:
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. JIRAUCH:
21
22
23
11:21:06
What about all the evidence I have that
10
At
Which case is that?
11:21:32
Pardon?
Which case is that, the -That's --
-- one in front of Judge Silver?

That's the one that's before Judge
11:21:37
Silver.
THE COURT:
Well, what doesn't -- I mean, with all due
respect, you might have knowledge about that; I don't.
24
MR. JIRAUCH:
25
THE COURT:
I understand that.
But I do understand that Judge Silver has
11:21:42
RE 768
(829 of 1100)
adopted all of the rulings that I made in this case in that
case, has she not?
3
4
MR. JIRAUCH:
I believe not as to work force
enforcement.
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
Yeah, there is no issue --
11:21:51
Right.
-- pertaining to that, except to the
extent that you might have detained them in motor vehicles
afterwards.
10
MR. JIRAUCH:
11
THE COURT:
12
13
That's right.
11:22:02
I don't presume that she otherwise did
that, so what's your point?

MR. JIRAUCH:
I was trying to respond to Your Honor's
14
comment that Judge Silver had adopted all the rulings here, and
15
I understood that --
11:22:12
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. JIRAUCH:
18
Oh, okay.
-- that was not the case as to the work
force enforcement proceedings, so that was my only point.
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
20
MR. JIRAUCH:
The other issue I'd like to make, Your
21
Honor, is the plaintiffs don't contest the issues.
22
raise the one that Your Honor now has raised, and so -- in
23
their briefing, so we're not prepared to respond to that.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. JIRAUCH:
11:22:19
They didn't
Which issue?
The issue that there was summary
11:22:34
RE 769
(830 of 1100)
judgment --
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
Oh --- given on the basis of --
-- on the 480, 489, 488 -Right, I --
11:22:39
That's fine, because I guess I'm going to
have a question for the plaintiffs now, if you're through,
which is:
long as you get the discovery you're looking for?
10
11
12
Why do I have to rule on this one way or another as
MS. IAFRATE:
clarification.
Mr. Young?
Your Honor, just a point of
11:22:50
I also filed the motion regarding this issue.
THE COURT:
You know, it wasn't logged as a motion.
13
viewed it as a joinder.
14
But it wasn't logged as a motion and wasn't cited as a motion.
I did see that you filed something.
15
Did you want to address something, Ms. Iafrate?
16
MS. IAFRATE:
17
THE COURT:
I would, Your Honor.
All right.
18
questions I asked Mr. Jirauch?
19
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
22
Do you want to address the
Yes, in part.
Okay.
11:23:13
I will not reiterate what was already
discussed.
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. IAFRATE:
25
11:23:04
All right.
Your Honor, in my motion, or whatever
it's called, I discuss the elements of 23(b).
I'm not going to
11:23:24
RE 770
(831 of 1100)
reiterate all of those.
questions that you asked regarding Mr. Jirauch deal with what
authority did Sheriff Arpaio have to enforce immigration laws,
and that is a case that I have pending in another court -- it's
actually next door in Judge Campbell's court -- and it deals
with Puente v. Arizona.
7
8
THE COURT:
The
11:23:49
There's --
Well, again, I'm talking only about this
case.
MS. IAFRATE:
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
I know that you have read it.
I understand, Your Honor --
What I'm doing is --
11:23:58
-- but you wanted to know what
authority.
13
THE COURT:
-- addressing the argument that I believe
14
you made that this was never an issue when I certified the
15
class.
16
asked for supplemental briefing before I certified the class.
17
It clearly was an issue because I asked about it, and I
11:24:04
And then when I certified the class -- and this was
18
also in the motion for summary judgment -- I asked for this as
19
it particularly pertained for the motion for summary judgment
20
and if -- unless I misread it, plaintiffs clearly said you had
21
no authority, and I think you conceded that you had no
22
authority under the state of the existing law to detain persons
23
without authorization based only on the belief that they'd
24
violated civil immigration law.
25
in this case at that time --
11:24:21
So that was very much an issue

11:24:37
RE 771
(832 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, even --
-- and that's why I asked the question.

I understand, Your Honor.
Even
plaintiffs didn't realize that it was an issue in this case
because they subsequently filed Puente v. Arizona that deals
with 13-2008 and 13-2009, which is the identity theft statutes
that Sheriff Arpaio had authority in order to investigate based
on valid search warrants at the workplace locations.
11:24:45
So in response to your question to Mr. Jirauch, that
10
was the authority that was being relied on, and subsequent to
11
your motion for summary judgment ruling, subsequent to your
12
certification of the class, the recertification of the class,
13
plaintiffs themselves, the ACLU, filed that lawsuit because
14
they did not believe that those individuals were subject to
15
this class action.
16
THE COURT:
11:25:24
All right.
Well, I'll ask plaintiffs
17
about that, and I don't know to what extent you want me to take
18
judicial notice of issues that are involved there in some sort
19
of a complex argument, but let me ask you this, Ms. Iafrate.
20
11:25:07
A lot of this related to plaintiffs' request that they
21
receive the identifications which I think, as I recall,
22
Lieutenant Jakowinicz testified that he had made the
23
enumerations not only of people they turned over to Border
24
Patrol that had resulted from their own operations, HSU's
25
operations in terms of -- oh, I don't know what the word would
11:25:39
11:26:01
RE 772
(833 of 1100)
be, but traffic stops; and they'd also made the enumeration of
persons that had been turned over to Border Patrol but not
charged as a result of workplace enforcement raids that had
been in motor vehicles.
Plaintiffs asked for that information as a matter of
discovery, and whether or not Maricopa County is going to be on
the hook for violating workplace raid detentions folks that
were subsequently taken to Border Patrol, I did order that it
was relevant and should be provided.
10
Have you provided that information to plaintiffs?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
THE COURT:
All right.
Is there any reason why at
this point I have to rule one way or another on Mr. Walker's
14
motion and your motion?
16
17
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor.
To define the class
11:26:40
and to -THE COURT:
Well, the class has already been defined a
18
long time ago.
19
workplace enforcement members of the class, and why should I
20
rule on that before I've heard the evidence?
21
11:26:30
I do not believe I have, Your Honor.
13
15
11:26:15
The question is:
MS. IAFRATE:
Are folks involved in
11:26:56
That's exactly the point, Your Honor.
22
No evidence was ever heard regarding this subset that we're now
23
referring to.
24
THE COURT:
25
round of a hearing.
By all means, we've got a whole second

Do you want to present evidence on that
11:27:06
RE 773
(834 of 1100)
case?
MS. IAFRATE:
I do not, Your Honor, because I want
that to be addressed in the case that's more fully set forth in
Judge Campbell's court next door.
THE COURT:
Well, you can make whatever motions you
want to make, but in the meantime you need to provide that
discovery.
8
9
11:27:16
Anything else?
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, the reason that I did not
provide that previously, first of all, this issue needed to be
10
presented.
We did not file a reply and then the stay was put
11
in place.
So that's the reason that we have not provided it to
12
the plaintiffs.
13
11:27:31
I can tell you that during the time where I believed
14
that there was a full stay in place we continued to gather
15
documents and prepare them to be processed, so they will be
16
processed expeditiously.
17
THE COURT:
18
Mr. Jirauch?
19
MR. JIRAUCH:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. JIRAUCH:
11:27:48
Thank you.
Your Honor, I can --
Can I get you to a microphone, please?
11:27:57
Your Honor, I'm hesitant to begin
22
talking about the record in this case since there's a very
23
little part of it that I'm intimately familiar with.
24
look at Your Honor's order with respect to the class
25
definition, and it was -- it was entered pursuant to Rule
But I did
11:28:16
RE 774
(835 of 1100)
23(b)(2), which is related only to injunctive and declaratory
relief, not damages.
What clearly is happening --
THE COURT:
Well, I think that there is a point there,
which was what I was just about to ask Mr. Young, and which is
why I'm reluctant to rule now to determine one way or another,
and that is simply this.
8
9
It seems to me that your client is in contempt -- he's

already admitted he's in contempt; there were all kinds of
10
enforcement operations -- and people are entitled to
11
compensation as a result of contempt, they're not entitled to
12
damages as a result of contemptuous behavior.
13
to me that I have to decide what's the difference between
14
compensation because your client violated their constitutional
15
rights and damages because your clients violated their
16
constitutional rights.
17
11:28:44
And so it seems
11:29:06
I'm not sure, for the reasons I've just said to
18
Ms. Iafrate and to you, I have to make that determination right
19
now.
20
are relevant, at least for purposes of discovery, and that's
21
why I've ordered Ms. Iafrate to disclose them.
But I am pretty sure that the identities of those folks
22
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
23
MR. JIRAUCH:
24
25
11:28:28
11:29:21
Yes, Your Honor, I fully understand.
Fully understand.
Could I make one correction?
11:29:32
RE 775
(836 of 1100)
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
Sure.
client, the sheriff.
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
10
11
12
I believe Your Honor said that my
Oh, you're right; you're Maricopa County.

And so I don't want to, by my silence --
Well, let me just say --- suggest --
You know, we'll -Not that I would have objection to that,
but it's -THE COURT:
11:29:45
I'm sorry.
I understand that you are
Maricopa County.
13
MR. JIRAUCH:
14
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
But it seems to me that Maricopa County
15
requested the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling and it
16
didn't do it, so you're on the hook for whatever Sheriff Arpaio
17
may have done that's wrong.
18
Do you contest that?
19
MR. JIRAUCH:
20
21
22
23
11:29:45
11:29:51
We may, Your Honor, but at this point
I'm certainly not prepared to argue that issue.

THE COURT:
11:30:02
And if you're going to contest that, where
are you going to contest it, the United States Supreme Court?
MR. JIRAUCH:
I don't know the answer to that at this
24
point, Your Honor, but that's certainly an issue that will be
25
considered.
11:30:16
RE 776
(837 of 1100)
THE COURT:
All right.
But it's my understanding, and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the mandate did issue by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
It did.
And so I'm bound by what -- the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
10
THE COURT:
11:30:23
I agree with that.
All right.
Thank you.
You're welcome, Your Honor.
Mr. Young, I don't know if you were going
11
to argue this or Mr. Bendor was, but here's my question.
12
mean, I'm not sure that, for reasons I've already said, that I
13
have to rule one way or another on this issue at this point.
14
But I will tell you that when it gets down to it, it seems to
15
me that the case law requires me to differentiate between
16
compensation and damages when I'm talking about -- when I'm
17
dealing with the results of a civil contempt.
18
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
19
MR. YOUNG:
11:30:45
Your Honor, Rule 71 of the Federal Rules
20
of Civil Procedure does give this Court the power and does give
21
people who were injured by the violation of the injunction the
22
ability to compensate for and deal with the consequences of
23
that violation.
24
25
11:30:31
11:30:58
And as to Your Honor's question, I don't think you

need to rule anything now at this point about the class
11:31:14
RE 777
(838 of 1100)
definition.
ruled on, the class definition says what it says, and as long
as Your Honor has ruled on the discovery issue, that's really
the only thing that needs to be ruled on at this point.
I understand it, Your Honor has ruled that the discovery on the
workplace raid people, and we're going to talk about other
issues that go outside the narrow group of people that the
plaintiffs want -- that the defendants want to produce evidence
on, as long as those discovery issues are resolved, I think the
That was done a long time ago, it's already been
10
issues of compensation remain to be determined after the
11
further hearing that Your Honor is going to set.
12
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
And as
11:31:50
I have ruled on
13
the discovery issue, and as I understand what Ms. Iafrate told
14
me, she has compiled and collected those documents and is ready
15
to provide them, now that I've lifted the stay.
11:32:08
16
Mr. Jirauch.
Can you grab a microphone, please?
17
MR. JIRAUCH:
I'd like to say something very quickly.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. JIRAUCH:
Sure.
I do want to respond to the argument
20
with respect to Rule 71.
21
that allows the Court to enter.
22
23
24
25
THE COURT:
11:31:33
It is simply a procedural mechanism
All right.
11:32:23
It's not a basis -I'm not going to make any
rulings on 71 until later.

MR. JIRAUCH:
like to make.
I do have a more substantive point I'd

11:32:36
RE 778
(839 of 1100)
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
All right.
This is being presented on the part of
people who are not parties to this action, people who -- these
are not members of a class.
law --
They are not plaintiffs in this

11:32:45
THE COURT:
they're members of the class?
Doesn't that remain to be seen, whether
MR. JIRAUCH:
members of the class.
10
THE COURT:
At this point in time they are not
Why?
Weren't they transported in a motor
11
vehicle within Maricopa County and they were detained in a
12
motor vehicle?
13
MR. JIRAUCH:
Your Honor, we've presented our
14
arguments why we believe that the definition that you've just
15
cited doesn't cover people under these circumstances where the
16
evidence will show that the only reason that they were
17
transported is that they were instructed by ICE to do so on the
18
basis of their reviewing the federal database, with one
19
exception.
20
21
11:33:01
And that doesn't fall within --
THE COURT:
Do you think that ICE can countermand an
order of this Court?
11:33:17
Is that what --
22
MR. JIRAUCH:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. JIRAUCH:
25
11:32:51
No.
-- you're saying?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
I'm
saying that Your Honor's order is given in the context of
11:33:24
RE 779
(840 of 1100)
pretextual traffic stops.
stop.
It is also based upon the decision to --
3
4
This is not a pretextual traffic
THE COURT:
I've already heard all of this, with all
due --
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
Oh.
11:33:40
-- respect, Mr. Jirauch.

Okay, Your Honor.
What's your point?

I've made my point.
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. JIRAUCH:
12
THE COURT:
13
Ms. Iafrate, I think this is you, although you might
14
Thank you.
11:33:45
Thank you.
Motion to compel.
turn it over to Mr. Masterson.
15
16
All right.
You did file a response on 543 and said that was
11:33:55
complete and no discipline was imposed, is that correct?
17
When I say "543," I'm referring to your internal
18
investigation number.
19
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
I understand.
And in May you filed a response to
21
plaintiffs' motion to compel in which you said 543 was
22
complete.
23
MS. IAFRATE:
24
THE COURT:
25
imposed, nobody has appealed.
11:34:14
Yes.
And I assume, since no discipline was

11:34:25
RE 780
(841 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
That's correct.
And a copy has been provided to all
parties?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Yes.
And that is the case in which, though your
independent investigator, Mr. Vogel, recommended or found
violations, Captain Olson, for some reason, found that no
discipline was appropriate?
MS. IAFRATE:
10
THE COURT:
No major discipline, correct.
All right.
Chief Warshaw, it was --
11:34:50
11
pursuant to the November order, I assigned you to investigate
12
and evaluate self-investigations done by the MCSO.
13
14
Have you had a chance to undertake 540- -- their

self-evaluation of 543 at this point?
15
CHIEF WARSHAW:
We have taken a look at 543, Your
16
Honor.
17
we've not made any inquiry of the MCSO regarding people with
18
whom we'd like to speak to, specifically Chief Olson.
19
final report regarding our evaluation of 543 is not yet
20
complete.
21
So our
11:35:35
As it pertains to 542, while we have some information,

at least as we understand it from representatives of the
23
County, that investigation is not fully completed.
25
11:35:10
Due to the hiatus in actions of the Court recently,
22
24
11:34:31
THE COURT:
Did 542 appeal?
issue I need to rule on?
Is that going to be an
11:35:57
RE 781
(842 of 1100)
1
2
MS. IAFRATE:
542 is the one, I believe, that deals
with Mr. Armendariz.
No.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Excuse me.
542 has been completed, Your Honor.
And has not been provided?

Correct, because there was major
11:36:12
discipline in that one, and the appeal time has run, and so it
will be provided.
8
9
THE COURT:
All right.
investigation --
10
CHIEF WARSHAW:
11
THE COURT:
12
So I assume you'll do an
We will, Your Honor.
11:36:22
-- or an evaluation of the
542 investigation.
13
CHIEF WARSHAW:
Yes, we will.
And we will be making
14
contact with representatives of MCSO so we can speak with
15
certain individuals to make our evaluation of those two
16
investigations comprehensible.
17
18
THE COURT:
11:36:33
And I understand that one of those people
will be Captain Olson you need to --
19
CHIEF WARSHAW:
Will be Chief Olson.
We are certainly
20
concerned about the disparity between the ultimate findings,
21
certainly, in 543, as opposed to the preliminary findings, yes.
22
23
THE COURT:
All right.
11:36:48
Is Chief Olson available this
week?
24
MS. IAFRATE:
25
THE COURT:
May I have a moment?
If he's not --
11:37:02
RE 782
(843 of 1100)
MS. IAFRATE:
I can usually get ahold of him, but this
wasn't anticipated or on the agenda, so I will check on his
availability and let the monitors know today.
THE COURT:
Well, as it -- thank you.
As it relates to the other topic of the motion to
11:37:13
compel, one was 542.
investigations, as long as we're on them, that Vogel was going
to complete and then he declined to complete and you had to
complete on your own.
10
MS. IAFRATE:
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
head.
One was 543.
Are those complete?

Yes.
11:37:31
What numbers are those?

I'm sorry, Your Honor.
-- have those numbers off the top of my
There are so many.

THE COURT:
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
11:37:37
That's all right.
They're completed?
They are.
And have they been provided to the monitor
and to the plaintiffs, and to the other parties?
20
MS. IAFRATE:
I believe that they have, because they
21
were done expeditiously to beat the deadline.
22
they were provided prior to the stay.
23
THE COURT:
24
CHIEF WARSHAW:
25
I don't --
Know what they are?
16
19
There were two other
at least.
11:37:44
I believe that
Do you know one way or another?

Chief Kiyler indicates she believes,
11:37:55
RE 783
(844 of 1100)
CHIEF KIYLER:
I'm not sure on the second one.
3
4
THE COURT:
I know one has been provided for sure.
Can you contact Ms. Iafrate and confirm
whether or not we need any other investigations?
CHIEF KIYLER:
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, sir.
11:38:16
We're going to see each other right
after this regarding PSB, so we will definitely work together
to make certain that they do have all of them.
THE COURT:
10
compel had to do --
11
MR. SEGURA:
Then the third topic on the motion to

11:38:27
Your Honor, this is Andre Segura.
12
for the interruption.
13
permission, over the phone.
14
15
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
Well, you can address it when I call on

11:38:37
Just to circle back before you read the
first category, I want to clarify one thing.
18
19
I had planned to address this, with your
you, Mr. Segura.
16
17
Sorry
THE COURT:
on you.
Mr. Segura, you can address it when I call
Thank you.
20
MR. SEGURA:
21
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
11:38:48
With respect to the third object of the
22
plaintiffs' class, it had to do with, I believe, internal
23
investigations that involved racial discrimination, and you'd
24
objected to the overbreadth.
25
is on that.
Let me tell you what my concern

11:39:11
RE 784
(845 of 1100)
I agree that it's overbroad to the extent it might
apply to races other than those involved in the plaintiff
class: Latino, Hispanic, and otherwise.
you suggest that the plaintiffs are only entitled to 2014
forward, I disagree, because one of the purposes of this
hearing is to figure out what appropriate remedial action is
appropriate in light of all of the material that existed that
was not provided to the plaintiff class prior to the underlying
lawsuit.
10
But to the extent that
11:39:25
And if in fact that material suggests, as I think much
11
of it does, that there was a lack in internal investigation,
12
discipline, and complaint, one of the things I'm going to have
13
to do is figure out what remedial action is.
14
me that to the extent that you have complaints involving
15
discrimination of members of the plaintiff class from 2008
16
forward, that is relevant to that consideration.
11:39:40
And it seems to
17
So I'll allow you to address that, Ms. Iafrate.
18
MS. IAFRATE:
11:39:58
Well, Your Honor, the overbreadth also
19
deals with the type of complaint.
20
detention file grievances and --
So, for example, people in

11:40:19
21
THE COURT:
You mean like in jail?
22
MS. IAFRATE:
23
THE COURT:
24
Do you want to narrow that any, Mr. Segura?
25
MR. JIRAUCH:
Yes.
Holding in jail?
I'm sorry.
Your Honor?
11:40:30
RE 785
(846 of 1100)
1
2
MR. SEGURA:
Yes, we're -- we're agreeable to that, to
misconduct that occurs within the jails.
One concern that we do have is that we do know that
detention officers have also participated in patrol activities,
so as long as that, those investigations would also be
encompassed, that we would be amenable to excluding any
investigation of misconduct occurring solely within an MCSO
jail.
THE COURT:
10
11
11:40:43
Does that help?
MS. IAFRATE:
It helps, but I have a little bit
11:41:00
further --
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. IAFRATE:
Okay.
-- Your Honor.
Well, we'll take them one at a time.

That's fine.
Your Honor, the rationale
16
behind my objection dealt with the mandate that -- well, the
17
potential mandate that has now been issued regarding tailoring
18
things narrowly to address the constitutional violations.
19
11:41:05
The way that I read the request, it was overbroad
20
dealing not only with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, not
21
just the Hispanic race, and not just as it relates to traffic
22
enforcement, but the fact that they were doing a catch-all to
23
try to -- not try, that could potentially allow all IAs to be
24
reviewed, which I do not think satisfies the mandate of the
25
Court.
11:41:22
11:41:44
RE 786
(847 of 1100)
And in fact, the reason that I suggested that it start
at 2014 was because that was the time when Your Honor -- I know
that you don't like the word "expanded" -- but expanded the
monitor's abilities and powers to deal with IAs, which was
never part of this litigation or the OSC.
an issue in this Court's eyes in 2014.
pursuant to the narrow mandate that has been issued, I would
argue that this exceeds the authority of this Court.
THE COURT:
It started becoming
And so that's why,
Well, I'd just point out -- to the extent
10
I understand what you just said, and I want to clarify it --
11
that in 2014 that expanded mandate, if that's what you want to
12
call it, was issued with your full cooperation and opportunity
13
for input.
14
time, you did or didn't make, but you'll recall that I put
15
forward an order, suggested order, I allowed -- and I said
16
we'll operate under this but I'll allow you to make suggestions
17
and revisions.
18
11:42:06
11:42:30
Whatever objections you made or didn't make at the
You did.
11:42:46
I incorporated those suggestions.
And it resulted from finding out that your client had
19
never implemented my preliminary injunction, and it resulted at
20
the same time finding documents that related to Captain Bailey
21
that apparently were put into property under a destruction
22
order, and it also resulted from other concerns related to
23
conflicts of interest in internal investigations.
24
you that all of those things are pretty unusual, but they do
25
require some sort of action to address them, and that's how we
11:43:04
And I grant
11:43:25
RE 787
(848 of 1100)
address them.
And so to the extent that I understand your objection,
I certainly don't have any problem to the extent that you say
that plaintiffs are not entitled to all IAs; I agree they are
not.
involve allegations of racial discrimination against any member
of the plaintiff class from 2008 forward.
But I think they are entitled to all IAs that would
Do you have any problem with that?
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor, if I may just make one
10
more point.
11
One of the reasons, or rationales that you provided was that
12
the mandate had not yet issued.
13
11:43:43
In 2014 I did object regarding this expansion.
THE COURT:
11:43:55
Well, one of the last items I've added to
14
the agenda that I didn't put on the order because the mandate
15
had only issued the day before --
16
MS. IAFRATE:
17
THE COURT:
11:44:15
Right.
-- I'll allow both parties to suggest what
18
is appropriate -- an appropriate revision to the supplemental
19
injunctive relief in light of the mandate.
20
Ninth Circuit's order, it is that the power to look at internal
21
investigations ought to have relation to the plaintiff class.
22
MS. IAFRATE:
23
THE COURT:
But as I read the

11:44:25
Correct.
And I fully intend to implement that
24
order, both formally and informally.
Before I issue any
25
change, I'll allow you to make suggested comments and I'll
11:44:41
RE 788
(849 of 1100)
allow the plaintiffs to do the same.
But it certainly seems to me that because the
plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in 2007 and the request is only
from information from 2008 forward, and I've just limited it to
members of the Hispanic or Latino culture or race, I've just
taken away your objection, have I not?
MS. IAFRATE:
11:44:59
Well, Your Honor, I guess that as I'm
standing up here and we're changing ever so slightly -- to my
benefit, I understand -- the discovery request, I would ask
10
that either in your order regarding the status conference or
11
plaintiffs provide the language that I am to follow in doing
12
this discovery request so I don't have to guess and guess
13
wrong.
14
THE COURT:
15
Will you please provide that update, Mr. Segura?
16
MR. SEGURA:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:45:19
That's fine.
11:45:33
Yes, and we're happy to -- to meet and
confer on this issue.

THE COURT:
All right.
Is there anything else you
wanted to say on this point, Mr. Segura?

MR. SEGURA:
No, not on the -- on this category of
11:45:44
documents.
THE COURT:
All right.
Was there anything else in
your motion to compel that I haven't addressed?

MR. SEGURA:
Yes, Your Honor.
In our -- the first
category, documents relating to the four investigations
11:45:54
RE 789
(850 of 1100)
originally assigned to Mr. Vogel, we had also asked for all
versions or drafts of the reports, including e-mail
communications or other communications regarding that
investigation.
our understanding that at least one report by Mr. Vogel was
forwarded to MCSO and then returned with comments prior to its
completion, so we are interested in that information.
This was in that footnote to our motion.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
It's
11:46:18
Any problem with that, Ms. Iafrate?

As long as I can get the cooperation of
10
the investigator, because he does not work for MCSO, he was
11
contracted, so I will make that request.
12
THE COURT:
13
Anything else, Mr. Segura?
14
MR. SEGURA:
15
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
No, Your Honor.

All right.
11:46:43
Thank you.
Do we have any remaining
11:46:55
16
outstanding internal investigations that arose from Armendariz,
17
the Armendariz-Cisco Perez allegations within the MCSO?
18
MS. IAFRATE:
19
THE COURT:
20
MS. IAFRATE:
One, Your Honor.
Which is?
It's 221, and that's the comprehensive
21
Armendariz investigation.
22
review.
23
binders.
24
completed.
25
except for his supervision, which was subject to another IA.
11:47:09
It has been completed but it's on
It took over 25 people to work on it.
It's 27
It's very, very voluminous, but it has been

This encompasses everything regarding Armendariz
11:47:37
RE 790
(851 of 1100)
1
2
THE COURT:
All right.
completed, you'll provide it to the parties?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Correct.
Do you have an estimated date for me?

I do not, Your Honor.
status conference?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you.
DOJ's request to examine and copy the database of
11
documents given by Montgomery.
12
the Department of Justice here.
13
and tell us what your request is.
14
11:47:47
Can you have one by the time of our next
10
And as soon as that's
MR. GOMEZ:
11:47:59
We had a representative from

Do you want to come forward
Yes, Your Honor.
I believe on May 8th the
15
16
17
States; actually, the CIA general counsel's office.
18
19
20
21
22
23
I'll refer to as the Montgomery documents were either documents
24
of the United States or documents that -- implied -- were
25
classified or sensitive.
11:48:25
At that
11:48:46
11:49:15
RE 791
(852 of 1100)
Pursuant to that, the United States attempted to make
a -- or contacted the defendants' counsel to see if we can make
arrangements to copy and examine those documents to determine
whether they're classified or sensitive or otherwise the
property of the United States.
agreement, I guess, with the defendants' counsel, and we
contacted the Court-appointed monitor, Mr. Warshaw, and made
that request to him.
We were unable to reach an
11:49:38
10
documents in the Montgomery files that are in fact classified
11
or sensitive, but there is a representation that there were
12
13
Pursuant to Mr. Warshaw and our discussion, we were
14
able to make -- reach an agreement that we would copy the
15
documents under the supervision of the Court-appointed monitor.
16
Essentially, we would -- I believe there are two Banker Boxes
17
of documents, and a hard drive that contains something like
18
200-some megabytes.
19
11:50:24
We would take and copy them at the FBI office and then
20
here in Phoenix, with court-appointed security officers from
21
Washington, who would take custody of the documents, and then
22
we would examine those documents in Washington.
23
11:49:59
11:50:45
And at that point, I believe there was a motion --
24
there was notification to the parties, there was a motion for
25
recusal, and it was -- that was suspended and --
11:51:04
RE 792
(853 of 1100)
THE COURT:
If I authorize you to receive such
documents for your examination, I assume that you would have no
objection if I order you not to disclose any of those documents
to any third party without further order of this Court.
MR. GOMEZ:
We would be
prepared to do that.
classified or sensitive information, we -- the review would be
conducted by the United States.
that may have to review it.
However, if the documents contained
There may be various entities
We would have a central -- or
10
central entities that would conduct the review at its -- at the
11
beginning.
12
entities as part of the United States, then I assume that that
13
prohibition wouldn't preclude that kind of review.
14
THE COURT:
It doesn't prohibit agents of the United
States reviewing the documents; it does prohibit any
16
dissemination to any third party.
18
11:51:45
If there was a need to contact other government
15
17
11:51:25
MR. GOMEZ:
11:52:05
The United States has no objection to
that, Your Honor.
19
THE COURT:
All right.
Any party object?
20
MS. IAFRATE:
21
THE COURT:
You may.
22
MR. GOMEZ:
Oh, one point, Your Honor.
May I be heard, Your Honor?
11:52:19
If we are
23
authorized to conduct the review, I would request the Court's
24
permission to either meet with the Court-appointed monitor,
25
Mr. Warshaw, today, or its designee, to make the arrangements.
11:52:33
RE 793
(854 of 1100)
Thank you.
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
All right.
Your Honor, I kept you abreast of this
situation when it was unfolding.
letter to the CIA, which I did do and noticed the Court.
You had ordered me to write a
I then received a call from people that I did not know
that said that they were the United States and they were
entitled to those documents.
permission of the CIA and they said no, but they were the
10
11
11:52:50
I inquired whether they had the
United States and they were entitled to them.
11:53:06
I did not feel comfortable giving documents -- I
12
objected, based on that rationale, that if these are indeed CIA
13
documents, then the CIA needs to be the one to say whether they
14
can be disclosed or not.
15
The other thing, Your Honor, that we discussed
11:53:22
16
previously, and it's your document 1086, was a procedure that
17
the monitor and I were going to perform in order to protect
18
some private information.
19
the Monitor Team and I never got around to performing that
20
procedure that would protect some of these people's bank
21
accounts, Social Security numbers, things of that nature.
22
in fact, plaintiffs have some of these documents which you
23
told, You may look at, but please don't do anything with them
24
until we go through that procedure.
25
Because the stay was implemented,
11:53:47
And
I would ask that if you were inclined to allow the
11:54:03
RE 794
(855 of 1100)
U.S. Attorney's Office to review these, that we would first be
allowed to go through that procedure for the sake of these
individuals' privacy interests.
THE COURT:
Well, the United States would be subject
to the same protective order that plaintiffs are subject to;
they wouldn't be able to disclose any of that information
pending their review.
MS. IAFRATE:
in document 1086 --
11
THE COURT:
13
It is my understanding that despite
that, we would still perform that procedure that you requested
10
12
11:54:19
11:54:35
Have you taken any steps to do that in the
two months between the middle of May and now?

MS. IAFRATE:
Well, actually, Your Honor, the document
14
says that the monitor was to coordinate and contact me, so, no,
15
we have not done anything in order to perform that.
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. KLAYMAN:
All right.
11:54:48
Any other objections?
No, Your Honor.
Anybody else wish to be heard?

Your Honor, I don't know if you'll allow
20
me to be heard on my pro hac vice application, Mr. Klayman.
21
represent Mr. Montgomery.
22
THE COURT:
11:54:58
Well, let me tell you, Mr. Klayman, I did
23
receive your pro hac vice -- I don't know whether it's "vise"
24
or "veechay" application -- just before I took the bench.
25
don't know whether you filed it Friday night or sometime today,
I
11:55:13
RE 795
(856 of 1100)
but I didn't get it till just now.
I have a couple of concerns.
I have the concern that
you have the same conflicts that Mr. Moseley was subject to as
it pertains to your client, Mr. Montgomery, and the testimony
that we've already received from your client, Sheriff Arpaio,
and Chief Deputy Sheridan that I had outlined in denying his
admission pro hac vice.
those same objections.
It seems to me like you're subject to
It also seems to me, and I don't want to be
10
precipitous on this, but some of the documents that have since
11
been disclosed raise at least the possibility that you yourself
12
might be a witness in this action, and so I'm a little
13
concerned to grant your admission pro hac vice without at least
14
allowing the other parties to be heard on it.
15
To the extent that you want to speak on behalf of
16
Mr. Montgomery, I will briefly allow you to do so as long as
17
you keep within the confines of ethics and propriety.
18
19
MR. KLAYMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
11:55:44
11:56:03
May I address the
Bench --
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. KLAYMAN:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. KLAYMAN:
24
Let me deal with the issues that Your Honor raised
25
11:55:28
first.
You may.
11:56:17
-- from the lectern?
You may.
Thank you.
11:56:27
RE 796
(857 of 1100)
THE COURT:
No.
You don't need to deal with them.
We're not going to address them now.
other parties --
MR. KLAYMAN:
THE COURT:
Well -- okay.
I'm going to allow the
That's fine.
You can talk to whether or not I allow the
Department of Justice to review the materials under seal that
Maricopa County has indicated that your client provided to them
indicating that it was material that he had taken from Central
Intelligence Agency as a result of their harvesting of
10
documents.
11
12
13
14
15
11:56:57
MR. KLAYMAN:
Let me explain why I want to come in pro
hac vice.
THE COURT:
No.
You can address what I've just told
you you can address.

MR. KLAYMAN:
Mr. Montgomery obviously opposes that
11:57:01
16
until such time as our appeal is heard by the Ninth Circuit.
17
We've appealed Your Honor not allowing us to intervene, and the
18
reason for that --
19
20
THE COURT:
I didn't rule on your motion to intervene,
because I didn't allow --
21
MR. KLAYMAN:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. KLAYMAN:
24
THE COURT:
25
11:56:35
11:57:14
Correct.
-- Mr. Moseley to appear.

And that's the re --
Your client can hire any other attorney
that doesn't present the conflict that you and Mr. Moseley do.
11:57:20
RE 797
(858 of 1100)
1
2
MR. KLAYMAN:
have a conflict.
3
4
We submit, Your Honor, that we don't
THE COURT:
All right.
Then I don't want to hear
that.
MR. KLAYMAN:
THE COURT:
Did you provide your motion for admittance
8
9
10
11
12
13
All right.
11:57:30
I will hear it in due course when --
pro hac vice to the other -- all the other -MR. KLAYMAN:
We did, Your Honor.
We e-mailed it to
everybody and it's been served by mail.

THE COURT:
All right.
11:57:43
Then what I'll do is I will
hear that next status conference.

MR. KLAYMAN:
That's fine, Your Honor, but we do
14
request that before that's heard, and if Your Honor should
15
grant it -- and I would like an opportunity to reply to that;
16
we just simply submitted the application pro hac vice -- that
17
you not release documents until such time as you make a ruling
18
on that, because Mr. Montgomery would like to renew his motion
19
to intervene to protect what he claims are his property
20
interests in those documents.
21
THE COURT:
11:57:53
11:58:10
Well, the only testimony that we have in
22
this action is that those are documents that he -- I don't know
23
how to -- I don't want to use words other than Chief Deputy
24
Sheridan used, but those are documents that he took from the
25
CIA that the CIA was harvesting from American citizens.
It
11:58:27
RE 798
(859 of 1100)
doesn't sound to me like he has any property interest in such
documents.
To the extent that he does have such property
interests, and to the extent that -- because there may be other
documents in there that are -- and, in fact, there may be no
documents taken from the CIA; that possibility has been raised
by the evidence.
the United States of America to review and confirm that they
have no property interest in those documents?
11:58:42
If that is so, how is he damaged by allowing
What property
10
interest does Mr. Montgomery have in such documents that would
11
in any way be infringed by allowing the United States to review
12
those documents under seal to make sure that they have no
13
security interest in them?
14
MR. KLAYMAN:
We did submit with the motion to
15
intervene, as part of the various pleadings, a court -- and
16
we've cited it -- a court ruling in Nevada where the Department
17
of Justice was ordered to give documents back to
18
Mr. Montgomery.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. KLAYMAN:
21
THE COURT:
That's correct.
11:59:26
Well, this case supposedly reconstructed
material from a database that pertained to alleged telephone
23
calls and e-mails that occurred in 2009 and 2010.
25
11:59:13
And that was a 2006 ruling.
22
24
11:58:59
How does that Nevada 2006 ruling relate to any

database that alleges to have 2009-2010 documents in it?
11:59:44
RE 799
(860 of 1100)
1
2
MR. KLAYMAN:
would like the opportunity to argue in front of this Court.
3
4
That's something that Mr. Montgomery
THE COURT:
Well, I'm giving you the opportunity right
now.
MR. KLAYMAN:
I don't have that information, Your
Honor.
systematic way, put forward a brief to this Court on that
issue.
I don't have it.
THE COURT:
11:59:54
But we want an opportunity to, in a
And I think that you can have that
10
opportunity, but you need to explain to me now why any interest
11
that Mr. Montgomery might have in such materials is in any way
12
infringed by allowing the United States to review them under
13
seal to make sure that there are no secured documents that
14
belong to the CIA in those materials.
15
MR. KLAYMAN:
Your Honor, I'm not taking a position on
16
that; I'm simply wanting an opportunity to brief it in the
17
ordinary course.
18
have any conflict with Sheriff Arpaio.
12:00:07
12:00:28
And we came before this Court, and I don't
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. KLAYMAN:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. KLAYMAN:
23
THE COURT:
We --
Well --- we stated that we're not --
12:00:37
-- you may take your seat.

-- taking any adverse position.
You may take your seat, because I've
24
already ruled on that.
I'm going to allow the other parties to
25
address your renewed motion to intervene.
But I would point
12:00:46
RE 800
(861 of 1100)
out that you also signed Mr. Moseley's motions and
Mr. Moseley's appeal.
than Mr. Moseley, and we will allow you the opportunity to be
heard to the extent that the other parties have an opportunity
to address it in an orderly fashion, which is not today.
And I don't see how you're any different
MR. KLAYMAN:
sign those pleadings.
signed those pleadings.
THE COURT:
12:01:01
Your Honor, may I just say I did not

I was listed as Of Counsel but I never
Only Mr. Moseley signed the pleadings.
Okay.
It looked to me like you'd signed
10
them, but I'm not saying you did.
11
orderly opportunity for your motion, or your pro hac vice
12
application to be heard, but an appeal to the Ninth Circuit
13
would take years, and I'm not going to hang up the review of
14
the United States in documents that your client may have
15
claimed to Chief Deputy Sheridan were procured from the CIA for
16
that period of time.
17
18
19
20
21
And we will give you the
12:01:17
So thank you, and we will hear your motion when the

other parties have had a chance to address it.
MR. KLAYMAN:
May I have an opportunity to reply to
that, because I -THE COURT:
12:01:46
Yes.
In fact, if you don't have an
22
adequate time to reply, we'll schedule it for the next status
23
conference out, so that we can have a fair response, a reply, a
24
full opportunity to be heard on the point.
25
12:01:30
MR. KLAYMAN:
Thank you.
12:02:00
RE 801
(862 of 1100)
THE COURT:
In the meantime, I am going to grant the
United States' motion to review the documents that have been
provided.
the authorization to have government employees and agents
review the material, the material will be disseminated to no
third party under any condition without the prior approval of
this Court.
8
9
I am ordering the United States that while they have
12:02:12
I'm going to further authorize the monitor to make

whatever arrangements are necessary to do a secured transfer of
10
such documents to the United States.
11
authorize a representative from the defendants to be present
12
during such transfer if they wish to be.
I'm also going to
13
Anything else on that matter?
14
Do you know, what are we going to do in terms of
12:02:26
All right.
15
MCS -- Maricopa County having independent representation from
16
Sheriff Arpaio?
17
have separate counsel, if that's how you choose to pursue the
18
matter, but I'm not sure that you have -- I'm not sure, to the
19
extent --
20
12:02:49
I don't question that you have the ability to
Well, let me ask, Mr. Walker, are you taking the
12:03:07
21
position -- well, I think I've already spelled this out with
22
Mr. Jirauch.
23
is not going to be liable for any liability, if any, that
24
Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and the MCSO are
25
responsible for after the issuance of the mandate by the Ninth
Are you taking the position that Maricopa County
12:03:25
RE 802
(863 of 1100)
Circuit?
MR. WALKER:
To try to be clear on this, Your Honor,
in terms of financial responsibility, the Board of Supervisors
has the responsibility to fund costs associated with remedies
that are the result of this proceeding.
obligation under Arizona law.
That's a statutory
12:03:48
We do take the position that because of the unusual
nature of the structure of county government under the Arizona
Constitution statutes, that the portion of the county
10
government that I represent -- that's the Board of Supervisors,
11
the county manager, and employees working under their direct
12
supervision -- do not have the kind of authority over the
13
actions of other constitutional officers, including the
14
sheriff, that make the County either legally liable for the
15
actions of the sheriff or in a position to control those
16
actions, so --
17
THE COURT:
them to the extent you're liable for damages and corrective
19
action, correct?
MR. WALKER:
The financial responsibility, yes, that's
21
beyond question, and provided for clearly under Arizona
22
statute.
23
24
25
12:04:36
Well, I mean, you are legally liable for
18
20
12:04:11
12:04:50
And if I could -THE COURT:
But what you're saying is the County Board
of Supervisors can't issue directives to Sheriff Arpaio.

MR. WALKER:
12:05:02
RE 803
(864 of 1100)
THE COURT:
All right.
So how does that result in
differences in terms of issues that are presented by this
contempt hearing?
MR. WALKER:
Well, I think, Your Honor, our position
is that the County was not and is not in a position to control
or to have any direct effect on the decisions that are within
the province of constitutional officers under the constitution
and the statutes, and that includes the sheriff.
Now, I read the Ninth Circuit decision as essentially
10
saying -- ordering that the County be added as a party, but
11
then saying:
12
sheriff.
13
the sheriff, you don't need the County.
14
plaintiffs --
15
Well, I think the reverse is also true:
THE COURT:
If you have
And I think the -- the
Well, that certainly seems to run contrary
to the court of appeals decision out of the Arizona Court of
17
Appeals, doesn't it, that was cited by the Ninth Circuit?

MR. WALKER:
quite a bit of authority to the contrary under -- in the
20
Arizona court system.

THE COURT:
12:06:23
Even if what you say is true, Mr. Walker,
22
and it may be, do I have any authority to do anything different
23
once a mandate has been issued by the Ninth Circuit?
24
25
MR. WALKER:
12:06:05
Well, I think the -- there actually is
19
21
12:05:44
If you have the County, you don't need the
16
18
12:05:17
I don't see that the Court would be
precluded from concluding on the basis I just articulated, and
12:06:39
RE 804
(865 of 1100)
particularly given that the plaintiffs earlier in this
proceeding stipulated that the County is not a necessary party
for full and complete relief, that I don't see that the Court
would be precluded from concluding that with the sheriff in
this proceeding, the County is not a necessary party and
dismissing us out.
THE COURT:
All right.
12:06:59
Well, I guess I'll allow you,
to the extent you wish to, to continue to urge that.
to me it's precluded by the Ninth Circuit ruling.
It seems
But to the
10
extent you want to be here to represent whatever interests you
11
believe that the County may have that are separate, I'm not
12
going to allow you to delve into a whole lot of stuff that
13
isn't relevant to the contempt hearing, but I'll allow you to
14
be here to represent the County.
15
MR. WALKER:
16
THE COURT:

Thank you.
12:07:31
While you're here, I did
17
respond, it wasn't really an order, but I responded with
18
thoughts relating to procedures on the independent review of
19
the monitor's billings.
20
MR. WALKER:
21
THE COURT:
22
23
12:07:16
Were you able to read that?
Yes, Your Honor.

Do you have any thoughts about that?
12:07:48
Have
you talked to the other parties?

I mean, truthfully, I don't have any huge objection --
24
except for I want to be sure that we operate ethically in
25
conjunction with all the parties -- I don't have any huge
12:07:59
RE 805
(866 of 1100)
objection if Ms. Wilson continues to review the detailed
confidential billings of the monitor, to the extent that that
isn't going to run the monitor a huge legal expense because the
County's trying to, you know, manipulate that process to get
some sort of a contract entered with the monitor.
token, I want to be sure that the monitor and this Court's
orders are responsive to the County's fiscal concerns.
8
9
10
By the same
Have you explored with the other parties whether they

have objections to Ms. Wilson continuing to review the
monitor's confidential billings on an ex parte basis?
11
MR. WALKER:
12:08:33
I have not, Your Honor, and the reason
12
being that we feel that as long as the County is a party, that
13
presents a bit of a problem, at least from an appearance
14
standpoint.
We think that --
15
THE COURT:
16
Have you thought about designating any non-CPAs that
17
Well, I understand that.
I accept it.
MR. WALKER:
Yes, Your Honor, and Ms. Wilson and her
19
people are working on identifying potential candidates for
20
that, and --
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. WALKER:
24
25
12:08:52
might be less expensive?
18
23
12:08:16
12:09:09
All right.
-- we'll get back to the Court with a
proposal.
THE COURT:
As I said, I'm open to any kind of
proposal that's workable to the parties, not expensive as
12:09:16
RE 806
(867 of 1100)
between, you know, raising all sorts of expense and
inefficiencies, but I am certainly amenable to work with the
County so that the County can fulfill its responsibility to the
taxpayers.
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
One is in your order you suggested that there
We appreciate that, Your Honor.

All right.
Could I just make a couple points?
currently is no contract, and that's not quite accurate.
10
the terms of the contract, if a new contract was not
11
negotiated, it fell back on the old terms, so there's an
12
evergreen provision.
13
12:09:28
So there is a contract in effect.
Under
12:09:41
There's also
14
another contract that the parties are trying to negotiate.
15
not privy to those negotiations, but my understanding is that
16
they're pretty close to concluding an agreement.
17
The second point I wanted --
18
THE COURT:
I'm
Before you go to the second point, I have
19
looked at that first contract before back when it was in force.
20
It does seem to me that it doesn't incorporate typical County
21
contract provisions.
22
assume that that is the contract going forward?
23
MR. WALKER:
24
THE COURT:
25
12:10:00
It has different provisions.
12:10:15
So we'll
Until it's replaced by a new one.

Yeah.
And I did invite you to tell me in
the order if you're not going to pay when I order you to pay
12:10:30
RE 807
(868 of 1100)
the monitor.
MR. WALKER:
No, we are.
In fact, that's my second
point, Your Honor.
monitor, and given that we don't have any independent review
process in place, we're awaiting the Court's order with respect
to that bill.
We are holding the bill currently from the
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
MR. YOUNG:
10
All right.
12:10:46
Thank you.
Thank you.
Your Honor, may I be heard briefly on that
issue?
12:10:54
11
THE COURT:
You certainly may.
12
MR. YOUNG:
Plaintiffs have not been involved very
13
much, if at all, in this process.
14
though, that since the County is a party in the case, that
15
review of the monitor's bills by parties should not have the
16
effect of impeding or delaying actions by the monitor.
17
want to make it clear that we do have an interest in this
18
issue, because we want the Court's orders to be fully
19
implemented, and we would be concerned if the review process
20
with the County does impede that process.

All right.
We do have a concern,
12:11:05
We just
12:11:22
21
THE COURT:
Thank you.
22
With respect -- and I mentioned this with Ms. Iafrate
23
earlier -- we're going to set -- well, we have some scheduling
24
matters that we need to raise.
25
first.
Maybe we ought to raise those

12:11:40
RE 808
(869 of 1100)
We've had a lot of talk about other lawsuits that may
involve the sheriff or may involve similar issues in this court
in front of other courts, and I must confess that I do not
know -- I mean, I know something about those lawsuits because
one of them, the one in front of Judge Silver, has been an
issue here before, even though briefly.
about it.
8
9
12:11:58
I don't know a lot
But it did seem to me that I have read in the paper

that that has -- and maybe I need to talk to you again,
10
Mr. Walker -- that the County Board of Supervisors has approved
11
settlement of large and substantial portions of that lawsuit,
12
and the reason why I ask is twofold:
13
reschedule, at a time that will be convenient for everybody,
14
the resumption of this contempt hearing.
15
of rescheduling it, of course, on top of when the defendants
16
may have to be in Judge Silver's court; nor do I have any
17
intention of rescheduling it until I'm sure that all the
18
documents and other matters have been provided so that we can
19
do this once and be done with it; nor do I have any intention
20
of putting this off very long.
21
22
12:12:17
First, I want to
I have no intention
12:12:36
12:12:56
I do believe, Mr. Masterson, that you will have time

to -- Mr. Popolizio, or --
23
I'm sorry, what's your name?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE COURT:
Popolizio, Your Honor.
Popolizio.
I apologize.
12:13:09
RE 809
(870 of 1100)
I do believe, Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, that
you will have time to file, if you do it timely, I'm not going
to -- I'm not going to try and sneak any hearing in before you
can get the Ninth Circuit to consider your writ of mandamus.
think you'll have time to get that up there, and if they're
going to act on it, they can act on it.
schedule it in an efficacious, speedy fashion that will be fair
to all the parties.
9
10
But I do want to
Mr. Masterson?
12:13:41
MR. MASTERSON:
Just briefly, Judge, and I think
possibly --
13
14
12:13:25
Did you have something you wanted to say,
11
12
THE COURT:
Do you want to go to a microphone or else
pull that one up to you?
15
MR. MASTERSON:
You're tall.
I believe you already may know this,
16
and Mr. Walker will be addressing the other case, United States
17
versus Arpaio, that Mr. Popolizio and I are also defending that
18
case.
19
THE COURT:
I do.
I do, and -- well, I don't think it
20
poses any problem as long as I don't overlap.
21
problem, here are a couple of my problems.
22
12:13:51
But here is my
12:14:05
One, the County has authorized settlement, according
23
to the newspaper, and I'm not taking this at face value; I'm
24
putting it out there.
25
occurred was a reliance on the injunctive relief that was
One of the reasons that settlement

12:14:24
RE 810
(871 of 1100)
already in place in this action, and the no perceived need to
duplicate compliance.
understand why the County would act that way.
I get that.
I appreciate it.
However, I am wondering if the County has been fully
advised that one of the positions Mr. Popolizio and
Mr. Masterson is taking is that if in fact this Court is
removed by the Ninth Circuit from presiding over this case, the
supplemental permanent injunction and the findings of fact and
conclusions of law I made three years ago should be vacated, in
10
which case there would be no injunctive relief on which the
11
County or the plaintiffs could rely.
12
12:14:43
12:15:06
Now, obviously, I don't think that's going to happen,
13
but I'm not the Ninth Circuit, and I haven't suggested the
14
action is brought by Mr. Popolizio in bad faith.
15
if the County has been fully advised, if the plaintiffs in
16
United States versus Arpaio have been fully advised, that the
17
movants are taking the position not only that I should be
18
removed from presiding over the contempt hearing, but that the
19
injunctive relief and the findings of fact and conclusions of
20
law I entered years ago should be vacated.
21
has been so advised?
23
MR. WALKER:
25
12:15:19
12:15:45
Are you aware whether the County Board of Supervisors
22
24
So I wonder
Yes, I think the Board of Supervisors is
aware, and I think I can clarify this to some extent.

The settlements -- which, incidentally, were submitted
12:16:01
RE 811
(872 of 1100)
to the Court, to Judge Silver, on Friday -- cover the
Department of Justice's claims with respect to worksite
operations, alleged retaliation, and treatment of LEP prisoners
in the jails.
to such things as traffic stops and so forth.
The settlements do not cover the claims related

12:16:22
Now, Judge Silver issued a motion for summary judgment
which we understand to reflect a conclusion that this Court's
rulings with respect to alleged discriminatory activity in
connection with traffic stops conducted in the context of
10
immigration enforcement, that that -- that ruling is binding in
11
the DOJ litigation.
12
DOJ is -- at least was seeking relief for alleged
13
discrimination in other forms of policing activity.
14
to -- we were required to submit to Judge Silver this
15
morning -- and since I've been here, I'm not sure that
16
happened, but I assume it was -- a statement to Judge Silver
17
about what the parties, the respective parties, meaning the
18
Department of Justice, the sheriff, and the County, perceive as
19
needing yet to be tried in that case.
20
12:16:46
We had
12:17:14
And we have a bit of a disagreement, which presumably
21
Judge Silver will resolve, but the issues of appropriate
22
remedies with respect to either the portion of the case on
23
which Judge Silver issued summary judgment, or any additional
24
alleged improper activity that the United States is still
25
planning to litigate, those are issues that at this point
12:17:31
12:18:02
RE 812
(873 of 1100)
1
2
remain to be resolved.
THE COURT:
All right.
And so if in theory not only
was I removed from this case, but the Ninth Circuit took the
unusual step of vacating a case they've already affirmed on
appeal, that case would be subject to retrial, then, in the
United States -- or those issues would be subject to retrial in
United States versus Arpaio as well as in the plaintiffs'
lawsuit here?
MR. WALKER:
Well, let me put it this way.
12:18:20
The
10
settlements that Your Honor has been reading about in the paper
11
don't touch that issue.
12
Court's order for the Department of Justice claims is the issue
13
that we think still remains to be resolved.
14
The issue of the implications of this
If this Court's order were vacated, you know, I think,
15
theoretically, a Rule 60 motion in Judge Silver's court might
16
be appropriate.
17
working with the Department of Justice to see if we can resolve
18
that last bit, and I think we'll know this week whether that's
19
going to happen.
20
21
22
12:19:06
But I can also tell Your Honor that we're
THE COURT:
Mr. Popolizio, do you anticipate going to
12:19:23
trial in front of Judge Silver?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
That remains to be seen, Your Honor.
23
As Mr. Walker has stated, we are trying to resolve that issue,
24
but if so, it will be on August 10th.
25
12:18:38
THE COURT:
And Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, if you
12:19:36
RE 813
(874 of 1100)
do go to trial, you've resolved a lot of the issues.
How long is trial going to take?
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, Judge, we settled, probably,
regardless of how the final issues work out, we probably got
rid of a good 75 percent of the issues by settlement agreement.
I cannot tell the Court at this point how many days
the remainder may take, because frankly, I do not know at this
point what the United States intends to present in the event we
go forward.
10
The trial was initially set for 15 days.
That was for
11
all issues.
12
Judge Silver that we felt it would take at least three months
13
to try all issues of the case.
14
75 percent, possibly we could fit the remainder in the 15 days
15
currently scheduled.
16
12:20:13
Both sides, including the County, reported to
So having reduced that by
12:20:34
But like I said, Judge, I don't know at this point, or
17
I'm not sure the United States knows what they intend to
18
present in the event we have to go forward.
19
at this point is focusing on how can we resolve the issues
20
before we have to head down there?

All right.
I think everyone
21
THE COURT:
22
Did you want to be heard on this at all, Mr. Young?
23
MR. YOUNG:
No, Your Honor.
24
THE COURT:
All right.
25
12:19:50
12:20:50
Thank you.
It does seem to me that it's
fairly likely that the August matter will go away
12:21:00
RE 814
(875 of 1100)
substantially, if not completely, and whatever happens to this
case after whatever the Ninth Circuit may or may not do, I
intend to move it forward.
As I said, I don't intend to move it so forward so
quickly, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Ms. Iafrate, that your
writ of mandamus can't at least be heard by them.
intend to move it forward, because, for reasons that everybody
appreciates, we need to move forward, and we need to correct
anything that's problematic and resolve this case.
10
But I do
I'm sure
that all parties agree.
11
12:21:37
As I raised with Ms. Iafrate earlier, the Ninth
12
Circuit mandate does require at least slight revision to the
13
supplemental permanent injunction, so I'd invite all parties,
14
if they want to put forward suggested language, to do so prior
15
to our next status conference.
16
12:21:54
I'm going to set the next status conference for Friday
17
the 31st at 2 p.m.
18
courtroom because this courtroom is going to go -- undergo,
19
thankfully -- or it may be in a different courtroom, this
20
courtroom is going to, thankfully, undergo some electronic
21
updates.
22
12:21:14
That will probably be in a different
12:22:08
I'm not sure, Mr. Klayman, if your motion for
23
admission pro hac vice will be fully briefed at that point.
If
24
it is, we'll hear that then; if it's not, we'll hear it at the
25
next status conference, which will probably be no more than a
12:22:25
RE 815
(876 of 1100)
week away.
that you will be ready.
But we will try and let you know well in advance so
As for rescheduling the ultimate hearing on this
matter, I am holding September 22nd through September 25th and
September 29th through October 2nd, and I invite you all to
clear your calenders.
12:22:48
But I will say that if for some reason I believe that
we don't have full disclosure of documents, that there are
other documents that existed that may have been destroyed or
10
otherwise dealt with, I'm going to take whatever time is
11
necessary to make sure that we have our arms around everything,
12
that we have the interviews and evaluations done, so that we
13
can then move forward, have the hearing, and proceed to
14
whatever relief may be merited.
15
16
17
18
12:23:04
Is there anything else that needs to be addressed by

the parties?
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, we have one issue we would
like to raise.
19
THE COURT:
All right.
20
MR. YOUNG:
This relates to the documents that were
12:23:33
21
ordered released publicly by the Court recently relating to the
22
so-called Seattle investigation in which it seems apparent that
23
members of the MCSO were attempting to obtain information.
24
25
12:23:21
As has been discussed, that information that they did

obtain was junk, but from what we understand, the investigation
12:23:56
RE 816
(877 of 1100)
has not been terminated, and we don't know whether the MCSO
people are still seeking information through whatever means
they might happen to identify.
It appears from the documents that the information
that they trying to obtain, or thought they were obtaining or
might have been obtaining, included at least in part
communications, or information about communications, of
there was, as late as April of this year, just prior to the
There were references to telephone calls;
10
previous hearing on this contempt issue, communications urging
11
that the efforts continue, and that genuine and usable
12
information be obtained.
13
We are somewhat concerned about that, obviously.
12:24:37
We
14
think it would be improper for the MCSO to continue to obtain
15
information through extrajudicial means that it would then use
16
in the context of this lawsuit.
17
about parties seeking each other's -- information about each
18
other's electronic communications, and we would like some
19
assurance that that will not continue, that those efforts will
20
have ceased.
21
12:24:16
12:24:54
Obviously, there are issues
12:25:16
So I throw that open for the Court.
I have raised it
22
with counsel for the sheriff, and I don't know what the
23
response is going to be.
24
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, Mr. Young addressed this
12:25:33
RE 817
(878 of 1100)
issue with me out in the hallway right before we walked in, so
this is a new issue that I heard about this morning.
I disagree with his characterizations of what did or
did not happen during that investigation.
yourself, Your Honor, said the whole story has not yet been
told.
did not do, or what they requested, I completely disagree with
the statements that were just made.
And in fact, you

12:25:53
So regarding the characterizations of what MCSO did or
Regarding any sort of insurance -- assurance, I would
10
ask that I be provided with either a discovery request or at
11
least a letter in writing, and then I can address it with the
12
other side.
13
THE COURT:
Well, I understand that, and I do agree
14
that the whole story's not been told.
15
to tell that story.
16
opportunity to do.
17
12:26:09
I've invited you to --
I intend to provide you the full
12:26:25
It does seem to me that to the extent Mr. Young is
18
asking for the assurance that your client is not attempting to
19
survey his communications with his client, that's not an
20
inappropriate request.
21
MS. IAFRATE:
12:26:48
I never said that it was, Your Honor,
22
and in fact, out in the hallway I said that it wouldn't be
23
pertinent for me to respond to that, because it was never
24
raised with me, and so I merely asked that I be provided with
25
it in writing so that we can respond to it appropriately.
12:27:03
RE 818
(879 of 1100)
1
2
THE COURT:
All right.
If you'll provide that request
in writing, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG:
We will do that, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
And if I need to further
address the matter, I will do so.
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you very much.
THE COURT:
Anything else?
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
10
12:27:15
Thank you, Judge.
This is my first time appearing down here in this
12:27:23
11
case -- at least at counsel table, I've been here previously --
12
and I think I have everyone sorted out fairly well, including
13
Mr. Gomez from the Department of Justice.
14
on the phone from the United States Attorney's Office and I
15
don't know the connection of that person to this case, or even
16
which office they're appearing from.
17
THE COURT:
But there's someone
Ms. Kimmins, whose appearance I heard, and
18
Ms. O'Gara, are from the Tucson office of the United States
19
attorneys for Arizona.
20
12:27:38
As I invited your clients to have criminal
12:28:00
21
representation if they wished to do so, because it is possible
22
that -- it is at least conceivable that I'll make a referral
23
for criminal contempt, which is why I've allowed, for example,
24
Mr. Stein, your partner, and others to be here in that special
25
capacity, at the same time I invited the United States
12:28:23
RE 819
(880 of 1100)
Attorney's Office to be here because they would be the people
to whom I would have to refer such a criminal contempt
proceeding.
I think for the most part they've declined that
activity.
recusal order I invited them to see if we could negotiate a
global conclusion to this before the hearing.
to engage in sort of pre-referral negotiations to see if we
could resolve any criminal contempt with your clients prior to
10
undergoing any contempt hearing, and they declined to do that.
11
But they still have the right as a member of the public to be
12
here, just as your clients have been given the additional right
13
to have criminal representation represent their interests in
14
this civil proceeding.
As I've set forth, and I think as you know, in my
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. MASTERSON:
I invited them
I understand.
Thank you, Judge.
12:29:13
Um-hum.
One last question.
I caught the
September 22 to 25 dates you want us to keep open, but I did
19
not catch the October dates.
20
THE COURT:
That would be September 29 through October
12:29:23
2nd.
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
MR. YOUNG:
24
With respect to those dates, in order for us to do
25
12:28:55
That's who they are.
18
21
12:28:38
That you.
Your Honor, one more issue.
those, we'll need the documents that are supposed to be
12:29:32
RE 820
(881 of 1100)
produced, and I wonder whether we could address the time line
for that.
Ms. Wang did send a letter to Ms. Iafrate on July 9
listing a number of things that have not yet been produced that
should have been produced, in our view, some time ago.
not had a response to that yet, and I wonder whether we could
try to implement some sort of schedule that would allow us to
have the hearing on those September dates.
THE COURT:
Why don't I suggest this?
We have
I had
10
previously set weekly status conferences to make that possible
11
in the interim between the two hearings.
12
regular status conferences now to accomplish that same purpose:
13
to make sure that the documents are provided, or if they're
14
not, to take the action necessary to get them provided, and, if
15
necessary, to reschedule the hearing to make sure that we have
16
everything available.
17
12:29:51
12:30:05
I intend to hold
12:30:27
Why don't I suggest that you get with Ms. Iafrate and
18
see if you can come up with hard dates and propose them to me
19
next Friday, a schedule.
20
what you don't have and why you need it, and I will set dates
21
next Friday myself if you can't arrive at them.
And if you can't, then you tell me
22
MR. YOUNG:
23
THE COURT:
Anything else?
24
MR. WALKER:
25
You said "next Friday."
12:30:43
Just a question, Your Honor.

Do you mean July 31st?
12:30:54
RE 821
(882 of 1100)
1
2
THE COURT:
That is what I mean.
I meant the Friday
after this week.
All right.
I'll see you then.
THE CLERK:
All rise.
(Proceedings concluded at 12:31 p.m.)
Thank you.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RE 822
(883 of 1100)
1
2
C E R T I F I C A T E
3
4
5
6
7
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
10
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
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
17
18
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 21st day of July,

2015.
19
20
21
s/Gary Moll
22
23
24
25
RE 823
(884
(60 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
Case:
15-16440,
15-72440,
10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
9638202,
DktEntry:
DktEntry:
13-4,
1-3,Page
Page291
7 ofof
278
305
3
4

Melendres, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs.
7
8
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
July 24, 2015
3:04 p.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(In-Court Hearing)
18
19
20
21
22
23
Court Reporter:
Gary Moll
(602) 322-7263
24
25

0001
RE
824
(885
(61 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-4,
305
Case:
15-72440,
08/06/2015,
9638202,
DktEntry:
1-3,Page
Page292
8 ofof
278
2
3
For the Plaintiffs:

Joshua Bendor, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
(602) 650-1854
(Telephonically)
Stanley Young, Esq.

Suite 700
(650) 632-4700
(Telephonically)

FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
(415) 343-0775
(Telephonically)
Andre Segura, Esq.

(212) 549-2676


649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
(Telephonically)

(602) 263-1700
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
RE
825
(886
(62 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
15-16440,
10/23/2015,
ID:ID:
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-4,
305
Case:
15-72440,
08/06/2015,
9638202,
DktEntry:
1-3,Page
Page293
9 ofof
278
2
3
4
(Telephonically)
5
6

(480) 483-6336
7
8
9
10

Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
11
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre:
12
(Telephonically)
13
14
15
David J. Ouimette, Esq.

Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
16
17
(Telephonically)
18
19
20
Greg S. Como, Esq.

& SMITH, L.L.P.
Suite 1700
(602) 385-1040
21
22
23
24
25
0003
RE
826
(887
(63 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 294
10 ofof278
2
3

Chase Tower
Suite 3300
(602) 254-9900
4
5
6
7
8
(Telephonically)
10
11
Karen Clark, Esq.

ADAMS & CLARK, P.C.
Suite 200
(602) 258-3542
12
13
(Telephonically)
14
15
16
17
18
Also present:

& WILSON, P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
(602) 271-7705
The Monitoring Team
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0004
RE
827
(888
(64 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 295
11 ofof278
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
Melendres v. Arpaio, on for in-court hearing.
15:04:13
MR. POCHODA:
ACLU of Arizona for plaintiffs.

MR. BENDOR:
9
10
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
THE COURT:
12
MR. MASTERSON:
15:04:24
Good afternoon.
John Masterson
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. IAFRATE:
16
Josh Bendor of the ACLU
of Arizona for plaintiffs.
11
13
Dan Pochoda from the
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Michele
15:04:34
Iafrate on behalf of Joe Arpaio.
17
THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
18
MR. MITCHELL:
19
on behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan.
20
Your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. WALKER:
Barry Mitchell
He's not present today,

15:04:52
Good afternoon.
Anyone else?
Richer Walker on behalf of that portion
23
of Maricopa County government embodied in the Board of
24
Supervisors, the county manager, and the employees reporting to
25
them.
15:05:03
0005
RE
828
(889
(68 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 296
15 ofof278
acknowledged to the monitor.
THE COURT:
3
4
5
Did you determine who gave that
instruction?
CHIEF WARSHAW:
We attempted to, and the answer we
received was that would be an attorney-client matter.
THE COURT:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
15:09:33
All right.
With the full belief that this matter
is at the heart of the issue before the Court and our
determination to at least see these documents, I instructed one
10
of our two deputy monitors, Commander Girvin, last night to
11
make an attempt to reach out to senior executives of the MCSO
12
for the simple purpose of making arrangements to see if we
13
could see these IDs.
14
15:09:52
Commander Girvin attempted to call both telephonically
15
and by text message Captain Steven Bailey, the commanding
16
officer of the Professional Standards Bureau, as well as Chief
17
Deputy Sheridan, but with no luck.
18
15:10:09
Further, at my instruction, and after a reasonable
19
passage of time, Commander Girvin reached out to Captain Russ
20
Skinner, who's the commander of the agency's court compliance
21
implementation division, and he is the official contact of the
22
MCSO for -- the contact for us.
23
15:10:30
Captain Skinner was very cooperative and he attempted
24
to reach Captain Bailey, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and he reported
25
back to Commander Girvin that he also had attempted to reach
0009
RE
15:10:53
829
(890
(69 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 297
16 ofof278
10
counsel but with no luck.
At that point, knowing full well that we very much
wanted to see these documents but were not getting cooperation
with the lack of response, I initiated an e-mail to every
attorney involved in this case advising that I might very well
ask for an emergency hearing for the purposes of getting relief
from the Court so we could in fact access those documents.
8
9
This morning I noted an e-mail from Ms. Iafrate.

did call her at approximately 7:45 this morning.
She inquired
10
with more specificity as to what it is that we wanted.
11
advised her that we were looking to gain access to 1500 IDs
12
that had been brought to our attention as well as 50
13
hard drives that we believed to be in the Property Unit and
14
were associated with the Dennis Montgomery matter.
15
15:11:40
I would note that back on April 27th, when we received
16
the single hard drive that we did get at that time, we were
17
told by Chief Knight that that material was the only material
18
in the possession of the agency relevant to the Montgomery
19
matter.
20
report number that was associated with the 50 hard drives.
21
15:11:13
15:12:03
I gave Ms. Iafrate the DR number, the department

15:12:24
Though I didn't hear back from Ms. Iafrate, we
22
proceeded to the Professional Standards Bureau and got there
23
about 8:30 this morning, myself, Chief Martinez, and
24
Chief Kiyler.
25
us that he had been told by Captain Bailey that we were coming.
We were met by Lieutenant Kratzer, who advised
0010
RE
15:12:49
830
(891
(73 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 298
20 ofof278
14
these particular documents were slated for destruction, and had
this matter not come to our attention and had we not made the
kind of inquiry that we made, these items in fact would have
been destroyed.
THE COURT:
When you talk about the 50 hard drives
15:18:24
related to the Montgomery investigation, where did you find out
about those?
8
9
CHIEF WARSHAW:
As a result of document requests that
were made of the MCSO, after the initial release of the single
10
hard drive we got on April 27th, it became apparent, in looking
11
at various e-mail streams, that there were references to
12
hard drives that were reposited in the Property Unit.
13
THE COURT:
Did anybody look -- did you request the
14
hard drives in the Property Unit?
15
CHIEF WARSHAW:
16
THE COURT:
17
18
19
15:18:45
We request -- I'm sorry, Judge.
15:19:06
I think -- did you request that the
hard drives be turned over that were in the Property Unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW:
We request any and all.
Yes, we
certainly today requested that today, yes, sir.
20
THE COURT:
And you talked about a specific DR number.
21
Is that a locker?
22
CHIEF WARSHAW:
15:19:17
What is that?
The DR number would be -- a DR
23
number is the department report number, so it would be a filing
24
mechanism in which they could find the items in the particular
25
bin based upon what the DR number is.
15:19:34
0014
RE
831
(892
(74 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 299
21 ofof278
THE COURT:
Did you request what the contents of that
particular DR unit was?
contents of that unit?
Did you ask anybody to verify the
CHIEF WARSHAW:
THE COURT:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
CHIEF WARSHAW:
10
We were told that the number that we
THE COURT:
Was there anything else in the unit?

I do not believe.
Okay.
I don't believe.
And so you haven't had any response
CHIEF WARSHAW:
13
THE COURT:
We've had no response.
-- in terms of your request to have those
50 hard drives.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
That is correct.
And we made that
15:20:11
16
very clear to Lieutenant Kratzer, that that was also part of
17
our mission this morning.
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. IAFRATE:
Ms. Iafrate.
Your Honor, if I could rely on
20
co-counsel to talk about this chain of events, I've kind of
21
been out of commission the last 24 hours.
22
15:20:04
in --
12
15
15:19:46
gave did in fact correspond to 50 hard drives.

THE COURT:
14
Yes.
And what were you told?
11
15
15:20:36
I can tell you that I did have a conversation with
23
Mr. Warshaw this morning.
He provided me with the DR number.
24
I called over to Property and Evidence in order to make certain
25
that that property was pulled, and I received information that
0015
RE
15:20:53
832
(893
(77 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 300
24 ofof278
1
2
3
4
THE COURT:
Did you ask the MCSO to provide you with
these documents back in February?

MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, I believe that that's a
privileged communication.
THE COURT:
Anything else you want to say?
MS. IAFRATE:
All right.
All right.
You're right.
chronology of events, I apologize that I'm not prepared to
testify regarding that, and I would hope that Mr. Masterson
10
would have the opportunity to answer any further questions.

THE COURT:
15:23:13
Your Honor, regarding the other
11
18
15:23:27
Well, as it pertains to the 50
12
hard drives, I did, too, notice in the documents that have been
13
made public that some of the e-mails reference 50 or 60
14
hard drives taken from Mr. Montgomery, and noted that
15
apparently you -- by "you" I don't mean you personally; I mean
16
your client -- produced only one in May.
17
18
15:23:43
Have you made any effort to determine what is in that

DR file that Mr. Warshaw asked you about?
19
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes.
And what is in there?
15:24:00
There are approximately 40 to 50
22
hard drives that may potentially relate to documents from the
23
Seattle investigation.
24
THE COURT:
Anything else in there?
25
MS. IAFRATE:
No.
15:24:12
0018
RE
833
(894
(78 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 301
25 ofof278
THE COURT:
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
Thank you.
Judge, I guess I'd first like to
address -- well, I have a question, perhaps the Court already
answered this question, where in the Court's order setting this
hearing today the Court says that defendants have "declined to
provide access."
THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
THE COURT:
Yes, I did answer that question.
13
THE COURT:
All right.
The second thing I --
Are you going to provide those
hard drives?
15
MR. MASTERSON:
I knew nothing of the hard drives
THE COURT:
18
produced right now?
19
How about my order that the hard drives be
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, I don't have them with me, but
20
here's my question.
21
have been objections before, as to relevance of these
22
hard drives in the Montgomery materials, because I do not
23
see --
25
15:24:56
until --
17
24
15:24:47
provide access; that was a misunderstanding on my part.

MR. MASTERSON:
16
Okay.
I don't know that you've declined to
12
14
15:24:36
THE COURT:
I'm going to object, and I assume there
15:25:10
I've already ruled on that 40 times.
Objection's overruled.
15:25:22
0019
RE
834
(895
(79 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 302
26 ofof278
1
2
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, let me make my record, please,
Judge.
THE COURT:
The record has been made.
make it, Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Go ahead and
Your Honor --
Let me tell you something.
15:25:30
I realize that
you're new to this litigation, but you certainly have read,
have you not, my questioning of Sheriff Arpaio?
MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
THE COURT:
15:25:44
things?
MR. MASTERSON:
13
THE COURT:
You asked him to hold on to them.
And I said we would send the monitor over
to retrieve them, didn't I.
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE COURT:
17
I have read your questioning.
When I required him to turn over all these
12
14
20
You did.
15:25:54
And that it needed to be done immediately,
didn't I.
18
MR. MASTERSON:
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. MASTERSON:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. MASTERSON:
25
THE COURT:
You did.
All right.
But that doesn't make them relevant --
15:25:58
All right.
-- to the OSC.
Make your objection -To the --
Make your objection on the record.
15:26:02
0020
RE
835
(896
(80 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 303
27 ofof278
MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor, there are distinct --
three distinct issues in the OSC proceeding.
underlying issues which --
THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
to go through this.
relevant.
also may be very relevant.
10
21
There are
Well --- the Court ruled on --
-- let me tell you what.

I'll tell you this.
15:26:10
We're not going
They may not be
I realize that they may not be relevant.
But they
And they were demanded to be
produced and they haven't been produced.
11
So I would propose this.
15:26:23
I'm going to send the
12
marshals over.
13
locker.
14
full access to it.
15
whatever's in there, and I don't know what's in there, but if
16
whatever is in there is material that I've already ordered --
17
for instance, if, it seems to me, that the other documents
18
suggest -- that's the database that Montgomery downloaded --
19
then it's going to be turned over to the United States
20
Government under the same terms the other matter was turned
21
over.
22
relevance in the current proceeding and we'll hear then.
23
may be nothing that is relevant, but I certainly don't know
24
that now.
25
You'll provide everything that's in that DR
We'll hold it here.
I won't look at it.
So can the monitor.
You can have
If you have -15:26:43
15:27:03
You can preserve whatever objections you have to its
MR. MASTERSON:
There
I understand that, Judge, and I'm
15:27:14
0021
RE
836
(897
(81 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 304
28 ofof278
22
not -- I'm not resisting that or saying that the Court does not
have the authority -- I'm certainly not saying the Court does
not have the authority to order them produced.
and I think the objection's been made before and ruled upon,
but I will make a continuing objection to the relevance of
those materials to this proceeding.
7
8
9
THE COURT:
I am objecting,
And why don't we find out what those
materials are first.

MR. MASTERSON:
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE COURT:
Let's do that.
All right.
15:27:40
Now, I --
Any problem if I order the marshal to go
13
over and take those documents and put them in the evidence
14
locker of the marshals today?
15
16
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
18
MS. IAFRATE:
15:27:52
Your Honor, may I have a court order
referencing the DR number that I know that Mr. Warshaw has -THE COURT:
21
MS. IAFRATE:
Sure.
15:28:04
-- so that then we can remove it from
Property and then put it back into the marshal property --
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. IAFRATE:
25
May I consult with
You may.
20
22
I don't know.
counsel, please?
17
19
15:27:29
Sure.
-- just so that we have a chain
of custody.
15:28:11
0022
RE
837
(898
(82 of 1100)
1964)
Case:
305
Case:15-16440,
15-72440,10/23/2015,
08/06/2015,ID:
ID:9731587,
9638202,DktEntry:
DktEntry:13-4,
1-3, Page 305
29 ofof278
1
2
THE COURT:
Sure, absolutely.
23
I don't know what that
is, but I'll -- that's a reasonable request.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
So we've resolved that one.
Let me just
be clear on the record, you can have access to it here, and the
monitor can have access to it here.
privileged materials or whatever else.
to be done with some expedition.
And you can review it for

I'm going to require it
What about the -- and then -- then if there's anything
10
in it that I think may be relevant or that the parties think
11
may be relevant, you can raise your -- you can re-raise your
12
relevance objections then.
13
is, for example, the Montgomery database, and it actually turns
14
out to be full of stuff that doesn't relate to anything and
15
isn't taken from the CIA, then there may be limited relevance
16
here except to the extent -- well, there may be no relevance,
17
depending upon what the facts are, other than to verify that
18
the Montgomery investigation was based on whatever, if anybody
19
tries to assert its truthfulness, but that's a very limited
20
relevance, I'll grant you.
21
relevant, but I think that we're all entitled to make that
22
determination based on the documents.
23
24
25
15:28:18
15:28:40
Because it may well be that if that
There may be something in it that's
15:29:01
15:29:23
That being said, was there anything else you wanted to

say about the document, the hard drives?
MR. MASTERSON:
No, I have -- no, nothing about the
0023
RE
15:29:35
838
(899 of 1100)
CASE NO. 15-16440


v.
and
Case No. CV-07-2513
Volume IV of IV
Pages 839 to 1035
Larry Klayman, Esq.

FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
Tel: (310) 595-0800
(900 of 1100)
VOLUME I
Docket
1312
1199
1192
1173
1164
Date
9/8/15
7/28/15
7/24/15
7/15/15
7/10/15
1167
1133
7/10/15
5/29/15
1134
5/29/15
1093
1115
1079
1060
1064
1053
1046
1032
5/14/15
5/21/15
5/13/15
5/8/15
5/8/15
5/7/15
5/4/15
4/27/15
4/23/15
4/24/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
Disqualification
I
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
Order
I
Order
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Page No.
1-2
3-4
5
6-10
11-50
51-56
57
58
59-61
62-80
81-82
83-91
92-95
96-119
120-122
123-124
125-149
150-169
170-185
186-209
210-227
228-242
(901 of 1100)
VOLUME II
Docket
Date
1198-2
7/28/15
1117
5/22/15
1112
5/19/15
1080
5/13/15
1081
5/13/15
Description
Vol.
Support Thereof
II
Page No.
243-245
246-432
433-465
466-478
479-538
(902 of 1100)
VOLUME III
Docket
Date
1057
5/7/15
1067
5/7/15
1058
5/7/15
5/2/15
1035
Judicial
Notice
Reques
ted
4/28/15
3/20/15
4/23/15
5/8/15
5/14/15
7/20/15
7/24/15
Description
Vol.
II
28 U.S.C. 144
Intervenor
Dennis
L.
Montgomery's
III
case)
III
III
Page No.
539-551
552-556
557-639
641-642
644-649
650-659
660-699
700-725
726-749
749-823
824-838
(903 of 1100)
VOLUME IV
Docket
Date
Description
Vol.
III
Page No.
839-1035
(904 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 6 of 202
APPEAL,ATTYADD,CLASSACT,PROTO,REOPENED,STD
U.S.Distr ictCour t
DISTRICTOFARIZONA(PhoenixDivision)
CIVILDOCKETFORCASE#:2:07-cv-02513-GMS
Melendres,etal.v.Arpaio,etal
Assignedto:JudgeGMurraySnow
Caseinothercourt: NinthCircuit,08-17270
NinthCircuit,12-15098
Cause:28:1331FederalQuestion:OtherCivilRights
DateFiled:12/12/2007
JuryDemand:Defendant
NatureofSuit:440CivilRights:Other
Jurisdiction:FederalQuestion
Plaintiff
ManueldeJ esusOr tegaMelendr es
onbehalfofhimselfandallothers
similarlysituated
representedby DavidJ er emyBodney

Steptoe&JohnsonLLP-Phoenix,AZ
CollierCemter
201EWashingtonSt.,Ste.1600
Phoenix,AZ85004-2382
602-257-5200
Fax:602-257-5299
Email:bodneyd@ballardspahr.com
TERMINATED:06/17/2010
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J amesDuffLyall
ACLU-Phoenix,AZ
3707N.7thSt.,Ste.235
Phoenix,AZ85014
602-650-1854
Fax:602-650-1376
Email:jlyall@acluaz.org
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J or geMar tinCastillo
MALDEF-LosAngeles,CA
634SSpringSt.,11thFl.
LosAngeles,CA90014
213-629-2512
Fax:213-629-0266
Email:jcastillo@maldef.org
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?119899082513932-L_1_1-1
RE 839
1/197
(905 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 7 of 202
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ulieAPace
BallardSpahrAndrews&IngersollLLP
3300NCentralAve
Ste1800
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-798-5477
Fax:602-798-5595
Email:pacej@ballardspahr.com
LEADATTORNEY
KellyJ oyceFlood
ACLU-Phoenix,AZ
P.O.17148
Phoenix,AZ85011
602-650-1854
Fax:602-650-1376
Email:kflood@acluaz.org
LEADATTORNEY
NancyAnneRamir ez
MALDEF-LosAngeles,CA
634SSpringSt.,11thFl.
LosAngeles,CA90014
213-629-2512
Fax:213-629-0266
Email:nramirez@maldef.org
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
Steptoe&JohnsonLLP
CollierCtr
201EWashingtonSt
Ste1600
602-257-5200
Fax:602-257-5299
Email:pkozinets@steptoe.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Aar onJ amesLockwood
Steptoe&JohnsonLLP
RE 840
2/197
(906 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 8 of 202
CollierCtr
201EWashingtonSt
Ste1600
602-257-5200
Fax:602-257-5299
Email:alockwood@steptoe.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
ACLU-NewYork,NY
125BroadSt.,18thFl.
NewYork,NY10004
212-549-2676
Email:asegura@aclu.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr ewCar lByr nes,
Covington&BurlingLLP
333TwinDolphinDr
Ste700
RedwoodShores,CA94065
650-632-4700
Fax:650-632-4801
Email:abyrnes@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
UniversityofCaliforniaIrvineSchoolof
Law
ImmigrantsRightsClinic
401EPeltrasonDr.,Ste.3500
Irvine,CA92697
949-824-9894
Fax:949-824-0066
Email:alai@law.uci.edu
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
333TwinDolphinDr.,Ste.700
650-632-4700
Fax:650-632-4800
Email:bsadasivan@cov.com
Car olineCincotta
RE 841
3/197
(907 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 9 of 202
ACLU-SanFrancisco,CA
ImmigrantsRightsProject
39DrummSt.
SanFrancisco,CA94111
415-343-0781
Fax:415-395-0950
Email:ccincotta@aclu.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
39DrummSt.
415-343-0775
Fax:415-395-0950
Email:cwang@aclu.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DanielJ osephPochoda
ACLU-Phoenix,AZ
P.O.Box17148
Phoenix,AZ85011
602-650-1854
Fax:602-650-1376
Email:dpochoda@acluaz.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
Covington&BurlingLLP-San
Francisco,CA
1FrontSt.
415-591-6000
Fax:415-591-6091
Email:dhults@cov.com
GladysLimon
MALDEF
634SSpringSt
11thFloor
LosAngeles,CA90014
213-629-2512
Fax:213-629-0266
Email:glimon@maldef.org
IsaacPasar etHer nandez
RE 842
4/197
(908 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 10 of 202
HernandezLawFirmPLC
10640N28thDr.,Ste.B202
Phoenix,AZ85029
602-753-2933
Fax:855-592-5876
Email:isaacphdez@gmail.com
J oshuaDavidRBendor
ACLU-Phoenix,AZ
P.O.Box17148
Phoenix,AZ85011
602-650-1854
Fax:602-650-1376
Email:jbendor@acluaz.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Kar enJ Har tman-Tellez
MaricopaCountyAttorneysOffice
222NCentralAve.,Ste.1100
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-506-8541
Email:hartmank@mcao.maricopa.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
1FrontSt
415-591-6000
Fax:415-591-6091
Email:khickey@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Kr istinaMichelleCampbell
MALDEF
634SSpringSt
11thFloor
LosAngeles,CA90014
213-629-2512
Fax:213-629-0266
Email:kcampbell@maldef.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Laur enElizabethPedley
RE 843
5/197
(909 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 11 of 202
Francisco,CA
1FrontSt.,Ste.35
415-591-6000
Fax:415-591-6091
Email:lpedley@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LesliRawlesGallagher
9191TowneCentreDr.,6thFl.
SanDiego,CA92122
858-678-1807
Fax:858-678-1600
Email:lgallagher@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LouisRMoffa,J r
BallardSpahrAndrews&IngersollLLC
Plaza1000Ste500
MainSt
Voorhees,NJ08043-4636
856-761-3493
Fax:856-761-1020
Email:moffal@ballardspahr.com
MatthewJ amesSteilen,
1FrontSt
415-591-7012
Fax:415-955-6512
Email:msteilen@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichelleLMor in
Covington&BurlingLLP-Redwood
Shores,CA
650-632-4726
Fax:650-632-4800
Email:mmorin@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 844
6/197
(910 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 12 of 202
MonicaMRamir ez
39DrummSt.
415-343-0778
Fax:415-395-0950
Email:mramirez@aclu.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
Francisco,CA
1FrontSt.,Ste.35
415-591-6000
Fax:415-591-6091
Email:rjacobs@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
39DrummSt.
415-343-0776
Fax:415-395-0950
Email:rgoldfaden@aclu.org
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
333TwinDolphinDr
Ste700
650-632-4704
Fax:650-632-4804
Email:syoung@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
1FrontSt
35thFloor
415-591-7077
Fax:415-955-6577
Email:schien@cov.com
RE 845
7/197
(911 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 13 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
1FrontSt
35thFloor
415-591-7066
Fax:415-591-6000
Email:talbarran@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Plaintiff
J essicaQuituguaRodr iguez
onbehalfofthemselvesandallothers
similarlysituated
representedby J amesDuffLyall
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KellyJ oyceFlood
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
RE 846
8/197
(912 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 14 of 202
Car olineCincotta
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidJ er emyBodney
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
GladysLimon
HyunSikByun
650-632-4707
Fax:650-632-4807
Email:hbyun@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J oshuaDavidRBendor
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 847
9/197
(913 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 15 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichelleLMor in
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Pr iscillaGDodson
Covington&BurlingLLP-Washington,
DC
1201PennsylvaniaAve.NW
Washington,DC20044-7566
202-662-5996
Fax:202-778-5996
Email:pdodson@cov.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 848
10/197
(914 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 16 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MonicaMRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
NancyAnneRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Plaintiff
DavidRodr iguez
similarlysituated
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KellyJ oyceFlood
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 849
11/197
(915 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 17 of 202

ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
Car olineCincotta
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidJ er emyBodney
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
GladysLimon
HyunSikByun
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J oshuaDavidRBendor
RE 850
12/197
(916 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 18 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichelleLMor in
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MonicaMRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
NancyAnneRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 851
13/197
(917 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 19 of 202
Pr iscillaGDodson
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Plaintiff
VeliaMer az
similarlysituated
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KellyJ oyceFlood
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
RE 852
14/197
(918 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 20 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
Car olineCincotta
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidJ er emyBodney
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
GladysLimon
HyunSikByun
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 853
15/197
(919 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 21 of 202
J oshuaDavidRBendor
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichelleLMor in
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MonicaMRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
NancyAnneRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Pr iscillaGDodson
RE 854
16/197
(920 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 22 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Plaintiff
ManuelNieto,J r .
similarlysituated
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KellyJ oyceFlood
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 855
17/197
(921 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 23 of 202

ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
Car olineCincotta
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidJ er emyBodney
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
GladysLimon
HyunSikByun
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J oshuaDavidRBendor
RE 856
18/197
(922 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 24 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichelleLMor in
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MonicaMRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
NancyAnneRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 857
19/197
(923 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 25 of 202
Pr iscillaGDodson
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Plaintiff
SomosAmer ica
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KellyJ oyceFlood
LEADATTORNEY
MichelleLMor in
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 858
20/197
(924 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 26 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Andr eSegur a
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnneLai
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
BhanuKSadasivan
Car olineCincotta
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CecilliaDWang
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidJ er emyBodney
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidHults
GladysLimon
HyunSikByun
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 859
21/197
(925 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 27 of 202

ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J oshuaDavidRBendor
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
KevinJ osephHickey,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MonicaMRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
NancyAnneRamir ez
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Peter ShawnKozinets
RE 860
22/197
(926 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 28 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Pr iscillaGDodson
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RebeccaAJ acobs
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RobinLisaGoldfaden
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StanleyYoung
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
StephenCChien,
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TammyAlbar r an
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
V.
Inter venor Plaintiff
UnitedStatesofAmer ica
representedby Edwar dGCaspar

USDeptofJustice-CivilRights
(PennsylvaniaAve.)
950PennsylvaniaAve.5thFl.
202-514-2000
Fax:202-514-6273
Email:edward.g.caspar@usdoj.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LynnetteCKimmins
USAttorney'sOffice
405WCongressSt
Ste4800
Tucson,AZ85701-5040
520-620-7300
RE 861
23/197
(927 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 29 of 202
Fax:520-620-7169
Email:lynnette.kimmins@usdoj.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RosaleenTobinOGar a
USAttorneysOffice-Tucson,AZ
405WCongressSt.,Ste.4800
Tucson,AZ85701-4050
520-620-7452
Fax:520-620-7322
Email:rosaleen.o'gara@usdoj.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
WinsomeGayle
(PennsylvaniaAve.)
950PennsylvaniaAve.NW,Rm.4037
202-514-6255
Fax:202-514-6903
Email:Winsome.Gayle@usdoj.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AminAminfar
USDeptofJustice
950PennsylvaniaAveNW
PHBSPL5427A
Washington,DC20530
202-307-0652
Fax:202-514-6903
Email:amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
CynthiaCoe
Division
601DSt.NW,Ste.5011
Washington,DC20004
202-353-1121
Email:cynthia.coe@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
PaulKillebr ew
950PennsylvaniaAve.,5thFl.
RE 862
24/197
(928 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 30 of 202
Washington,DC20530
202-305-3239
Email:paul.killebrew@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
PuneetCheema
(PennsylvaniaAve.)
950PennsylvaniaAve.5thFl.
202-353-7725
Fax:202-616-4950
Email:Puneet.Cheema2@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
V.
Defendant
Mar icopa,Countyof
representedby Char lesWJ ir auch

Walker&PeskindPLLC
16100N71stSt.,Ste.140
Scottsdale,AZ85254
480-483-6336
Fax:480-483-6337
Email:cwj@azlawpartner.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Richar dKWalker
Walker&PeskindPLLC
SGACorporateCenter
16100N71stSt.,Ste.140
Scottsdale,AZ85254
480-483-6336
Fax:480-483-6337
Email:rkw@azlawpartner.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Char itieLHar tsig
RyleyCarlock&ApplewhitePA
602-440-4898
Fax:602-257-9582
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DavidASelden
CavanaghLawFirmPA
RE 863
25/197
(929 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 31 of 202
TheViadTower
1850NCentralAve
Ste2400
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-322-4009
Fax:602-322-4101
Email:dselden@cavanaghlaw.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
EileenDennisGilBr ide
JonesSkelton&HochuliPLC
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-1700
Fax:602-200-7827
Email:egilbride@jshfirm.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ohnMichaelFr y
602-258-7701
Fax:602-257-9582
Email:jfry@rcalaw.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ulieAPace
TheCavanaghLawFirmPA
TheViadTower
1850NCentralAve
Ste2400
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-322-4046
Fax:602-322-4101
Email:jpace@cavanaghlaw.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MichaelDMober ly
1NCentralAve
Ste1200
602-258-7701
Fax:602-257-9582
Email:mmoberly@rcalaw.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ThomasGeor geStack
RE 864
26/197
(930 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 32 of 202
1NCentralAve
Ste1200
602-440-4875
Fax:602-257-6975
Email:tstack@rcalaw.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TimothyJ amesCasey
SchmittSchneckSmythCasey&Even
PC
1221EOsbornRd.,Ste.105
602-277-7000
Fax:602-277-8663
Email:timcasey@azbarristers.com
Defendant
J osephMAr paio
inhisindividualandofficialcapacityas
SheriffofMaricopaCounty,AZ
representedby Andr ewMelvinMcDonald,J r .

Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-1700
Fax:602-200-7847
Email:melmcdonald2@gmail.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnnThompsonUglietta
MaricopaCountyAttorneysOfficeCivilServicesDivision
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-506-8581
Email:uglietta@mcao.maricopa.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Debor ahLGar ner
Iafrate&Associates
649N2ndAve.
Phoenix,AZ85003
602-234-9775
Email:dgarner@iafratelaw.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 865
27/197
(931 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 33 of 202
DianaJ eanElston
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-4413
Email:delston@jshfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DouglasAr thur Schwab
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-506-0109
Fax:602-506-8567
Email:schwabd@mcao.maricopa.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J amesLawr enceWilliams
SchmittSchneckSmyth&HerrodPC
1221EOsbornRd
Ste105
Phoenix,AZ85014
602-277-7000
Email:james@azbarristers.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ohnTMaster son
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-1700
Fax:602-200-7846
Email:jmasterson@jshfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J osephJ ohnPopolizio
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-1700
Fax:602200-7876
Email:jpopolizio@jshfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 866
28/197
(932 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 34 of 202
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ustinMichaelAcker man
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-263-1740
Email:jackerman@jshfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
MicheleMar ieIafr ate
Iafrate&Associates
649N2ndAve.
Phoenix,AZ85003
602-234-9775
Fax:602-234-9733
Email:miafrate@iafratelaw.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AlecRHillbo
OgletreeDeakinsNashSmoak&Stewart
PC
2415ECamelbackRd
Ste800
Phoenix,AZ85016
602-778-3700
Fax:602-778-3750
Email:alec.hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Dr ewMetcalf
SchmittSchneckSmyth&HerrodPC
1221EOsbornRd
Ste105
602-277-7000
Fax:602-277-8663
Email:drewmetcalf@azbarristers.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Ker r yScottMar tin
PC-Tucson,AZ
3430ESunriseDr.,Ste.220
RE 867
29/197
(933 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 35 of 202
Tucson,AZ85718
602-778-3715
Fax:602-778-3750
Email:
kerry.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LeighEr icDowell
PC
2415ECamelbackRd
Ste800
Phoenix,AZ85016
602-778-3700
Fax:602-778-3700
Email:eric.dowell@ogletreedeakins.com
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Mar iaBr andon
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-506-8541
Email:brandon@mcao.maricopa.gov
ThomasPLiddy
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-506-8541
Fax:602-506-8567
Email:liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TimothyJ amesCasey
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
UnknownPar ties
NamedasJohnDoes-1-10intheir
individualandofficialcapacitiesas
sheriff'sdeputiesfortheCountyof
Maricopa
representedby Bar r yDMitchell

MitchellStein&CareyPC
1RenaissanceSq.
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-358-0293
RE 868
30/197
(934 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 36 of 202
Fax:602-358-0291
Email:barry@mitchellsteincarey.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DennisIr aWilenchik
Wilenchik&BartnessPC
2810N3rdSt.,Ste.103
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-606-2810
Fax:602-606-2811
Email:diw@wb-law.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LeeDavidStein
MitchellStein&CareyPC
1RenaissanceSq.
Phoenix,AZ85004
602-358-0292
Fax:602-358-0291
Email:lee@mitchellsteincarey.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
Mar icopaCountySher iff'sOffice
representedby AnnThompsonUglietta
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Debor ahLGar ner
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DouglasAr thur Schwab
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J amesLawr enceWilliams
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RE 869
31/197
(935 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 37 of 202
MicheleMar ieIafr ate

LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ThomasPLiddy
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AlecRHillbo
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Dr ewMetcalf
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J ulieAPace
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Ker r yScottMar tin
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LeighEr icDowell
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
TimothyJ amesCasey
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
Br ettPalmer
namedasMCSOSgt.BrettPalmer
representedby Chr istopher ThomasRapp

RyanRapp&UnderwoodPLC
3200NCentralAve
Ste1600
Phoenix,AZ85012
602-280-1000
Fax:602-265-1495
Email:ctrapp@rrulaw.com
RE 870
32/197
(936 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 38 of 202
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Movant
Chr istineStutz
representedby Ter r encePWoods

BroeningObergWoods&WilsonPC
POBox20527
602-271-7705
Fax:602-258-7785
Email:tpw@bowwlaw.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Movant
WilliamMontgomer y
MaricopaCountyAttorney
representedby Apr ilMar ieHamilton

RidenourHientonPLLC
ChaseTower
602-254-9900
Fax:602-254-8670
Email:ahamilton@rhlfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Er nestCalder on
RidenourHientonPLLC
ChaseTower
602-254-9900
Fax:602-254-8670
Email:ecalderon@rhlfirm.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Movant
Mar icopaCountyAttor ney'sOffice
representedby Apr ilMar ieHamilton

LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Er nestCalder on
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Amicus
RE 871
33/197
(937 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
UnitedStatesofAmer ica
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 39 of 202
representedby Edwar dGCaspar

LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
LynnetteCKimmins
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
RosaleenTobinOGar a
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
WinsomeGayle
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AminAminfar
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
AnnElizabethHar wood
USAttorneysOffice-Phoenix,AZ
2RenaissanceSquare
602-514-7500
Fax:602-514-7760
Email:ann.harwood@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
ElizabethAStr ange
USAttorneysOffice
405WCongressSt
Ste4800
Tucson,AZ85701
520-620-7300
Fax:520-620-7318
Email:elizabeth.strange@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
J eYonJ ung
USDeptofJustice
950PennsylvaniaAveNW
RE 872
34/197
(938 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 40 of 202
PHBSPLRoom5916
Washington,DC20530
202-305-1457
Fax:202-514-6903
Email:jeyon.jung@usdoj.gov
V.
Inter venor
Aggr ievedandIr r epar ablyInjur ed
ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenix
Citizens
representedby Aggr ievedandIr r epar ablyInjur ed

ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenix
Citizens
P.O.Box2811
(602)472-9353
PROSE
Inter venor
ScottHuminski
representedby ScottHuminski
2624SBahamaDr.
Gilbert,AZ85295
(480)243-8184
PROSE
Inter venor
DennisLMontgomer y
representedby J onathonAMoseley
FreedomWatchIncorporated
2020PennsylvaniaAve.NW,Ste.345
Washington,DC20006
310-595-0800
LEADATTORNEY
Lar r yKlayman
FreedomWatchInc
2020PennsylvaniaAve.NW,Ste.345
Washington,DC20006
310-595-0800
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DateFiled
DocketText
12/12/2007
1 COMPLAINT.Filingfeereceived:$350.00,receiptnumber
09700000000001606323,filedbyManuelOrtegaMelendres.(Moffa,Louis)
(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
2 NoticereCivilCoverSheetbyManuelOrtegaMelendres(Moffa,Louis),
RE 873
35/197
(939 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 41 of 202
DOCUMENTFILEDINERROR,ATTORNEYNOTICEDTOREFILEWITH
CORRECTPDFDOCUMENT,Modifiedon12/14/2007(LSP).(Entered:
12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
3 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyLouisR.MoffaJr.by
ManuelOrtegaMelendres.(Moffa,Louis)(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$100,receiptnumberPHX065702astoLouisR
Moffa,Jr.(BAS,)(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
4 ORDERpursuanttoGeneralOrder05-25granting3MotionforAdmissionPro
HacVice.PertheCourt'sAdministrativePoliciesandProceduresManual,
applicanthasfive(5)daysinwhichtoregisterasauseroftheElectronicFiling
System.Registrationtobeaccomplishedviathecourt'swebsiteat
www.azd.uscourts.gov.(BAS,)(ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno.pdf
documentassociatedwiththisentry.)(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
5 NoticereSummonstoJosephM.ArpaiobyManuelOrtegaMelendres(Moffa,
Louis)(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
6 NoticereSummonstoMaricopaCounty,ArizonabyManuelOrtegaMelendres
(Moffa,Louis)(Entered:12/12/2007)
12/12/2007
ThiscasehasbeenassignedtotheHonorableMaryH.Murguia.Allfuture
pleadingsordocumentsshouldbearthecorrectcasenumber:CV07-2513-PHXMHM.(REK)(Entered:12/13/2007)
12/12/2007
7 NoticereMagistrateConsentForm(REK)(Entered:12/13/2007)
12/13/2007
8 SummonsIssuedastoMaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1
Maricopa)(REK).***IMPORTANT:Youmustselect"Documentandstamps"
or"Documentandcomments"ontheprintscreeninorderforthecourtsealto
appearonthesummonsyouprint.(Entered:12/13/2007)
12/13/2007
9 NOTICETOFILEROFDEFICIENCYre1ComplaintfiledbyManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres.Descriptionofdeficiency:Thefollowingrequireddocument
wasnotattached:CivilCoverSheet.(REK)(Entered:12/13/2007)
12/14/2007
10 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.Joseph
M.Arpaioservedon12/13/2007.(Moffa,Louis)(Entered:12/14/2007)
12/14/2007
11 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.
MaricopaCountyservedon12/13/2007.(Moffa,Louis)(Entered:12/14/2007)
01/03/2008
12 MOTIONtoDismissCaseDefendantsArpaioandMaricopaCounty'sRule
12(b)(6)MotiontoDismissbyMaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)Modifiedon
1/7/2008,DOCUMENTNOTINCOMPLIANCEWITHLRCiv7.1(c).
ATTORNEYNOTICED,(LSP).(Entered:01/03/2008)
01/04/2008
13 ANSWERtoComplaintbyMaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,
Timothy)(Entered:01/04/2008)
01/21/2008
14 RESPONSEinOppositionre12MOTIONtoDismissCaseDefendantsArpaio
andMaricopaCounty'sRule12(b)(6)MotiontoDismissMOTIONtoDismiss
RE 874
36/197
(940 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 42 of 202
CaseDefendantsArpaioandMaricopaCounty'sRule12(b)(6)Motionto
DismissfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(Moffa,Louis)(Entered:
01/21/2008)
04/18/2008
15 NOTICEofAttorneySubstitutionbyJulieAPace(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrderProposedOrdertoNoticeofSubstitutionofCounselwithClient
Consent)(Pace,Julie)(Entered:04/18/2008)
05/02/2008
16 ORDERre15NOTICEofAttorneySubstitution-thatBallardSpahrAndrews&
Ingersoll,LLP("BallardSpahr")iswithdrawnascounselofrecordforPlaand
thatinitsplacebesubstitutedattorneysDavidJ.BodneyandPeterKozinetswith
Steptoe&Johnson,LLP("Steptoe&Johnson")inthisaction.SignedbyJudge
MaryHMurguiaon5/1/08.(KMG)(Entered:05/02/2008)
07/16/2008
17 MOTIONtoAmend/CorrectComplaintbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Bodney,David)
(Entered:07/16/2008)
07/16/2008
18 LODGEDProposedFirstAmendedComplaintre:17MOTIONto
Amend/CorrectComplaint.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotiontoLeaveto
FileorAmendisgranted.FiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA-D)(Bodney,David)(Entered:07/16/2008)
07/28/2008
19 RESPONSEinOppositionre17MOTIONtoAmend/CorrectComplaintfiledby
MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:07/28/2008)
08/07/2008
20 REPLYinSupportre17MOTIONtoAmend/CorrectComplaintfiledby
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:08/07/2008)
08/14/2008
21 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyNancyAnneRamirezon
behalfofManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(BAS,)(Entered:08/14/2008)
08/14/2008
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$100,receiptnumberPHX074544astoNancy
AnneRamirez.(BAS,)(Entered:08/14/2008)
08/14/2008
HacVice.PertheCourt'sAdministrativePoliciesandProceduresManual,
08/29/2008
23 MinuteOrder:TheCourtORDERSsettingthismatterfororalargumentre:
Defendants'MotiontoDismiss12andPlaintiffs'MotiontoAmend/Correct
Complaint17onWednesday,September24,2008at3:30p.m.beforeJudge
MaryHMurguia.[ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.](KSP)(Entered:08/29/2008)
09/03/2008
24 MOTIONtoIntervenebyAggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnited
StatesandPhoenixCitizens.(KMG)(Entered:09/05/2008)
09/05/2008
25 ORDERsignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon9/5/08.ITISHEREBY
ORDEREDgrantingPlaintiff'sMotionforLeavetoAmendComplaint.
(Dkt.#17)ITISFURTHERORDEREDdenyingDefendants12(b)(6)Motion
RE 875
37/197
(941 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 43 of 202
toDismissasmoot.(Dkt.#12).ITISFURTHERORDEREDvacatingtheMotion
HearingsetonSeptember24,2008at3:30p.m.(KSP)(Entered:09/05/2008)
09/05/2008
26 FIRSTAMENDEDCOMPLAINTagainstJosephM.Arpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,andMaricopaCountyPartyJohnDoesterminated,filedby
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,David
Rodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr.andSomosAmerica(Attachments:#
1ExhibitA-D)(ESL)(Entered:09/08/2008)
09/09/2008
27 NoticereSummonsinaCivilCasebyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguezre26AmendedComplaint,(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:09/09/2008)
09/09/2008
28 SummonsIssuedastoMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(REK).***
IMPORTANT:Youmustselect"Documentandstamps"or"Documentand
comments"ontheprintscreeninorderforthecourtsealtoappearonthe
summonsyouprint.(Entered:09/09/2008)
09/11/2008
29 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Rodriguez.MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeservedon9/10/2008.(Kozinets,
Peter)(Entered:09/11/2008)
09/19/2008
30 RESPONSEinOppositionre24MOTIONtoIntervenePursuanttoFRCPRule
22andFRCPRule24filedbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguez.(Hernandez,Isaac)(Entered:09/19/2008)
09/24/2008
31 MOTIONforLeavetoFileExcessPagesforDefendants'Rule12(b)(6)Motion
toDismissPlaintiffs'FirstAmendedComplaintbyMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
Order)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:09/24/2008)
09/24/2008
32 LODGEDProposedDefendants'Rule12(b)(6)MotiontoDismissPlaintiffs'
FirstAmendedComplaintre:31MOTIONforLeavetoFileExcessPagesfor
Defendants'Rule12(b)(6)MotiontoDismissPlaintiffs'FirstAmended
ComplaintMOTIONforLeavetoFileExcessPagesforDefendants'Rule12(b)
(6)MotiontoDismissPlaintiffs'FirstAmendedComplaint.Documenttobefiled
byClerkifMotiontoLeavetoFileorAmendisgranted.FiledbyMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:09/24/2008)
09/24/2008
33 FirstMOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyMonicaM.Ramirez
byManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(Ramirez,Monica)(Entered:09/24/2008)
09/24/2008
34 FirstMOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyRobinL.Goldfaden
byManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(Goldfaden,Robin)(Entered:
09/24/2008)
09/24/2008
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$100,receiptnumberPHX075918astoMonicaM
Ramirez.(BAS,)(Entered:09/24/2008)
09/24/2008
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$100,receiptnumberPHX075919astoRobin
LisaGoldfaden.(BAS,)(Entered:09/24/2008)
RE 876
38/197
(942 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 44 of 202
09/24/2008
HacVicegranting34MotionforAdmissionProHacVice.PertheCourt's
AdministrativePoliciesandProceduresManual,applicanthasfive(5)daysin
whichtoregisterasauseroftheElectronicFilingSystem.Registrationtobe
accomplishedviathecourt'swebsiteatwww.azd.uscourts.gov.(BAS,)(Thisisa
TEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno.pdfdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.)
(Entered:09/24/2008)
09/29/2008
36 ORDERgranting31thedefendantsJosephM.Arpaio,MaricopaCounty,andthe
MaricopaCountySheriffsOfficeleavetofiletheirReplymemorandumina
formnottoexceedtwenty(20)pages.SignedbyJudgeMaryH.Murguiaon
09/26/08.(MHM)(Entered:09/29/2008)
09/29/2008
37 Joinderre30ResponseinOppositiontoMotion,byDefendantsMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.ArpaiofiledbyMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:09/29/2008)
09/29/2008
39 Rule12(b)(6)MOTIONtoDismissPlaintiffs'FirstAmendedComplaintby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(REW,)
(Entered:10/02/2008)
09/30/2008
38 ORDERdenyingBillStollerandtheAggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassof
UnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens'Motion24toInterveneUnderRule22and24
Fed.R.Civ.P.MotiontoIntervene.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon
9/29/08.(KMG)(Entered:09/30/2008)
10/06/2008
40 NOTICEOFINTERLOCUTORYAPPEALto9thCircuitasto38Orderon
MotiontoIntervenebyAggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStates
andPhoenixCitizens.(KMG,)Modifiedon10/9/2008(NOTE:Construedasa
NoticeofAppealratherthananInterlocutoryAppeal...Seedoc#44)(KMG,).
(Entered:10/07/2008)
10/06/2008
41 OBJECTIONre38OrderonMotiontoIntervenebyIntervenorAggrievedand
IrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.(LAD)
(Entered:10/08/2008)
10/06/2008
42 MOTIONforRehearingAndResubmissionofMotiontoIntervene,MOTION
forIssuanceofSubpoenaforRaySternandPossiblyOthersbyAggrievedand
IrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.(samepdfas
document41)(LAD)(Entered:10/08/2008)
10/06/2008
43 MailReturnedasUndeliverable.MailsenttoAggrievedandIrreparablyInjured
ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reasonforreturn:Returnto
Sender,NotDeliverableasAddressed,UnabletoForward.Documentnumber36
.(LAD)(Entered:10/09/2008)
10/06/2008
44 NOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuit,asto38OrderonMotiontoInterveneby
AggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.
(NOTE:samepleadingasdocument#40)(KMG)(Entered:10/09/2008)
10/14/2008
45 ORDERenteredbyJudgeMaryH.Murguiaon10/14/08.Motionsfor
reconsiderationunderFed.R.Civ.P.59(e)aredisfavoredandonlyappropriateif
thecourt"(1)ispresentedwithnewlydiscoveredevidence,(2)committedclear
RE 877
39/197
(943 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 45 of 202
errorortheinitialdecisionwasmanifestlyunjust,or(3)ifthereisanintervening
changeincontrollinglaw."SchoolSist.No.1J,MultnomahCountyv.Acands,
Inc.,5F.3d1255,1263(9thCir.1993),cert.denied,114S.Ct.2742(1994).
HavingconsideredStoller'srequest,theCourtdeniestheMotion.Nonew
evidencehasbeenpresented,thelawregardinginterventionremainsstableand,
becauseStollersattempttointervenelacksallmerit,thepreviousOrdercouldin
nosensebeconsideredmanifestlyunjust.ITISHEREBYORDEREDdenying
StollersMotionforRehearingAndResubmissionofMotiontoIntervene.
(Dkt.#42.)ITISFURTHERORDEREDdirectingthePartiesthatastaywillnot
beissuedduringthependencyofappealandthecaseshallproceedasscheduled.
(KSP)[ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno.pdfdocumentassociated
withthisentry.](Entered:10/14/2008)
10/14/2008
46 CERTIFICATEOFRECORDTRANSMITTEDTO9THCIRCUITCOURTOF
APPEALSre44NoticeofAppeal(KMG)(Entered:10/14/2008)
10/14/2008
47 NoticeofAppealNotificationFormNoticeofAppealandcopyofdocketsheet
transmittedtoNinthCircuitandallpartiesre44NoticeofAppeal(KMG)
(Entered:10/14/2008)
10/14/2008
48 RESPONSEinOppositionre39MOTIONtoDismissCase(Plaintiffs'First
AmendedComplaint)filedbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
Rodriguez.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:10/14/2008)
10/14/2008
49 MOTIONforHearingorConferencere:Rule16ConferencebyDavid
Rodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
10/14/2008)
10/20/2008
ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reasonforreturn:NotDeliverable
asAddressed.UnabletoForward.Documentnumber36.(SAT)(Entered:
10/21/2008)
10/21/2008
50 NinthCircuitCaseNumber08-17270for44NoticeofAppeal.(ESL)(Entered:
10/21/2008)
10/23/2008
52 RESPONSEtoMotionre49MOTIONforHearingorConferencere:Rule16
ConferencefiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,Joseph
M.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/23/2008)
10/24/2008
ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reasonforreturn:NotDeliverable
asAddressed,UnabletoForward.Documentnumber44,46,47.(LAD)
(Entered:10/27/2008)
11/03/2008
54 REPLYinSupportre49MOTIONforHearingorConferencere:Rule16
ConferencefiledbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,Somos
America,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:11/03/2008)
11/21/2008
55 ORDERof9thCircuit:Within21daysfromthedateofentryofthisorder,
appellantshallfileamotionwiththiscourttoproceedinformapauperis,pay
RE 878
40/197
(944 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 46 of 202
$455.00tothedistrictcourtasthedocketingandfilingfeesforthisappealand
provideproofofpaymenttothiscourtorotherwiseshowcausewhythisappeal
shouldnotbedismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Ifappellantfailstocomply,the
appealwillbedismissed.Appealcasenumber08-17270,asto44Noticeof
AppealfiledbyAggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesand
PhoenixCitizens(DNH)(Entered:11/21/2008)
12/19/2008
56 MinuteOrder:TheCourtORDERSsettingthismatterfororalargumentre:
Defendants'MotiontoDismiss39onWednesday,January14,2009at3:00p.m.
beforeJudgeMaryHMurguia.[ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno
PDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.](KSP)(Entered:12/19/2008)
01/14/2009
57 MinuteEntryforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeMaryHMurguia.Court
Reporter:MerilynSanchez.Appearances:DanielPochoda,KristinaCampbell,
DavidBodney,PeterKozinetsfortheplaintiffs.TimCaseyforthedefendants.
Oralargumentre:Defendants'MotiontoDismissheldon1/14/09.ITIS
ORDEREDtakingthismatterunderadvisement.[ThisisaTEXTENTRY
ONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.](KSP)(Entered:
01/14/2009)
01/15/2009
58 MANDATEof9thCircuit(CertifiedCopy),dismissingappealforfailureto
respondtotheorderofthiscourtdated11/19/08.Thisorderconstitutesthe
mandateofthiscourtcasenumber08-17270,asto44NoticeofAppealfiledby
AggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens
(Attachments:#1nda)(DMT,)(Entered:01/15/2009)
01/22/2009
59 MailReturnedasUndeliverable.MailsenttoTheAggrievedandIrreparably
InjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reasonforreturn:Returnto
Sender/NotDeliverableasAddressed/UnabletoForward.Documentnumber
58.(REK)(Entered:01/23/2009)
02/10/2009
60 ORDERdenying39MotiontoDismissCasedenyingasmoot49Motionfor
Hearing.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon2/10/09.(KSP)(Entered:
02/10/2009)
02/13/2009
61 ORDERRule16CaseManagementConferencesetfor3/12/200904:00PM
beforeJudgeMaryHMurguia.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon2/11/09.
(TLJ)(Entered:02/13/2009)
02/20/2009
62 Defendants'ANSWERto26AmendedComplaint,byMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
02/20/2009)
02/23/2009
63 MOTIONforRecusalbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,
JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2TextofProposedOrder)
(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:02/23/2009)
02/25/2009
64 NoticereofServiceofDiscoveryonDefendantsMaricopaCountySheriff's
OfficeandMaricopaCountybyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguez(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:02/25/2009)
02/26/2009
65 REPORTre:Rule26(f)PlanningMeetingbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,
RE 879
41/197
(945 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 47 of 202
ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Jessica
QuituguaRodriguez.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:02/26/2009)
03/06/2009
66 MinuteOrder:TheCourtORDERSvacatingtheRule16SchedulingConference
setMarch12,2009at4:00p.m.beforeJudgeMaryH.Murguiapendingruling
onDefendant'sMotionforRecusal.[ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereis
noPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.](KSP)(Entered:03/06/2009)
03/11/2009
67 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'Rule26(a)(1)InitialDisclosure
StatementbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.
Arpaio(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/11/2009)
03/11/2009
68 AMENDEDANSWERto26AmendedComplaint,byMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:03/11/2009)
03/11/2009
69 NoticereNOTICEOFSERVICEOFPLAINTIFFSRULE26(a)(1)INITIAL
DISCLOSURESTATEMENTbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguez(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:03/11/2009)
03/12/2009
70 RESPONSEinOppositionre63MOTIONforRecusalfiledbyDavid
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Attachments:#1Affidavit
DeclarationofAaronJ.Lockwood)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:03/12/2009)
03/16/2009
71 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'FirstSupplementalRule26(a)(1)
DisclosureStatementbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,
JosephM.Arpaio(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/16/2009)
03/17/2009
72 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'SecondSupplementalDisclosureby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio(Casey,
03/23/2009
73 REPLYinSupportre63MOTIONforRecusalfiledbyMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:03/23/2009)
03/23/2009
74 REPLYinSupportre63MOTIONforRecusalAmendedReplyMemorandumin
SupportofDefendants'MotionforRecusalfiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,
03/27/2009
75 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'ThirdSupplementalDisclosure
03/27/2009
76 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sDiscoveryResponsesto
Plaintiff'sDiscoverybyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,
JosephM.Arpaio(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/27/2009)
03/27/2009
77 STIPULATIONToExtendTimeByWhichDefendantMaricopaCountyMay
AnswerAndRespondtoPlaintiffs'InterrogatoriesandRequestsforProduction
ofDocumentsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.
Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
RE 880
42/197
(946 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 48 of 202
03/27/2009)
04/06/2009
78 ORDERgranting77Stipulation:ORDEREDgrantingdftMaricopaCountyan
extensionoftime,untilandincluding4/10/09,toanswerorotherwiserespondto
plas'interrogatoriesandrequestforproductionpropoundedondftMaricopa
County.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon4/2/2009.(LAD)(Entered:
04/06/2009)
04/09/2009
79 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'FourthSupplementalDisclosure
04/09/2009
80 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sFirstSupplementalResponses
toPlaintiffs'FirstSetofRequestsforProductionofDocumentsandThingsby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,MaricopaCounty,JosephM.Arpaio(Casey,
04/10/2009
81 STIPULATIONToExtendTimeByWhichDefendantMaricopaCountyMay
AnswerAndRespondtoPlaintiffs'InterrogatoriesandRequestsforProduction
ofDocuments-SecondRequestbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Maricopa
County,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,
04/15/2009
82 ORDERgranting81Stipulation.DefendantMaricopaCountyisgrantedan
extensionoftime,untilandincludingApril24,2009,toanswerorotherwise
respondtoPlaintiffsInterrogatoriesandRequestforProductionpropoundedon
defendantMaricopaCounty.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon4/13/09.
(KSP)(Entered:04/15/2009)
04/15/2009
83 NoticereofServiceofPlaintiffs'FirstSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
DavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,Manuelde
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
04/15/2009)
04/20/2009
84 MOTIONtoSubstituteAttorney:DefendantMaricopaCounty'sApplicationfor
andNoticeofSubstitutionofCounselwithClientConsentbyDefendant
MaricopaCounty.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1toApplicationforandNoticeof
SubstitutionofCounsel,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Moberly,Michael)
INCORRECTEVENTSELECTED,THISENTRYHASBEENMODIFIED
FROMAPPLICATIONtoMOTIONTOSUBSTITUTEATTORNEYModified
on4/21/2009(ESL,).(Entered:04/20/2009)
04/21/2009
85 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sThirdSupplemental
ResponsestoPlaintiffs'FirstSetofRequestsforProductionandFirst
SupplementalandAmendedAnswertoInterrogatoryNo.16ofPlaintiffs'First
SetofInterrogatoriesbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:04/21/2009)
04/21/2009
86 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendants'FifthSupplementalDisclosure
04/22/2009
87 ORDER-Pursuantto84Motion/ApplicationforandNoticeofSubstitutionof
Counsel,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatSchmitt,Schneck,Smyth&Herrod,
RE 881
43/197
(947 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 49 of 202
P.C.iswithdrawnascnslofrecordforDftMaricopaCountyonly,andthatinits
placeshallbesubstitutedRyley,Carlock&Applewhiteinthisaction.
FURTHERORDEREDthatallfuturepleadings,noticescorrespondence,and
otherpapersshouldbeservedonDftMaricopaCounty'ssubstitutedcnslatthe
followingaddress:MichaelD.Moberly,JohnM.Fry,RyleyCarlock&
Applewhite,1NorthCentralAvenue,Suite1200,Phoenix,AZ85004-4417.
AttysMichaelDMoberlyandJohnMichaelFryaddedfordftMaricopaCounty
andattyTimothyJamesCaseyterminated.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon
4/20/09.(SAT)(Entered:04/22/2009)
04/22/2009
88 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantArpaio'sDiscoveryRequestsupon
PlaintiffsbyJosephM.Arpaio(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:04/22/2009)
04/23/2009
89 STIPULATIONtoExtendTimebyWhichDefendantMayAnswerandRespond
toPlaintiffs'FirstSetofInterrogatoriesandRequestsforProductionof
Documents(ThirdRequest)byMaricopaCounty.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrder)(Fry,John)(Entered:04/23/2009)
04/27/2009
90 MOTIONforJudgmentonthePleadingsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,
JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:04/27/2009)
04/28/2009
91 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sSixth
SupplementalDisclosureStatementbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Joseph
M.Arpaio(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:04/28/2009)
04/28/2009
92 NoticereofServiceofPlaintiffs'SecondSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
04/28/2009)
04/29/2009
93 MOTIONtoCertifyClassbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
Rodriguez.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder,#2ExhibitIndexof
ExhibitstoPlaintiffs'MotionforClassCertification,#3ExhibitAttachment1,#
4ExhibitAttachment2,#5ExhibitExhibitsA-M,#6ExhibitExhibitN,#7
ExhibitExhibitsO-Z,#8ExhibitExhibitsAA-FF,#9ExhibitAttachments3-5)
(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:04/29/2009)
04/30/2009
94 ORDERgrantingtheparites'89Stipulation:ThatDftMaricopaCountyhasan
extensionoftime,untilandincludingMay15,2009,toanswerorotherwise
respondtoPlas'FirstSetofInterrogatoriesandFirstSetofRequestsfor
ProductionofDocumentsandThingsToDefendantMaricopaCounty.Signedby
JudgeMaryHMurguiaon4/27/09.(KMG,)(Entered:04/30/2009)
05/08/2009
95 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sSeventh
05/13/2009
96 RESPONSEinOppositionre93MOTIONtoCertifyClassSeparateMotionfor
LeavetoFileSurreply&SeparateMotiontoStrikeInformationOfferedBy
PlaintiffsfiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
05/13/2009)
RE 882
44/197
(948 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 50 of 202
05/13/2009
97 MOTIONtoStrikereInformationOfferedByPlaintiffsbyMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)
05/14/2009
98 RESPONSEinOppositionre90MOTIONforJudgmentonthePleadingsfiled
byDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,Manuelde
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
05/14/2009)
05/15/2009
99 NoticereDefendantMaricopaCounty'sNoticeof
Service_of_Responses_to_Plaintiffs_Interrogatories_and_RFPbyMaricopa
County(Fry,John)(Entered:05/15/2009)
05/18/2009
100 RESPONSEtoMotionre93MOTIONtoCertifyClassfiledbyMaricopa
County.(Moberly,Michael)(Entered:05/18/2009)
05/18/2009
101 NOTICEofAppearancebyMichaelDMoberlyonbehalfofMaricopaCounty
(Moberly,Michael)(Entered:05/18/2009)
05/20/2009
102 STIPULATIONonFirstExtensionofTimeForPlaintiffsandDefendants
ArpaioandtheMCSOtoFileortoServeCertainPleadingsbyMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)
05/21/2009
103 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sEighth
05/21/2009
104 ORDERgranting102Stipulation.ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatDefendants
ArpaioandtheMCSOaregrantedanextensionthroughandincludingJune5,
2009,tofileandtoservetheirreplymemoranduminsupportoftheirRule12(c)
MotionforJudgmentonthePleadings.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthat
PlaintiffsaregrantedanextensionthroughandincludingJune5,2009,tofile
andtoservetheirreplymemoranduminsupportoftheirMotionforClass
Certification.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatPlaintiffsaregrantedan
extensionthroughandincludingJune5,2009,toservetheirresponsesto
DefendantArpaiosdiscoveryrequests.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon
5/21/09.(KSP)(Entered:05/21/2009)
05/28/2009
105 MOTIONtoStayreProceedingsbyMaricopaCounty.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
A,#2ExhibitB)(Moberly,Michael)(Entered:05/28/2009)
05/29/2009
106 STIPULATIONonFirstExtensionofTimeforPlaintiffstoRespondto
DefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sMotionforLeavetoFileSur-ReplyandMotion
toStrikeInformationOfferedbyPlaintiffsbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,
ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Jessica
QuituguaRodriguez.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Kozinets,
06/03/2009
107 ORDERpursuantto106Stipulation:Plasaregrantedanextensionthroughand
including6/5/09,tofileandservetheirresponsestodftsArpaioandMCSO's
SeparateMotionforLeavetoFileSur-ReplyandSeparateMotiontoSTrike
InformationOfferedbyplas.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon6/2/2009.
(LAD)(Entered:06/03/2009)
RE 883
45/197
(949 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 51 of 202
06/05/2009
108 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre90MOTIONforJudgmentonthePleadings
ReplyMemoranduminSupportofDefendantsArpaioandtheMCSO'sRule
12(c)MotionforJudgmentonthePleadingsfiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/05/2009)
06/05/2009
109 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'ResponsesandObjectionstoDefendantArpaio's
FirstSetofRequestsforAdmissions,InterrogatoriesandRequestsfor
ProductionbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,Somos
America,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez
06/05/2009
110 REPLYinSupportre93MOTIONtoCertifyClass-and-Responsein
OppositiontoDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sSeparateMotionstoStrikeand
forLeavetoFileSur-Reply97filedbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Rodriguez.(Kozinets,Peter)Modifiedon6/8/2009(LAD).DOCKETTEXT
MODIFIEDTOADDDOCUMENTLINKAGE.(Entered:06/05/2009)
06/11/2009
111 NOTICEofDepositionofMayorPhilGordon,filedbyMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/11/2009)
06/12/2009
112 MOTIONtoWithdraw(DefendantMaricopaCounty'sMotionforLeaveto
WithdrawItsParticipationinDefendants'MotionforRecusal)byMaricopa
County.(Fry,John)(Entered:06/12/2009)
06/15/2009
113 MOTIONtoFileAmicusCuriaeBriefRegardingDefendantMaricopaCounty's
MotiontoStayProceedingsbyUnitedStates.(Attachments:#1ExhibitUnited
States'AmicusBrief)(Jung,JeYon)(Entered:06/15/2009)
06/15/2009
114 RESPONSEinOppositionre105MOTIONtoStayreProceedingsfiledby
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Attachments:#1
AffidavitDeclarationofAaronJ.Lockwood)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
06/15/2009)
06/15/2009
115 RESPONSEinOppositionre105MOTIONtoStayreProceedingsfiledby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)
06/16/2009
116 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sNinth
SupplementalDisclosurebyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio
06/16/2009
117 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.
Arpaiore111NoticeofDepositionofMayorPhilGordon(Attachments:#1
Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/16/2009)
06/17/2009
118 RESPONSEtoMotionre113MOTIONtoFileAmicusCuriaeBriefRegarding
DefendantMaricopaCounty'sMotiontoStayProceedingsfiledbyMaricopa
County.(Fry,John)(Entered:06/17/2009)
06/18/2009
DefendantMaricopaCounty'sMotiontoStayProceedingsfiledbyMaricopa
RE 884
46/197
(950 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 52 of 202
CountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
06/18/2009)
06/18/2009
120 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sTenth
06/23/2009
DefendantMaricopaCounty'sMotiontoStayProceedingsfiledbyDavid
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Bodney,David)(Entered:
06/23/2009)
06/25/2009
122 REPLYinSupportre105MOTIONtoStayreProceedingsfiledbyMaricopa
County.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA)(Fry,John)(Entered:06/25/2009)
06/30/2009
123 NOTICEofDepositionofMayorPhilGordon,filedbyMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/30/2009)
07/02/2009
124 NoticereofServiceofPlaintiffDavidRodriguez'sSupplementalandAmended
ResponsestoDefendantArpaio'sFirstSetofInterrogatoriesandRequestsfor
ProductionbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,Somos
America,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez
07/06/2009
125 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sFourthSupplemental
ResponsestoPlaintiffs'FirstSetofRequestsforProductionofDocumentsand
ThingsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
07/06/2009)
07/07/2009
126 FirstMOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyCecilliaD.Wangby
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Wang,Cecillia)Modified
on7/7/2009INCOMPLETEDOCUMENTFILED.THECERTIFICATEOF
GOODSTANDINGMUSTACCOMPANYTHEMOTIONFORADMISSION
PROHACVICE(KMG).(Entered:07/07/2009)
07/07/2009
127 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyCecilliaD.WangbyDavid
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
CertificatesofGoodStanding)(Wang,Cecillia)Modifiedon7/7/2009
INCORRECT(ANDOUT-DATED)CERTIFICATESSUMBITTED.
CERTIFICATESOFGOODSTANDING-DATEDNOMORETHAN45
DAYSPRIORTOSUBMISSIONOFTHISAPPLICATIONISREQUIRED.
(KMG).(Entered:07/07/2009)
07/07/2009
128 NOTICETOFILEROFDEFICIENCYre126FirstMOTIONforAdmission
ProHacViceastoattorneyCecilliaD.WangfiledbyVeliaMeraz,David
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica,ManuelNieto,Jr,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.Descriptionofdeficiency:Incomplete
documentfiled.TheCertificateofGoodStandingmustaccompanytheMotion
forAdmissionProHacVice.Attorneynoticedtorefile.(KMG,).(Entered:
07/07/2009)
RE 885
47/197
(951 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 53 of 202
07/07/2009
129 NOTICETOFILEROFDEFICIENCYre127MOTIONforAdmissionProHac
ViceastoattorneyCecilliaD.WangfiledbyVeliaMeraz,DavidRodriguez,
SomosAmerica,ManuelNieto,Jr,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,ManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres.Descriptionofdeficiency:Incorrect(andOut-Dated)
CertificatesAttachedtoMotion.AttorneyNoticedtoRefile.(KMG)(Entered:
07/07/2009)
07/08/2009
130 NOTICEOFATTORNEYSUBSTITUTION:CecilliaWangappearingfor
JesusOrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.AttorneyMonicaM
Ramirezterminated.(Ramirez,Monica)(Entered:07/08/2009)
07/08/2009
131 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sEleventh
07/08/2009
132 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sDiscoveryRequestsUpon
PlaintiffsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
07/08/2009)
07/09/2009
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
07/09/2009)
07/10/2009
134 MOTIONforLeavetoFileSupplementalBriefinSupportofTheirResponsein
OppositiontoDefendantMaricopaCounty'sMotiontoStayProceedingsby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.Arpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,
#2TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:07/10/2009)
07/10/2009
135 LODGEDProposedDefendantsArpaioandtheMCSO'sSupplementalBriefin
SupportofTheirResponseinOppositiontoDefendantMaricopaCounty's
MotiontoStayProceedingsre:134MOTIONforLeavetoFileSupplemental
BriefinSupportofTheirResponseinOppositiontoDefendantMaricopa
County'sMotiontoStayProceedings.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotion
toLeavetoFileorAmendisgranted.FiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,
JosephM.Arpaio.(Casey,Timothy)Modifiedon7/14/2009(SAT).
DOCUMENTNOTINCOMPLIANCEWITHLRCiv7.1(c).ATTORNEY
NOTICED.(Entered:07/10/2009)
07/10/2009
OrtegaMelendres,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
07/10/2009)
07/13/2009
07/13/2009
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX086317astoCecilliaD
Wang.(BAS,)(Entered:07/13/2009)
137 ORDERpursuanttoGeneralOrder05-25terminating133MotionforAdmission
ProHacVicegranting136MotionforAdmissionProHacVice.PertheCourt's
accomplishedviathecourt'swebsiteatwww.azd.uscourts.gov.(BAS,)(Thisisa
RE 886
48/197
(952 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 54 of 202
(Entered:07/13/2009)
07/15/2009
138 ORDERgranting63MotionforRecusal.SignedbyJudgeMaryHMurguiaon
7/15/09.ITISFURTHERORDEREDdirectingthattheClerkreassignthiscase
toanotherjudgeintheDistrictofArizonabyrandomlot.(KSP)(Entered:
07/15/2009)
07/15/2009
139 MinuteOrderThatpursuanttotheOrderissuedbyJudgeMaryH.Murguiaon
July15,2009,thiscaseisherebyreassignedbyrandomdrawtoMagistrate
JudgeLawrenceO.Andersonforallfurtherproceedings.Allfurther
pleadings/papersshouldnowlistthefollowingCOMPLETEcasenumber:CV
07-2513-PHX-LOA.(Attachments:#1Instructions,#2ConsentForm)(MAP)
(Entered:07/15/2009)
07/15/2009
MagistrateElectionFormDeadline(8/4/09)astoallparties.(MAP)(Entered:
07/15/2009)
07/16/2009
140 NOTICEOFASSIGNMENTANDORDERthatPlaintiffsandDefendantsshall
filetheirwrittenelectiontoeitherconsenttomagistrate-judgejurisdictionor
electtoproceedbeforeaUnitedStatesdistrictjudgeonorbefore7/27/09.
SignedbyMagistrateJudgeLawrenceOAndersonon7/16/09.(MAP)Modified
on7/21/2009PAGE3LINES14-15AREVACATEDPERORDER#141
ENTERED7/21/09(REW,).(Entered:07/16/2009)
07/21/2009
141 ORDERandNOTICEOFERRATA.PendingbeforetheCourtareseven
motionsforrulings,threeofwhichareclearlydispositiveinnature,90,93,105
theCourtwilldeferanyrulingsonthenon-disposivemotionsuntilafterthe
partieshaveeitherconsentedtomagistrate-judgejurisdictionorelectedto
proceedbeforeadistrictjudgeontheCourt'sownmotionduetoclericalerror,
vacatingthelastorderindocket140,page3,lines14-15Defendants'counsel
shallusepropercapitalizationinallfuturecaptionsasmandatedbyLRCiv7.1(a)
(3).SignedbyMagistrateJudgeLawrenceOAndersonon7/20/09.(REW,)
(Entered:07/21/2009)
07/22/2009
142 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,JosephM.
Arpaio(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:07/22/2009)
07/22/2009
143 PartyElectsAssignmentofCasetoDistrictJudgeJurisdiction.ThisisaTEXT
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(MAP)
(Entered:07/22/2009)
07/22/2009
144 MinuteOrderPursuanttoLocalRule3.8(a),arequesthasbeenreceivedfora
randomreassignmentofthiscasetoaDistrictJudgeFURTHERORDERED
CasereassignedbyrandomdrawtoJudgeG.MurraySnow.Allfurther
pleadings/papersshouldnowlistthefollowingCOMPLETEcasenumber:CV
07-2513-PHX-GMS.(MAP)(Entered:07/22/2009)
07/22/2009
(Entered:07/23/2009)
07/24/2009
RE 887
49/197
(953 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 55 of 202
(Entered:07/27/2009)
07/27/2009
147 ORDERterminatingDft's112MotionforLeavetoWithdrawasmootgranting
theUnitedStates113MotiontoFileAmicusCuriaeBrief.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon07/27/09.(ESL)(Entered:07/27/2009)
07/27/2009
148 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyCarolineCincottaonbehalf
ofplaintiffsDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,SomosAmerica,
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,andJessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(BAS,)
(Entered:07/27/2009)
07/27/2009
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX086822astoCaroline
Cincotta.(BAS,)(Entered:07/27/2009)
07/27/2009
149 ORDERpursuanttoGeneralOrder05-25granting148MotionforAdmission
ProHacVice.PertheCourt'sAdministrativePoliciesandProceduresManual,
07/29/2009
150 NoticereWithdrawalofCounselbyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Rodriguez(Cincotta,Caroline)(Entered:07/29/2009)
07/31/2009
151 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneybyDavidRodriguez,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Rodriguez.(Campbell,Kristina)(Entered:07/31/2009)
07/31/2009
152 NOTICEofAttorneySubstitutionbyKarenJHartman(Hartman,Karen)
(Entered:07/31/2009)
08/10/2009
153 NoticereNoticeofServicebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,Somos
AmericaofPlaintiffs'ResponsesandObjectionstoDefendantMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice'sFirstSetofInterrogatoriesandRequestsforProductiontoAll
Plaintiffs(Bodney,David)(Entered:08/10/2009)
08/13/2009
154 ORDERdenying105MotiontoStaydenying134MotionforLeavetoFilea
SupplementalBrief.(Seedocumentforfurtherdetails).SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon8/13/2009.(LAD)(Entered:08/13/2009)
08/24/2009
155 ORDERthattheMotion90forJudgmentonthePleadingsofDftsArpaioand
theMCSOisDENIED.FURTHERORDEREDthatPlas'Motion93forClass
CertificationisDENIEDwithoutprejudicetoitsbeingreassertedoncetheissue
ofstandingisresolved.FURTHERORDEREDthattheMotion97forLeaveto
FileSurreplyandtoStrikeofDftsArpaioandtheMCSOisDENIED.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon8/21/09.(KMG,)(Entered:08/24/2009)
09/01/2009
156 NOTICEofDepositionofJessikaRodriquez,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:09/01/2009)
09/01/2009
157 NOTICEofDepositionofDavidRodriquez,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,
RE 888
50/197
(954 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 56 of 202
09/01/2009
158 NOTICEofDepositionofManuelOrtegaMelendres,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,
09/01/2009
159 NOTICEofDepositionofVeliaMeraz,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:09/01/2009)
09/01/2009
160 NOTICEofDepositionofManuelNieto,Jr.,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,
09/01/2009
161 NOTICEofDepositionofLydiaGuzman,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,Maricopa
09/02/2009
162 ORDERSETTINGRULE16CASEMANAGEMENTCONFERENCE:
SchedulingConferencesetfor10/21/200909:15AMinCourtroom602,401
WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.(See
documentforfulldetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon9/1/2009.(LAD)
(Entered:09/02/2009)
09/11/2009
163 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyGladysLimononbehalfof
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,David
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,andSomosAmerica.(BAS)(Entered:
09/11/2009)
09/11/2009
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX088409astoGladys
Limon.(BAS)(Entered:09/11/2009)
09/11/2009
www.azd.uscourts.gov.(BAS)(ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno.pdf
09/16/2009
165 NOTICEofDepositionofDavidRodriquez,filedbyJosephM.Arpaio,
09/16/2009
166 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyLouisDeprietro,filedbyManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,Jessica
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:09/16/2009)
09/16/2009
167 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyCarlosRangel,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
168 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyAlbertoArmendariz,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
169 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyDouglasBeeks,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
170 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyCesarBrockman,filedbyManueldeJesus
RE 889
51/197
(955 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 57 of 202
09/16/2009
171 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyMichaelKikes,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
172 NOTICEofDepositionofSergeantBrettPalmer,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
173 NOTICEofDepositionofSergeantManuelMadrid,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
174 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyChiefBrianSands,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
175 NOTICEofDepositionofChiefDavidHendershott,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/16/2009
176 NoticereWithdrawalofAssociateCounselbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Melendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:09/16/2009)
09/17/2009
177 NoticereDefendantArpaioandMCSO'sCrossNoticeofVideotapingCertain
DepositionsNoticedbyPlaintiffsbyJosephM.Arpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOfficere168NoticeofDeposition,171NoticeofDeposition,166
NoticeofDeposition,173NoticeofDeposition,172NoticeofDeposition,167
NoticeofDeposition,169NoticeofDeposition,170NoticeofDeposition
09/21/2009
178 JointMOTIONandStipulationtoDismissMaricopaCountywithoutPrejudice
byPlaintiffManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrder)(Kozinets,Peter)INCORRECTEVENTSELECTED.THIS
ENTRYHASBEENMODIFIEDFROM(Joinder)to(MotiontoDismissParty)
ATTORNEYNOTICED.Modifiedon9/24/2009(ESL,).(Entered:09/21/2009)
09/22/2009
179 NOTICEofDepositionofJamesPendergraph,filedbyJosephMArpaio,
09/25/2009
180 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:09/25/2009)
09/25/2009
181 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantArpaioandMCSO's12thSupplemental
DisclosureStatementbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
09/28/2009
182 NoticereofServiceofSupplementalResponsetoPlaintiffs'FirstSetof
InterrogatoriestoDefendantMaricopaCountybyMaricopaCounty(Hartsig,
Charitie)(Entered:09/28/2009)
09/30/2009
183 NOTICEofAppearancebyAnneLaionbehalfofManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica(Lai,Anne)(Entered:09/30/2009)
RE 890
52/197
(956 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 58 of 202
10/01/2009
184 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO's13th
SupplementalDisclosureStatementbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/01/2009)
10/01/2009
185 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyMattRatcliff,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:10/01/2009)
10/01/2009
186 NOTICEofDepositionofSuzanneAshmore,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
10/02/2009
187 NOTICEofDepositionofLieutenantJosephSousa,filedbyManueldeJesus
10/07/2009
188 NOTICEofDepositionofSheriffJosephM.Arpaio,filedbyManueldeJesus
10/08/2009
189 NoticereDefendantArpaioandMCSO'sSecondCrossNoticeofVideotaping
CertainDepositionsNoticedbyPlaintiffsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
10/08/2009
10/08/2009
191 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sFifthSupplementalResponses
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
10/08/2009)
10/09/2009
10/09/2009
193 REPORTofAmendedJointCaseManagementReportbyPlaintiffsManuelde
JesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
10/09/2009)
10/13/2009
194 ORDERgranting178MotiontoDismissPartydismissingDefendantMaricopa
Countyfromthisactionwithoutprejudice.PlaintiffsandDefendantMaricopa
Countyshallbeartheirownattorneys'feesandcostsregardingPlaintiffs'claims
againstDefendantMaricopaCountyonly,butnotregardingPlaintiffs'claims
againstDefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
PartyMaricopaCountyterminated.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
10/13/09.(DMT,)(Entered:10/13/2009)
10/14/2009
195 NOTICEofDepositionofDeputyRamonCharleyArmendariz,filedbyManuel
deJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
10/14/2009)
RE 891
53/197
(957 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 59 of 202
10/15/2009
196 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'ThirdSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Lockwood,Aaron)
(Entered:10/15/2009)
10/20/2009
197 MOTIONforProtectiveOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1AffidavitCertificationofCounselTimothyJ.Casey,#
2Exhibit,#3TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/20/2009)
10/20/2009
198 MOTIONtoExpediteRulingonDefendants'MotionforProtectiveOrderby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
10/20/2009)
10/21/2009
199 MOTIONtoFileAmicusCuriaeMemorandumofLawRegardingDefendants'
MotionforProtectiveOrderbyUnitedStates.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2
ExhibitB)(Aminfar,Amin)(Entered:10/21/2009)
10/21/2009
200 MinuteEntryforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Appearances:
DavidBodneyandPeterKozinetsforplaintiffsTimothyCaseyfordefendants.
SchedulingConferenceheldon10/21/2009.Statusofthecaseisdiscussedand
casemanagementdeadlinesareestablished.Plaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendants'
MotionforProtectiveOrderisdueby10/23/09.Defendants'Replyisdueby
10/26/09.TheCourtsignstheCaseManagementOrderthisdate.Orderto
follow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno
PDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:10/21/2009)
10/21/2009
201 CASEMANAGEMENTORDER:Discoverydueby2/26/2010.Dispositive
motionsdueby7/31/2010.(SeeOrderforfulldetails).SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon10/21/09.(KFZ)(Entered:10/21/2009)
10/23/2009
202 RESPONSEinOppositionre197MOTIONforProtectiveOrder,199MOTION
toFileAmicusCuriaeMemorandumofLawRegardingDefendants'Motionfor
ProtectiveOrderPlaintiffs'ResponseinOppositiontoDefendants'Motionfor
ProtectiveOrderRe:TheExclusionofNon-PartyUnitedStatesDepartmentof
JusticefromtheDepositionsofDefendantsArpaioandMCSOWitnesses-andPlaintiffs'Non-OppositiontotheUnitedStates'MotionforLeavetoFileAmicus
CuriaeMemorandumofLawRegardingDefendants'MotionforProtective
OrderbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.
(Kozinets,Peter)Modifiedon10/26/2009INCORRECTEVENTSELECTED.
THECORRECTENTRY(ResponseinOppositiontoMotion)(KMG).(Entered:
10/23/2009)
10/23/2009
203 NoticereAmendedNoticeofDepositionofDeputyRamonCharleyArmendariz
byManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,David
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,Peter)
(Entered:10/23/2009)
10/23/2009
204 NoticereAmendedNoticeofDepositionofLieutenantJosephSousabyManuel
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
10/23/2009)
RE 892
54/197
(958 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 60 of 202
10/23/2009
205 NoticereAmendedNoticeofVideotapedDepositionofDeputyChiefBrian
SandsbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,Peter)
(Entered:10/23/2009)
10/23/2009
206 NoticereAmendedNoticeofVideotapedDepositionofChiefDavid
HendershottbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,
10/26/2009
207 REPLYinSupportre197MOTIONforProtectiveOrderfiledbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,
10/28/2009
208 ORDER-ITISORDEREDgrantingtheUnitedStates'199MotionforLeaveto
FileAmicusCuriaeMemorandumofLawFURTHERORDEREDgranting
Dfts'197MotionforProtectiveOrderandits198MotionforExpeditedRuling
ontheMotion.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/28/09.(SAT)(Entered:
10/28/2009)
10/28/2009
209 AmicusCuriaeMEMORANDUMofLawRegardingDefendants'197MOTION
forProtectiveOrderbyAmicusUnitedStates.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2
ExhibitB)(SAT)(Entered:10/28/2009)
10/29/2009
10/30/2009
211 TRANSCRIPTDESIGNATIONANDORDERFORMbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldonOctober21,2009
beforeJudgeHonorableG.MurraySnow.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
10/30/2009)
11/02/2009
212 TRANSCRIPTDESIGNATIONANDORDERFORMbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldon10/21/2009before
JudgeHon.G.MurraySnow.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:11/02/2009)
11/04/2009
213 NOTICEofDepositionofLydiaGuzman,filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
11/09/2009
214 NoticereSecondAmendedNoticeofDepositionofDeputyRamonCharley
ArmendarizbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
11/09/2009
215 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffManuelDeJesusOrtegaMelendres'First
SupplementalResponsesandObjectionstoDefendantArpaio'sFirstSetof
RequestsforProductionbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:11/09/2009)
11/10/2009
216 NoticereDefendantArpaioandMCSO'sThirdCrossNoticeofVideotaping
RE 893
55/197
(959 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 61 of 202
11/10/2009
217 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sSixthSupplemental
ThingsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:11/10/2009)
11/12/2009
218 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sSeventhSupplemental
(Entered:11/12/2009)
11/12/2009
11/12/2009
220 ORDERauthorizingPlaintiffs,nolaterthan11/20/09tofileapleading
requestingsanctionsagainsttheDefendants.Defendantsshallhaveuntil12/4/09
tofileaResponse(seeorderfordetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
11/12/09.(TLJ)(Entered:11/12/2009)
11/13/2009
221 TRANSCRIPTDESIGNATIONANDORDERFORMbyUnitedStatesfor
proceedingsheldonOctober21,2009beforeJudgeHonorableG.MurraySnow.
(Aminfar,Amin)(Entered:11/13/2009)
11/13/2009
11/13/2009
223 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sEighthSupplemental
(Entered:11/13/2009)
11/18/2009
224 TRANSCRIPTfiledforhearingonSchedulingConferencefordatesof10/21/09
beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.Re44Noticeof
AppealTranscriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminalorpurchased
throughtheCourtReporter/TranscriberbeforethedeadlineforReleaseof
TranscriptRestriction.AfterthatdateitmaybeobtainedthroughPACER.
RedactionRequestdue12/9/2009.RedactedTranscriptDeadlinesetfor
12/21/2009.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor2/16/2010.(Cady,
Elizabeth)(Entered:11/18/2009)
11/18/2009
225 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPT224.(Cady,Elizabeth)
(Entered:11/18/2009)
11/20/2009
226 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sNinthSupplemental
(Entered:11/20/2009)
11/20/2009
227 MOTIONforSanctionsagainstDefendantsbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1AffidavitDeclarationofPeterS.
KozinetsinSupportofPlaintiffs'MotionforSanctions,#2AppendixIndexof
RE 894
56/197
(960 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 62 of 202
Exhibits,#3ExhibitExhibitsA-O,#4TextofProposedOrderProposedOrder
GrantingPlaintiffs'MotionforSanctions)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:11/20/2009)
11/20/2009
228 NoticereCertificationofMovingCounselinSupportofMotionforSanctionsby
(Entered:11/20/2009)
11/25/2009
229 NoticereDefendantArpaioandMCSO'sFourthCrossNoticeofVideotaping
11/30/2009
230 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'FourthSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
(Entered:11/30/2009)
12/01/2009
231 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'SecondSetofInterrogatoriestoDefendant
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
Meraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,Somos
12/01/2009
232 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sTenthSupplemental
(Entered:12/01/2009)
12/02/2009
233 MOTIONforExtensionofTimeToFileaResponseandReplytoPlaintiffs'
MotionforSanctionsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
12/02/2009)
12/04/2009
234 ORDERgranting233Defendants'MotionforExtensionofTimethroughand
including12/11/09tofileandservetheirResponsetoPlaintiffs'Motionfor
Sanctions.ORDERthatPlaintiffsshallhaveanextensionoftimethroughand
including12/23/09tofileandservetheirreplyinsupportoftheirMotionfor
Sanctions.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon12/4/09.(TLJ)(Entered:
12/04/2009)
12/11/2009
235 RESPONSEinOppositionre227MOTIONforSanctionsagainstDefendants
filedbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1
Exhibit1-4,#2Exhibit5-8,#3Exhibit9-12)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
12/11/2009)
12/17/2009
12/23/2009
237 REPLYinSupportre227MOTIONforSanctionsagainstDefendantsfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1
AffidavitSecondDeclarationofPeterS.KozinetsinSupportofPlaintiffs'
MotionforSanctions,#2AppendixIndexofExhibitstoPeterS.Kozinets'
SecondDeclaration,#3ExhibitExhibitsA-C,#4ExhibitExhibitsD-F)RE 895
57/197
(961 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 63 of 202
01/04/2010
Noticeofrequestfore-noticesbyRONALDGALLEGOS.(Gallegos,Ronald)
(Entered:01/04/2010)
01/04/2010
01/04/2010
239 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sResponsestoPlaintiffs'
SecondSetofInterrogatoriesbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,
01/06/2010
240 NoticereSecondAmendedNoticeofVideotapedDepositionofChiefDavid
01/12/2010
241 ORDER.ThisafternoontheCourtconferredwiththepartiestelephonicallyon
theDefendants'oralmotiontosealthedepositionofMr.Hendershott,currently
scheduledforJanuary19,untilsuchtimeasMr.Hendershotttestifiesatthetrial
ofthismatter.TheDefendants'motionisdeniedwithoutprejudicetothe
Defendantasserting,duringthecourseofthedepositionitself,arequestfor
protectiveorderwithrespecttospecificmaterialthatDefendantsasserttobe
entitledtoprotectionunderFed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3)(5)and26(c),orspecific
questionsthattheyassertarenot"reasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscovery
ofadmissibleevidence."Thepartiesareencouragedtoresolveallsuchmatters
betweenthemselvesthroughtheexerciseofsoundprofessionaljudgmentand
courtesy.Totheextentthatsuchissuesneverthelesseluderesolutionbetweenthe
parties,theCourthasafullcalenderonthe19th,butwillattempttomakeitself
telephonicallyavailable,ifnecessary,duringthecourseofthedaytomakesuch
rulings.IftheCourtisnotimmediatelyavailabletoresolvequestionsof
privilege,thepartiesareinstructedtoproceedwiththedepositiononother
topics,andsavethedisputedquestionsuntiltheCourtcanbereached.signedon
this12thdayofJanuary,2010byG.MurraySnow.ThisisaTEXTENTRY
ONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(GMS)(Entered:
01/12/2010)
01/12/2010
242 NoticereofServiceofPlaintiffs'SecondSetofRequestsforAdmissionand
RequestsforProductionandThirdSetofInterrogatoriestoDefendantMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOfficebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
01/15/2010
243 NoticereThirdAmendedNoticeofVideotapedDepositionofChiefDavid
01/20/2010
244 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'FifthSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
(Entered:01/20/2010)
RE 896
58/197
(962 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 64 of 202
01/25/2010
245 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO's11thSupplementalResponse
toPlaintiffs'FirstSetofProductionofDocumentsandThingsbyMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/25/2010)
01/29/2010
246 ORDERre227MOTIONforSanctions:settingoralargumentforFriday,
February4,2010at11:00a.m.inCourtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.
FederalCourthouse,401W.WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.
Eachsidewillbegivenamaximumoftwentyminutestopresenttheirarguments
andanswertheCourtsquestions.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/29/10.
(KMG)(Entered:01/29/2010)
01/29/2010
247 MOTIONtoCompeltheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHomelandSecurityand/or
theUnitedStatesImmigrationandCustomsEnforcementtoProduceTwo
DocumentsandTenderFiveWitnessesforDepositionbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Affidavit,#2Exhibit,#3
Exhibit,#4Exhibit,#5TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
01/29/2010)
02/01/2010
248 AMENDEDORDERHearingsetasto227MOTIONforSanctionsagainst
Defendants:settingoralargumentforThursday,February4,2010at11:00a.m.
inCourtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.FederalCourthouse,401W.
WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.Eachsidewillbegivena
maximumoftwentyminutestopresenttheirargumentsandanswertheCourt's
questions.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/29/10.(KMG)(Entered:
02/01/2010)
02/03/2010
249 NoticereNoticeofSupplementalLegalAuthorityandFactsinSupportof
MotionforSanctionsbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americare227MOTIONforSanctionsagainstDefendants(Attachments:#1
AffidavitDeclarationofAaronJ.Lockwood,#2AppendixIndexofExhibitsto
AaronJ.Lockwood'sDeclarationinSupportofPlaintiffs'Noticeof
SupplementalLegalAuthorityandFactsinSupportofMotionforSanctions,#3
ExhibitExhibitsA-I)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:02/03/2010)
02/03/2010
250 NoticereAmendedNoticeofDepositionofDeputyMichaelKikesbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:
02/03/2010)
02/04/2010
DavidBodney,PeterKozinets,AnneLai,AaronLockwoodandDanielPochada
forplaintiffs.TimothyCaseyfordefendants.MotionHearingheldon2/4/2010
re227MotionforSanctionsagainstDefendantsfiledbyVeliaMeraz,David
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica,ManuelNieto,Jr,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.Argumentpresented.ITISORDERED
takingunderadvisement227MotionforSanctions.Ordertofollow.Status
Conferencesetfor3/19/2010at9:30AMinCourtroom602,401West
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
documentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:02/04/2010)
RE 897
59/197
(963 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 65 of 202
02/04/2010
252 NoticereDefendantArpaioandMCSO'sFifthCrossNoticeofVideotaping
02/05/2010
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon2/4/2010before
JudgeHon.G.MurraySnow.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:02/05/2010)
02/05/2010
254 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'SixthSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
(Entered:02/05/2010)
02/08/2010
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldon02/04/2010before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:02/08/2010)
02/08/2010
256 TRANSCRIPTofProceedingsre:MotionHearingheldon2/4/2010before
JudgeGMurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.Transcriptmaybeviewedat
thecourtpublicterminalorpurchasedthroughtheCourtReporter/Transcriber
beforethedeadlineforReleaseofTranscriptRestriction.Afterthatdateitmay
beobtainedthroughPACER.RedactionRequestdue3/1/2010.Redacted
TranscriptDeadlinesetfor3/11/2010.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor
5/10/2010.(BAS)(Entered:02/08/2010)
02/08/2010
257 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPT256(BAS)(Entered:
02/08/2010)
02/11/2010
258 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsMCSO'sResponsetoPlaintiffs'
SecondSetofRequestforAdmissionandRequestsforProductionandThirdSet
ofInterrogatoriesbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,
02/11/2010
259 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'SeventhSupplementalDisclosureStatementby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Lockwood,Aaron)
(Entered:02/11/2010)
02/12/2010
260 RESPONSEinOppositionre247MOTIONtoCompeltheUnitedStates
DepartmentofHomelandSecurityand/ortheUnitedStatesImmigrationand
CustomsEnforcementtoProduceTwoDocumentsandTenderFiveWitnesses
forDepositionfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitA)(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:02/12/2010)
02/12/2010
261 ORDER-ITISORDEREDgrantingPlas227MotionforSanctionstotheextent
thatDftshavedestroyedstatsheetsthatwereinexistenceorcameintoexistence
after7/21/2008withtheappropriateadverseinference(s)tobedrawntobe
determinedafterdiscoverycloses.FURTHERORDEREDthatby3/4/2010Dfts
shallprovideitemstoPlasasdescribedwithinthisorder.FURTHERORDERED
settingaStatusConferencefor3/19/2010at9:30a.m.FURTHERORDERED
thatPlasmayredeposeSheriffArpaioconcerningthecontentsofhis
RE 898
60/197
(964 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 66 of 202
immigrationfilenotpreviouslyprovidedtoPlas.Dftswillpaythecostforthe
courtreporterandwillpaythereasonablecostsincurredbyoneofPlas'cnslto
prepareforandtakethedeposition.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon2/11/10.
(Seeorderfordetails)(SAT)(Entered:02/12/2010)
02/16/2010
262 RESPONSEtoMotionre247MOTIONtoCompeltheUnitedStates
DepartmentofHomelandSecurityand/ortheUnitedStatesImmigrationand
CustomsEnforcementtoProduceTwoDocumentsandTenderFiveWitnesses
forDepositionfiledbyUnitedStates.(Harwood,Ann)(Entered:02/16/2010)
02/17/2010
263 NOTICEofDepositionofAnabelAvitia,JerryCosioandLeopoldoArteaga,
filedbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:02/17/2010)
02/18/2010
264 STIPULATIONMotionforExtensionofTimebyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Lai,
Anne)(Entered:02/18/2010)
02/18/2010
265 NoticereNoticeofServiiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO's21st
02/19/2010
266 ORDER-TheCourt,havingconsideredtheparties'264StipulatedMotionfor
ExtensionofTime(FirstRequest)forDefendantstotakethedepositionof
AnabelAvitia,ITISORDEREDthatthedeadlinetocommenceandcomplete
thedepositionofAnabelAvitiais3/1/2010.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
2/19/10.(SAT)(Entered:02/19/2010)
02/19/2010
267 MOTIONforClarificationoftheCourt'sFebruary12,2010OrderRegarding
Plaintiffs'RequestforAttorneys'FeesandCostsbyManueldeJesusOrtega
02/19/2010
268 REPLYinSupportre247MOTIONtoCompeltheUnitedStatesDepartmentof
HomelandSecurityand/ortheUnitedStatesImmigrationandCustoms
EnforcementtoProduceTwoDocumentsandTenderFiveWitnessesfor
DepositionfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
02/19/2010
269 NoticereServiceofPlaintiffs'EighthSupplementalDisclosureStatementand
PlaintiffSomosAmerica'sSupplementalandAmendedResponsestoDefendant
Arpaio'sFirstSetofInterrogatoriesbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America(Lockwood,Aaron)(Entered:02/19/2010)
02/22/2010
270 MOTIONtoStrikePlaintiffs'MotionforClarificationandRESPONSEin
Oppositionre267MOTIONforClarificationoftheCourt'sFebruary12,2010
OrderRegardingPlaintiffs'RequestforAttorneys'FeesandCostsfiledby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)Modified
on2/23/2010(SAT).INCORRECTEVENTTYPESELECTED.THISENTRY
HASBEENMODIFIEDFROM"RESPONSEINOPPOSITION"TO
"MOTIONTOSTRIKE".(Entered:02/22/2010)
RE 899
61/197
(965 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 67 of 202
02/23/2010
271 REPLYinSupportre267MOTIONforClarificationoftheCourt'sFebruary12,
2010OrderRegardingPlaintiffs'RequestforAttorneys'FeesandCostsfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)
(Entered:02/23/2010)
02/23/2010
272 RESPONSEtoMotionre270MOTIONtoStrikefiledbyManueldeJesus
02/24/2010
273 NOTICEofDepositionofAnabelAvitia,filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
02/24/2010
274 ORDER-ITISORDEREDthatDftfileaResponseonthemeritstoPlas'267
MOTIONforClarification(thattheCourtwilltreatasaMotionfor
Reconsideration),suchresponsenottoexceedfivepagesandtobefiledby
3/5/2010.FURTHERORDEREDthatPlas'mayfileaReplynottoexceedthree
pagesandtobefiledby3/12/2010.FURTHERORDEREDthattotheextent
Dft'sResponseincludesa270MotiontoStrikethatMotionisdenied.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon2/24/10.(SAT)(Entered:02/24/2010)
02/25/2010
275 MOTIONforProtectiveOrder(unopposed)byUnitedStates.(Attachments:#1
TextofProposedOrder)(Harwood,Ann)(Entered:02/25/2010)
02/26/2010
276 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO's22nd
02/26/2010
277 NoticereServicebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericaof
Plaintiffs'NinthSupplementalDisclosureStatement(Lockwood,Aaron)
(Entered:02/26/2010)
03/01/2010
278 ORDERgranting275UnopposedMotionforProtectiveOrder.ORDEREDthat
ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)maydisclosetotheparties'
counseldocumentssubjecttothePrivacyAct,5U.S.C.section552(a)and
documentscontainingpersonalidentifyinginformationcoveredbythelaw
enforcementprivilege,subjecttothefollowingProtectiveOrder.(Seedocument
forfulldetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon3/1/10.(LAD)(Entered:
03/01/2010)
03/02/2010
279 ORDERgrantinginpartanddenyinginpart247MotiontoCompel.(See
documentforfurtherdetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon3/1/10.(LAD)
(Entered:03/02/2010)
03/05/2010
280 NOTICEofDepositionofAlonzoPena,filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
03/05/2010
281 NOTICEofDepositionofJasonKidd,filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
03/05/2010
282 RESPONSEinOppositionre267MOTIONforClarificationoftheCourt's
February12,2010OrderRegardingPlaintiffs'RequestforAttorneys'Feesand
CostsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
RE 900
62/197
(966 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 68 of 202
03/08/2010
283 RESPONSEtoMotionre227MOTIONforSanctionsagainstDefendantsAND
MOTIONtoRequireaRepresentativeofMaricopaCounty'sOETtoAttend
SchedulingConferencefiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit,#3Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)
Modifiedon3/9/2010TOINCLUDEMOTION(KMG).(Entered:03/08/2010)
03/08/2010
toPlaintiff'sFirstSetofRequestsforProductionofDocumentsandThingsby
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/08/2010)
03/12/2010
285 REPLYinSupportre267MOTIONforClarificationoftheCourt'sFebruary12,
2010OrderRegardingPlaintiffs'RequestforAttorneys'FeesandCostsfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Kozinets,Peter)
(Entered:03/12/2010)
03/18/2010
286 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre283MOTIONforSanctionsfiledbyManuel
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1AffidavitThird
DeclarationofPeterS.KozinetsinSupportofPlaintiffs'MotionforSanctions,#
2AppendixIndexofExhibitstoPeterS.Kozinets'ThirdDeclarationinSupport
ofPlaintiffs'MotionforSanctions,#3ExhibitExhibitsAandB)(Kozinets,
03/19/2010
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldon03-19-2010before
03/19/2010
DavidBodney,PeterKozinets,andDanielPochadaforplaintiffs.TimothyCasey
fordefendants.AminAminfarandAnnHarwoodforUnitedStates.ThomasK.
Irvineisalsopresent.StatusConferenceheldon3/19/2010.Ordertofollow.
NextStatusConferenceissetfor7/16/2010at9:30AMinCourtroom602,401
WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
03/22/2010
289 ORDERgrantingPlaintiffs'Motion267forClarificationwhichitelectedtotreat
asaMotionforReconsideration.TheCourtwillawardPlaintiff'reasonable
attorneys'feesincurredinbringingtheirMotionforSanctionsuponPlaintiffs'
compliancewithLRCiv.54.2.FURTHERORDEREDreaffirmingthat,except
asotherwiseorderedbytheCourt,theCaseManagementOrderisinforceand
discoveryisclosed.TheCourtvacatesthecurrentdeadlinesforthesubmission
ofexpertreports.Afollow-upStatusConferenceissetforJuly16,2010at9:30
a.m.PriortotheStatusConferencethepartieswillconsultontheadditional
discoverythattheydeemnecessaryinlightofthenewly-identifiedanddisclosed
documents.NolaterthanJuly13,2010,thepartieswillinformtheCourtasto:
(1)theadditionaldiscoverythattheyagreeisnecessaryand(2)theirrespective
positionswithrespecttotheremainingdesireddiscoveryonwhichtheycannot
agree.MCSOmakesanoralrequesttofileaMotionforanOrdertoShowCause
againstMaricopaCountyconcerningthelately-identifieddocuments.TheCourt
RE 901
63/197
(967 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 69 of 202
grantstherequestfortheDefendantstofilesuchamotionbutfurtherindicates
thatwhilesomediscoverymaybeappropriateastothereasonforthedelayin
providingthemostrecentdocumentdisclosure,theCourtwillnotmakethiscase
aforumforsatellitelitigation.TheCourtdenieswithoutprejudicetherequest
thattheCourtdeterminewhohastherighttopossessorhaveaccesstothe
documentsthatarecurrentlyinthepossessionofMaricopaCounty.Defendants'
Motion283toRequireaRepresentativeofMaricopaCounty'sOETtoAttendthe
March19,2010SchedulingConferenceisdeniedasmoot.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon3/22/10.(KMG)(Entered:03/22/2010)
03/22/2010
290 TRANSCRIPTofProceedingsre:StatusConferenceheldon03/19/2010before
6/21/2010.(BAS)(Entered:03/22/2010)
03/22/2010
291 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPT290(BAS)(Entered:
03/22/2010)
03/22/2010
292 TRANSCRIPTDESIGNATIONANDORDERFORMbyMaricopa,Countyof
forproceedingsheldon03/19/10beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow.(Moberly,
Michael)(Entered:03/22/2010)
03/26/2010
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon3/19/2010before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(Kozinets,Peter)(Entered:03/26/2010)
03/26/2010
proceedingsheldon02/4/2010beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow.(Aminfar,
Amin)(Entered:03/26/2010)
03/26/2010
proceedingsheldon03/19/2010beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow.(Aminfar,
Amin)(Entered:03/26/2010)
04/02/2010
296 NOTICEofAppearancebyLeighEricDowell,AlecR.HillboandKerryS.
MartinonbehalfofJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
(Dowell,Leigh)Modifiedon4/8/2010(TLJ).DOCKETTEXTMODIFIEDTO
REFLECTADDITIONALCOUNSEL.(Entered:04/02/2010)
04/08/2010
04/08/2010
298 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO's23rd
04/08/2010
299 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantsArpaioandMCSO'sAmended23rd
RE 902
64/197
(968 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 70 of 202
04/08/2010
300 NoticereNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO'sAmended13thSupplemental
ResponsetoPlaintiffs'FirstSetofRequestforProductionofDocumentsand
ThingsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
04/08/2010)
05/14/2010
301 MOTIONforCourt-AssistedMediationbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,
SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:05/14/2010)
05/20/2010
302 RESPONSEinOppositionre301MOTIONforCourt-AssistedMediation
Defendants'ResponseinOppositiontoPlaintiffs'MotionforCourt-Assisted
MediationfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
05/21/2010
303 NOTICEOFATTORNEYSUBSTITUTION:ElizabethAdairStrangeappearing
forUnitedStates.AttorneyAnnElizabethHarwoodterminated.(Strange,
05/25/2010
304 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorney,MOTIONtoSubstituteAttorney:for
substitutionofStanleyYoung,AndrewByrnesandStephenChienofCovington
&BurlingLLPinplaceofDavidJ.Bodney,PeterS.KozinetsandAaronJ.
LockwoodofSteptoe&JohnsonLLPbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1ExhibitLRCiv.83.3(b)(2)Certificationof
Counsel,#2TextofProposedOrder[Proposed]OrderGrantingApplicationfor
WithdrawalandSubstitutionofCounsel)(Bodney,David)(Entered:05/25/2010)
05/26/2010
305 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyStanleyYoungonbehalfof
plaintiffsVeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuitugua
Rodriguez,andSomosAmerica.(BAS)(Entered:05/26/2010)
05/26/2010
306 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyAndrewCarlByrneson
behalfofplaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,andSomosAmerica.
(BAS)(Entered:05/26/2010)
05/26/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$100,receiptnumberPHX097286astoStanley
Young,AndrewCarlByrnes.(BAS)(Entered:05/26/2010)
05/26/2010
accomplishedviathecourt'swebsiteatwww.azd.uscourts.gov.(BAS)(Thisisa
(Entered:05/26/2010)
06/01/2010
308 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyStephenCChienonbehalf
ofplaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,andSomosAmerica.(BAS)
(Entered:06/01/2010)
06/01/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX097411astoStephenC
RE 903
65/197
(969 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 71 of 202
Chien.(BAS)(Entered:06/01/2010)
06/01/2010
06/02/2010
Noticeofrequestfore-noticesbyWadeSwanson.(Swanson,Wade)(Entered:
06/02/2010)
06/02/2010
310 NoticereThePartiesJointNoticeoftheStatusofSettlementDiscussionsby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,ManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/02/2010)
06/07/2010
311 ORDERdenying301MotionforCourt-AssistedMediationwithoutprejudice.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/4/10.(LAD)(Entered:06/07/2010)
06/16/2010
312 MOTIONforExtensionofTimeToProducetoPlaintiffstheArchivedEmailsof
theMCSObyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
06/16/2010)
06/17/2010
313 ORDERgranting304MotiontoWithdrawasAttorney.AttorneyAaronJames
LockwoodDavidJeremyBodneyandPeterShawnKozinetsterminated
granting304MotiontoSubstituteAttorney.AttorneyYoung,ByrnesandChien
substitutedascounselforplaintiffs.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
6/16/10.(DMT)(Entered:06/17/2010)
06/23/2010
Sender.NotDeliverableAsAddressed.UnabletoForward.Documentnumber
313.(HLA)(Entered:06/28/2010)
06/25/2010
314 RESPONSEtoMotionre312MOTIONforExtensionofTimeToProduceto
PlaintiffstheArchivedEmailsoftheMCSOfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitA,#2Exhibit
ExhibitB)(Chien,Stephen)(Entered:06/25/2010)
07/01/2010
316 REPLYinSupportre312MOTIONforExtensionofTimeToProduceto
PlaintiffstheArchivedEmailsoftheMCSOfiledbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
07/09/2010
317 ORDERdeferringrulingonthe312MotionforExtensionofTimetoProduceto
PlaintiffstheArchivedEmailsoftheMCSO.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on7/8/10.(KMG)(Entered:07/09/2010)
07/09/2010
318 NoticeretheParties'TouhyRequestsbyUnitedStatesofAmerica(Strange,
07/09/2010
319 MOTIONforProtectiveOrderSupplantingtheCourt'sOrderDatedMarch1,
2010(Unopposed)byUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Attachments:#1Textof
RE 904
66/197
(970 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 72 of 202
ProposedOrder)(Strange,Elizabeth)(Entered:07/09/2010)
07/12/2010
320 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyTammyAlbarranonbehalf
(Entered:07/12/2010)
07/12/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX098864astoTammy
Albarran.(BAS)(Entered:07/12/2010)
07/12/2010
07/13/2010
322 STATEMENTofJointStatusConferenceStatementbyPlaintiffManuelde
JesusOrtegaMelendres.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:07/13/2010)
07/15/2010
323 NOTICEofDepositionofAlonzoPena(Amended),filedbyJosephMArpaio,
07/15/2010
324 NOTICEofDepositionofJasonKidd(Amended),filedbyJosephMArpaio,
07/16/2010
StanleyYoung,StephenChien,AnneLai,DanielPochoda,NancyRamirezand
CeciliaWangforplaintiffs.TimothyCaseyfordefendants.ElizabethStrangefor
UnitedStates.StatusConferenceheldon7/16/2010.ITISORDEREDgranting
319MotionforProtectiveOrder.ITISFURTHERORDEREDgranting312
MotionforExtensionofTime.Defendantsshallproducediscoverablee-mailsby
8/11/2010,assetforthontherecord.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatifthe
Defendant(s)intendtofileanOrdertoShowCauseorseekotherreliefagainst
theCountyinthismatter,theyhaveuntil8/18/2010todoso.StatusConference
setfor10/1/2010at8:30AMinCourtroom602,401WestWashingtonStreet,
Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththis
entry.(KFZ)(Entered:07/16/2010)
07/16/2010
326 NoticereFilingofStipulatedProtectiveOrderforICEDepositionsbyUnited
StatesofAmerica(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Strange,
07/19/2010
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldonJuly16,2010before
07/20/2010
OrtegaMelendresforproceedingsheldon7/16/2010beforeJudgeHon.G.
MurraySnow.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:07/20/2010)
07/20/2010
329 PROTECTIVEORDERREGARDINGTHEDEPOSITIONSOFFORMER
ANDCURRENTICEEMPLOYEESre326OtherNotice.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon7/20/10.(TLJ)(Entered:07/20/2010)
RE 905
67/197
(971 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 73 of 202
07/21/2010
330 TRANSCRIPTofProceedingsre:StatusConferenceheldon07/16/2010before
10/19/2010.(BAS)(Entered:07/21/2010)
07/22/2010
331 TRANSCRIPTDESIGNATIONANDORDERFORMbyJosephMArpaiofor
proceedingsheldon07/16/2010beforeJudgeSnow.(Dowell,Leigh)(Entered:
07/22/2010)
07/30/2010
332 STIPULATIONandProposedProtectiveOrderbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice,Maricopa,Countyof,ManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:07/30/2010)
08/05/2010
333 PROTECTIVEORDERpursuanttotheparties'Stipulationre332theCarveOut
MCSOArchivedEmails,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffs'treatmentanduseofthe
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficearchived"carve-out"emailsshallbeas
directedwithinthisOrder.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/5/10.(NOTE:
SeeProtectiveOrderforfulldetails)(KMG)(Entered:08/05/2010)
08/11/2010
334 NOTICEreNoticeofServiceofDefendantMCSO's14thSupplemental
ResponsetoPlaintiffs'FirstSetofProductionofDocumentsandThingsby
08/11/2010
335 NOTICEreNoticeofDefendantsArpaioandtheMCSO'sComplianceWith
CourtOrderDatedJuly16,2010ReMCSOArchivedEmailsbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
08/11/2010)
08/13/2010
336 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1AffidavitRule83.3(b)(2)Certification,#2
TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:08/13/2010)
08/17/2010
337 MOTIONOrdertoShowCauseandAllowingDefendants'LeavetoTake
AdditionalDiscoverybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitsAthruE)(Dowell,Leigh)(Entered:
08/17/2010)
08/19/2010
338 NOTICEreServiceoftheUnitedStates'ResponsestotheParties'Touhy
RequestsbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Strange,Elizabeth)(Entered:
08/19/2010)
08/23/2010
339 ORDERgranting336MotiontoWithdrawasAttorney,andthatSchmitt,
Schneck,Smyth&Herrod,P.C.anditsattorneysarewithdrawnascounselof
recordforDefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandtheMaricopaCountySheriff's
Officeinthisaction.FURTHERORDERDthatthefirmofOgletreeDeakins
NashSmoak&StewartPCanditsattorneysAlecR.Hillbo,KerryScottMartin
andLeighEricDowellshallcontinuetobecounselofrecordforJosephM.
ArpaioandtheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon8/23/10.(KMG)(Entered:08/23/2010)
RE 906
68/197
(972 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 74 of 202
08/24/2010
340 MOTIONforHearingorConferencere:StatusConferenceRegarding
RepresentationofMCSOandSheriffJoeArpaiobyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Dowell,Leigh)(Entered:08/24/2010)
08/25/2010
341 NOTICEofAppearancebyThomasPLiddyonbehalfofJosephMArpaio
(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:08/25/2010)
08/25/2010
342 NOTICEofAppearancebyDavidASeldenonbehalfofMaricopaCounty
Administration(Selden,David)(Entered:08/25/2010)
08/25/2010
343 RESPONSEtoMotionre340MOTIONforHearingorConferencere:Status
ConferenceRegardingRepresentationofMCSOandSheriffJoeArpaiofiledby
MaricopaCountyAdministration.(Selden,David)Modifiedon8/26/2010
CORRECTION:ThisdocumentisnotincompliancewithLRCiv7.1(c)-text
searchability.AttorneyNoticed.(KMG).(Entered:08/25/2010)
08/26/2010
344 NOTICEofChangeofAddressbyAnneLai(Lai,Anne)(Entered:08/26/2010)
08/26/2010
345 ORDERSettingaTelephonicConferenceonthisMotionre340MOTIONfor
StatusConferenceRegardingRepresentationofMCSOandSheriffJoeArpaio:
MotionHearingsetfor9/9/2010at03:00PMbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.The
partiesparticipatingaredirectedtocall(602)322-7650fromalandlinenolater
thanfiveminutesbeforethehearing.MCSOshallprovidetheCourt,onor
beforeSeptember2,2010,withtheproceduresthatitassertsbindtheSheriff's
Officewithrespecttotheprocurementofprofessionalservices.SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon8/26/10.(KMG)(Entered:08/26/2010)
08/27/2010
346 NOTICEreErratumofNoticeofAppearancebyJosephMArpaio.(Liddy,
Thomas)(Entered:08/27/2010)
09/02/2010
347 NOTICEretoCourtofProcedureforSelectionofCounselbyMaricopaCounty
byJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit,#3Exhibit,#4
Exhibit,#5Exhibit)(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:09/02/2010)
09/03/2010
348 RESPONSEtoMotionre337MOTIONOrdertoShowCauseandAllowing
Defendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscoveryfiledbyManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:09/03/2010)
09/03/2010
349 DECLARATIONofMatthewJ.SteilenInSupportofPlaintiffs'Responseto
MotionforanOrdertoShowCauseandforLeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscovery
re348ResponsetoMotionbyPlaintiffManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit1,#2Exhibit2,#3Exhibit3,#4Exhibit4,#5
Exhibit5,#6Exhibit6,#7Exhibit7,#8Exhibit8,#9Exhibit9,#10Exhibit
10,#11Exhibit11,#12Exhibit12,#13Exhibit13,#14Exhibit14,#15
Exhibit15)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:09/03/2010)
09/08/2010
350 MOTIONtoStrikeSHERIFF'SMOTIONre337FORORDERTOSHOW
CAUSEANDFORLEAVETOTAKEADDITIONALDISCOVERYbyMaricopa
County.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitsA,BandC)(Selden,David)
Modifiedon9/9/2010CORRECTION:astodocumentlinkage.(KMG).
(Entered:09/08/2010)
09/09/2010
StanleyYoung,StephenChien,NancyRamirezandCeciliaWangforplaintiffs.
RE 907
69/197
(973 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 75 of 202
LeighEricDowellfordefendants.ThomasLiddyandRichardStewart,separate
counselenteringanappearanceonbehalfofdefendants.DavidSeldenfor
MaricopaCounty.ElizabethStrangeforUnitedStates.TelephoneConference
heldon9/9/2010.RichardStewartshallfileaNoticeofAppearanceby
9/16/2010.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.There
isnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:09/09/2010)
09/09/2010
352 Letterdated9/9/10fromJosephMArpaio,Sheriffrecounsel.(SAT)(Entered:
09/10/2010)
09/10/2010
353 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopaCountyAdministrationforproceedings
heldonSeptember9,2010beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..(Selden,David)
(Entered:09/10/2010)
09/10/2010
354 MOTIONforExtensionofTimetoFileResponse/Replyasto348Responseto
Motion,349Declaration,,350MOTIONtoStrikeSHERIFF'SMOTIONFOR
ORDERTOSHOWCAUSEANDFORLEAVETOTAKEADDITIONAL
DISCOVERYbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrderOrder)(Martin,Kerry)(Entered:
09/10/2010)
09/13/2010
355 MOTIONtoChangeVenue/TransferCasetotoHon.G.MurraySnowbyUnited
StatesofAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Aminfar,Amin)
(Entered:09/13/2010)
09/14/2010
356 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofTelephonicStatus
ConferenceProceedingsheldon09/09/2010,beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
CourtReporterGaryMoll.Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminal
orpurchasedthroughtheCourtReporter/Transcriberbeforethedeadlinefor
ReleaseofTranscriptRestriction.Afterthatdateitmaybeobtainedthrough
PACER..RedactionRequestdue10/5/2010.RedactedTranscriptDeadlineset
for10/15/2010.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor12/13/2010.(BAS)
(Entered:09/14/2010)
09/15/2010
357 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTofTelephonicStatusConferencebyJosephMArpaio
forproceedingsheldon09/09/2010beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..(Dowell,
Leigh)(Entered:09/15/2010)
09/15/2010
358 ORDERgranting354MotionforExtensionofTimetoFileReplyre337
MOTIONOrdertoShowCauseandAllowingDefendants'LeavetoTake
AdditionalDiscovery-extendingthedeadlineforfilingtheOSCReplyfrom
Monday,September13,2010untilthedateonwhichtheSheriff'sResponseto
theCounty'sMotiontoStrikeisdue,onSeptember27,2010.SignedbyJudgeG
09/15/2010
359 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyMatthewJamesSteilenon
09/15/2010
360 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyKevinJosephHickeyon
RE 908
70/197
(974 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 76 of 202
09/15/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX101339astoMatthew
JamesSteilen.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.(BAS)(Entered:09/15/2010)
09/15/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX101340astoKevin
JosephHickey.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
09/15/2010
(Entered:09/15/2010)
09/20/2010
362 RESPONSEtoMotionre337MOTIONOrdertoShowCauseandAllowing
Defendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscoveryfiledbyMaricopa,Countyof.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibit1,#2ExhibitExhibit2,#3ExhibitExhibit3
(1of2),#4ExhibitExhibit3(2of2))(Selden,David)(Entered:09/20/2010)
09/27/2010
363 SecondMOTIONforExtensionofTimetoFileReplyre337MOTIONOrderto
ShowCauseandAllowingDefendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscoveryby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrderOrder)(Martin,Kerry)Modifiedon9/28/2010CORRECTION:
astodocumentlinkage.(KMG).(Entered:09/27/2010)
09/28/2010
364 STATUSREPORTStatusConferenceStatementbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2ExhibitB)(Young,
Stanley)(Entered:09/28/2010)
09/30/2010
365 STATUSREPORT/STATUSCONFERENCESTATEMENTbyJosephM
Arpaio.(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:09/30/2010)
09/30/2010
366 MOTIONforSanctionsandAttorneys'FeesbyMaricopaCounty
Administration.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitAtoMaricopaCounty's
MotionforSanctionsandAttorneys'Fees,#2ExhibitExhibitBtoMaricopa
County'sMotionforSanctionsandAttorneys'Fees)(Selden,David)(Entered:
09/30/2010)
09/30/2010
Noticeofrequestfore-noticesbyWinsomeG.Gayle.(Gayle,Winsome)
(Entered:09/30/2010)
10/01/2010
StanleyYoungforplaintiffs.ThomasLiddyandMariaBrandonfordefendants.
LeighEricDowellandKerryMartinseparatecounselfordefendants.David
SeldenforMaricopaCounty.ElizabethStrangeforUnitedStates.Status
Conferenceheldon10/1/2010.Ordertofollow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
10/01/2010
368 ORDERdenyingasmootthe355MotiontoChangeVenue/TransferCase.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/1/10.(LAD)(Entered:10/01/2010)
RE 909
71/197
(975 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 77 of 202
10/01/2010
369 ORDER-Defendants'ArpaioandMCSO'sSecondUnopposedMotionforan
ExtensionofTimetoFileaReplyinSupportofDefendants'OrdertoShow
CauseandAllowingDefendantsLeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscovery(Doc.363)
isdeniedinpartandgrantedinpart.Defendants'ArpaioandMCSOshallhaveto
andincludingOctober8,2010inwhichtofiletheirReplyinSupportofthe
OrdertoShowCause(Doc.337)andfileaResponsetotheMotiontoStrike
(Doc.350).ThepartiesshallhavetoandincludingNovember19,2010inwhich
todeposethefollowingMaricopaCountySheriffOfficers:(1)JosephSousa(2)
BrianSands(3)ManuelMadrid(4)BrettPalmer(5)JackMacIntyre(6)
RamonArmendariz(7)CarlosRangel(8)SheriffJoeArpaioand(9)Chief
DeputyDavidHendershot.Plaintiffsshallprovidefullandcompleteexpert
disclosuresnolaterthanDecember22,2010.Defendants'shallprovidefulland
completeexpertdisclosuresnolaterthanJanuary21,2011.Rebuttalexpert
disclosures,ifany,shallbemadenolaterthanFebruary4,2011.Expert
depositionsshallbecompletednolaterthanMarch23,2011.Dispositivemotions
shallbefilednolaterthanApril22,2011.MaricopaCounty'sMotionfor
SanctionsandAttorneys'Fees(Doc.366)isdenied.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon10/1/10.(LAD)(Entered:10/01/2010)
10/06/2010
Sender,NotDeliverableasAddressed,UnabletoForward.Documentnumber
368,369.(MHA)(Entered:10/07/2010)
10/08/2010
371 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre337MOTIONforanOrdertoShowCause
andAllowingDefendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscoveryAND
RESPONSEtoMotionre350MOTIONtoStrikeMOTION337OrdertoShow
CauseandAllowingDefendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscoveryfiledby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
ExhibitsA-B)(Martin,Kerry)Modifiedon10/12/2010CORRECTION:asto
documentlinkageandtext.(KMG).(Entered:10/08/2010)
10/10/2010
372 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre350MOTIONtoStrikeSHERIFF'SMOTION
FORORDERTOSHOWCAUSEANDFORLEAVETOTAKEADDITIONAL
DISCOVERYfiledbyMaricopa,Countyof.(Selden,David)(Entered:
10/10/2010)
10/14/2010
Noticeofrequestfore-noticesbyNinaRivera.(Rivera,Nina)(Entered:
10/14/2010)
10/29/2010
373 NOTICEofDepositionofDetectiveRamonArmendariz,filedbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
10/29/2010)
10/29/2010
374 NOTICEofDepositionofSheriffJosephM.Arpaio,filedbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:10/29/2010)
10/29/2010
375 NOTICEofDepositionofChiefDeputyDavidA.Hendershott,filedbyManuel
RE 910
72/197
(976 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 78 of 202
10/29/2010)
10/29/2010
376 NOTICEofDepositionofChiefDeputyJohnJ.MacIntyre,filedbyManuelde
10/29/2010)
10/29/2010
377 NOTICEofDepositionofSergeantBrettPalmer,filedbyManueldeJesus
10/29/2010
378 NOTICEofDepositionofDetectiveCarlosRangel,filedbyManueldeJesus
10/29/2010
379 NOTICEofDepositionofChiefDeputyBrianSands,filedbyManueldeJesus
10/29/2010
380 NOTICEretoCourtConcerningProtectiveOrderRegardingtheDepositionsof
JasonKiddandAlonzoPenabyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Strange,Elizabeth)
(Entered:10/29/2010)
11/02/2010
Noticeofrequestfore-noticesbyNinaRivera.(Rivera,Nina)(Entered:
11/02/2010)
11/05/2010
381 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyLesliGallagheronbehalf
(Entered:11/08/2010)
11/05/2010
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX103240astoLesli
RawlesGallagher.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
11/08/2010
11/09/2010
383 MOTIONforProtectiveOrderbyJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
No.1)(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:11/09/2010)
11/16/2010
384 ORDER.Lastnightthecourthadatelephonicconferencewiththeparties
regardinganinstructionnottoanswerinthedepositionofChiefBrianSands.
ChiefSandswasinstructedbyhislawyernottoansweraquestionpertainingtoa
conversationbetweenChiefSandsandDeputyChiefJackMcIntyrebasedonthe
factthatDeputyChiefMcIntyreisalicensedattorneyinthestateandthe
conversationmighthavebeencoveredbytheattorney-clientprivilege.Pursuant
toAriz.Rev.Stat.11-403(A),DeputyChiefMcIntyreisnotpermittedtopractice
lawwhileheservesasaDeputySheriff.Nevertheless,Defendantsassertthatthe
privilegeinwhatChiefSandscommunicatedtoDeputyChiefMcIntryebelongs
RE 911
73/197
(977 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 79 of 202
toChiefSandsifhehadalegitimatebeliefthathewasconsultingDeputyChief
McIntyreintheDeputyChief'scapacityasalawyer.Itisnotclear,basedonthe
earlyinstructionnottoanswer,whetherChiefSandswasseekinglegaladvice,
and,underallthecircumstances,hadalegitimatebeliefthathewasconsulting
DeputyChiefMcIntyreinhiscapacityasalawyer."Anattorney-client
relationshipissaidtoexistwhenthepartydivulgingconfidencesandsecretsto
anattorneybelievestheheisapproachingtheattorneyinaprofessionalcapacity
withtheintenttosecurelegaladvice."Stateexrel.Thomasv.Schneider,212
Ariz.292,299,130P.3d991,998(App.2006)quotingAlexanderv.Superior
Court,141Ariz.157,162,685P.2d1309,1314(1984)(quotingTrinity
AmbulanceServ.,Inc.,v.G&LAmbulanceServ.,Inc.,578F.Supp.1280,1283
(1984).DefendantwasorderedtopermitthePlaintifftoaskquestionssufficient
todevelopwhetherChiefSandswascommunicatingwithDeputyChief
McIntyreinwhathelegitimatelybelievedtobeanattorney-client
communication.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowonNovember16,2010.This
isaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththis
entry.(GMS)(Entered:11/16/2010)
11/22/2010
385 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTforHearingheldonObjectionsraisedinthe
DepositionofDavidA.HendershottbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldon11/19/2010beforeJudgeSnow..
(Brandon,Maria)(Entered:11/22/2010)
11/23/2010
386 ORDERdenyingDefendants'MotionforAnOrderToShowCauseand
AllowingDefendants'LeavetoTakeAdditionalDiscovery(Doc.337).
FURTHERORDEREDdenyingasmootMaricopaCounty'sMotiontoStrike
Sheriff'sMotionForOrdertoShowCauseandForLeavetoTakeAdditional
Discovery(Doc.350).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/23/10.(KMG)
(Entered:11/23/2010)
11/23/2010
387 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopa,Countyofforproceedingsheldon
11/19/2010beforeJudgeSnow..(Selden,David)(Entered:11/23/2010)
11/23/2010
388 RESPONSEinOppositionre383MOTIONforProtectiveOrderfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)
(Entered:11/23/2010)
12/01/2010
390 MailReturnedasUndeliverable.Mailsentto
AggrievedandIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reason
forreturn:ReturntoSender,NotDeliverableasAddressed,UnabletoForward.
Documentnumber386.(MHA)(Entered:12/02/2010)
12/02/2010
389 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre383MOTIONforProtectiveOrderfiledby
JosephMArpaio.(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:12/02/2010)
12/07/2010
391 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofTelephonicDiscovery
DisputeProceedingsheldon11/19/2010,beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Court
ReporterGaryMoll.Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminalor
purchasedthroughtheCourtReporter/Transcriberbeforethedeadlinefor
for1/7/2011.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor3/7/2011.(BAS)(Entered:
RE 912
74/197
(978 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 80 of 202
12/07/2010)
12/09/2010
392 ORDERdenyingthe383MotionforProtectiveOrderwithoutprejudice.Signed
byJudgeGMurraySnowon12/9/10.(KMG)(Entered:12/09/2010)
12/21/2010
393 NOTICEreAssociationofCounselbyJosephMArpaioofTimothyJ.Casey.
(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:12/21/2010)
12/21/2010
394 NOTICEofAppearancebyTimothyJamesCaseyonbehalfofJosephMArpaio,
12/22/2010
395 NOTICEreNoticeofServiceofInitialExpertReportsbyManueldeJesus
01/21/2011
396 NOTICEofServiceofdfts'Rule26(a)(2)DisclosureofExpertTestimony,filed
byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)
Modifiedon1/24/2011CORRECTION:tocorrectevent.(KMG).(Entered:
01/21/2011)
01/21/2011
397 NOTICEreNoticeofErratabyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officere396NoticeofDeposition.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/21/2011)
01/21/2011
398 NOTICEofDepositionofRobertStewart,filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
01/21/2011
399 NOTICEreNoticeofServiceofDefendants'Rule26(a)(2)DisclosureofExpert
TestimonybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
02/03/2011
400 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneybyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Limon,Gladys)(Entered:
02/03/2011)
02/04/2011
401 ORDER-pursuanttoGladysLimon's400MotiontoWithdrawasAttorney,IT
ISHEREBYORDEREDgrantingtheMotionandallowingGladysLimonto
withdrawasattorneyofrecordforPlaintiffs.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on2/4/11.(KMG)(Entered:02/04/2011)
02/04/2011
402 NOTICEreofServiceofRebuttalExpertReportsbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:02/04/2011)
02/15/2011
403 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTANDORDERFORMbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon10/1/2010beforeJudge
Hon.G.MurraySnow..(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:02/15/2011)
02/15/2011
404 NOTICEofDepositionofRalphB.Taylor,filedbyJosephMArpaio.(Liddy,
Thomas)(Entered:02/15/2011)
02/16/2011
405 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofStatusConference
Proceedingsheldon10/01/2010,beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.CourtReporter
GaryMoll.Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminalorpurchased
RE 913
75/197
(979 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 81 of 202
TranscriptRestriction.AfterthatdateitmaybeobtainedthroughPACER..
3/21/2011.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor5/17/2011.(BAS)(Entered:
02/16/2011)
02/17/2011
406 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyEarlSaundersoftheUSDepartmentofJusticefor
statusconferenceproceedingsheldon10/01/2010beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
02/17/2011
407 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheldon10-012010beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:02/17/2011)
02/28/2011
408 NOTICEofDepositionofStevenA.Camarota,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:02/28/2011)
03/31/2011
409 ORDER-thatDefendantsshallfilebyApril12,2011anymotionfora
protectiveorderdemonstrating"compellingreasons"whyPlaintiffsshouldbe
compelledtofiledocumentsithasreceivedfromDefendantsundersealin
conjunctionwithitsdispositivemotion.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthat
shouldnosuchmotionbefiledPlaintiffsmaythenpubliclyfilethedocumentsit
hasreceivedfromDefendantsinconjunctionwithitscasedispositivemotion.
FURTHERORDEREDthatifDefendantshavetimelyfiledsuchamotionand
theCourthasnotruledonthemotionpriortothedeadlineforfilingcase
dispositivemotionsestablishedinthismatter,Plaintiffsshalllodgesuch
documentsandanypartsofanymotionbaseduponthemunderseal,pendingthe
Court'srulingonDefendants'motion.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthat
DefendantswillprovidePlaintiffswithaprivilegelogofalldocumentsinthe
carve-outthathavebeenwithheldbecausetheyconstituteprivileged
communicationsrelatingtothismatterbyMay31,2011.SignedbyJudgeG
04/08/2011
410 STIPULATIONandJointMotionforPageExtensionsandOneWeekExtension
forTheirRespectiveMotionsforSummaryJudgmentandResponsesbyJoseph
MArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,ManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:04/08/2011)
04/12/2011
411 TEXT-ONLYORDERgranting410Stipulation/JointMotion.Eachpartyis
permittedtofileamotionforsummaryjudgmentnottoexceed34pagesin
lengthandtofilecorrespondingresponsesofsuchlength.Partiesshallhaveupto
andincludingApril29,2011tofiletheirsummaryjudgmentmotions.Thisisa
TEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.
(KFZ)(Entered:04/12/2011)
04/18/2011
412 MOTIONforAttorneyFeesandCostsandMemoranduminSupportofMotion
forFeesandCostsbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1DeclarationofLesliRawlesGallagher,#2Declarationof
AnneLai,#3DeclarationofDanielJ.Pochoda,#4TextofProposedOrder)
(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:04/18/2011)
RE 914
76/197
(980 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 82 of 202
04/29/2011
413 MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Supplement,#2Exhibit1-5,#3Exhibit611,#4Exhibit12-16,#5Exhibit17-19,#6Exhibit20-22,#7TextofProposed
04/29/2011
414 MOTIONtoSealSupplementalStatementofFactsRe:TestimonyofICE
WitnessesinSupportofTheirMotionforSummaryJudgmentbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
04/29/2011
415 SEALEDLODGEDProposedDefendants'SupplementalStatementofFactsRe:
TestimonyofICEWitnessesinSupportofTheirMotionforSummaryJudgment
re:414MOTIONtoSealSupplementalStatementofFactsRe:TestimonyofICE
WitnessesinSupportofTheirMotionforSummaryJudgment.Documenttobe
filedbyClerkifMotiontoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1-3)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
416 MOTIONforSanctionsPlaintiffs'RenewedMotionforSanctionsbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrder)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
417 DECLARATIONofMatthewSteileninSupportofPlaintiff'sRenewedMotion
forSanctionsre416MOTIONforSanctionsPlaintiffs'RenewedMotionfor
SanctionsbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1IndexandExhibits1-4,#2Exhibit5-9,#3Exhibit10-14)
(Steilen,Matthew)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
418 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre417Declaration,ofMatthew
SteilenwithExs15-19byPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1Exhibit20-25)(Steilen,Matthew)(Entered:
04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
419 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre417Declaration,Exhibits26-29
byPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Steilen,
Matthew)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
420 MOTIONtoCertifyClassRenewedMotionforClassCertificationbyManuelde
ProposedOrder)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
421 MOTIONforPartialSummaryJudgmentbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
422 STATEMENTofFactsre421MOTIONforPartialSummaryJudgmentby
PlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,
RE 915
77/197
(981 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 83 of 202
04/29/2011
423 DECLARATIONofRobertL.StewartinSupportofPlaintiffsMotionforPartial
SummaryJudgmentre421MOTIONforPartialSummaryJudgmentby
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#
1ExhibitA)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
424 DECLARATIONofRalphB.TaylorinSupportofPlaintiffsMotionforPartial
1ExhibitA,#2ExhibitB,#3ExhibitC)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
425 DECLARATIONofJerryAlfonsoCosiore422StatementofFactsbyPlaintiffs
DeclarationofLorenaEscamilla,#2DeclarationofLinoGarcia,#3Declaration
ofDanielMagos,#4DeclarationofJulioMora,#5DeclarationofGarrett
Smith,#6DeclarationofDionaSolis,#7DeclarationofJorgeUrteaga,#8
DeclarationofSergioMartinezVillaman)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
426 DECLARATIONofKevinHickeyInSupportofPlaintiffsMotionforPartial
1IndexofExhibits,#2Exhibit1-4,#3Exhibit5-6,#4Exhibit7-8)(Hickey,
Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
427 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre426Declaration,EXHIBITS9-13
1Exhibit14-18,#2Exhibit19-23)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit29-30,#2Exhibit31-32,#3Exhibit33,#4Exhibit34-39)(Hickey,
Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit45-49,#2Exhibit50-55,#3Exhibit56-60,#4Exhibit61-63)
(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit66-70,#2Exhibit71-75,#3Exhibit76-80)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:
04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
RE 916
78/197
(982 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 84 of 202
1Exhibit86-90,#2Exhibit91-95,#3Exhibit96-100,#4Exhibit101-105,#5
Exhibit106-110,#6Exhibit111-115)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit120-124,#2Exhibit125,#3Exhibit126-127,#4Exhibit128-129,#
5Exhibit130-134)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit140-144,#2Exhibit145-149,#3Exhibit150-152,#4Exhibit153156)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit162,#2Exhibit163-165,#3Exhibit166-169,#4Exhibit170-174,#
5Exhibit175-178,#6Exhibit179-183)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
1Exhibit186,#2Exhibit187-191,#3Exhibit192-195,#4Exhibit196-200,#
5Exhibit201-204,#6Exhibit205-208,#7Exhibit209-211,#8Exhibit212,#
9Exhibit213)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
04/29/2011
436 MOTIONforLeavetoFileAudio/VideoRecordingsinNon-ElectronicFormby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1Text
ofProposedOrder)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:04/29/2011)
05/03/2011
437 MOTIONforExtensionofTimeForCertainMotionResponsesandReply
MemorandabyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Manuelde
ProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:05/03/2011)
05/05/2011
438 RESPONSEtoMotionre412MOTIONforAttorneyFeesandCostsand
MemoranduminSupportofMotionforFeesandCostsfiledbyJosephM
05/05/2011)
05/09/2011
439 NOTICEofChangeofAddressbyThomasPLiddy(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:
05/09/2011)
05/16/2011
440 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre412MOTIONforAttorneyFeesandCosts
andMemoranduminSupportofMotionforFeesandCostsfiledbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1Supplemental
DeclarationofLesliRawlesGallagherinSupportofReply)(Gallagher,Lesli)
RE 917
79/197
(983 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 85 of 202
(Entered:05/16/2011)
05/18/2011
441 ORDERgranting437MotionandStipulationforExtensionofTime.Defendants
havetoandincluding5/20/2011tofiletheirresponsesto416Motionfor
Sanctions,and420MotiontoCertifyClassRenewedMotionforClass
Certification.Plaintiffshavetoandincluding6/3/2011tofiletheirReply
Memoranda.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/18/2011.(SeeOrderforfull
details).(KFZ)(Entered:05/18/2011)
05/18/2011
442 ORDER-grantingtheMotion436andPlaintiffsmayfilewiththeClerkthe
followingaudio/videorecordingsinnon-electronicform:1)Multimediafile,Ex.
20toArpaioDep.I(introducedatArpaioDep.Iat47:22-49:8)(footageofFeb.
26,2007MCSOnewsconference)2)Multimediafile,Ex.20toArpaioDep.I
(introducedatArpaioDep.Iat273:7-276:8)(Oct.9,2009FOXNewsinterview
byGlennBeck).3)ORT1235(footagefromOct.22,2009MCSOnews
conference).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/18/11.(KMG)(Entered:
05/18/2011)
05/19/2011
443 NOTICEreLodgingandServiceofMultimediaFilesinNon-ElectronicFormby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare442OrderonMotion
forLeavetoFile,,.(Lai,Anne)(Entered:05/19/2011)
05/19/2011
Multimediafile,Ex.20toArpaioDep.I.submittedandstoredinthePhoenixfile
room.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
withthisentry.(CAD)(Entered:05/19/2011)
05/20/2011
444 RESPONSEinOppositionre420MOTIONtoCertifyClassRenewedMotion
forClassCertificationfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:05/20/2011)
05/20/2011
445 RESPONSEinOppositionre416MOTIONforSanctionsPlaintiffs'Renewed
MotionforSanctionsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
05/25/2011
446 NOTICEreOFWITHDRAWALOFASSOCIATECOUNSELSTEPHEN
CHIENbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
05/31/2011
447 NOTICEreNoticeofServiceofDefendants'PrivilegeLogReCarve-OutEMailsPursuanttoCourt's03/31/11OrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOfficere409Order,,,,.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:05/31/2011)
06/01/2011
448 ORDERgranting414MotiontoSeal.ORDEREDdirectingtheClerkofthe
CourttofileundersealDefendants'lodgedSupplementalStatementofFactsre:
TestimonyofICEWitnessesinSupportoftheirMotionforSummaryJudgment
415.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/1/11.(MAP)(Entered:06/01/2011)
06/01/2011
449 SealedSupplementalStatementofFactsre413filedbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1-3)(MAP)
(Entered:06/01/2011)
06/03/2011
450 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre416MOTIONforSanctionsPlaintiffs'
RE 918
80/197
(984 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 86 of 202
RenewedMotionforSanctionsfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
451 DECLARATIONofMatthewSteilenre450ReplytoResponsetoMotion,
Plaintiffs'RenewedMotionforSanctionsbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1ExhibitIndex,#2Exhibit30-32,
#3Exhibit33-35,#4Exhibit36,#5Exhibit37,#6Exhibit38,#7Exhibit39)
(Steilen,Matthew)(Entered:06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
452 RESPONSEtoMotionre421MOTIONforPartialSummaryJudgmentfiledby
06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
453 RESPONSEtoPlaintiffs'StatementofFacts422andinSupportofPlaintiffs'
MotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentandControvertingStatementofFactsby
DefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#
1Exhibit,#2Exhibit,#3Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)*Modifiedon6/6/2011to
correctevent.*(KMG).(Entered:06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
454 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre420MOTIONtoCertifyClassRenewed
MotionforClassCertificationfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
06/03/2011
455 RESPONSEtoMotionre413MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentPlaintiffs
OppositiontoDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentfiledbyManuelde
06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
456 STATEMENTofofFacts-Plaintiffs'ResponsesandObjectionstoDefendants'
StatementofFactsandSupplementalFactsinOppositiontoDefendants'Motion
forSummaryJudgmentre455ResponsetoMotionforSummaryJudgment,by
06/03/2011
457 DECLARATIONofAnabelAvitiare456Statement,ofFacts-Plaintiffs'
ResponsesandObjectionstoDefendants'StatementofFactsandSupplemental
FactsinOppositiontoDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgmentbyPlaintiffs
DeclarationofAndrewSanchez,#2DeclarationofAdolfoMaldonato)(Young,
06/03/2011
458 DECLARATIONofKevinHickeyinSupportofPlainitffsOppositionto
DefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentre455ResponsetoMotionfor
SummaryJudgment,byPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1IndexofExhibits,#2Exhibit214-218,#3Exhibit
219-225,#4Exhibit226-231,#5Exhibit232-236,#6Exhibit237-240)
RE 919
81/197
(985 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 87 of 202
(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:06/03/2011)
06/03/2011
459 MOTIONforLeavetoFileAudioRecordinginNon-ElectronicFormbyManuel
ProposedOrder)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:06/03/2011)
06/06/2011
ClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.Reasonforreturn:AttemptedNot
KnownUnabletoForwardReturntoSender.Documentnumber448.(MHU)
(Entered:06/07/2011)
06/08/2011
461 ORDERgrantingtheMotion412andawardingACLUattorneys'feesinthe
amountof$2,002.00andCovington&Burlingattorneys'feesintheamount
of$70,000.00and$22,705.00incosts.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
6/8/11.(KMG)(Entered:06/08/2011)
06/08/2011
462 JUDGMENTonAttorneyFees-PursuanttotheOrderdatedJune8th2011(doc.
461),judgmentisenteredforPlaintiffsandagainstDefendants.AwardingACLU
Attorneys'feesintheamountof$2,002.00andCovington&BurlingAttorneys'
feesintheamountof$70,000.00and$22,705.00incosts.Signedon6/8/2011.
06/13/2011
463 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyBhanuKSadasivanon
06/14/2011
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX110600astoBhanuK
Sadasivan.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
06/14/2011
06/16/2011
465 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre413MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentfiledby
06/16/2011)
06/23/2011
466 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre421MOTIONforPartialSummaryJudgment
filedbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
06/23/2011
467 *STATEMENTofFactsre466ReplytoResponsetoMotionPlaintiffs'
ResponsestoDefendants'SupplementalStatement456ofFactsandReplyto
Defendants'ResponsesandObjectionstoPlainitffs'SeparateStatementofFacts
InSupportofPlaintiffs'MotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentbyPlaintiffs
RE 920
82/197
(986 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 88 of 202
*Modifiedon6/24/2011toincludedocumentrelationshipre456.*(KMG).
(Entered:06/23/2011)
06/23/2011
468 DECLARATIONofKevinHickeyre466ReplytoResponsetoMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgmentbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1IndexofExhibits,#2Exhibit45A,#3
Exhibit241,#4Exhibit242,#5Exhibit243,#6Exhibit244,#7Exhibit245,#
8Exhibit246,#9Exhibit247)(Hickey,Kevin)(Entered:06/23/2011)
06/27/2011
469 *MOTIONforLeavetoFileSur-Reply,byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)
*Entrymodifiedfrommotiontostrikeon6/28/2011(ESL).(Entered:
06/27/2011)
06/30/2011
470 ORDERgranting459MotionforLeavetoFile-Plaintiffsmayfilewiththe
ClerkoftheCourtthefollowingaudio/videorecordingsinnon-electronicform:
ORT000370(audiorecordingcontainingMarch28,2008radiocallbyDeputy
Armendariz).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/30/2011.(KMG)(Entered:
06/30/2011)
07/01/2011
Disk"911CallfromManuelNietoJr.ORT000370"receivedandstoredinthe
Phoenixfileroom.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.(CAD)(Entered:07/01/2011)
07/05/2011
471 *NOTICEofWithdrawofAttorneyAnneLaibyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Lai,
Anne)*ModifiedfromMotionon7/6/2011*(REW).(Entered:07/05/2011)
07/06/2011
472 *SATISFACTIONofJudgmentre461OrderonMotionforAttorneyFeesby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Pochoda,Daniel)
*ModifiedfromNoticeon7/7/2011*(REW).(Entered:07/06/2011)
07/08/2011
473 RESPONSEtoMotionre469MOTIONforLeavetoFileNon-Oppositionto
Defendants'MotiontoAllowSur-ReplyandOppositiontoDefendants'Motionto
DisregardandStrikePleadingsatDktNos.467and468filedbyManuelde
07/08/2011)
07/14/2011
474 *SATISFACTIONOFJUDGMENTre:461OrderonMotionforAttorneyFees,
*Modifiedon7/15/2011tocorrectevent.*(KMG).(Entered:07/14/2011)
07/14/2011
475 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Order)(Metcalf,Drew)Modifiedon
7/15/2011documentisnotincompliancewithLRCiv7.1(c)-textsearchability.
(KMG).(Entered:07/14/2011)
07/15/2011
476 InlightofthefactthatMr.Metcalfwaspreviouslyterminatedasattorneyof
RE 921
83/197
(987 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 89 of 202
record(seeDoc.339),ITISORDEREDfindingasmoot475Motionto
WithdrawasAttorney.OrderedbyJudgeGMurraySnow.(ADG)(Thisisa
(Entered:07/15/2011)
12/01/2011
477 ORDERpendingbeforetheCourtareDefendants'MotionforSummary
JudgmentDoc.413,Plaintiffs'RenewedMotionforSanctions,Doc.416,
Plaintiffs'RenewedMotionforClassCertificationDoc.420,Plaintiffs'Motion
forPartialSummaryJudgmentDoc.421,andDefendants'MotionforLeaveto
FileSur-ReplyDoc.469.AhearingonthesemotionsisscheduledforThursday,
December22,at10:00a.m.ThepartieshavebeeninformedthattheCourtwould
requestsupplementalbriefingonidentifiedissuespriortooralargument.Should
partieswishtodiscussotherissues,theyarefreetodoso.However,theoral
argumentisscheduledtolastonlytwohours.Eachpartywillreceiveonehour
totalforargument,andtheabove-mentionedissuesareofprincipalinteresttothe
Court.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/30/2011.(NOTE:SeePDFfor
completedetails)(KMG)(Entered:12/01/2011)
12/01/2011
478 NOTICEreWITHDRAWALOFASSOCIATECOUNSELMATTHEW
STEILENbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
12/01/2011
479 NOTICEreWITHDRAWALOFASSOCIATECOUNSELKEVINJ.HICKEY
(Entered:12/01/2011)
12/01/2011
480 ***STRICKENPERMINUTEORDER481***ORDER-Pendingbeforethe
CourtareDefendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment(Doc.413),Plaintiffs
RenewedMotionforSanctions,(Doc.416),Plaintiffs'RenewedMotionfor
ClassCertification(Doc.420),Plaintiffs'MotionforPartialSummaryJudgment
(Doc.421),andDefendants'MotionforLeavetoFileSur-Reply.(Doc.469).A
hearingonthesemotionsisscheduledforThursday,December22,at10:00a.m.
ThepartieshavebeeninformedthattheCourtwouldrequestsupplemental
briefingonidentifiedissuespriortooralargument.ThisOrderidentifiesthe
topicsonwhichtheCourtdesiressupplementalbriefingandisissuedpursuantto
FederalRulesofCivilProcedure56(f).Shouldpartieswishtodiscussother
issues,theyarefreetodoso.However,theoralargumentisscheduledtolast
onlytwohours.Eachpartywillreceiveonehourtotalforargument,andthe
above-mentionedissuesareofprincipalinteresttotheCourt.(Seedocumentfor
fulldetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/30/11.(LAD)Modifiedon
12/1/2011(LAD).(Entered:12/01/2011)
12/01/2011
481 MINUTEORDER:Order480isherebystrickenasduplicativeoforder477.
entry.(LAD)(Entered:12/01/2011)
12/09/2011
482 ORDER,Ahearingonmotions413,416,420,421,469isscheduledfor
Thursday,December22,at10:00a.m.ThisOrdersupplementstheCourt's
previousorderdiscussingissuesaretobethesubjectoforalargumentDoc.477
Thepartiesshouldbepreparedtodiscuss,oraddressintheirsupplemental
RE 922
84/197
(988 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 90 of 202
briefing,thefollowingtwoissues:1)Defendantshavearguedthattheclass
shouldnotbecertifiedinpartbecauseitisoverbroad.Partieshavebeenaskedto
discusswhetherMartinez-Medinav.Holder,___F.3d___,___2011WL
855791at*6(9thCir.2001)suggeststhatDefendantswouldreceivequalified
immunityforanyFourthAmendmentdamagesclaimpriortotheissuanceofthe
decision.Partiesareherebyfurtheraskedtobepreparedtodiscusswhether
civiliansstoppedafterthedecisioninMartinez-Medinawouldbeabletomake
validFourthAmendmentclaimsfordamages.Iftheybelievesuchclaimswould
notbebarredbyqualifiedimmunity,partiesshouldbepreparedtodiscuss
whethercertifyingaclassastotheFourthAmendmentclaimswoulddenythose
potentialPlaintiffstherighttorecoversuchdamages.2)Further,partiesare
askedtoaddresswhether,shouldnoFourthAmendmentclassbecertified,the
CourtmayissueinjunctiverelieffortheFourthAmendmentclaimsinlightof
UnitedStatesv.Arizona,641F.3d339(9thCir.2011).SignedbyJudgeG
12/12/2011
483 ORDER,UpontheCourt'sownmotion,ITISHEREBYORDEREDresetting
oralargumentcurrentlysetforDecember22,2011at10:00a.m.toDecember
22,2011at9:30a.m.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon12/12/2011.(KMG)
(Entered:12/12/2011)
12/12/2011
484 *NOTICEreAttorneyWithdrawalbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Wang,Cecillia)*Modifiedtoupdatepriorcorrectiononsystemon
12/15/2011(JMO).(Entered:12/12/2011)
12/15/2011
485 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyAnneLaibyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Lai,Anne)(Entered:12/15/2011)
12/16/2011
486 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyAnneLaibyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Lai,Anne)(Entered:12/16/2011)
12/16/2011
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX116853astoAnneLai.
entry.(BAS)(Entered:12/16/2011)
12/16/2011
487 ORDERpursuanttoGeneralOrder09-08terminating485MotionforAdmission
(Entered:12/16/2011)
12/16/2011
488 SUPPLEMENTofDefendants'SupplementalBriefre482Order,,,,,by
1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:12/16/2011)
12/16/2011
489 SUPPLEMENTofPlaintiffs'Pre-ArgumentSupplementalBriefingre482
Order,,,,,byPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
RE 923
85/197
(989 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 91 of 202
(Young,Stanley)(Entered:12/16/2011)
12/22/2011
490 OralMotionforSummaryJudgmentonFourthAmendmentClaimbyManuelde
JesusOrtegaMelendres.(KFZ)(Entered:12/22/2011)
12/22/2011
StanleyYoung,TammyAlbarran,CeciliaWang,AndrewByrnes,AnneLai,
DanielPochoda,andNancyRodriguezforplaintiffs.TimothyCaseyand
ThomasLiddyfordefendants.MotionHearingheldon12/22/2011.Argumentis
presented.PlaintiffManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendresmakesoralMotionfor
SummaryJudgmentonFourthAmendmentClaim.ITISORDEREDtakingthe
followingmotionsunderadvisement:413MotionforSummaryJudgment416
MotionforSanctions420MotiontoCertifyClass421MotionforPartial
SummaryJudgment469MotionforLeavetoFileand490Motionfor
SummaryJudgment.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRY
ONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:
12/22/2011)
12/22/2011
492 SUPPLEMENTDefendants'CitationtoAuthoritiesbyDefendantsJosephM
12/22/2011)
12/23/2011
493 ORDERDefendants'RenewedMotionforSanctionsDoc.416isgrantedinpart,
andPlaintiffswillbeentitledtoadverseinferencesattrial.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon12/23/2011.(NOTE:SeePDFforfulldetails)(KMG)(Entered:
12/23/2011)
12/23/2011
494 ORDER:Defendants'MotionforSummaryJudgment(Doc.413)isgrantedin
partanddeniedinpart.SummaryjudgmentisgrantedwithregardstoPlaintiffs
JessikaandDavidRodriguez'sunderlyingclaimsunderClaimTwoandClaim
Three,whichareherebydismissed.Summaryjudgmentisdeniedwithregardsto
theunderlyingclaimsofPlaintiffsMelendres,Nieto,andMerazunderClaim
TwoandClaimThree.Defendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentisdeniedwith
regardstoClaimOneandClaimFour.Plaintiffs'MotionforClassCertification
(Doc.420)isgranted.Thelitigationiscertifiedasaclassaction,withthe
followingdefinedclassforthepurposesoftheequalprotectionclaim:AllLatino
personswho,sinceJanuary,2007,havebeenorwillbeinthefuture,stopped,
detained,questionedorsearchedbyMCSOagentswhiledrivingorsittingina
vehicleonapublicroadwayorparkingareainMaricopaCounty,Arizona.
Plaintiffs'MotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentonClaimOneandClaimFour
(Doc.421)isdenied.Plaintiffs'MotionforSummaryJudgmentonClaimTwo
andClaimThree(Doc.490)isdeniedinpartasitrelatestotheunderlying
claims,andgrantedinpartasitrelatestofutureenforcementactionsofthe
MCSO.Defendants'MotionforLeavetoFileSur-Reply(Doc.469)isdismissed
asmoot.MCSOandallofitsofficersareherebyenjoinedfromdetainingany
personbasedonlyonknowledgeorreasonablebelief,withoutmore,thatthe
personisunlawfullypresentwithintheUnitedStates,becauseasamatteroflaw
suchknowledgedoesnotamounttoareasonablebeliefthatthepersoneither
violatedorconspiredtoviolatetheArizonahumansmugglingstatute,orany
otherstateorfederalcriminallaw.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
12/23/11.(SJF)(Entered:12/23/2011)
01/04/2012
495 ORDERSettingFinalPretrialConferencefor3/23/2012at01:30PMin RE 924
86/197
(990 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 92 of 202
Courtroom602,401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudge
GMurraySnow.ProposedPretrialOrderdueby3/2/2012(seeorderfor
completedetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/4/12.(REW)(Entered:
01/04/2012)
01/04/2012
496 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTandOrderFormbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Hon.G.MurraySnow..(Young,Stanley)(Entered:01/04/2012)
01/05/2012
497 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofMotionHearing
Proceedingsheldon12/22/2011,beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.CourtReporter
2/6/2012.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor4/4/2012.(BAS)(Entered:
01/05/2012)
01/05/2012
498 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officeforproceedingsheldon12/22/2011beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow..
01/09/2012
499 NOTICEofAppearancebyJamesDuffLyallonbehalfofAggrievedand
IrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens,ManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica(Lyall,James)(Entered:01/09/2012)
01/13/2012
500 NOTICEOFINTERLOCUTORYAPPEALto9thCircuitasto494Orderon
MotionforSummaryJudgment,OrderonMotiontoCertifyClass,Orderon
MotionforPartialSummaryJudgment,OrderonMotionforLeavetoFile,by
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.Filingfeereceived:$
455.00,receiptnumber0970-6279404(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/13/2012)
01/13/2012
501 AppealDocumentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere500
NoticeofInterlocutoryAppeal,CivilAppealsDocketingStatement.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/13/2012)
01/13/2012
502 RepresentationStatementbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
re500NoticeofInterlocutoryAppeal,.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/13/2012)
01/17/2012
503 NinthCircuitCourtofAppealsCaseNumber12-15098for500Noticeof
InterlocutoryAppeal.(LAD)(Entered:01/17/2012)
01/23/2012
Officeforproceedingsheldon12/22/2011beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow..
01/31/2012
505 CERTIFICATEOFRECORDTRANSMITTEDTO9THCIRCUITCOURTOF
APPEALSre500NoticeofInterlocutoryAppeal.(BAS)(Entered:01/31/2012)
01/31/2012
506 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyAndreI.SegurabyManuel
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Segura,Andre)(Entered:
RE 925
87/197
(991 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 93 of 202
01/31/2012)
01/31/2012
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX118332astoAndre
Segura.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
withthisentry.(BAS)(Entered:01/31/2012)
01/31/2012
01/31/2012
508 NOTICEreWithdrawalofAssociateCounselBhanuK.SadasivanbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Sadasivan,Bhanu)(Entered:
01/31/2012)
03/02/2012
509 PROPOSEDFINDINGSOFFACTbyDefendantsJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
03/02/2012
510 MOTIONinLiminere:EvidenceRegardingAllegedMCSOEncounterswith
PersonsOtherthantheNamedPlaintiffsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
511 MOTIONinLiminere:ExpertTestimonyRegardingSubconscious/Unconscious
BiasorSubjectiveThoughtorMotivationbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2TextofProposedOrder)
03/02/2012
512 MOTIONinLiminere:CitizenLettersandComplaintsbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)
03/02/2012
513 NOTICEofFiling-ProposedPretrialOrderfiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office,Maricopa,Countyof,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America(Joint).(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
514 ProposedFindingsofFactbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
515 MOTIONinLiminere:TOExcludeEvidenceofU.S.ImmigrationandCustoms
Enforcement(ICE)'sAllegedApprovalofMCSOActivitiesPursuantto287(G)
ofProposedOrder)(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
516 MOTIONinLiminere:ToExcludeCertainU.S.ImmigrationandCustoms
Enforcement(ICE)WitnessesbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:
RE 926
88/197
(992 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 94 of 202
03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
517 MOTIONinLiminere:ToExcludeTestimonyofScottJefferysbyManuelde
ProposedOrder)(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/02/2012
518 DECLARATIONofLesliGallagherre515MOTIONinLiminere:TOExclude
EvidenceofU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)'sAlleged
ApprovalofMCSOActivitiesPursuantto287(G),517MOTIONinLiminere:
ToExcludeTestimonyofScottJefferys,516MOTIONinLiminere:To
ExcludeCertainU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)Witnesses
1ExhibitExhibitIndex,#2ExhibitA-C,#3ExhibitD-E,#4ExhibitF-H,#5
ExhibitI-K)(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/02/2012)
03/08/2012
519 RESPONSEtoMotionre517MOTIONinLiminere:ToExcludeTestimonyof
ScottJefferysfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
03/08/2012
520 RESPONSEtoMotionre516MOTIONinLiminere:ToExcludeCertainU.S.
ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)WitnessesfiledbyJosephM
03/08/2012)
03/08/2012
521 RESPONSEinOppositionre515MOTIONinLiminere:TOExcludeEvidence
ofU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)'sAllegedApprovalof
MCSOActivitiesPursuantto287(G)filedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
03/08/2012)
03/09/2012
522 RESPONSEtoMotionre510MOTIONinLiminere:EvidenceRegarding
AllegedMCSOEncounterswithPersonsOtherthantheNamedPlaintiffsfiled
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Gallagher,Lesli)
(Entered:03/09/2012)
03/09/2012
523 RESPONSEtoMotionre511MOTIONinLiminere:ExpertTestimony
RegardingSubconscious/UnconsciousBiasorSubjectiveThoughtorMotivation
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Gallagher,
Lesli)(Entered:03/09/2012)
03/09/2012
524 RESPONSEtoMotionre512MOTIONinLiminere:CitizenLettersand
ComplaintsfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:03/09/2012)
03/09/2012
525 DECLARATIONofLesliGallagherre523ResponsetoMotion,Expert
TestimonyRegardingSubconscious/UnconsciousBiasorSubjectiveThoughtor
MotivationbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
RE 927
89/197
(993 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 95 of 202
America.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitIndex,#2ExhibitA-C)(Gallagher,
03/19/2012
526 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyDavidRHultsonbehalfof
03/20/2012)
03/20/2012
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$50,receiptnumberPHX120095astoDavidR
Hults.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
03/20/2012
03/23/2012
StanleyYoung,LesliGallagher,CeciliaWang,AndrewByrnes,DanielPochoda,
andNancyRamirezforplaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,andJames
Williamsfordefendants.FinalPretrialConferenceheldon3/23/2012.Bench
Trialsetfor7/19/2012at8:30a.m.TheCourtrulesonpendingmotionsasset
forthontherecord.Ordertofollow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXT
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)
(Entered:03/23/2012)
03/26/2012
529 ORDERSETTINGTRIAL-BenchTrialshallbeginon07/19/12at8:30AM.
ThePlaintiffs'510MotioninLiminere:EvidenceRegardingAllegedMCSO
EncounterswithPersonsOtherThantheNamedPlaintiffsisdeniedwithout
prejudicetheDefendants'511MotioninLimineNo.2isgrantedinpartand
deniedinpartDefendants'512MotioninLimineNo.3isdeniedPlaintiffs'515
MotioninLiminetoExcludeEvidenceofU.S.ImmigrationandCustoms
Enforcement'sAllegedApprovalofMCSOActivitiesPursuantto287(G)is
grantedinpartanddeniedinpartPlaintiffs'516MotioninLiminetoExclude
CertainU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcementWitnessesisgranted
Plaintiffs'517MotioninLimineExcludeTestimonyofScottJeffreysisdenied.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon03/23/12.(ESL)(SeeattachedPDFfor
completedetails)(Entered:03/26/2012)
03/26/2012
530 FINALPRETRIALORDER-thatthisProposedFinalPretrialOrderjointly
submittedbythepartiesisherebyAPPROVEDandADOPTEDastheofficial
PretrialOrderofthisCourt.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon03/23/12.(see
attachedPDFforcompletedetails)(ESL)(Entered:03/26/2012)
03/29/2012
531 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyUnitedStatesofAmericaforproceedingsheldon
3/23/2012beforeJudgeSnow..(Gayle,Winsome)(Entered:03/29/2012)
03/29/2012
532 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofFinalPretrial
Conference.Proceedingsheldon3/23/2012,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.
CourtReporterGaryMoll.Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminal
RE 928
90/197
(994 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 96 of 202
for4/30/2012.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor6/27/2012.(VAR)
(Entered:03/30/2012)
03/30/2012
OfficeforproceedingsheldonMarch23,2012beforeJudgeHon.G.Murray
Snow..(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/30/2012)
03/30/2012
534 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTandOrderFormbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Hon.G.MurraySnow..(Young,Stanley)(Entered:03/30/2012)
04/02/2012
535 NOTICEOFATTORNEYSUBSTITUTION:WinsomeG.Gayleappearingfor
UnitedStatesofAmerica.AttorneyAminAminfarterminated..(Gayle,
Winsome)(Entered:04/02/2012)
05/10/2012
536 NOTICEofAppearancebyKellyJoyceFloodonbehalfofManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Flood,Kelly)(Entered:05/10/2012)
06/19/2012
537 ORDERTheCourtisinreceiptofPlaintiffs'letterdatedJune14,2012.After
consideringthatlettertheCourtconcludesthatfurtheractionbytheCourtis
necessary.Inlightofthefollowingfactsandthependingtrialdate,theCourtwill
scheduleaconferencetodeterminewhetherfurtherproceedingswillbe
necessarybeforetrial.OnJune17,2010,theSteptoeAttorneyswithdrewfrom
thecasewiththeCourtspermission,andattorneysfromtheRedwoodShores,
CaliforniaofficeofCovington&BurlingLLP(the"CovingtonAttorneys")were
substitutedforthem.(Doc.313).WhentheCovingtonAttorneyswere
substitutedfortheSteptoeAttorneys,theCourtconsideredwhetherwithdrawing
fromthecasewasappropriateunder28U.S.C.455(a).Thisstatuterequires
that"[a]nyjusticejudge,ormagistrateoftheUnitedStatesshalldisqualify
himself[orherself]inanyproceedinginwhichhis[orher]impartialitymight
reasonablybequestioned."28U.S.C.455(a)(2006).TheCourtisdisinclined
toproceedwiththismatterwithoutprovidingallpartiestheopportunitytotake
whateveractiontheydeemnecessarytorepresenttheinterestsoftheirrespective
clientsgiventheaboveinformation.Becausesuchactionscouldconceivably
takemoretimethaniscurrentlyavailablebeforetrial,andinvolveadditionalor
supplementalproceedings,theCourtwishestoconferwiththepartiesconcerning
anyactionstheymaywishtotakeinlightoftheaboveinformation.TheCourt
willthereforecontactthepartiesandsetastatusconferenceinthismatter.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/19/2012.(KMG)(Entered:06/19/2012)
06/19/2012
538 ORDERsettingaStatusConferenceforFriday,June29,2012at1:30p.m.in
Courtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.FederalCourthouse,401W.
WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.Anyout-of-statecounselwho
wishtoappeartelephonicallymaycallmychambersat(602)322-7650nolater
thanMonday,June25,2012tomakearrangementstoappeartelephonically.
06/26/2012
539 ORDERThismatterisscheduledforastatusconferenceonFriday,June29,
RE 929
91/197
(995 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 97 of 202
2012at1:30p.m.Partiesarerequestedtobereadytodiscusstheextent,ifany,
towhichAdvisoryOpinionNo.58issuedbytheUnitedStatesCommitteeon
CodesofConductinJuneof2009,affectsthisCourt'sobligationsunder28
U.S.C.455(a)(2006).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/26/2012.(KMG)
(Entered:06/26/2012)
06/29/2012
CeciliaWangandAndreSegura(bothtelephonically),AndrewByrnes,Kelly
FloodandDanielPochodaforplaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,and
JamesWilliamsfordefendants.StatusConferenceheldon6/29/2012.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
06/29/2012
541 NOTICEreNoticeofWaiveronLimitedIssuebyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
07/03/2012
542 ORDERaffirmingthatthetrialwillproceedonJuly19,2012at8:30a.m.,as
scheduled.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/3/12.(LFIG)(Entered:
07/03/2012)
07/10/2012
543 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americaforproceedingsheldon7/19/2012-8/2/2012beforeJudgeG.Murray
Snow..(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:07/10/2012)
07/12/2012
544 NOTICETOCOURTREPORTERbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
AmericatoCourtReporter.(Gallagher,Lesli)Modifiedtoincludetexton
7/13/2012(KMG).(Entered:07/12/2012)
07/17/2012
545 NOTICEreDefendants'NoticeofInvokingRule615ExclusionofWitnessesby
07/17/2012)
07/17/2012
546 NOTICErePlaintiff'sNoticeofInvokingRule615ExclusionofWitnessesby
(Entered:07/17/2012)
07/18/2012
547 NOTICEofAppearancebyAnnThompsonUgliettaonbehalfofJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Uglietta,Ann)(Entered:07/18/2012)
07/18/2012
Officeforproceedingsheldon07/19/2012-08/02/2012beforeJudgeHon.G.
MurraySnow..(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:07/18/2012)
07/19/2012
549 MinuteEntryforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:BenchTrial
(Day1)begunon7/19/2012.BenchTrialcontinuedto7/24/2012at8:30AMin
SpecialProceedingsCourtroom,2ndFloor,401WestWashingtonStreet,
Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
07/24/2012
(Day2)heldon7/24/2012.BenchTrialcontinuedto7/25/2012at8:30AMin
RE 930
92/197
(996 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 98 of 202
GMurraySnow.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)(KFZ)(Entered:07/24/2012)
07/25/2012
07/26/2012
07/31/2012
(Day5)heldon7/31/2012.Defendants'oralRule52(c)motionisdenied.Bench
Trialcontinuedto8/1/2012at8:30AMinCourtroom602.(CourtReporterGary
Moll.)(KFZ)(Entered:07/31/2012)
08/01/2012
Courtroom602.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)(KFZ)(Entered:08/01/2012)
08/02/2012
(Day7)completedon8/2/2012.Defendants'renewedoralRule52(c)motionis
denied.Simultaneousbriefinglimitedto35pagesisdueby8/9/12,with
simultaneousresponseslimitedto17pagesdueby8/16/12,atwhichtimethe
matterwillbedeemedsubmittedtotheCourt.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)(KFZ)
(Entered:08/02/2012)
08/02/2012
556 WitnessListbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(KMG)
(Entered:08/06/2012)
08/02/2012
557 WitnessListbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(KMG)
(Entered:08/06/2012)
08/02/2012
558 ExhibitListbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice..(KMG)
(Entered:08/06/2012)
08/02/2012
559 ExhibitListbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica..(KMG)
(Entered:08/06/2012)
08/02/2012
560 MinuteOrderre:Exhibits-ITISHEREBYORDEREDthattheexhibits
marked,whetherornotreceivedasevidence,intheabove-entitledcaseatthe
timeoftheBenchTrialwhichconcludedonAugust2,2012,arereturnedto
respectivecounsel.Counselaredirectedtoretaincustodyoftheexhibitsuntilthe
casehasbeencompletelyterminated,includingallappeals,pursuanttoLRCiv
79.1.(KMG)(Entered:08/06/2012)
08/07/2012
561 MOTIONtoIntervene,alternatively,MOTIONtoFileAmicusCuriaebyScott
Huminski.(KMG)(Entered:08/08/2012)
08/09/2012
562 TRIALBRIEFDefendants'Post-TrialBriefReLegalIssuesRequestedbythe
CourtandClosingArgumentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
RE 931
93/197
(997 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 99 of 202
08/09/2012
563 TRIALBRIEFbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Hults,David)(Entered:08/09/2012)
08/09/2012
564 *TRIALBRIEFbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Young,Stanley)*Documentduplicateofentryof(doc.#563).Modifiedon
8/10/2012(KMG).(Entered:08/09/2012)
08/10/2012
565 STIPULATIONRegardingDocumentsinEvidenceContainingArrest
InformationbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Maricopa,
Countyof,ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Gallagher,
08/13/2012
566 ORDERPursuanttotheparties'StipulationRegardingDocumentsinEvidence
ContainingArrestInformation(Doc.565),theCourtwillaccepttheStipulation.
Accordingly,ITISORDEREDgrantingtheStipulation.SignedbyJudgeG
08/15/2012
567 ORDERdenyingtheMotion561.ITISFURTHERORDEREDdirectingthe
ClerkofCourttoterminateScottHuminskifromthisaction.SignedbyJudgeG
08/16/2012
568 *Defendants'RESPONSEinRebuttalto563Plaintiffs'PostTrialBriefby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)
*Modifiedtocorrecteventtypeandtoadddocumentnumberon8/17/2012
(LSP).(Entered:08/16/2012)
08/16/2012
569 *Plaintiffs'RESPONSEto562Defendants'Post-TrialBriefbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)*Modifiedtocorrect
eventtypeandtoadddocumentnumberon8/17/2012(LSP).(Entered:
08/16/2012)
09/20/2012
570 NOTICEOFATTORNEYSUBSTITUTION:EdwardG.Casparappearingfor
UnitedStatesofAmerica.AttorneyWinsomeGayleterminated..(Caspar,
Edward)(Entered:09/20/2012)
10/09/2012
571 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofBenchTrialDay1
Proceedingsheldon7/19/2012,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.CourtReporter
11/9/2012.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor1/7/2013.(VAR)(Entered:
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
RE 932
94/197
(998 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 100 of 202
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
10/12/2012)
10/09/2012
10/12/2012)
10/23/2012
578 MANDATEofUSCA,affirmingthedecisionoftheDistrictCourt,re:12-15098
500NoticeofInterlocutoryAppeal.(Attachments:#1Opinion,#2NDA)
(REW)(Entered:10/23/2012)
RE 933
95/197
(999 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 101 of 202
05/24/2013
579 FINDINGSOFFACTANDCONCLUSIONSOFLAW-thatPlaintiffsare
entitledtoinjunctivereliefnecessarytoremedytheFourthandFourteenth
AmendmentviolationscausedbyMCSO'spastandcontinuingoperations.The
MCSOisthuspermanentlyenjoinedfrom:1.Detaining,holdingorarresting
LatinooccupantsofvehiclesinMaricopaCountybasedonareasonablebelief,
withoutmore,thatsuchpersonsareinthecountrywithoutauthorization.2.
FollowingorenforcingitsLEARpolicyagainstanyLatinooccupantofavehicle
inMaricopaCounty.3.UsingraceorLatinoancestryasafactorindetermining
tostopanyvehicleinMaricopaCountywithaLatinooccupant.4.Usingraceor
Latinoancestryasafactorinmakinglawenforcementdecisionswithrespectto
whetheranyLatinooccupantofavehicleinMaricopaCountymaybeinthe
countrywithoutauthorization.5.DetainingLatinooccupantsofvehiclesstopped
fortrafficviolationsforaperiodlongerthanreasonablynecessarytoresolvethe
trafficviolationintheabsenceofreasonablesuspicionthatanyofthemhave
committedorarecommittingaviolationoffederalorstatecriminallaw.6.
Detaining,holdingorarrestingLatinooccupantsofavehicleinMaricopa
CountyforviolationsoftheArizonaHumanSmugglingActwithouta
reasonablebasisforbelievingthat,underallthecircumstances,thenecessary
elementsofthecrimearepresent.7.Detaining,arrestingorholdingpersons
basedonareasonablesuspicionthattheyareconspiringwiththeiremployerto
violatetheArizonaEmployerSanctionsAct.ITISFURTHERORDERED
settingahearingatwhichtheabovematterswillbediscussedforFriday,June
14,2013at9:30a.m.inCourtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.Federal
Courthouse,401W.WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon5/24/2013.(KMG)(Entered:05/24/2013)
06/13/2013
580 STATEMENTofInterestbyAmicusUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Attachments:#
1ExhibitApart1,#2ExhibitApart2,#3ExhibitB,#4ExhibitC)(Caspar,
06/14/2013
581 MinuteEntryforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Status
Conferenceheldon6/14/2013.Ordertofollow.
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoung,CecilliaWang,AndreSegura,Daniel
Pochoda,NancyRamirez,AnneLai,DavidHults,andAndrewByrnesfor
Plaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,andJamesWilliamsforDefendants.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:31AMto10:24AM.Thisisa
06/14/2013
582 ORDER:OnJune14,2013,theCourtheldaStatusHearingwithcounselfor
PlaintiffsandDefendants.Pursuanttodiscussionsatthehearing,ITIS
ORDEREDsettingasubsequentStatusConferenceon8/30/2013at9:30AMin
GMurraySnow.FURTHERORDEREDthatthepartiesfileajoint
memorandumonthestatusoftheiragreementonaconsentdecreeandlodgethe
consentdecreeonorbeforeAugust16,2013.Ifthepartiesneedtosupplement
thememorandum,theymaydosonolaterthanAugust28,2013.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon6/14/2013.(KFZ)(Entered:06/14/2013)
06/18/2013
Officeforproceedingsheldon06/14/2013beforeJudgeHon.MurraySnow..
RE 934
96/197
(1000 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 102 of 202
06/18/2013
Americaforproceedingsheldon6/14/2013beforeJudgeHon.G.MurraySnow..
06/18/2013
585 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheldon
6/14/2013beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..(Masterson,John)(Entered:
06/18/2013)
06/18/2013
06/19/2013)
06/21/2013
587 NOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuit,asto493OrderonMotionforSanctions,
60OrderonMotiontoDismiss,OrderonMotionforHearing,579Findingsof
Fact&ConclusionsofLaw,byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.Filingfeereceived:$455.00,receiptnumber0970-9299151.
(Attachments:#1AppealInformationDocketingStatement,#2Appeal
Information02-10-09Order,#3AppealInformation12-23-11Order,#4Appeal
InformationFindingsofFactandConclusionsofLaw,#5AppealInformation
RepresentationStatement)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:06/21/2013)
06/24/2013
588 NinthCircuitCourtofAppealsCaseNumber13-16285for587Noticeof
Appeal.(LAD)(Entered:06/24/2013)
07/18/2013
Officeforproceedingsheldon01/14/09beforeJudgeHon.MurraySnow..
08/07/2013
590 NOTICEofChangeofAddressbyAnneLai.(Lai,Anne)(Entered:08/07/2013)
08/08/2013
591 NOTICEreOFWITHDRAWALOFASSOCIATECOUNSELANDREWC.
BYRNESbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Byrnes,
Andrew)(Entered:08/08/2013)
08/16/2013
592 STATUSREPORT-PartiesJointReportRegardingStatusofConsentDecree
NegotiationsbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA(ProposedConsentOrder))(Gallagher,Lesli)
(Entered:08/16/2013)
08/19/2013
593 ORDERthatthepartiesareauthorizedtoseparatelyfilesupplementalbriefsby
5:00PMonFriday,August23,2013.Thesebriefsshallbelimitedtoaconcise
discussionoftheparties'justificationsfortheircompetingpositionsontheterms
oftheProposedConsentDecreeandshallbenolongerthan25pages,excluding
RE 935
97/197
(1001 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 103 of 202
anyexhibits.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/19/2013.(KFZ)(Entered:
08/19/2013)
08/20/2013
594 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofMotiontoDismissfor
datesof1/14/2009beforeJudgeMurguiare:587NoticeofAppeal.Court
ReporterMerilynSanchez.Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminal
PACER.RedactionRequestdue9/10/2013.RedactedTranscriptDeadlinesetfor
9/20/2013.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor11/18/2013.(VPB)(Entered:
08/20/2013)
08/23/2013
595 SUPPLEMENTDefendants'BriefReJustificationsforCompetingPositionson
theTermsoftheProposedConsentDecreere592Report-Status,byDefendants
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)
08/23/2013
596 SUPPLEMENTPLAINTIFFSMEMORANDUMREGARDINGCONTESTED
PROVISIONSFORTHECOURTSREMEDIALORDERre592ReportStatus,byPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1ExhibitIndex,#2ExhibitA,B,C)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
08/23/2013)
08/23/2013
597 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre596Supplement,EXHIBITDby
08/23/2013
598 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre596Supplement,EXHIBITSE,F,
G,HbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
08/30/2013
599 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Status
Conferenceheldon8/30/13.Defendants'supplemental3-pagebrief,excluding
attachments,isdueby9/11/13.Plaintiffs'3-pageresponse,excluding
attachments,isdueby9/18/13.
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoung,CecilliaWang,DanielPochoda,Nancy
Ramirez,andLesliGallagherforPlaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,
JamesWilliams,andAnnUgliettaforDefendants.MaricopaCountySheriff's
OfficeChiefDeputy,JerrySheridan,isalsopresent.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
Hearingheld9:31AMto1:02PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno
09/09/2013
Officeforproceedingsheldon08/30/2013beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..
09/10/2013
Americaforproceedingsheldon08/30/2013beforeJudgeSnow..(Young,
RE 936
98/197
(1002 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 104 of 202
09/10/2013
8/30/2013beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow..(Masterson,John)(Entered:
09/10/2013)
09/10/2013
Proceedingsheldon8/30/2013,beforeJudgeSnow.CourtReporterGaryMoll.
Transcriptmaybeviewedatthecourtpublicterminalorpurchasedthroughthe
CourtReporter/TranscriberbeforethedeadlineforReleaseofTranscript
Restriction.AfterthatdateitmaybeobtainedthroughPACER.Redaction
Requestdue10/1/2013.RedactedTranscriptDeadlinesetfor10/11/2013.
ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor12/9/2013.(VPB)(Entered:09/10/2013)
09/11/2013
604 SUPPLEMENTDefendants'BriefReCourt'sProposaltoRequireMCSO
DeputiestoAnnounceBasisforEachTrafficStopOverRadiore599Status
Conference,CommonPrompts(TextOnly),,,,byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitAffidavitofGerard
Sheridan)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:09/11/2013)
09/18/2013
605 SUPPLEMENTPLAINTIFFSMEMORANDUMINRESPONSETO
DEFENDANTSBRIEFREGARDINGCOURTSPROPOSALTOREQUIRE
MCSODEPUTIESTOANNOUNCEBASISFOREACHTRAFFICSTOP
OVERRADIOre599StatusConference,,,CommonPrompts(TextOnly),,by
1AffidavitofRobertL.Stewart)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:09/18/2013)
10/02/2013
606 AMENDEDatdoc.#670and1270...SUPPLEMENTALPERMANENT
INJUNCTION/JUDGMENTORDER-thattheCourt'sinjunctionofDecember
23,2011ismadepermanent.TheCourt'sinjunctionofMay24,2013shall
remainpermanent.Forremovalofdoubt,boththeDecember23,2011injunction
andtheMay24,2013injunctionshallsurvivetheterminationofthisOrderuntil
andunlessspecificallydissolvedormodifiedbytheCourtoranappellatecourt
ofcompetentjurisdiction.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthisOrderisan
appealablefinaljudgment.TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtoenterjudgment
accordingly.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthisCourtretainsjurisdiction
overthiscaseforthepurposesofimplementingthisOrder.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon10/2/2013.(SeePDFforfulldetails.)(KMG)Modifiedon
4/16/2014(KMG).Modifiedon8/26/2015(KFZ).(Entered:10/02/2013)
10/16/2013
607 BILLOFCOSTSbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1ItemizationforBillofCosts,#2Tab01-Documentation,#3
Tab02-Documentation,#4Tab03-Documentation,#5Tab04Documentation,#6Tab05-Documentation)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
10/16/2013)
10/16/2013
608 MOTIONforAttorneyFeesANDRELATEDNON-TAXABLEEXPENSESby
(Entered:10/16/2013)
RE 937
99/197
(1003 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 105 of 202
10/17/2013
609 MOTIONtoSealDocumentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
10/17/2013)
10/17/2013
610 *(Filedat615)SEALEDLODGEDProposedWrittenProtocolforaSignificant
OperationbyMCSOre:609MOTIONtoSealDocument.Documenttobefiled
byClerkifMotiontoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)Modifiedon10/22/2013(LAD).
(Entered:10/17/2013)
10/17/2013
611 STATEMENTofREGARDINGMCSO'sPLANNEDSIGNIFICANT
OPERATIONre610SealedLodgedProposedDocument,byPlaintiffsManuel
10/17/2013)
10/21/2013
612 RESPONSEinOppositionre608MOTIONforAttorneyFeesANDRELATED
NON-TAXABLEEXPENSESfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/21/2013)
10/21/2013
613 RESPONSEre607BillofCosts,byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
10/22/2013
614 ORDERgranting609MotiontoSealDocument.ITISFURTHERORDERED
thatinlightoftheperiodfortemporarilyfilingthewrittenprotocolunderseal
haslapsed,theClerkofCourtisdirectedtofilethelodgedwrittenprotocol(Doc.
610)inthepublicrecord.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/22/13.(LAD)
(Entered:10/22/2013)
10/22/2013
615 WrittenProtocolforaSignificantOpperationbyMCSObyJosephM.Arpaio
andMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(LAD)(Entered:10/22/2013)
10/31/2013
616 NOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuitCourtofAppealsre:606Permanent
Injunction,Judgment,byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
Filingfeereceived:$455.00,receiptnumber0970-9780648.(Attachments:#1
RepresentationStatement)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/31/2013)
11/01/2013
617 USCACaseNumberre:616NoticeofAppeal.Casenumber13-17238,Ninth
Circuit.(copiessentbytheNinthCircuit)(REW)(Entered:11/01/2013)
11/05/2013
618 TaxationJudgmentinamountof$18,688.24againstdefendant.SignedbyChief
DeputyClerkMichaelO'Brienon11/5/13.(CSL)(Entered:11/05/2013)
11/07/2013
619 STIPULATIONTOEXTENDTIMEFORFILINGATTORNEYSFEES
MEMORANDAbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
11/07/2013)
11/08/2013
620 ORDERthatpursuanttotheparties'619Stipulation:ThetimeforPlaintiffsto
filethememoranduminsupportofthemotionforawardofattorneys'feesandall
supportingdocumentationisextendeduntilandincludingDecember20,2013.
ThetimeforDefendantstofilearesponsivememorandumtothemotionfor
awardofattorneys'feesisextendeduntilandincludingJanuary24,2014.The
RE 938
100/197
(1004 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 106 of 202
timeforPlaintiffstofileareplymemorandumtothemotionforawardof
attorneys'feesisextendeduntilandincludingFebruary14,2014.Signedby
11/22/2013
621 MOTIONforExtensionofTimeToFileWiththeCourtanAgreedUponName
ofaMonitorforAppointmentortheParties'RespectiveSlatesofCandidatesfor
theCourt'sSelectionofaMonitorbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
(Entered:11/22/2013)
11/25/2013
622 ORDERgranting621MotionandStipulationtoExtendbyOneWeekthe
DeadlinetoFileWiththeCourtanAgreedUponNameofaMonitorfor
AppointmentortheParties'RespectiveSlatesofCandidatesfortheCourt's
SelectionofaMonitor.ThepartiesmayhavethroughanduntilMonday,
December9,2013tofiletheirmutualagreed-uponmonitorortheirrespective
slatesofcandidatesformonitortobeselectedbytheCourt.Nofurther
extensionsshallbegranted.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/25/2013.
12/02/2013
623 NOTICEreDefendants'NoticeofFilingaWrittenProtocolforMCSO
ParticipationinaHolidayDUITaskForcethatmay,onOccastion,Constitutea
SignificantOperationUndertheOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitDUIWrittenProtocol)(Casey,
12/09/2013
624 STIPULATIONTOEXTENDTIMEFORFILINGATTORNEYSFEESAND
NON-TAXABLEEXPENSESMEMORANDAbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Young,
12/09/2013
625 NOTICErePlaintiffs'NoiceofFilingCandidatesforMonitorbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare622OrderonMotionfor
ExtensionofTime,,.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA-RobertWarshaw,#2Exhibit
B-JosephBrann,#3ExhibitC-TimothyNelson)(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:
12/09/2013)
12/09/2013
626 NOTICEreDefendants'SlateofThreeCandidatesforthePositionofMonitor
PursuanttoCourtOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
re622OrderonMotionforExtensionofTime,,.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
Exhibits1-3)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:12/09/2013)
12/10/2013
627 NOTICErePLAINTIFFSNOTICEOFFILINGSUPPLEMENTTO
CANDIDATESFORMONITORbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
Americare625Notice(Other),.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA-JosephBrann
Proposal)(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:12/10/2013)
12/10/2013
628 ITISORDEREDdenying624theStipulationtoExtendTimeforFiling
Attorneys'FeesandNon-TaxableExpensesMemoranda.SignedbyJudgeG.
MurraySnowon12/10/13.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
documentassociatedwiththisentry.(GMS,ag)(Entered:12/10/2013)
RE 939
101/197
(1005 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 107 of 202
12/10/2013
629 OBJECTIONre625Notice(Other),byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibit1)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:12/10/2013)
12/13/2013
630 FirstMOTIONforLeavetoFileMotionforLeavetoFileResponseto
Defendants'ObjectionstoPlaintiffs'MonitorNomineesandResponseto
Defendants'NominationsofMonitorCandidatesbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)
(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:12/13/2013)
12/13/2013
631 (Filedatdoc.#634)LODGEDProposedResponsetoDefendants'Objectionsto
Plaintiffs'MonitorNomineesandResponsetoDefendants'Nominatoinsof
MonitorCandidatesre:630FirstMOTIONforLeavetoFileMotionforLeave
toFileResponsetoDefendants'ObjectionstoPlaintiffs'MonitorNomineesand
ResponsetoDefendants'NominationsofMonitorCandidates.Documenttobe
filedbyClerkifMotionorStipulationforLeavetoFileorAmendisgranted.
FiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Pochoda,
Daniel)Modifiedon12/17/2013(KMG).(Entered:12/13/2013)
12/16/2013
632 NOTICEreFilingSupplementtoSlateofThreeCandidatesforthePositionof
MonitorbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere626Notice
(Other),.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:12/16/2013)
12/17/2013
633 ORDERgrantingPlaintiffs'MotionforLeavetoFileResponsetoDefendants'
Objections(Doc.630).TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtofilethelodged
Response(Doc.631).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon12/17/2013.(KMG)
(Entered:12/17/2013)
12/17/2013
634 RESPONSEtoDefendants'629ObjectionstoPlaintiffs'MonitorNomineesand
RESPONSEtoDefendants'NominationsofMonitorCandidatesbyPlaintiffs
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(KMG)(Entered:
12/17/2013)
12/17/2013
635 ORDER-TheCourthasreviewedthematerialspertainingtothesixcandidates
formonitorthathavebeensubmittedbytheparties.AbsentobjectiontheCourt
shallproceedasfollows:1.EachsidehasprovidedtheCourtwithmotionswhich
indicatetheirrespectivepositionsconcerningthemonitorcandidatesnominated
bytheopposingside.UnlesstheCourtspecificallyasksthepartiesforadditional
informationwithrespecttothemonitorcandidates,orunlessitisotherwise
specifiedbelowinthisorder,thepartiesneedfilenofurtherpapersconcerning
theirviewsoftherespectivemeritsofthevariousmonitorcandidates.2.Anyof
themonitorcandidatesthathasadditionalmaterialsitwouldliketheCourtto
considershallsubmitsuchmaterialstotheCourt,throughthepartythat
nominatedthem,nolaterthan5:00p.m.onDecember20,2013.3.TheCourt
willthereaftercontactreferencesorconductitsowninquiryintothesuitability
anddesirabilityofthevariousmonitorcandidatessubmittedbytheparties.This
follow-upinquirymayinclude,butwillnotbelimitedto,contactingthepersons
identifiedinthesubmissionsashavingexperiencewiththevariouscandidates,
otherwiseresearchingthecredentialsandreputationofthevariouspersons
designatedinthesubmissions,researchingthereputationforexpertise,fairness,
RE 940
102/197
(1006 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 108 of 202
clarity,efficiencyandexpenseofthevariousmonitorcandidates,andcontacting
thecandidatesdirectlyshouldtheCourtdesiretohavefollow-upinterviewswith
anyorallofthecandidatesorclarifytheirwrittensubmissions.SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon12/17/2013.(SeePDFforfulldetails.)(KMG)(Entered:
12/17/2013)
12/20/2013
636 NOTICErePlaintiffs'NoticeofFilingAdditionalInformationforCandidatefor
MonitorbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare635Order.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA-BrannReferences)(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:
12/20/2013)
12/20/2013
637 NOTICEreDefendants'NoticeofDecember20,2013SupplementalInformation
ReCandidatesforthePositionofMonitorbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOfficere635Order.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibits1-7)
12/20/2013
638 RESPONSEre637Notice(Other)Plaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendants'
AllegationsrePotentialMonitorRobertWarshawbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesus
OrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,Somos
America.(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:12/20/2013)
12/20/2013
639 MEMORANDUMinSupportof608MOTIONforAttorneyFeesAND
RELATEDNON-TAXABLEEXPENSESbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1StatementofConsultation,#2
TextofProposedOrder,#3AffidavitofPriscillaTaylor,#4Exhibit1-7to
TaylorDeclaration,#5AffidavitofStanleyYoung,#6ExhibitIndexand
ExhibitsA-FtoYoungDeclaration,#7ExhibitG-HtoYoungDeclaration,#8
ExhibitI(Part1),#9ExhibitI(Part2),#10ExhibitI(Part3))(Young,Stanley)
(Entered:12/20/2013)
12/20/2013
640 AFFIDAVITofDanielJ.Pochodare639MemoranduminSupportof608
MOTIONforAttorneyFeesANDRELATEDNON-TAXABLEEXPENSESby
1ExhibitIndexandExhibitsA-E)(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:12/20/2013)
12/20/2013
641 AFFIDAVITofNancyRamirezre639MemoranduminSupportof608
1Exhibit1-3)(Ramirez,Nancy)(Entered:12/20/2013)
12/20/2013
642 AFFIDAVITofCecilliaD.Wangre639MemoranduminSupportof608
1ExhibitA-EtoWangDeclaration,#2AffidavitofElizabethS.Saylor,#3
AffidavitofRichardM.Pearl,#4ExhibitA-ItoPearlDeclaration,#5Affidavit
ofAmitaiSchwartz)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:12/20/2013)
12/31/2013
643 NOTICEreDefendants'NoticeofFilingComplianceMaterialsPursuantto
RE 941
103/197
(1007 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 109 of 202
10/02/2013CourtOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
re606PermanentInjunction,Judgment.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2
ExhibitB,#3ExhibitC,#4ExhibitD,#5ExhibitE)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:12/31/2013)
01/08/2014
644 MOTIONforExtensionofTimetoFile(JOINTMOTIONTOEXTENDTIME
TOCOMMENTONDEFENDANTSCOMPLIANCEMATERIALSFILEDON
DECEMBER31,2013)byManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
01/08/2014)
01/09/2014
645 ORDERre644MotiontoExtendTimetoCommentonDefendants'Compliance
Materials.ThetimeforPlaintiffstoprovidecommentsonthematerials
submittedtotheCourtwithDefendants'NoticeofFilingComplianceMaterials
(Doc.643),isextendeduntilandincludingJanuary28,2014.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon1/9/2014.(ALS)(Entered:01/09/2014)
01/09/2014
646 ORDER-StatusConferenceissetfor1/17/2014at10:30AMinCourtroom602,
401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/9/2014.(KFZ)(Entered:01/09/2014)
01/09/2014
647 NOTICEofAppearancebyEileenDennisGilBrideonbehalfofJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Maricopa,Countyof.(GilBride,
Eileen)(Entered:01/09/2014)
01/10/2014
648 ITISORDEREDthattheStatusConference,presentlysetfor1/17/14at10:30
a.m.beforeJudgeSnowisVACATED.OrderedbyJudgeG.MurraySnow.
(GMS,ag)(ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.)(Entered:01/10/2014)
01/17/2014
649 ORDERAPPOINTINGMONITORthatRobertWarshawofWarshawand
Associates,Inc.isappointedasMonitorinthismatter.Thepartieshavehis
contactinformationandaredirectedtocontacthimdirectlytoproceedwiththe
implementationoftheOrder(s).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/17/2014.
(SeePDFforfulldetails.)(KMG)Modifiedon1/17/2014(KMG).(Entered:
01/17/2014)
01/17/2014
650 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyKellyJ.FloodbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Flood,
Kelly)(Entered:01/17/2014)
01/21/2014
651 ORDERthattheMotion650isgranted.KellyJ.Floodisallowedtowithdrawas
attorneyofrecordforPlaintiffs.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/21/2014.
01/24/2014
652 RESPONSEinOppositionre608MOTIONforAttorneyFeesANDRELATED
NON-TAXABLEEXPENSESfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitA,#2ExhibitExhibitsB-F,#
3ExhibitExhibitsG-L)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:01/24/2014)
01/30/2014
653 NOTICEreFilingComplianceMaterialsPursuantto10/02/13CourtOrderby
RE 942
104/197
(1008 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 110 of 202
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere606Permanent
Injunction,Judgment.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
01/30/2014)
01/31/2014
654 *SatisfactionofJudgmentforTaxableCostsbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmericare:618CostsTaxed.(Young,Stanley)*Modifiedto
correcteventtypeon2/3/2014(ALS).(Entered:01/31/2014)
02/14/2014
655 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:608MOTIONforAttorneyFeesAND
RELATEDNON-TAXABLEEXPENSESfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1AffidavitofStanleyYoung,#2
AffidavitofGislaineWilliams,#3ExhibitAtoWilliamsDecl)(Young,Stanley)
(Entered:02/14/2014)
03/17/2014
656 ORDERsettingaStatusConferenceforMar ch24,2014at9:00AMin

GMurraySnow.CounselforallpartiesarerequiredtoattendasareSheriff
ArpaioandChiefDeputySheridan.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
3/17/2014.(LFIG)(Entered:03/17/2014)
03/19/2014
657 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofFilingExcerptsoftheDepositionofDeputy
HectorMartinezfromtheDOJLitigationPursuanttothe03/17/2014Court
OrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:656Order,
Set/ResetHearings.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
03/19/2014)
03/24/2014
Americaforproceedingsheldon03/24/2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:03/24/2014)
03/24/2014
Officeforproceedingsheldon03/24/2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:03/24/2014)
03/24/2014
APPEARANCES:CeciliaWang,StanleyYoung,AndreSegura,Daniel
Pochoda,andLesliGallagherforPlaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,and
JamesWilliamsforDefendants.SheriffJosephM.ArpaioandChiefDeputy
JerrySheridanarealsopresent.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:04
AMto10:40AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:03/24/2014)
03/26/2014
03/24/14,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Masterson,John)(Entered:
03/26/2014)
03/26/2014
RE 943
105/197
(1009 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 111 of 202
CourtReporter/TranscriberbyfilingaTranscriptOrderFormonthedocket
6/24/2014.(VPB)(Entered:03/27/2014)
03/27/2014
663 ORDER,StatusConferencesetfor4/3/2014at02:00PMinCourtroom602,401
WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow(see
orderforcompletedetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon3/27/14.(REW)
(Entered:03/27/2014)
03/27/2014
664 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofLodgingDVDofMCSOPresentationtoa
CommunityGrouponMarch15,2014byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
03/28/2014
665 ORDER,DeputyChiefDavidTrombishallattendandtestifyattheStatus
Conferenceon4/3/14at2:00p.m.inCourtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.
FederalCourthouse,401W.WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon3/28/14.(REW)(Entered:03/28/2014)
04/02/2014
666 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofPositionsandObjectionstoAppendixAof
theCourt'sOrderDatedMarch27,2014andtoDeadlineDatesbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:663Order,Set/ResetHearings.
04/03/2014
Conferenceheldon4/3/2014.DeputyChiefDavidTrombiissworn,examined,
andexcused.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWangandStanleyYoung,telephonically,andDaniel
PochodaforPlaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,andJamesWilliamsfor
Defendants.ChiefDeputyJerrySheridanandDeputyChiefDavidTrombiare
alsopresent.ChiefRaulMartinez,monitorstaff,isalsopresenttelephonically.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld2:07PMto3:56PM.ThisisaTEXT
(Entered:04/03/2014)
04/04/2014
OfficeforproceedingsheldonApril3,2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
04/04/2014
AmericaforproceedingsheldonApril3,2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
04/04/2014
670 AMENDMENTSTOTHESUPPLEMENTALPERMANENT
INJUNCTION/JUDGMENTORDER-AtthestatusconferenceheldonMarch
24,2014,andinapreviousorder(Doc.663App.A)thisCourtproposed
amendmentstotheSupplementalPermanentInjunction/JudgmentOrder(Doc.
606).Thepartiesweregivenanopportunitytorespondinwritingandatthe
April2,2014,statusconference.Asaresultofthoseconferences,theCourt
RE 944
106/197
(1010 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 112 of 202
ordersthefollowingamendmentstotheSupplementalPermanent
Injunction/JudgmentOrder(Doc.606).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
4/4/2014.(SeeDocumentforfulldetails.)(KMG)(Entered:04/04/2014)
04/04/2014
671 ORDERthatDefendantsshallsubmitaproposedtrainingschedulewithinseven
daysofApril3,2014.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatPlaintiffsshallsubmit
anyproposedamendmentstoDefendants'schedulewithinfourteendaysofApril
3,2014.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon4/4/2014.(KMG)(Entered:
04/04/2014)
04/04/2014
7/3/2014.(VPB)(Entered:04/07/2014)
04/07/2014
673 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofLodgingtheFirstComprehensiveInternal
AssessmentbytheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficebyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:606PermanentInjunction,Judgment.
04/10/2014
674 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofLodgingtheParties'Counsels'AgreedUpon
DraftCorrectiveStatementbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officere:663Order,Set/ResetHearings.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,
04/10/2014
675 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofLodgingitsProposedTrainingScheduleby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:671Order.
04/15/2014
676 NOTICEre:Defendants'AmendedNoticeRetheApril10,2014Lodgingofthe
Parties'Counsels'AgreedUponDraftCorrectiveStatementandDefendants'New
RevisedUnilateralDraftCorrectiveStatementDatedApril15,2014byJoseph
MArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:674Notice(Other).
04/15/2014
677 AMENDEDNOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuitCourtofAppealsre:670
PermanentInjunctionbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:04/15/2014)
04/15/2014
678 NOTICEre:Plaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendants'UnilateralAmendedNoticere
CorrectiveStatementbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americare:676Notice(Other).(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:04/15/2014)
04/17/2014
679 NOTICEre:Plaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendants'NoticereTrainingScheduleby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:675Notice(Other).
(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:04/17/2014)
04/17/2014
680 ENFORCEMENTORDER:TheSheriffneednotsign,butwillimmediately
RE 945
107/197
(1011 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 113 of 202
disseminatethesummaryattachedasExhibitAtothisOrdertoallMCSO
personnel.ITISFURTHERORDEREDsettingaStatusConferenceforMay7,
2014at10:00a.m.inCourtroom602,SandraDayOConnorU.S.Federal
Courthouse,401W.WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003-2151.IfthisOrder
hasnotbeenfullyimplemented,SheriffArpaio'sattendancewillberequiredand
hemaybesubjecttoquestioningbytheCourt.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on4/17/2014.(SeeattachedOrderfordetails)(ALS)(Entered:04/17/2014)
04/23/2014
681 MOTIONClarify/ModifyApril17thOrderre:680Order,Set/Reset
Deadlines/HearingsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:04/23/2014)
04/24/2014
682 RESPONSEtoMotionre:681MOTIONClarify/ModifyApril17thOrderre:
680Order,Set/ResetDeadlines/HearingsfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA)(Young,Stanley)
(Entered:04/24/2014)
04/24/2014
683 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:681MOTIONClarify/ModifyApril17th
Orderre:680Order,Set/ResetDeadlines/HearingsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:04/24/2014)
04/29/2014
684 ORDERgranting681Defendants'RequesttoClarify/ModifyOrderofApril17,
2014.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon4/29/2014.(SeeOrderfordetails)
(ALS)(Entered:04/29/2014)
05/01/2014
685 NOTICEre:Plaintiffs'NoticeofCommunityAdvisoryBoardMembersby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:670Permanent
Injunction.(Attachments:#1ExhibitCommunityAdvisoryBoardMembers)
05/02/2014
686 ORDER:TheCourtwillsetastatusconferenceandrequirethatDouglasIrish
andSandiWilsonbeinattendance.ORDEREDsettingaStatusConferencefor
May14,2014at9:00AMinCourtroom602,401WestWashingtonStreet,
Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon5/2/2014.(SeeOrderfordetails.)(LFIG)(Entered:05/02/2014)
05/06/2014
687 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyPatrickMMalgierion
behalfofRobertWarshaw.(BAS)(Entered:05/06/2014)
05/06/2014
05/06/2014
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX145786astoPatrickM
Malgieri.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
www.azd.uscourts.gov.Counselisadvisedthattheyarelimitedtotwo(2)
additionale-mailaddressesintheirDistrictofArizonaUserAccount.(BAS)
(ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno.pdfdocumentassociatedwiththis
entry.)(Entered:05/06/2014)
RE 946
108/197
(1012 of 1100)
10/26/2015
05/07/2014
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 114 of 202
Conferenceheldon5/7/2014.LarryFarnsworthissworn,testifiesandexcused.
Court'sexhibit1markedforidentification.THECOURTFINDSthatthe
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeisincompliancewiththeCourt'sEnforcement
Order680dated4/17/2014.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWangandDanielPochodaforPlaintiffs.Timothy
CaseyandThomasLiddyforDefendants.ChiefDeputyJerrySheridan,Larry
Farnsworth,andRussSkinnerarealsopresent.ChiefRaulMartinez,monitor
staff,isalsopresenttelephonically.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld
10:05AMto11:03AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
05/14/2014
Office,Maricopa,Countyofforproceedingsheldon5-14-2014,JudgeGMurray
Snowhearingjudge(s).(Irish,Douglas)(Entered:05/14/2014)
05/14/2014
AmericaforproceedingsheldonMay7,2014andMay14,2014,JudgeG
MurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:05/14/2014)
05/14/2014
692 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Status
APPEARANCES:PatrickMalgieriforMonitor,RobertWarshaw,whoisalso
present.DougIrishforMaricopaCounty.DeputyCountyManager,Sandi
Wilson,isalsopresent.TheCourtnotesTimothyCaseyfordefendants,and
DanielPochodaandCecilliaWangforplaintiffs,arealsopresent.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:11AMto9:51AM.ThisisaTEXT
(Entered:05/14/2014)
05/14/2014
699 *MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Status
Conferenceheldon5/14/2014.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld10:02
AMto12/05PM.(cc:T.Casey/T.Liddy/D.Pochoda/C.Wang).(MAP)
*Modifiedon5/16/2014toUnsealPursuanttoOrder706(MAP)*.(Entered:
05/16/2014)
05/14/2014
700 *TRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon5/14/14,StatusConferencebeforeJudge
G.MurraySnow.(Pages35-104)(MAP)*Modifiedon5/16/2014toUnseal
PursuanttoOrder706(MAP)*.(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/15/2014
693 *ORDER.SettingHearingtoDetermineWhytheSealonthisMatterShouldNot
beLifted.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/15/14.(cc:C.Wang/D.
Pochoda/T.Casey/T.Liddy).(MAP)*Modifiedon5/16/2014toUnsealPursuant
toOrder706(MAP)*.(Entered:05/15/2014)
05/15/2014
RE 947
109/197
(1013 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 115 of 202
8/13/2014.(VPB)(Entered:05/15/2014)
05/15/2014
695 *ORDERresettingthetimeonlyfortheTelephonicConferencecurrentlysetfor
May16,2014from3:00p.m.tonoon.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
5/15/14.(cc:Wang/Pochoda/Casey/Liddy)(REW)*Modifiedon5/16/2014to
UnsealPursuanttoOrder706(MAP)*.(Entered:05/15/2014)
05/15/2014
696 AMENDEDbyCourtOrderdoc.#1065...ORDERthatforallfuturemonthsthe
MonitorwillsubmitbothpublicbillstoMaricopaCountyandmoredetailedbills
tothisCourtforreviewincameraandundersealasprovidedherein.Sandi
Wilsonwillreviewthosebillsandmayraiseanydisputeinthemannerdetailed
inthisOrder.ORDEREDthatMaricopaCountywillpaytheMonitor'sbillsthat
theMonitorhasalreadysubmittedforservicesinMarchandApril2014.Signed
byJudgeGMurraySnowon5/15/2014.(SeeOrderfordetails.)(LFIG)Modified
on5/12/2015(KMG).(Entered:05/15/2014)
05/15/2014
8/13/2014.(VPB)(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/16/2014
698 SEALEDLODGEDPROPOSEDNOTICEre:Defendans'NoticeofStipulation
andAgreementtoUnseal5/14/14CourtHearingandCourtOrderofMay15,
2014byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:693Order,
Set/ResetHearings.(Casey,Timothy)*Modifiedon5/16/2014tochangefrom
filedtoSealedLodgedPursuanttoGMSChambers(MAP)*.Modifiedon
5/16/2014(MAP).(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/16/2014
701 *TRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon5/7/14,StatusConferenceExcerpt
beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Page37,Line2,throughPage46,Line18).
(MAP)*Modifiedon5/16/2014toUnsealPursuanttoOrder706(MAP)*.
(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/16/2014
judge(s).(Casey,Timothy)CancelledbyDoc.708Modifiedon5/19/2014
(VPB).(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/16/2014
judge(s).(Casey,Timothy)CancelledbyDoc.708Modifiedon5/19/2014
(VPB).(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/16/2014
judge(s).(Casey,Timothy)Cancelledby708Modifiedon5/19/2014(VPB).
(Entered:05/16/2014)
RE 948
110/197
(1014 of 1100)
10/26/2015
05/16/2014
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 116 of 202
705 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:
TelephoneConferenceheldon5/16/2014.Ordertofollow.
TELEPHONICAPPEARANCES:DanielPochoda,CecilliaWang,andStanley
YoungforPlaintiffs.ThomasLiddyandTimothyCaseyforDefendants.
Monitor,RobertWarshaw,andChiefRaulMartinez,monitorstaffalsopresent.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld12:01PMto12:47PM.Thisisa
05/16/2014
706 ORDERLiftingthesealedportionsofthismatterand/orsidebardiscussionsof
theMay7,14,and16,2014hearings,theMay15,2014Orders,theNoticere:
Defendants'NoticeofStipulationandAgreement,andtheSealedTranscripts
(Docs.693,694,695,699,[700-01],705).FURTHERORDEREDthatthe
DefendantswillprovidethetranscriptsoftheCourt'sMay,7,14and161,2014
hearings,andacopyoftheMay15,2014reportpreparedbyChiefDeputy
SheridanforChiefRobertWarshawtoMaricopaCountyAttorneyBill
MontgomeryandUnitedStatesAttorneyJohnS.LeonardobyMay19,2014.
SEEORDERFORCOMPLETEDETAILS.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on5/16/14.(MAP)(Entered:05/16/2014)
05/19/2014
judge(s).(Casey,Timothy)Cancelledby708Modifiedon5/19/2014(VPB).
(Entered:05/19/2014)
05/19/2014
708 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTAmendedbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOfficeforproceedingsheldon05/07/1405/141405/16/14,JudgeG
MurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:05/19/2014)
05/19/2014
05/19/2014
710 MOTIONforExtensionofTimeDefenants'MotionforAdditionalTimeto
SubmitMaterialstoMaricopaCountyAttorneyandUnitedStatesAttorneyby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrderProposedOrderreDefendants'MotionforAdditionalTimeto
SubmitMaterialstoMaricopaCountyAttorneyandUnitedStatesAttorney)
05/20/2014
711 ORDERgrantingtheMotion710.TheDefendantsshallsubmittoMessrs.
MontgomeryandLeonardtherequiredmaterialswithin24hoursofdefense
counselTimothyJ.CaseyreceivingtherequiredCourtHearingTranscripts.
05/20/2014
712 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofTheirCompliancewiththeOrderDatedMay
16,2014(DKT#706)rePage2,Lines3-6byJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOfficere:706Order.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:05/20/2014)
05/21/2014
713 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyPaulCharltonforproceedingsheldon5/14/2014,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge.(VPB)(Entered:05/21/2014)
RE 949
111/197
(1015 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 117 of 202
05/21/2014
05/21/2014
715 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofTelephoneconference
8/19/2014.(VPB)(Entered:05/21/2014)
05/22/2014
05/22/2014
JudgeRogerGStrandhearingjudge.(VPB)(Entered:05/22/2014)
05/22/2014
718 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofTheirCompliancewiththeOrderDatedMay
16,2014(DKT#706)reSectionPage1,Lines21-25byJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:706Order.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
05/22/2014)
05/28/2014
719 ORDERthatthePartiesshallbeprovidedwiththeMonitor'sMay28,2014
ReviewofMCSO'sInvestigativePlan.Asthisreportdiscussesanongoing
investigation,itisprovidedtothePartiesunderseal.TheDefendantsare
authorizedtodiscussthereportanditscontentswithSheriffArpaio,Chief
DeputySheridan,ChiefTrombi,CaptainFarnsworth,andCaptainHolmes,but
maynototherwisediscussorcharacterizethereportoritscontents.FURTHER
ORDEREDthateitherpartymayaddressthematterssetforthintheMonitor's
reportinafilingundersealtotheCourt.SEEORDERFORFURTHER
DETAILS.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/28/14.(MAP)(Additional
attachment(s)addedon5/28/2014:#1Monitor'sReview)(MAP).(Entered:
05/28/2014)
05/30/2014
720 *NOTICEofAppearancere:NoticeofAppointmentofOutsideCounselby
Maricopa,Countyof.(Baker,Katherine)*Modifiedtocorrecteventtypeon
6/2/2014(LSP).(Entered:05/30/2014)
06/09/2014
721 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofPersonnelChangebyJosephMArpaio,
06/09/2014)
06/26/2014
722 NOTICEofAttorneySubstitutionbyNancyAnneRamirez.(Ramirez,Nancy)
(Entered:06/26/2014)
06/27/2014
723 NOTICEofAttorneyWithdrawalofLesliRGallagherfiledbyLesliRawles
Gallagher.(Gallagher,Lesli)(Entered:06/27/2014)
07/01/2014
724 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyJorgeCastilloonbehalfof
ManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres.(BAS)(Entered:07/01/2014)
07/01/2014
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX147804astoJorge
MartinCastillo.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
RE 950
112/197
(1016 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 118 of 202
07/01/2014
07/03/2014
726 NOTICEofAttorneyWithdrawalofDavidHultsfiledbyDavidHults.(Hults,
David)(Entered:07/03/2014)
07/11/2014
727 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofPersonnelChangebyJosephMArpaio,
07/14/2014
728 STIPULATIONre:ProtectiveOrderbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
07/14/2014)
07/18/2014
729 STIPULATEDPROTECTIVEORDERpursuanttotheparties'728Stipulation.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/18/2014.(LFIG)(Entered:07/18/2014)
07/23/2014
730 SEALEDORDERReInCameraSubmissionUnderSeal-ORDEREDThatthe
partiesaredirectedasfollows:WithintwoweeksofthedateofthisOrderSandi
Wilsonshallsubmitundersealamemorandumidentifyingeachofthefollowing:
SeeOrderforDetails.FURTHERORDEREDdirectingtheClerkofCourtto
sendacopyofthisOrderonlyto:(1)SandiWilsonc/oherattorney,Katherine
Baker,Green&Bakerand(2)RobertWarshaw.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon7/22/14.(MAP)(Entered:07/23/2014)
08/07/2014
731 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Sealed
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,AndrewSegura,andJorgeCastillofor
Plaintiffs.JamesWilliams,ThomasLiddy,andTimothyCaseyforDefendants.
ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez.
CaptainSteveBailey,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.ChristineStutzand
VanessaLosicco,MaricopaCountyAttorneysOffice.(CourtReporterGary
Moll.)Hearingheld10:04AMto10:42AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.
ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:
08/07/2014)
08/07/2014
732 ORDERrediscoveryrequests,seePDFdocumentfordetails.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon8/7/14.(LSP)(Entered:08/07/2014)
08/08/2014
733 NOTICEre:NoticeofFilingComplianceMaterialsPursuantto10/02/2013
CourtOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:606
PermanentInjunction,Judgment.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:08/08/2014)
08/08/2014
Officeforproceedingsheldon08-07-14,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
RE 951
113/197
(1017 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 119 of 202
08/11/2014
735 SEALEDTRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon8/7/14beforeJudgeG.Murray
Snow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:TelephonicConference.
(MAP)(Entered:08/11/2014)
08/15/2014
736 ORDERre608MotionforAttorneyFeesandRelatedNon-TaxableExpenses:
OralArgumentissetfor8/26/2014at10:00AMinCourtroom602,401West
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Eachside
willbegivenamaximumoftwentyminutestopresenttheirargumentsand
answertheCourt'squestions.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/15/2014.
08/15/2014
737 MOTIONClairifyAugust7,2014Orderre:732OrderbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:08/15/2014)
08/26/2014
738 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Motion
Hearingheldon8/26/2014.ITISORDEREDtakingunderadvisement608
MotionforAttorneyFees.
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoung,CecilliaWang,andDanielPochodafor
Plaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,andJamesWilliamsforDefendants.
08/27/2014
08/27/2014
740 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofOralArgument
11/25/2014.(VPB)(Entered:08/27/2014)
09/11/2014
741 ORDERthattheCountyshallpaytheMonitor'sbillwithexceptionsasnotedin
thisOrder.ORDEREDthattheMonitorshallconformitsfuturebillingtothe
guidanceprovided.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthattheCountyandthe
Monitorshallworktoresolvetheoutstandingissueswiththisbillandreconsider
anydisputesunderthebillforJuly2014whichwasgeneratedandreviewed
beforetheclarificationprovidedhereintobothsides.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon9/11/2014.(LFIG)(Entered:09/11/2014)
09/11/2014
742 ORDERgrantingthe608MotionforAttorneyFeesandNon-TaxableExpenses
andawardingPlaintiffs'counselthefollowing:1.Covington&Burling,
$3,304,038.80inattorney'sfeesand$150,036.16innon-taxableexpensesfora
totalof$3,454,074.962.TheProject,$420,331.92inattorney'sfeesand
$8,954.78innon-taxableexpensesforatotalof$429,286.703.MALDEF,
$159,678.00inattorney'sfeesand$7,670.62innon-taxableexpensesforatotal
RE 952
114/197
(1018 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 120 of 202
of$167,348.624.ACLUofArizona,$383,356.40inattorney'sfeesand
$5,174.98innontaxableexpensesforatotalof$388,531.38.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon9/14/2014.(LFIG)(Entered:09/11/2014)
09/17/2014
743 ORDERdenying737MotionforClarification.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on9/17/2014.(KFZ)(Entered:09/17/2014)
09/18/2014
744 *FIRSTQUARTERLYREPORTfromIndependentMonitorfortheMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(LSP)*ModifiedtoattachcorrectedPDFNEF
regeneratedon09/18/2014(APJ)(CEI).(Entered:09/18/2014)
10/01/2014
745 NOTICEre:AppointmentofWilsonStand-In/RepresentativeforMaricopa
CountyreMonitorBillingReviewbyMaricopaCountyAdministration.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA)(Baker,Katherine)(Entered:10/01/2014)
10/07/2014
746 ORDER-ITISHEREBYORDEREDsettingaStatusConferenceinthismatter
forTuesday,October28,2014at3:00p.m.inCourtroom602oftheSandraDay
O'ConnorCourthouseat401W.WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,Arizona,85003.
FURTHERORDEREDdirectingtheClerkofCourttosendacopyofthisOrder
tothefollowing:1.TheMaricopaCountyBoardofSupervisorsandTomManos,
MaricopaCountyManagerat301WestJefferson,10thFloor,Phoenix,AZ
85003.2.BillMontgomery,MaricopaCountyAttorneyat301WestJefferson,
Suite800,Phoenix,AZ85003.3.JohnS.Leonardo,UnitedStatesAttorney,
DistrictofArizonaatTwoRenaissanceSquare,40N.CentralAve.,Suite1200,
Phoenix,AZ85004.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/7/2014.(SeeOrder
forfulldetails.)(KMG)(Entered:10/07/2014)
10/09/2014
747 STIPULATIONre:606PermanentInjunction,JudgmentbyJosephMArpaio,
10/10/2014
748 ORDERGRANTINGSTIPULATIONTOAMEND
SUPPLEMENTAL/PERMANENTINJUNCTION/JUDGMENTORDER-The
Court,havingreviewedtheStipulationtoAmendSupplemental/Permanent
Injunction/JudgmentOrder(Doc.747)andgoodcauseappearing,ITIS
HEREBYORDEREDthattheStipulationisgranted.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon10/10/2014.(SeeOrderforfulldetails.)(KMG)(Entered:10/10/2014)
10/13/2014
749 *OBJECTION/RESPONSEre:746CourtOrderStatusConferenceby
DefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
Timothy)*Modifiedtocorrecteventon10/14/2014(KMG).(Entered:
10/13/2014)
10/16/2014
750 RESPONSEre:749Response/ObjectionbyDefendantstoStatusConferenceby
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Segura,Andre)
(Entered:10/16/2014)
10/17/2014
751 REPLYre:749ResponsebyDefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
10/17/2014)
10/21/2014
752 RESPONSEDefendants'ResponseBriefRegardingMonitor'sOctober8,2014
MemorandumtotheCourtRegardingMeetingWithCountyOfficialsby
RE 953
115/197
(1019 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 121 of 202
1ExhibitExhibitsA-G)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/21/2014)
10/21/2014
753 *ResponsetoMonitor'sReportonArmendarizInvestigationfiledbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)*Modifiedon
10/29/2014toUnsealPursuanttoOrder764(MAP)*.(Entered:10/21/2014)
10/21/2014
754 NOTICEre:NoticeofLodgingUnderSealofPlaintiffs'ResponsetoMonitor's
ReportonArmendarizInvestigationbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmericare:753SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Wang,Cecillia)
(Entered:10/21/2014)
10/21/2014
755 BRIEFDefendants'ResponseBriefRegardingMonitor'sSeptember28,2014
UpdateandASsessmentofMCSO'sArmendarizandRelatedInvestigationsby
DefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Casey,
10/22/2014
756 ORDERThatbynoonon10/24/14,DefendantsshallfilewiththisCourtanin
camerabriefinginwhichDefendantsfullyandcompletelyidentifythenames,
casenumbersandnatureoftheinvestigationforeachoftheseadditional
investigations.Inadditiontothisinformation,Defendantsshallalsoidentifyfor
eachsuchinvestigation:SeeOrderforCompleteDetails.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon10/22/14.(MAP)(Entered:10/22/2014)
10/23/2014
NOTICEofrequestfore-noticesbyLarryJ.Wulkan.(Wulkan,Lawrence)
(Entered:10/23/2014)
10/24/2014
757 NOTICEre:NoticeofProvidingInCameraReviewBriefbyJosephMArpaio,
10/24/2014)
10/27/2014
758 *AMENDEDByOrder758*ORDERPendingbeforetheCourtisDefendant's
Objection/ResponsereStatusConference(Doc.749).Afterhavingreviewedthe
briefingonthisquestionaswellastheincameramaterialsprovidedtotheCourt,
thepublichearingwillgoforwardasfollows:SEEORDERFORCOMPLETE
DETAILS.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/27/14.(MAP)*Modifiedon
10/27/2014(MAP)*.(Entered:10/27/2014)
10/27/2014
759 AMENDEDORDERPendingbeforetheCourtisDefendant's
Objection/ResponsereStatusConference(Doc.749).Afterhavingreviewedthe
briefingonthisquestionaswellastheincameramaterialsprovidedtotheCourt,
thepublichearingwillgoforwardasfollows:SEEORDERFORCOMPLETE
DETAILS.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/27/14.(MAP)(Entered:
10/27/2014)
10/28/2014
Conferenceheldon10/28/2014.ITISORDEREDdirectingSheriffArpaioto
takethemandatorytrainingassetforthontherecord.Followingthestatus
conference,asealedconferenceisheldwiththepartiesandcounsel.
APPEARANCES:CeciliaWangandAndreSeguraforPlaintiffs.Timothy
Casey,ThomasLiddy,andJamesWilliamsforDefendants.ChiefDeputyJerry
RE 954
116/197
(1020 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 122 of 202
Sheridan,SergeantDavidTennyson,CaptainSteveBailey,andChiefScott
Freeman,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.ChristineStutzandDougIrish,
MaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice.KatherineBakerforDeputyCounty
ManagerSandiWilson,whoisalsopresent.ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputy
MonitorsRaulMartinez,AlfredPeters,andSherryKiyler.(CourtReporterGary
Moll.)Hearingheld3:04PMto4:45PMand4:47PMto5:33PM.Thisisa
10/29/2014
10/28/2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Caspar,Edward)(Entered:
10/29/2014)
10/29/2014
10/29/2014
763 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofSubmissionofRedactedMonitorReport
DatedSeptember28,2014byJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:10/29/2014)
10/29/2014
764 ORDERunsealingPlaintiffs'ResponsetoMonitor'sReportonArmendariz
Investigation753.EnteredbyJudgeGMurraySnowon10/29/2014.Thisisa
10/29/2014
765 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLarryWulkanforproceedingsheldon
10/28/2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:
10/30/2014)
10/30/2014
766 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyPriscillaGDodsonon
behalfofVeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuitugua
10/30/2014
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX151859astoPriscillaG
Dodson.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
10/30/2014
10/30/2014
768 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverforStatusConferenceproceedings
heldon10/28/2014,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:
10/30/2014)
10/30/2014
RE 955
117/197
(1021 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 123 of 202
10/31/2014
770 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyHyunSByunonbehalfof
plaintiffsVeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuitugua
10/31/2014
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX151892astoHyunS
Byun.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
10/31/2014
10/31/2014
772 RESPONSEre:763Notice(Other)re:Defendants'NoticeofSubmissionof
RedactedMonitorReportbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Segura,Andre)(Entered:10/31/2014)
10/31/2014
773 *MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
*DocumentisnotincompliancewithLRCiv7.1(c)Attorneynotifiedon
11/3/2014(KMG).(Entered:10/31/2014)
11/03/2014
10/28/14,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:
11/03/2014)
11/03/2014
775 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTAmendedbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheld
on10/28/14,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(GilBride,Eileen)
(Entered:11/03/2014)
11/03/2014
Proceedings(Pages1-80,SealedProceedingsOmitted)heldon10/28/2014,
beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.Theorderingparty
willhaveelectronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.Allothersmayviewthe
transcriptatthecourtpublicterminaloritmaybepurchasedthroughtheCourt
Reporter/TranscriberbyfilingaTranscriptOrderFormonthedocketbeforethe
deadlineforReleaseofTranscriptRestriction.Afterthatdateitmaybeobtained
throughPACER.RedactionRequestdue11/24/2014.RedactedTranscript
Deadlinesetfor12/4/2014.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor2/2/2015.
(RAP)(Entered:11/03/2014)
11/03/2014
777 RESPONSEtoMotionre:773MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)
(Entered:11/03/2014)
RE 956
118/197
(1022 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 124 of 202
11/04/2014
778 ORDERthatDefendants'RedactedMonitorReport(Doc.763,Ex.1)is
DENIEDWITHOUTPREJUDICE.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
11/4/2014.(KMG)(Entered:11/04/2014)
11/05/2014
779 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofSubmittingtheUnredactedInterview
TranscriptsofSgt.M.TrowbridgetotheMonitorbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
11/05/2014
780 SEALEDTRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon10/28/14beforeJudgeG.
MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:(Volume2)Status
Conference(Pages81-119)(MAP)(Entered:11/05/2014)
11/07/2014
781 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofTheirCompliancewiththeDirective/Order
GivenOrallyatCourtHearingDatedOctober28,2014byJosephMArpaio,
11/07/2014
782 NOTICEre:Defendants'NoticeofFilingComplianceMaterialsPursuantto
10/02/2013CourtOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
re:606PermanentInjunction,Judgment.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Casey,
11/07/2014
783 *SEALEDDefendants'BriefRegardingRedactionstoMonitorReportfiledby
A,#2ExhibitB)(Casey,Timothy)*Modifiedon11/10/2014tochangefrom
lodgedtofiledpursuanttoOrder778(MAP)*.(Entered:11/07/2014)
11/07/2014
784 NOTICEre:NoticeofLodgingUnderSealDefendants'BriefRegarding
RedactionstoMonitorReportbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officere:783SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Casey,Timothy)(Entered:
11/07/2014)
11/14/2014
785 ORDERsettingahearinginthismatterforThursday,November20,2014at
1:30p.m.inCourtroom602oftheSandraDayO'ConnorCourthouseat401W.
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,Arizona85003.Atthattime,thePartiesshallbe
preparedtodiscusstheMotiontoWithdraw(Doc.773)recentlyfiledbycounsel
fortheDefendantsandMCSO'srecentdiscoveryofadditionalmaterialstothe
extentthatcounselmovingtowithdrawmaybeabletoshedlightonsomeorall
ofthosematerials.FURTHERORDEREDthatDefendantslodgeundersealany
matterspreviouslysubmittedincamera,suchasthefilingnoticedonOctober24,
2014,withnoticeofthedateoforiginalsubmission,nottobeunsealedwithout
furtherorderoftheCourt.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/14/2014.
11/17/2014
786 SEALEDLODGEDProposedDefendants'October24,2014BriefforInCamera
ReviewRegardingInvestigations.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionor
StipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
11/17/2014
787 NOTICEre:NoticeofLodgingUnderSealDefendants'October24,2014Brief
forInCameraReviewRegardingInvestigationsbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOfficere:786SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Casey,
11/17/2014
788 SEALEDLODGEDProposedDefendants'November7,2014InCameraE-Mail
RE 957
119/197
(1023 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 125 of 202
NotificationtotheCourt.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionorStipulation
toSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
11/17/2014
789 NOTICEre:NoticeofLodgingUnderSealDefendants'November7,2014In
CameraE-MailNotificationtotheCourtbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOfficere:788SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Casey,Timothy)
(Entered:11/17/2014)
11/17/2014
790 *RESPONSEBRIEFbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Pochoda,Daniel)*Modifiedon11/18/2014toSealPursuanttoOrder
792(MAP)*.(Entered:11/17/2014)
11/17/2014
791 MOTIONtoSealDocument784Notice(Other),790Brief-Responseby
ofProposedOrder)(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:11/17/2014)
11/18/2014
792 ORDERgranting791MotiontoSealPlaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendants'Brief
regardingRedactionstoMonitorReport.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
11/18/14.(MAP)(Entered:11/18/2014)
11/18/2014
793 *REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:777MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorney
Defendants'ReplytoPlaintiffs'ResponsetoApplicationtoWithdrawasCounsel
ofRecordforDefendantsbyDefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Casey,Timothy)*Modifiedtocorrecteventon11/19/2014
(KMG).(Entered:11/18/2014)
11/20/2014
794 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Motion
Hearingheldon11/20/2014.Ordertofollow.Followingthemotionhearing,a
sealedconferenceisheldwiththepartiesandcounsel.
APPEARANCES:AnneLaiandAndreSegura(bothtelephonically),andDaniel
PochodaforPlaintiffs.TimothyCasey,ThomasLiddy,andJamesWilliamsfor
Defendants.ChiefDeputyJerrySheridan.CountyAttorney,William
Montgomery.ChristineStutz,MaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice,andSergeant
SteveFaxalsopresent.ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorsRaul
MartinezandJohnGirbinpresenttelephonically.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
Hearingheld1:35PMto3:34PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereisno
11/20/2014
795 *AMENDEDByOrder825*ORDERtheDefendants'Redactionstothe
Monitor'sReportareACCEPTEDINPARTandDENIEDINPART.
ORDEREDgrantingthe773MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneysubjecttothe
conditionssetforthontherecord.ORDEREDsettinganEvidentiaryHearingfor
Thur sday,December 4,2014at8:30AMinCourtroom602,401West
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.TheCourt
may,uponfurthernoticerequireMCSOcommandstaffandotherpersonnelto
bepresenttorespondtoinquiriesconcerningtheircompliancewiththeCourt's
ordersonthisdate.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatacopyofthisOrdershall
bedeliveredtotheMaricopaCountyAdministrativeOfficestotheextentthatit
mayrequiretheaugmentationoftheMonitors'investigativestaff.Signedby
RE 958
120/197
(1024 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 126 of 202
JudgeGMurraySnowon11/20/2014.(Attachments:#1Report)(LFIG)
*Modifiedon12/9/2014(MAP)*.(Entered:11/20/2014)
11/21/2014
796 NOTICEofAppearancebyMicheleMarieIafrateonbehalfofJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:11/21/2014)
11/24/2014
797 ORDERSolongasSheriffArpaioagreestobeboundbytheCourt'sOrdertonot
disclosetoanyotherpersonorinanyotherfashionanyportionofthesealed
hearingthatoccurredonNovember20,2014unlessanduntiltheCourtdeclares
otherwise,CounselcansharethecompletecontentsofthishearingwithSheriff
Arpaio.IfDefendantscontinuetobelievethattherearecompellingreasonsfor
thathearingtoremainunderseal,theyshallfilewiththisCourtunderseala
memorandumdemonstratingthecompellingreasonsthatwouldjustifya
continuingsealby5:00p.m.onDecember1,2014.Theyshallimmediately
hand-deliverorelectronicallycopyPlaintiffswithsuchamotion.Plaintiffsmay
fileaResponseby5:00p.m.onDecember3,2014.Thetimeforthehearingset
forDecember4,atwhichpartiesmaybeheardontheproceduressetforthinthe
Court'sNovember20Order,isresetfor1:30p.m.AtthehearingtheCourtwill
discusspossibleadditionalproceedings,anddependingupontheCourt'sother
rulingsandinquiries,portionsofthathearingmaybeunderseal.Asisthecase
withanyhearinginthismatter,SheriffArpaioiswelcometoattend.
Nevertheless,anypotentialtestimonybySheriffArpaioshallbedeferred.The
DefendantswillprovideandassisttheMonitorasdirectedwithallhisinquiries
andinvestigations.TheClerkofCourtshallprovideacopyofthisOrdertoChief
AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneyElizabethStrange.Arepresentativeofthe
UnitedStatesAttorney'sofficeisrequestedtoattendtheDecember4,2014
hearing.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/24/2014.(KMG)(Entered:
11/24/2014)
11/24/2014
11/25/2014
799 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonB.SilverforStatusHearingproceedings
11/25/2014)
11/25/2014
800 ORDERdirectingtheDefendantstofilenoticenolaterthanNovember26,2014
at10:00a.m.,iftheyhaveanyobjectionstotheCourtallowingallcounselfor
Plaintiffsaccesstothetranscriptofthesealedportionofthehearingheldon
November20,2014,withthesameconfidentialityrequirementsasstatedonthe
record.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatifDefendantshavenoobjections,
Plaintiffsmayhaveaccesstothesealedportionofthetranscriptandshallbe
boundbytheCourt'sOrdertonotdisclosetoanyotherpersonorinanyother
fashionanyportionofthesealedhearing,unlessanduntiltheCourtdeclares
otherwise.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon11/25/2014.(KMG)(Entered:
11/25/2014)
11/25/2014
RE 959
121/197
(1025 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 127 of 202
11/25/2014
802 NOTICEre:NoObjectiontoPlaintiffs'TranscriptOrderbyJosephMArpaio,
11/25/2014
803 *NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofStatusConferenceSealedProceedingsOmittedheldon11/20/2014,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.
(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Theorderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccessto
thetranscriptimmediately.Allothersmayviewthetranscriptatthecourtpublic
terminaloritmaybepurchasedthroughtheCourtReporter/Transcriberbyfiling
aTranscriptOrderFormonthedocketbeforethedeadlineforReleaseof
12/26/2014.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor2/23/2015.(RAP)
*Modifiedon1/14/2015tocorrectdateofstatusconferencehearingNEF
regenerated(SJF)(CEI).(Entered:11/26/2014)
11/25/2014
804 **UNSEALEDPERORDER809**SEALEDTRANSCRIPTofProceedings
heldon11/20/14beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.
TypeofHearing:StatusConference(Page65,Line20,throughPage77,Line
15)(MAP)Modifiedon12/2/2014(LAD).(Entered:11/26/2014)
12/01/2014
805 NOTICEre:FilingComplianceMaterialregardingParagraph61byJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:606PermanentInjunction,
Judgment,670PermanentInjunction.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:12/01/2014)
12/01/2014
806 MOTIONforDeterminationofCounselbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitCover,1-3,#2TextofProposed
Order)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:12/01/2014)
12/01/2014
807 MEMORANDUMRegardingKeepingTranscriptofNovember20,2014
HearingUnderSeal797Order,Set/ResetHearingsbyDefendantsJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
12/01/2014)
12/02/2014
808 ORDERgrantingthe806MotionforDeterminationofCounsel.SheriffArpaio
isentitledtohaveseparatecounselrepresenthiminallmattersrelatedto
possibleproceedingsforcriminalcontempt.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
12/2/2014.(LFIG)(Entered:12/02/2014)
12/02/2014
809 *AMENDEDByOrder811*ORDERre:797Orderand807Memorandum-IT
ISHEREBYORDEREDunsealingtheTranscriptofProceedingsheldon
November20,2013.(Doc.804.)SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon12/2/14.
(LAD)*Modifiedon12/3/2014(MAP)*.(Entered:12/02/2014)
12/03/2014
12/03/2014)
12/03/2014
811 AMENDEDORDERRe797Orderand807Memorandum-ITISHEREBY
ORDEREDUnsealingtheTranscriptofProceedingsheldonNovember20,
2014.(Doc.804.)SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon12/3/14.(MAP)
(Entered:12/03/2014)
12/04/2014
812 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Thisis
thetimesetforEvidentiaryHearing.Noevidencepresented.StatusConference
RE 960
122/197
(1026 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 128 of 202
heldon12/4/2014.Simultaneousbriefing(limitedto30pages)regardingissues
raisedbytheCourtdueby1/8/15.A.MelvinMcDonaldshallfileaNoticeof
Appearance.
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,AnneLai,andJorgeCastillo(telephonically),
CecilliaWangandStanleyYoungforplaintiffs.MicheleIafrateandThomas
Liddyfordefendants.SheriffJosephM.ArpaioandChiefDeputyJerrySheridan
arealsopresent.ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorsNoelRojas,Don
Anders,JohnGirvin,andSherryKiyler.ChiefAssistantUnitedStatesAttorney
ElizabethStrangeandA.MelvinMcDonaldarealsopresent.(CourtReporter
GaryMoll.)Hearingheld1:31PMto2:20PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.
12/04/2014)
12/04/2014
813 MOTIONtoSealDocumentpursuanttoCourt'sOrder(Doc.756)byJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
12/04/2014
814 *FILEDatDoc.826*SEALEDLODGEDProposedExhibit1re:813MOTION
toSealDocumentpursuanttoCourt'sOrder(Doc.756).Documenttobefiled
byClerkifMotionorStipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedon12/9/2014
(MAP)*.(Entered:12/04/2014)
12/05/2014
12/05/2014)
12/05/2014
judge(s).(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:12/05/2014)
12/05/2014
817 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearing
Proceedingsheldon12/04/2014,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Court
Reporter:GaryMoll).Theorderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccesstothe
transcriptimmediately.Allothersmayviewthetranscriptatthecourtpublic
1/5/2015.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor3/5/2015.(RAP)(Entered:
12/05/2014)
12/05/2014
12/05/2014
TelephonicConferenceheldon12/5/2014.Discussionisheldregarding
monitors'accesstoallMCSOemployeesanddocuments.TheCourtorderssuch
access,acknowledgingdefendants'rightstorepresentationandtoinvokeFifth
Amendmentorotherrightsonaquestionbyquestionbasis.Writtenorderto
RE 961
123/197
(1027 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 129 of 202
follow.
APPEARANCES:CeciliaWang,AndreSeguraandDanielPochoda
(telephonically)forPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate(telephonically)forDefendants.
ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorJohnGirvinarealsopresent.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld4:48PMto5:02PM.ThisisaTEXT
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(LMR)
(Entered:12/05/2014)
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
821 NOTICEofAppearancebyAndrewMelvinMcDonald,JronbehalfofJosephM
Arpaio.(McDonald,Andrew)(Entered:12/08/2014)
12/08/2014
822 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheldon12-0414,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(GilBride,Eileen)(Entered:
12/08/2014)
12/08/2014
828 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofTelephonicConference
HearingProceedingsheldon12/05/2014,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Court
12/09/2014)
12/09/2014
823 *FILEDatDoc.827*SEALEDLODGEDProposedDecember9,2014In
CameraE-MailNotificationtotheCourt.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkif
MotionorStipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedon12/9/2014(MAP)*.
(Entered:12/09/2014)
12/09/2014
824 NOTICEre:LodgingUnderSealDecember9,2014InCameraE-Mail
NotificationtotheCourtbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice
re:823SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
12/09/2014)
12/09/2014
825 ORDERAMENDINGMONITOR'SINDEPENDENTINVESTIGATIVE
AUTHORITY.THEREFOREORDEREDThatthisCourt'sOrderfiledon
11/20/14(Doc.795)isherebyamendedtoincorporatetheaforementioned
alterations.SeeOrderforDetails.FURTHERORDEREDgranting813Motion
toSealPursuanttoCourt'sOrderatDoc.756.TheClerkofCourtisdirectedto
fileundersealthedocument(s)lodgedatDocs.814and823.SignedbyJudgeG
12/09/2014
826 SealedExhibit1PursuanttoCourt'sOrder756filedbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(MAP)(Entered:12/09/2014)
12/09/2014
827 SEALEDDecember9,2014InCameraE-MailNotificationtotheCourtfiledby
RE 962
124/197
(1028 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 130 of 202
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(MAP)(Entered:
12/09/2014)
12/09/2014
12/11/2014
830 *FILEDatDoc.833*SEALEDLODGEDProposedDefendants'Information
RegardingArmedarizInvestigations.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionor
StipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedon12/12/2014(MAP)*.(Entered:
12/11/2014)
12/11/2014
831 NOTICEre:LodgingUnderSealInformationRegardingInvestigationsby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:830SealedLodged
ProposedDocument.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:12/11/2014)
12/12/2014
832 ORDERDirectingtheClerkofCourttofileundersealDefendants'Information
RegardingInvestigationslodgedatDoc.830.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnow
on12/12/14.(MAP)(Entered:12/12/2014)
12/12/2014
833 SealedDefendants'InformationRegardingArmedarizInvestigationsfiledby
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(MAP)(Entered:
12/12/2014)
12/15/2014
834 SECONDQUARTERLYREPORTfromIndependentMonitorfortheMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(KMG)(Entered:12/15/2014)
12/18/2014
835 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTHearingonDecember4,2014byUnitedStatesof
AmericaforproceedingsheldonDecember4,2014,JudgeGMurraySnow
hearingjudge(s).(Strange,Elizabeth)(Entered:12/18/2014)
01/07/2015
836 NOTICEofAppearancebyDavidJOuimetteonbehalfofJohnMacIntyre.
(Ouimette,David)(Entered:01/07/2015)
01/08/2015
837 NOTICEofAppearancebyLeeDavidSteinonbehalfofUnknownParties.
(Stein,Lee)(Entered:01/08/2015)
01/08/2015
838 JoinderPartialJoinderandSeparateMemorandumofDeputyChiefJohn
("Jack")MacIntyrebyRespondentJohnMacIntyre.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)
01/08/2015
839 DECLARATIONofJohn("Jack")MacIntyrere:838JoinderPartialJoinder
andSeparateMemorandumofDeputyChiefJohn("Jack")MacIntyreby
RespondentJohnMacIntyre.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit)(Ouimette,
David)(Entered:01/08/2015)
01/08/2015
840 MEMORANDUMMemorandumreCriminalContemptofChiefDeputyGerard
SheridanbyDefendantUnknownParties.(Stein,Lee)(Entered:01/08/2015)
01/08/2015
841 MEMORANDUMMemoranduminSupportofSheriffArpaio'sDeclarationof
CompliancewithCourtOrdersandOpposingtheImpositionofaCriminal
ContemptReferralbyDefendantJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1Affidavit
SheriffArpaio'sDeclarationofCompliancewithCourtOrders)(McDonald,
Andrew)(Entered:01/08/2015)
RE 963
125/197
(1029 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 131 of 202
01/08/2015
842 MEMORANDUMPursuanttoCourt'sDecember4,2014Order812Status
Conference,CommonPrompts(TextOnly)byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitCover,1-11)
(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:01/08/2015)
01/08/2015
843 MEMORANDUMofLawandFactsreContemptProceedingsandRequestfor
OrdertoShowCausebyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1Affidavit,#2Affidavit,#3Affidavit)(Wang,
Cecillia)(Entered:01/08/2015)
01/09/2015
844 Joinderre:840Memorandum,841Memorandum,839Declaration,838Joinder
byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,
Michele)(Entered:01/09/2015)
01/09/2015
845 *Re-filedatDoc.848SEALEDDefendants'InformationRegardingArmendariz
Investigations.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Iafrate,Michele)*ModifiedfromlodgedtofiledperOrder756on1/12/2015
(SSU).Modifiedon1/13/2015(SSU).(Entered:01/09/2015)
01/09/2015
01/12/2015
847 NOTICEre:PlaintiffsNoticeReWithdrawalOfMemberOfCommunity
AdvisoryBoardbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
01/12/2015
848 *SEALEDInformationRegardingArmendarizInvestigations.FiledbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedfrom
lodgedtofiledperOrder851on1/13/2015(MAP).(Entered:01/12/2015)
01/12/2015
849 NOTICEofErratare:845SealedLodgedProposedDocumentcorrected
documentlodgedat848byDefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice..(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:01/12/2015)
01/12/2015
850 ORDERsettingaTelephonicStatusConferencefor1/15/2015at3:00PMbefore
JudgeGMurraySnow.Thepartiesaredirectedtocall(877)807-5706,
participantcode549741.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/12/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:01/12/2015)
01/13/2015
851 ORDERDirectingtheClerkofCourttofileundersealDefendants'Information
RegardingArmendarizInvestigationslodgedatDoc.848.SignedbyJudgeG
01/13/2015
852 *InformationRegardingInvestigationsthatFindingshavebeenCompletedand
CorrespondingDiscipline.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Iafrate,Michele)*ModifiedentryfromlodgedtofiledperOrder756on
1/14/2015(SSU).*Modifiedon3/3/2015toUnsealPursuanttoOrder913
(MAP)*.(Entered:01/13/2015)
RE 964
126/197
(1030 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 132 of 202
01/13/2015
01/15/2015
TelephonicStatusConferenceheldon1/15/2015.Ordertofollow.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,JorgeCastillo,DanielPochoda,andAndre
SeguraforPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrateandThomasLiddyforDefendants.Lee
SteinandBarryMitchellforChiefDeputySheridan.ChiefAssistantUnited
StatesAttorneyElizabethStrange.RosaleenO'GaraandLynnetteKimminsalso
present.GaryBirnbaumforDeputyChiefMcIntyre,whoisalsopresent.A.
MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forSheriffJosephM.Arpaio.ChiefRobertWarshaw.
(Entered:01/15/2015)
01/16/2015
01/16/2015
856 ORDERre:854TelephoneConference-Thepartiesmayfileresponsestothe
briefssubmittedlastweekregardingtheappropriatenessofcivilandcriminal
contemptchargesbyFriday,January23,2015.Plaintiffsareorderedtofile
separatelyamotionforexpediteddiscoveryastothedocuments,interrogatories,
depositions,andotherevidencerequestedintheirRequestforanOrdertoShow
CaseandassociatedMemorandumofLawandFacts(Doc.843)byFriday,
January23,2015.(Seedocumentforfulldetails).SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon1/16/15.(LAD)(Entered:01/16/2015)
01/16/2015
857 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverforTelephonicStatusConference
proceedingsheldon01/15/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)
(Entered:01/16/2015)
01/16/2015
ConferenceProceedingsheldon01/15/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.
01/20/2015)
01/21/2015
01/23/2015
860 RESPONSEre:843MemorandumbyDefendantsJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:01/23/2015)
RE 965
127/197
(1031 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 133 of 202
01/23/2015
861 RESPONSEre:840Memorandum,841Memorandum,839Declaration,838
Joinder,842MemorandumreContemptProceedingsbyPlaintiffsManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
01/23/2015)
01/23/2015
862 MOTIONforDiscoverybyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2ExhibitB)(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
01/23/2015)
01/26/2015
863 FirstMOTIONforExtensionofTimetoFileNoticeofEstimatedTimelinefor
CompletingtheOutstandingInternalInvestigationbyJosephMArpaio,
01/26/2015
864 NOTICEre:EstimatedTimelineforCompletingtheOutstandingInternal
InvestigationsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:863
FirstMOTIONforExtensionofTimetoFileNoticeofEstimatedTimelinefor
CompletingtheOutstandingInternalInvestigation.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
01/26/2015)
01/27/2015
865 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedtoPlaintiffsbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
01/27/2015
866 ORDERgrantingDefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office'sMotion863andDefendantsNoticeofEstimatedTimelinefor
CompletingtheOutstandingInternalInvestigations(Doc.864)isconsidered
timelyfiled.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon1/27/2015.(KMG)(Entered:
01/27/2015)
01/30/2015
867 MOTIONSetRule16SettlementConferencebyJosephMArpaio.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrderOrderSettingRule16Settlement
Conference)(McDonald,Andrew)(Entered:01/30/2015)
02/02/2015
868 RESPONSEtoMotionre:867MOTIONSetRule16SettlementConference
Plaintiffs'ResponsetoDefendantsMaricopaCountyandArpaio'sRequestfor
SettlementConferencefiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:02/02/2015)
02/03/2015
869 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:867MOTIONSetRule16Settlement
ConferencefiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(McDonald,Andrew)(Entered:02/03/2015)
02/04/2015
870 NOTICEofAppearancebyDennisIraWilenchikonbehalfofUnknownParties.
(Wilenchik,Dennis)(Entered:02/04/2015)
02/04/2015
871 ORDERdirectingtheMonitortodisclosethetranscriptsofallinterviews
conductedbythemonitoringteam,forwhichthenamesofthesubjects
interviewedwerepreviouslydisclosed,toPlaintiffs,Defendants,andtheUnited
StatesAttorney.Thespeciallyappearingnon-partiesmayalsopetitiontheCourt
toauthorizetheMonitortodisclosesuchtranscriptstothemuponpaymentof
reasonableduplicationcosts.Totheextentthatadditionalinterviewsare
RE 966
128/197
(1032 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 134 of 202
conductedbytheMonitor,thepartieswillbeupdatedandmayfileobjectionsto
disclosureinthemannerspecifiedinthisCourt'sOrderre:TelephonicStatus
ConferenceonJanuary15,2015(Id.).Ifnoobjectionstodisclosurearetimely
filedwiththeCourt,theMonitorwillreleasethetranscriptsoftheinterviewsto
thePlaintiffs,Defendants,andtheUnitedStatesAttorneynolaterthantwo
weeksafterthedeadlineforfilinganysuchobjectionshaspassed.Signedby
02/04/2015
872 RESPONSEre:865Notice(Other)RegardingDocumentsProvidedtoPlaintiffs
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)
(Entered:02/04/2015)
02/05/2015
873 NOTICEOFCOMPLIANCEBYMONITORJohnMGirvinpursuanttoCourt's
Orderre:871.(KMG)(Entered:02/05/2015)
02/06/2015
874 *SEALEDInformationRegardingInvestigations.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedentryfrom
lodgedtofiledper756Orderon2/9/2015(SCH).(Entered:02/06/2015)
02/06/2015
875 NOTICEre:LodingUnderSealInformationRegardingInvestigationsbyJoseph
MArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:874SealedLodgedProposed
Document.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:02/06/2015)
02/06/2015
876 RESPONSEinOppositionre:862MOTIONforDiscoveryfiledbyJosephM
02/06/2015)
02/10/2015
877 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedtoPlaintiffsAmendedbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:865Notice(Other).(Iafrate,Michele)
(Entered:02/10/2015)
02/11/2015
878 NOTICEofAppearancebyGregoryStephenComoonbehalfofBrianSands.
(Como,Gregory)(Entered:02/11/2015)
02/12/2015
879 MOTIONre:856OrderRequestbyNon-PartyDeputyChiefJohn"Jack"
MacIntyreforDeterminationthatCriminalContemptChargesWillNotBe
Pursued/ReferredAgainstHimPersonallybyDavidOuimette.(Attachments:#1
ExhibitA-ExcerptofTranscriptofProceedings,#2ExhibitB-BirnbaumLetter
01-22-15,#3ExhibitC-WangLetter01-28-15)(Ouimette,David)(Entered:
02/12/2015)
02/12/2015
880 ORDERTOSHOWCAUSEsettinganevidentiaryhearingforApril21,22,23,
and24,2015.Proceedingswillbegindailyat9:00a.m.inCourtroom602ofthe
SandraDayO'ConnorCourthouseat401W.WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,
Arizona85003.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthefollowingpartiesareto
appearbeforetheCourtandshowcause,asindicated,whytheCourtshouldnot
imposesanctionsonthempursuantto18U.S.C.401and/orFederalRuleof
CivilProcedure37(d):theMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,SheriffJoseph
Arpaio,ChiefDeputyGeraldSheridan,ExecutiveChief(ret.)BrianSands,
DeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre,LieutenantJosephSousa.FURTHERORDERED
thattheClerkoftheCourtisDIRECTEDtosubmitacopyofthisOrdertoShow
CausetotheUnitedStatesMarshalforserviceuponthefollowing:theMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice,JosephArpaio,GeraldSheridan,BrianSands,John
RE 967
129/197
(1033 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 135 of 202
MacIntyre,andJosephSousa.AcopyofthisOrdershallalsobeprovidedtothe
UnitedStatesAttorneyfortheDistrictofArizona.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
02/12/2015
881 ORDERPlaintiffs'Motion(Doc.862)isGRANTED.Defendants'Motion(Doc.
867)isGRANTEDinpartandDENIEDinpart.TheCourtORDERStheParties
andspeciallyappearingnon-partiestoappearforapre-trialconferenceon
Thursday,February26,2015at1:30p.m.Atthistime,theCourtwilladdressthe
mattersalludedtoinDefendants'MotiontoSetaRule16SettlementConference
aswellasanyotherissuesordiscoverydisputesthatrequiretheCourt's
attention.TheClerkoftheCourtisDIRECTEDtoprovideacopyofthisOrder
totheUnitedStatesAttorney.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon2/12/2015.
(SeeOrderforcompletedetails.)(KMG)(Entered:02/12/2015)
02/17/2015
882 *NOTICEofAppearancebyDouglasA.SchwabonbehalfofJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Liddy,Thomas)*Modifiedtocorrecttext
andaddattorneyon2/18/2015(KMG).(Entered:02/17/2015)
02/17/2015
883 NOTICEre:inResponsebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americare:877Notice(Other)[Amended]toCourtRegardingDocuments
ProvidedtoPlaintiffs.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:02/17/2015)
02/18/2015
884 MOTIONforDiscovery(bySpeciallyAppearingNon-PartyBrianSands)by
BrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:02/18/2015)
02/19/2015
885 RESPONSEtoMotionre:879MOTIONre:856OrderRequestbyNon-Party
DeputyChiefJohn"Jack"MacIntyreforDeterminationthatCriminalContempt
ChargesWillNotBePursued/ReferredAgainstHimPersonallyfiledbyManuel
02/19/2015)
02/20/2015
886 SERVICEEXECUTED:USMSProcessReceiptandReturnre:CourtOrder
doc.#880uponJosephSousaon2/18/2015.(KMG)(Entered:02/23/2015)
02/20/2015
doc.#880uponJohn"Jack"MacIntyreon2/18/2015.(KMG)(Entered:
02/23/2015)
02/20/2015
doc.#880uponBrianSandson2/18/2015.(KMG)(Entered:02/23/2015)
02/20/2015
doc.#880uponMaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeon2/18/2015.(KMG)
(Entered:02/23/2015)
02/20/2015
890 *SERVICEEXECUTED:USMSProcessReceiptandReturnre:CourtOrder
doc.#880uponJosephArpaioon2/18/2015.(ACL)*Modifiedtocorrectfile
dateon2/23/2015(ACL).(Entered:02/23/2015)
02/20/2015
(Doc.880)uponGerardSheridanon2/18/2015.(ACL)(Entered:02/23/2015)
RE 968
130/197
(1034 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 136 of 202
02/24/2015
892 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTre:TelephonicStatusConferencebyUnitedStatesof
Americaforproceedingsheldon15Jan2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(OGara,Rosaleen)(Entered:02/24/2015)
02/24/2015
893 NOTICEOFDEFICIENCY:PursuanttotheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,
andtheGeneralOrders,LocalRules,andCM/ECFAdministrativePoliciesand
ProceduresManualofthisCourt,thefollowingdeficiencieshavebeenfound
withtheelectronicallyfileddocument,TranscriptRequestDoc.#892filedby
RosaleenOGara:1)AO435form,box18(category)Realtimeisnolonger
availablebecausetheofficialtranscripthasalreadybeenfiledon16Jan2015.2)
AO435form,box18(deliveryinstructions)requestedemaildelivery,butan
emailaddresswasnotprovided.3)AO435form,box19ismissinganofficial
inkorelectronicsignature.4)AO435form,box20ismissingthedate.ACTION
REQUIREDBYTHEREQUESTOR:Thedeficienciesmustbecorrected
withinone(1)businessdayofthisnotice.Therequestormustre-filetheentire
correcteddocumentAO435TranscriptOrderformasanAMENDEDTranscript
Request.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
withthisentry.(RAP)(Entered:02/24/2015)
02/25/2015
894 NOTICEofAppearancebyJoshuaDavidRBendoronbehalfofManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:
02/25/2015)
02/25/2015
895 SUPPLEMENTSUPPLEMENTALMEMORANDUMOFDEPUTYCHIEF
JOHNMACINTYRE(INSUPPORTOFREQUESTBYNON-PARTY
DEPUTYCHIEFJOHN'JACK'MACINTYREFORDETERMINATION
THATCRIMINALCONTEMPTCHARGESWILLNOTBE
PURSUED/REFERREDAGAINSTHIMPERSONALLY(DOC.879))by
InterestedPartyJohnMacIntyre.(Ouimette,David)(Entered:02/25/2015)
02/25/2015
896 SUPPLEMENTSUPPLEMENTALDECLARATIONOFDEPUTYCHIEF
JOHN("JACK")MACINTYRE(DOC.879)byInterestedPartyJohnMacIntyre.
02/25/2015
897 NOTICEre:FilingThirdQuarterlyComplianceReportbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,
02/26/2015
898 NOTICEre:Plaintiffs'NoticeofIntenttoServeSubpoenaUponElizabeth
StrangebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Bendor,
Joshua)(Entered:02/26/2015)
02/26/2015
899 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:Pretrial
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,StanleyYoung,DanielPochodaandJosh
BenderforPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,ThomasLiddyandA.MelvinMcDonald,
Jr.forDefendantJosephM.Arpaio,whoisalsopresent,andMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChiefDeputySheridan,whois
alsopresent.DavidOuimetteforDeputyChiefMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.
RE 969
131/197
(1035 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 137 of 202
GregoryComo,DennisWilenchikandJohnD.WilenchikforBrianSands.Also
present:ChiefAssistantUnitedStatesAttorneyElizabethStrange,Lieutenant
JosephSousa,ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinand
RaulMartinez,andKarenClark.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld1:34
PMto2:59PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
02/26/2015
900 AMENDEDbyDoc.901ORDER,Inaccordancewithitsdirectionsatthestatus
conferenceonThursday,February26,2015,theCourtherebyORDERSthe
following:1.SpeciallyappearingpartyBrianSands'MotionforDiscovery(Doc.
884)isGRANTED.ExecutiveChief(Ret.)Sandsmayserveuptoseven
requestsforproductioninconnectionwiththeforthcomingcivilcontempt
hearing.AllsuchrequestsshallbeservednolaterthanTuesday,March3,2015.
2.PlaintiffsshallserveaNoticeofDepositiononformercounselTimothyCasey
byTuesday,March3,2015.3.Anyappropriatebriefingand/ormotionsfora
protectiveorderinresponsetotheaforementioneddiscoveryrequestsshallbe
filedbyTuesday,March17,2015.Thereafter,anyreplybriefsaretobefiledby
March24,2015.4.DefendantsMaricopaCountySheriffsOfficeandSheriff
JosephArpaioshallfileamemorandumregardingthemaintenanceofthe
informationregardingMCSO'scompletedinternalinvestigationsandany
correspondingemployeediscipline(Doc.852)undersealbyThursday,March6,
2015.5.AhearingonanyrequestsforprotectiveorderissetforFriday,March
27,2015at2:00p.m.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon2/26/2015.(KMG)
Modifiedon2/26/2015(LFIG).(Entered:02/26/2015)
02/26/2015
901 AMENDEDORDER:Specially-appearingpartyBrianSands'884Motionfor
DiscoveryisGRANTED.Sandsmayserveuptosevenrequestsforproduction
inconnectionwiththeforthcomingcivilcontempthearing.Allsuchrequests
shallbeservednolaterthanTuesday,Mar ch3,2015.Plaintiffsshallservea
NoticeofDepositiononformercounselTimothyCaseybyTuesday,Mar ch3,
2015.Anyappropriatebriefingand/ormotionsforaprotectiveorderinresponse
totheaforementioneddiscoveryrequestsshallbefiledbyTuesday,Mar ch17,
2015.Thereafter,anyreplybriefsaretobefiledbyMar ch24,2015.Defendants
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeandSheriffJosephArpaioshallfilea
memorandumregardingthemaintenanceoftheinformationregardingMCSO's
completedinternalinvestigationsandanycorrespondingemployeediscipline
undersealbyThursday,Mar ch6,2015.Ahearingonanyrequestsforprotective
orderissetforFr iday,Mar ch27,2015at2:00p.m.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon2/26/2015.(LFIG)(Entered:02/26/2015)
02/27/2015
902 NOTICEOFATTORNEY'SCHANGEOFADDRESS/FIRMNAMEby
KatherineElizabethBaker.(Baker,Katherine)(Entered:02/27/2015)
02/27/2015
903 NOTICEofDepositionofTimothyJ.Casey,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:02/27/2015)
03/02/2015
03/02/2015
905 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedtoPlaintiffsbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
RE 970
132/197
(1036 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 138 of 202
03/02/2015
906 REQUESTre:RequesttoRescheduleHearingonProtectiveOrderor,
Alternatively,toAllowCounseltoAppearByTelephonebyInterestedParty
03/02/2015
907 NOTICEofDepositionofJosephM.Arpaio,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
03/02/2015
908 NOTICEofDepositionofGerardSheridan,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
03/02/2015
909 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
03/02/2015
03/03/2015
911 NOTICEre:InvestigationsMayBeUnsealedbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa
CountySheriff'sOfficere:852SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Iafrate,
03/03/2015
912 NOTICEre:DefendantSandsFirstSetofRFPtoJArpaioandMCSObyBrian
Sands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:03/03/2015)
03/03/2015
913 ORDERDirectingtheClerkofCourttounsealdocument852.SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon3/3/15.(MAP)(Entered:03/03/2015)
03/03/2015
914 AMENDEDDOCUMENTbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.Amendmentto907NoticeofDepositionofJosephM.Arpaio.(Wang,
03/03/2015
915 ORDERthatGregComo,counselforBrianSands,mayappeartelephonically
fortheMarch27,2015hearing.Mr.Comoisdirectedtocallchambersfive
minutesbeforethehearingissettobegin.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
3/3/2015.(KMG)(Entered:03/03/2015)
03/04/2015
916 NOTICEre:PLAINTIFFS'NOTICEREGARDINGCOMMUNITY
ADVISORYBOARDMEMBERSbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
Americare:670PermanentInjunction.(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:03/04/2015)
03/04/2015
January15,2015andFebruary26,2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Strange,Elizabeth)(Entered:03/04/2015)
03/04/2015
918 *TRANSCRIPTREQUEST-AMENDEDbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.
Amendmentto917TranscriptRequest.(Strange,Elizabeth)*Modifiedto
correcteventdockettextNEFregeneratedon3/11/2015(CEI).(Entered:
03/04/2015)
RE 971
133/197
(1037 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 139 of 202
03/05/2015
919 NOTICEofDepositionofJohn(Jack)MacIntyre,filedbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:03/05/2015)
03/05/2015
920 NOTICEofDepositionofDavidTrombi,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:03/05/2015)
03/05/2015
921 NOTICEofDepositionofBrianSands,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,Stanley)(Entered:03/05/2015)
03/06/2015
America.Amendmentto903NoticeofDeposition.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
03/06/2015)
03/09/2015
923 NOTICEre:SecondEstimatedTimelineforCompletingtheOutstanding
InternalInvestigationsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
03/09/2015
03/11/2015)
03/10/2015
924 NOTICEre:ParticipationinSettlementNegotiationsbyUnitedStatesof
America.(Strange,Elizabeth)(Entered:03/10/2015)
03/11/2015
925 AMENDED/CORRECTEDatdoc.#928...MOTIONforExtensionofTime
ExtendDeadlinesbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Bendor,Joshua)Modifiedon
3/11/2015(KMG).(Entered:03/11/2015)
03/11/2015
927 NOTICEofErratare:925MOTIONforExtensionofTimeExtendDeadlinesby
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica..(Bendor,
03/11/2015
928 *Joint(Amended/Corrected)MOTIONforExtensionofTimeExtendDeadlines
ofProposedOrder)(Bendor,Joshua)*Modifiedtoincludetexton3/11/2015
(KMG).(Entered:03/11/2015)
03/11/2015
929 ORDERgranting928MotionforExtensionofDeadlines-thedeadlinefor
RE 972
134/197
(1038 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 140 of 202
witnessdisclosureisextendedtoApril1,2015.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthe
deadlinefordepositionsisextendedtoApril10,2015.SignedbyJudgeG
03/11/2015
03/12/2015
03/12/2015)
03/13/2015
932 ORDERsettingaStatusConferencefor3/20/2015at3:30PMinCourtroom
602,401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurray
Snow.Allpartiesandindividualswhoarethesubjectofthecontempthearingare
directedtobepresent.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon3/13/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:03/13/2015)
03/13/2015
933 NOTICEofDepositionofBrettPalmer,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
03/13/2015
934 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:03/13/2015)
03/13/2015
03/13/2015
936 NOTICEofDepositionofBRIANJAKOWINICZ,filedbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:03/13/2015)
03/13/2015
937 NOTICEofDepositionofCarlosRangel,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,GerardSheridan,SomosAmerica.(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:
03/13/2015)
03/16/2015
America.Amendmentto908NoticeofDepositionofGerardSheridan.(Wang,
03/16/2015
939 COURT'SNOTICERESTATUSHEARINGMARCH20,2015Thetopics
whichtheCourtintendstodiscussatthestatushearingonFriday,March20,
2015include,butmaynotbelimitedto,thefollowing:1.Defendants'Notice
concerningthepostponementofthedateforcompletingtheirinternal
investigations(Doc.923).2.Themeritsofschedulingasupplementalhearingor
hearingssubsequenttotheAprilproceedingsinlightofsuchpostponement.3.
WhetheranyprivilegeattachestoDefendantsinternalinvestigations,and,ifso,
whichaspectsoftheinternalinvestigationprocessitappliesto.4.Discovery
requestsfortheworkproductoftheMonitor.5.Whetherthecompensatory
aspectofcivilcontempt,ifsucharemedyisdeemedappropriate,shouldbe
resolvedinAprilorinseparateproceedings,withattentiontothefollowing
RE 973
135/197
(1039 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 141 of 202
concerns:a.Providingnoticetopotentialvictimsandanopportunityforthemto
optinoroutofanysettlementorcompensationaward.b.Theclassdefinition
(seeDoc.494)andtheremunerabilityofinjuriestovictimswhoarenot
membersofthePlaintiffclass.c.TheriskofcontinuingliabilityforMaricopa
Countyintheabsenceofprovisionsterminatingtherightsofvictimstoseek
individualrelief,orasaconsequenceofproblemsinestimatingcompensation.d.
WhetherMaricopaCountyneedstobeseparatelyrepresentedinsuch
proceedings.6.Theappropriatenessofappointingaspecialprosecutorinlightof
theUnitedStatesAttorney'sdeclinationtoparticipateinsettlementdiscussions
withthenamedcontemnorsconcerningtheirpotentialcriminalcontemptliability
(seeDoc.924),andconsiderationsrelatedtosuchanappointment.Signedby
03/17/2015
940 NOTICEre:AmendedNoticeofDepositionofDavidTrombibyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:920NoticeofDeposition.
03/17/2015
941 NOTICEre:AmendedNoticeofDepositionofCarlosRangelbyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:937NoticeofDeposition.
03/17/2015
942 MOTIONforProtectiveOrderregardingBrianSands'sDiscoveryRequestsby
1,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:03/17/2015)
03/17/2015
943 MOTIONtoQuashPlaintiffs'SubpoenatoTimCaseyorintheAlternative,
MotionforProtectiveOrderbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
03/17/2015)
03/17/2015
944 NOTICEre:AmendedNoticeofDepositionofJosephM.ArpaiobyManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,GerardSheridan,SomosAmericare:907Noticeof
Deposition.(Pochoda,Daniel)(Entered:03/17/2015)
03/17/2015
America.Amendmentto938AmendedDocument(NOTMotion/Complaint)
SecondAmendedNoticeofDepositionofGerardSheridan.(Wang,Cecillia)
(Entered:03/17/2015)
03/17/2015
America.Amendmentto936NoticeofDepositionofBrianJakowinicz.(Wang,
03/17/2015
947 NOTICEre:SecondAmendedNoticeofDepositionofJosephM.Arpaioby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:944Notice(Other).
RE 974
136/197
(1040 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 142 of 202
03/17/2015
948 MOTIONtoVacate880Order,Set/ResetHearingsandRequestforEntryof
JudgmentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:
#1ExhibitA-B,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
03/17/2015)
03/17/2015
America.Amendmentto933NoticeofDepositionofBrettPalmer.(Wang,
03/18/2015
950 NOTICEofDepositionofMikeTrowbridge,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
03/19/2015
951 NOTICEOFATTORNEYAPPEARANCE:DavidEisenbergappearingfor
JosephSousa..(Eisenberg,David)(Entered:03/19/2015)
03/19/2015
952 RESPONSEinOppositionre:948MOTIONtoVacate880Order,Set/Reset
HearingsandRequestforEntryofJudgment,RESPONSEtoMotionre:948
MOTIONtoVacate880Order,Set/ResetHearingsandRequestforEntryof
JudgmentfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
03/19/2015
953 DECLARATIONofStanleyYoungre:952ResponseinOppositiontoMotion,
ResponsetoMotion.filedbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA-C)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:03/19/2015)
03/20/2015
Conferenceheldon3/20/2015.Discussionisheldregardingmattersraisedbythe
Courtandtheparties'variouspositions.TheCourtaffirmstheschedulesetforth
inthecontemptmatter.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,StanleyYoung,DanielPochoda,JoshBender,
TammyAlbarran(telephonically),AndreSegura(telephonically),HyunByun
(telephonically)JorgeCastillo(telephonically)andLaurenPedley
(telephonically)forPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,ThomasLiddyandA.Melvin
McDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.Arpaio,whoisalsopresent,and
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.GaryBirnbaumforDeputyChiefMacIntyre,
whoisalsopresent.GregoryComo,DennisWilenchikandJohnD.Wilenchik
forBrianSands,whoisalsopresent.LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChief
DeputySheridan,whoisalsopresent.Alsopresent:DavidEisenbergfor
LieutenantJosephSousa,whoisalsopresent.DougIrishforMaricopaCounty.
LynnetteKimminsandRosaleenO'GarafortheUnitedStates.DeputyMonitors
JohnGirvin(telephonically)andRaulMartinez(telephonically).(CourtReporter
ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(LMR)(Entered:
03/20/2015)
03/23/2015
955 REQUESTre:toModifytheCourt'sFeburary12,2015Order[Doc.906]asto
SpeciallyAppearingNon-PartyJohnMacIntyrebyInterestedPartyJohn
RE 975
137/197
(1041 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 143 of 202
MacIntyre.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:03/23/2015)
03/23/2015
956 RESPONSEtoMotionre:943MOTIONtoQuashPlaintiffs'SubpoenatoTim
CaseyorintheAlternative,MotionforProtectiveOrderfiledbyManuelde
03/23/2015)
03/23/2015
957 NOTICEofDepositionofJosephSousa,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
03/23/2015
958 NOTICEofDepositionofGerardSheridan(Continued),filedbyManuelde
03/23/2015)
03/24/2015
03/20/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Cheema,Puneet)(Entered:
03/24/2015)
03/24/2015
03/24/2015
03/24/2015
heldon03/20/2015,JudgeG.MurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:
03/24/2015)
03/24/2015
963 RESPONSEtoMotionre:942MOTIONforProtectiveOrderregardingBrian
Sands'sDiscoveryRequestsfiledbyBrianSands.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)
03/24/2015
964 *JOINDERre943MOTIONtoQuashSubpoenabyTimothyJCasey.(Clark,
Karen)*Modifiedtocorrecteventtypeandfileron3/25/2015(LSP).(Entered:
03/24/2015)
03/24/2015
965 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofStatusHearing
03/24/2015)
03/25/2015
966 TRANSCRIPTREQUEST03-20-2015statusconferencebyUnitedStatesof
RE 976
138/197
(1042 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 144 of 202
judge(s).(Kimmins,Lynnette)(Entered:03/25/2015)
03/26/2015
03/26/2015
968 *NOTICEre:Exhibits1and2for(Doc.964)byTimothyJCasey.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Clark,Karen)*Modifiedtocorrectdocumentnumber
on3/26/2015(LSP).(Entered:03/26/2015)
03/26/2015
969 NOTICEofAppearancebyMCraigMurdyonbehalfofBrianSands.(Murdy,
M)(Entered:03/26/2015)
03/26/2015
America.Amendmentto949AmendedDocument(NOTMotion/Complaint)
NoticeofDepositionofBrettPalmer.(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:03/26/2015)
03/27/2015
971 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:942MOTIONforProtectiveOrderregarding
BrianSands'sDiscoveryRequestsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
03/27/2015
972 NOTICEofAppearancebyChristopherThomasRapponbehalfofBrettPalmer.
(Rapp,Christopher)(Entered:03/27/2015)
03/27/2015
973 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow:In-Court
Hearingheldon3/27/2015.Ordertofollow.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,StanleyYoung,DanielPochoda,JoshBendor,
JorgeCastillo,AndreSegura,AnneLai(telephonically)andHyunByun
(telephonically)forPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,ThomasLiddyandA.Melvin
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChief
DeputySheridan,whoisalsopresent.GaryBirnbaumforDeputyChief
MacIntyre.CraigMcMurdy,DennisWilenchikandJohnD.WilenchikforBrian
Sands.Alsopresent:DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa.Deputy
MonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez(bothtelephonically).(CourtReporter
03/27/2015)
03/30/2015
03/30/2015
03/30/2015
RE 977
139/197
(1043 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 145 of 202
03/31/2015
03/27/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,Lynnette)
(Entered:03/31/2015)
03/31/2015
978 MOTIONforReconsiderationre:973In-CourtHearing,CommonPrompts(Text
Only)denyingtheattorney-clientprivilegetoelectronicmailcommunications
thatcopiesDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyrebyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1ExhibitCover,1-2,#2TextofProposed
03/31/2015
979 ORDERthatDefendantsaretofileamemorandumontheaforementionedissues
byFr iday,Apr il3,2015.PlaintiffsarefurtherORDEREDtofilearesponsive
memorandumnolaterthanTuesday,Apr il7,2015.Totheextentthatspecially
appearingpartyBrianSandswishestobeheardonissue(3),above,insofarasit
relatestohisoutstandingdocumentproductionrequests,heisalsoORDEREDto
filearesponsivememorandumbyApr il7.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
3/31/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:03/31/2015)
03/31/2015
980 SUPPLEMENTBriefingforaProtectiveOrderregardingPrivileged
Communicationsre:942MOTIONforProtectiveOrderregardingBrianSands's
DiscoveryRequestsbyDefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:03/31/2015)
04/01/2015
981 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTRe03/27/2015StatusHearingbyBrianSandsfor
proceedingsheldon03/27/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Como,
Gregory)(Entered:04/01/2015)
04/01/2015
heldon03/27/2015,JudgeG.MurraySnow,hearingjudge.(RAP)(Entered:
04/01/2015)
04/01/2015
983 WitnessListbyBrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:04/01/2015)
04/01/2015
984 WitnessListbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,
04/01/2015
985 WitnessListbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,
Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Young,
04/01/2015
04/03/2015)
04/02/2015
986 ORDER:Defendants'MotionforaProtectiveOrder942isdeniedinpartand
referredinpartforfurtherconsideration.Discoverymattersarereferredto
UnitedStatesMagistrateJudgeJohnZ.Boyleforincamerareview.Defendants
RE 978
140/197
(1044 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 146 of 202
aredirectedtocontactJudgeBoyle'schambersat(602)322-7670nolaterthan
4/3/2015tosubmitthedocumentsforincamerareview.Defendants'Motionto
Quash943isdeniedasmoot.Defendants'MotionforReconsideration978is
denied.Non-partyDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre'sRequestforDetermination
thatCriminalContemptChargesWillNotBePursued/ReferredAgainstHim
Personally879isdenied.Totheextentthatspeciallyappearingnon-partyJohn
MacIntyrewishestowaivehisrighttobepresenton4/21and4/22/2015forthe
civilcontemptproceedingswithoutobjectionfromPlaintiffs,hisRequestto
ModifytheCourt'sOrdertoShowCausesettinganevidentiaryhearing955is
granted.Seeorderforadditionaldetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
4/2/2015.(Attachments:#1Appendix)(LMR)(Entered:04/02/2015)
04/02/2015
987 MEMORANDUMPursuanttotheCourt'sOrder979OrderbyDefendants
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
04/02/2015)
04/02/2015
988 ORDER.EarliertodaytheCourtfiledacomprehensiveorder(Doc.986)
resolvingDefendant'sMotionforProtectiveOrder(Doc.942).Partofthatorder
wasbasedontheerroneousassumptionthatDefendantfailedtotimelyassertany
"clawback"rights.Doc986p.10n.6.TheCourt,infact,hadearlierseta
scheduleinwhichitpermittedtheDefendantstoassertsuch"clawback"rights
byFriday,April3,andDefendantsdidtimelyassertsuchclawbackrightsina
filingenteredrightaftertheCourtenteredDoc.986.ThustheCourt's
determinationinthatorderthatDefendantshadwaivedtheirclawbackrightsas
todocuments4,15and16iserroneous.Therefore,Defendantsneednot
presentlydisclosesuchdocumentstoeitherSandsorthePlaintiffbutshould
immediatelyprovidethemincameratoMagistrateJudgeBoyleforhisreviewas
towhetherthedocumentscomplywiththerequirementsoftheattorney-client
privilege,work-productimmunity,orwhetherSandsorthePlaintiffhave
establishedarighttoobtainsuchdocuments.Nevertheless,intheMarch27
hearing,Plaintiffscounselpointedoutthatsomeorallofthesedocuments
(privilegelogdocuments4,15and16andperhapsthedocumentearlier
identifiedtoDefendantsthatisnotontheprivilegelog)wereaddressedor
forwardedbyemailchainstomultiplepersonswhowerenotidentifiedonthe
privilegelog.Defensecounselagreedtoprovideacomprehensivelistofall
personswhowouldhavebeensentorforwardedthesedocumentsbyMarch31.
TheCourtcannotfindthatcounselhascomplied.Obviously,thenumberand
identityofthepersonstowhomtheseemailsweresentorforwardedisrelevant
towhetheranyprivilegeorimmunityexistsorwaspreserved.Defensecounsel
willimmediatelyprovidesuchalistforMagistrateJudgeBoyletogetherwitha
copyoftheactualemailchainsshowingallpersonstowhomthedocuments
wereforwardedorsentforhisevaluation.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
April2,2015.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
associatedwiththisentry.(GMS)(Entered:04/02/2015)
04/03/2015
990 ORDER:PlaintiffsandBrianSandsaredirectedtofileby4/7/2015responsive
memorandatoDefendants'4/2/2015Memorandum([Doc.987]).Seeorderfor
additionaldetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon4/3/2015.(LMR)
(Entered:04/03/2015)
04/03/2015
991 *NOTICEOFSUBMISSIONFORINCAMERAREVIEWBYMAGISTRATE
JUDGEJOHNZ.BOYLEbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
RE 979
141/197
(1045 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 147 of 202
Office.(Liddy,Thomas)*Modifiedtoremovetexton4/3/2015(KMG).
(Entered:04/03/2015)
04/06/2015
992 ORDERre942MotionforProtectiveOrder,theCourtgrantsDefendants'
Motionastodocuments5,6,andtheredactedportionsofdocument15.The
CourtdeniesDefendants'Motionastodocuments4and6A,andtheunredacted
portionsofdocument15.TheCourtwillissueasupplementalorderunderseal
withdocuments4and6A,andtheredactedversionofdocument15.Unlessthe
CourtreceivesobjectionsregardingliftingthesealbyDefendantsbyFriday,
April10,2015at5:00P.M.,theCourtwillunsealthesupplementalorder,the
appendeddocuments4,6A,andtheappendedredacteddocument15.Signedby
MagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon4/6/2015.(KMG)(Entered:04/06/2015)
04/07/2015
993 ORDERthatDefendantsshallprovideJudgeBoylewithDocuments1,2,3,7,8,
9,10,and11oftheirprivilegelognolaterthanApril7,2015at5:00P.M.
SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon4/7/2015.(KMG)(Entered:
04/07/2015)
04/07/2015
994 SEALEDORDERPursuanttotheCourt'sApril6,2015Order(Doc.992),the
CourtherebyfilesthisOrderandthedocumentsappendedtothisOrderunder
seal.ThisOrderandtheappendeddocumentsshallremainundersealuntil
otherwiseorderedbytheCourt.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon
4/6/15.(cc:MicheleIafrate,defensecounselGregComo,DaneDodd,andM.
CraigMurdy,counselforBrianSands)(MAP)(Entered:04/07/2015)
04/07/2015
995 ORDER.TheCourtmetwiththepartiestelephonicallytoresolvecertainissues
pertainingtooutstandingdiscoveryandscheduling.First,asitpertainstothis
Court'sdiscoveryorderofFebruary12,2015,Defendantsshalldiscloseindetail
toallpartiestheprocessbywhichMCSOsoughttoascertainandobtainsuch
information,includingthemethodusedtosolicitresponsiveinformationfrom
withintheMCSO,theinformationrequested,andthespecificpersonswhowere
requestedtoprovideorsearchforsuchinformation.Defendantsshallalso
discloseallresponsestothisrequestandthespecificpersonswhoprovidedany
responses.InlightofLieutenantSousa'sdepositiontestimonythathewasaware
ofreceivingnosuchrequests,thepartieswillagreeonafollow-upprocessto
ensurethattherequestisreceived,acknowledged,andrespondedtobyall
pertinentandappropriateMCSOpersonnelinatimelymanner.Iftheparties
cannotagreeonsuchaproceduretheymaypromptlyraisethematterwiththe
Courtinasubsequenttelephonicconferencetomorrowafternoon,April8.
Second,DefendantsavowthatSheriffArpaio'scompletepersonalimmigration
fileisbeingprovidedtothePlaintiffs.Defendants'counselfurtheravowsthat
thatfilecontainsallimmigration-relatedpressreleasesfortherelevantperiod.
Third,DefendantsshallimmediatelyprovidethePlaintiffswithallresponsive
shiftsummaries,incidentreports,andCADdata.Fourth,totheextentthat
Counselhavepreparedandreviewedwithwitnessesdocumentsthatthe
witnessestestifiedrefreshedtheirrecollection,theinterestsofjusticeininsuring
thefairnessandaccuracyofsuchinformationrequiresthatthosedocumentsalso
bedisclosedtothePlaintiffs.SeeFed.R.Evid.612.Fifth,theCourtalso
discussedwithcounseltheneedtosubmittoMagistrateJudgeBoylethe
documentsthatithadnotpreviouslysubmittedunlessDefendantsinform
MagistrateJudgeBoylethattheynolongerclaimanyprivilegeorimmunityin
RE 980
142/197
(1046 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 148 of 202
thedocumentsandhaveprovidedthemtotheparties.Sixth,theCourtfurther
discussedtheneedtosetpossiblesupplementalhearingdatestotheextentthat
MCSO'srelevantself-investigativeanddisciplinaryprocesseshavenotyetbeen
completedbutmayberelevanttoanyappropriateremedyimplicatedbythe
April21-24hearings.CounselforDefendantacknowledgesthatshewill
promptlyascertainandinformtheCourtanditsmonitorconcerningthedatesfor
completionoftheseinvestigationsandtheimpositionofdiscipline,ifany,bythe
MCSO.Partiesacknowledgetheiravailabilityforsuchpossiblynecessary
supplementalhearingsonJune16-19,2015andaredirectedtokeepthesedates
clearforpossiblehearings.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowonApril7,2015.
entry.(GMS)(Entered:04/07/2015)
04/07/2015
996 RESPONSEre:987MemorandumPursuanttoCourt'sMarch31,2015Order
byInterestedPartyBrianSands.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Como,Gregory)
(Entered:04/07/2015)
04/07/2015
997 NOTICEre:SubmissionforInCameraReviewbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZ.
BoylebyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:993Order,995
Order.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:04/07/2015)
04/07/2015
998 RESPONSEre:979Order,990OrderPlaintiffs'ResponserePrivilegeand
InternalAffairsIssuesPursuanttotheCourt'sOrdersbyPlaintiffsManuelde
JessicaQuituguaRodriguez.(Attachments:#1AffidavitDeclarationofJoshua
BendorwithExhibitsA-J)(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:04/07/2015)
04/08/2015
999 AdditionalAttachmentstoMainDocumentre:987MemorandumbyDefendants
JosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
04/08/2015)
04/08/2015
1000 ORDER:theCourtwillgrantDefendants'MotionforaProtectiveOrderastothe
firsttwoemailsindocument2,andastodocuments3,7,8,9,10,and11.See
Orderfordetails.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon4/8/15.(SJF)
(Entered:04/08/2015)
04/08/2015
1001 ORDERre:987MemorandumfiledbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice,Joseph
MArpaio.Defendantsmustproducedocuments1,4,6A,12,14,15,and16
becausetheydonotfallwithinthescopeofeitherattorney-clientprivilegeorthe
work-productdoctrine.PursuanttoJudgeBoyle'sOrder,Documents5and13are
privileged.TheCourtisawaitingJudgeBoyle'sconclusionsastotheremaining
communicationsidentifiedonDefendants'privilegelog.SeeOrderfordetails.
04/09/2015
1002 ORDER.TheCourtmetthismorningonatelephonicstatusconferenceatwhich
allpartieswererepresented.Outsidedefensecounselshallreviewthediscovery
requestswithallnoticedpossiblecontemnorsinanattempttoascertainand
discoverdocumentsthatmayberesponsivetotheCourt'sFebruary12Order.
Shewilltakeotherreasonablestepsthepartiesdeemnecessarytoensure
adequatecompliancewiththediscoveryrequests.TheMCSOwillalsoprovide
theSheriff'simmigrationfilefrom2011through2013whichhasnotyetbeen
provided.Intheeventthatlate-discloseddiscoveryrevealsinformationorissues
notdisclosedpriortotheAprilhearings,ortotheextentthatsuchmattersarise
RE 981
143/197
(1047 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 149 of 202
duetoMCSO'sfailuretocompleteitsrelevantinvestigationsorotherwise
betweentheAprilhearingandtheJunedatessetforthesupplementalhearing,
thosemattersmayberaisedinanysupplementalhearingthatprovesnecessary.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowonApril9,2015.ThisisaTEXTENTRY
ONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(GMS)(Entered:
04/09/2015)
04/10/2015
1003 MOTIONtoSupplementMotiontoVacateHearingandRequestforEntryof
JudgmentbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:
#1ExhibitExhibitsA-B,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)
(Entered:04/10/2015)
04/13/2015
1004 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1003MOTIONtoSupplementMotiontoVacate
HearingandRequestforEntryofJudgmentfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtega
04/13/2015
1005 MOTIONforHearingonMotionRequestforExpeditedOralArgumenton
Defendants'ArpaioandSheridanSupplementalMotiontoVacateHearingand
RequestforEntryofJudgmentbyJosephMArpaio.(McDonald,Andrew)
(Entered:04/13/2015)
04/14/2015
04/14/2015
1007 ORDERthatDefendants'MotionstoVacate(Docs.948,1003)areDENIED
withoutprejudice.Becauseoralargumentisunlikelytomateriallyaddtothe
Parties'briefs,Defendants'MotionforaHearing(Doc.1005)isalsoDENIED.
04/15/2015
1008 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTandRealtimeRequestbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon4/21/2015-4/24/2015,Judge
GMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:04/15/2015)
04/16/2015
1009 WitnessListbyBrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:04/16/2015)
04/16/2015
1010 THIRDQUARTERLYREPORTfromIndependentMonitorRobertWarshaw
fortheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(KMG)(Entered:04/17/2015)
04/17/2015
1011 NOTICEre:ofAppearanceofCounselforDefendantMaricopaCounty,Arizona
byMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:04/17/2015)
04/20/2015
1012 TRIALBRIEF-BenchMemorandumforOrdertoShowCauseHearingby
04/20/2015
1013 ORDER.TheCourtmettelephonicallywiththepartiesthisafternoonregarding
documentsthatareresponsivetotheCourt'sFebruary12orderthateitherstill
havenotbeenprovidedbytheMCSOorwereprovidedbydepositionwitnesses
afterthesecondtimethattheirdepositionswerere-opened.ThePlaintiffsrequest
thatdocumentproductionbecompletedandsupervisedbytheMonitorandthe
supplementalhearingbefirmlyscheduledtoaccountforthisfailuretotimely
producedocuments.Defendantsraisesomeobjections,whilenotcontestingthat
responsivedocumentswerenottimelyprovidedbytheMCSOandmaynotyet
becompletelyprovided.TheCourtwilladdresstherequestedreliefatthe
RE 982
144/197
(1048 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 150 of 202
beginningoftomorrow'shearing.Thepartiesfurtherdiscussedprocedural
matters,MaricopaCounty'sstatusasapartytothismatteraswellasMCSO's
not-yet-terminatedinternalinvestigationsandmatterspresentedbytheNinth
Circuit'srecentopinion.Thesematterswillalsobeplacedontherecordatthe
beginningoftomorrow'shearing.Plaintiffestimatesthatdespitetheneedto
continuethehearingtotheJunedatesreservedbytheCourt,thePlaintiffwill
havefourfulldaysoftestimonytopresentthisweekgiventhetimelikely
involvedincross-examination.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowonApril20,
2015.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
withthisentry.(GMS)(Entered:04/20/2015)
04/21/2015
1014 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeG.MurraySnow:
EvidentiaryHearing(DayOne)heldon04/21/15.Withoutobjection,theCourt
ordersMaricopaCountyasanamedparty.Defendants'counselmakeanoral
motionforacontinuanceoftoday'shearing.Motionargued.Motiondenied.
Courtstandsinrecessuntil8:30AMon04/22/15.Seeminutesfordetails.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:00a.m.to5:07p.m.(NKS)(Entered:
04/21/2015)
04/21/2015
1015 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyMotiontoWithdrawasCounselofRecord
forDefendantsbyMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrder,#2Exhibit)(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:04/21/2015)
04/22/2015
1016 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTreContemptHearingbyBrianSandsforproceedings
heldon4/21/2015-4/24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Como,
Gregory)(Entered:04/22/2015)
04/22/2015
1017 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearing
04/22/2015)
04/22/2015
04/22/2015
4/21/2015through4/24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,
Richard)(Entered:04/22/2015)
04/22/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(DayTwo)heldon04/22/15.Courtstandsinrecessuntil
8:30AMon04/23/15.Seeminutesfordetails.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
Hearingheld8:36a.m.to5:05p.m.(NKS)(Entered:04/22/2015)
04/23/2015
1021 *NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearingDay2(Pages286-511)Proceedingsheldon04/22/2015,beforeJudgeG.
RE 983
145/197
(1049 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 151 of 202
MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Theorderingpartywillhave
electronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.Allothersmayviewthe
(RAP)*Modifiedon5/4/2015toSealPursuanttoOrder1046(MAP)*.(Entered:
04/23/2015)
04/23/2015
04/21/15through04/24/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,
Lynnette)(Entered:04/23/2015)
04/23/2015
Officeforproceedingsheldon4/22/2015through4/24/2015,JudgeGMurray
Snowhearingjudge(s).(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:04/23/2015)
04/23/2015
Officeforproceedingsheldon04/21/2015,04/22/2015,JudgeGMurraySnow
hearingjudge(s).(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:04/23/2015)
04/23/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day3)heldon4/23/2015.MaricopaCountyreservesits
righttocontestitsstatusasaparty.Courtstandsinrecessuntil8:30AMon
4/24/15.Seeminutesfordetails.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld8:34
AMto5:25PM.(KFZ)(Entered:04/23/2015)
04/24/2015
04/21/2015to04/24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Caspar,
04/24/2015
1027 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearingDay3(Pages512-817)Proceedingsheldon04/23/2015,beforeJudgeG.
04/24/2015
1028 *AMENDEDMOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyAMENDEDAND
SUPPLEMENTALAPPLICATIONTOWITHDRAWASCOUNSELOF
RECORDFORDEFENDANTSbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Liddy,Thomas)*Modifiedto
correcteventon4/24/2015(KMG).(Entered:04/24/2015)
04/24/2015
NOTICEofrequestfore-noticesbyStephenMontoya.(Montoya,Stephen)
(Entered:04/24/2015)
04/24/2015
1029 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyShawnThompsonforKTVKforproceedingsheld
RE 984
146/197
(1050 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 152 of 202
on04/23/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:
04/24/2015)
04/24/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day4)heldon4/24/2015.ORDEREDthatPlaintiffs'brief
regardingattorney/clientprivilegeduebyApril30,2015.ResponsesduebyMay
7,2015.Objections,ifanyto1028MotiontoWithdrawasAttorneyduebyMay
6,2015.StatusConferenceissetfor5/8/2015at9:00AMinCourtroom602,401
WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
EvidentiaryhearingtoresumeonadatetobedeterminedinJune2015.See
minutesfordetails.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld8:41AMto5:56
PM.(KFZ)(Entered:04/27/2015)
04/25/2015
1030 (AmendedbyDoc.1043)NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPT
ofEvidentiaryHearing-Day4(Pages818-1030)Proceedingsheldon
04/24/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).The
orderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.All
othersmayviewthetranscriptatthecourtpublicterminaloritmaybepurchased
throughtheCourtReporter/TranscriberbyfilingaTranscriptOrderFormonthe
docketbeforethedeadlineforReleaseofTranscriptRestriction.Afterthatdateit
maybeobtainedthroughPACER.RedactionRequestdue5/18/2015.Redacted
7/24/2015.(RAP)Modifiedon4/29/2015(KAR).(Entered:04/27/2015)
04/25/2015
1043 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALAMENDEDTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiary
Hearing-Day4(Pages818-1018)Proceedingsheldon04/24/2015,before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Theorderingpartywill
haveelectronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.Allothersmayviewthe
(RAP)Modifiedon4/29/2015toreflecttranscriptamendedtocorrectpage
numbering.(KAR).(Entered:04/29/2015)
04/27/2015
1032 ORDERDuringtheevidentiaryhearingonApril23,2015,theCourtorderedthe
MCSODefendantstoimmediatelydisclosecertainmaterialsdiscussedinthe
Court'scolloquywithSheriffArpaio.Becauseoftheneedforthedisclosureto
occuronanexpeditedbasis,thedocumentswerenotinitiallyBatesstampedfor
controlpurposes.Attorneyreviewforprivilegewasconducted
contemporaneouslywiththisproduction,anddualcopiesofthedocumentswere
made,oneofwhichwasprovidedtotheMonitorandtheotherwhichwas
retainedbytheMCSODefendants.TheMCSOisstillintheprocessof
producingsomesuchdocuments.TheMCSODefendantsshallpromptlyaffix
BatesnumberstothedocumentsdisclosedtotheMonitorand,assoonasis
reasonablypossible,transmitcopiesoftheBates-stampedmaterials,alongwitha
detailedprivilegelogforanydocumentswithheld,toPlaintiffs,theMonitor,
speciallyappearingpartyBrianSands,andMaricopaCounty,whichhasbeen
reinstatedasapartytothisaction.TheMonitorwillcomparetheBatesstamped
documentsprovidedbytheMCSOdefendantswiththesetofdocuments
providedbytheMCSODefendantswithoutbatesnumberstoverifythatthetwo
RE 985
147/197
(1051 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 153 of 202
setsofdocumentsareidentical.TheMonitorwillinformtheCourtassoonas
possibleastoanylackofidentityofthedocumentssets,andtheparticularsof
suchapparentdiscrepancies.AnyissuesthatarisewillberesolvedbytheCourt.
ObjectionstotheaforementionedproceduremustberaisedwiththeCourtno
laterthanApril28,2015.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon4/27/2015.
04/27/2015
1033 SEALEDORDERre1031-ITISTHEREFOREORDEREDthatMs.Clarkand
Mr.LiddysubmittheaforementionedlettersundersealtoMagistrateJudgeJohn
Z.Boylenolaterthan5:00p.m.onApril29,2015.(Seedocumentforfurther
details).SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon4/27/15.(LAD)cc:Counselfor
Plaintiffs,CounselforDefendants,KarenClark,LeeDavidStein,Gregory
StephenComo,MelvinMcDonald,GaryBirnbaum,DavidEisenberg,Robert
Warshaw)(Entered:04/27/2015)
04/27/2015
1041 *SEALEDTRANSCRIPTEXCERPTofProceedingsheldon4/24/15before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:
(EvidentiaryHearingDay4,pages1019-1035).(MAP)*Modifiedtextmodified
filedatefrom4/24/2015to4/27/2015on4/29/2015(KAR)(CEI).(Entered:
04/29/2015)
04/28/2015
1034 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverforEvidentiaryHearingproceedings
heldon04/21-24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:
04/28/2015)
04/28/2015
1035 OBJECTIONtoCourt-OrderedDisclosureProcedurebyDefendantsJosephM
04/28/2015)
04/29/2015
1036 NOTICEofAppearancebyMicheleMarieIafrateonbehalfofJosephMArpaio,
04/29/2015
1037 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyTimothyJCaseyforproceedingsheldon
04/23/15,04/24/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Clark,Karen)
(Entered:04/29/2015)
04/29/2015
1038 MOTIONtoSealDocument1021TranscriptportionofbyJosephMArpaio,
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1,#2Textof
ProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:04/29/2015)
04/29/2015
1039 RESPONSEre:1035ObjectionbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
04/29/2015
1040 NOTICEre:NOTICETOTHECOURTREGARDINGCOMPLIANCEWITH
ORDERATDOC.1033ANDSEALEDORDERATDOC.1033-1byJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Liddy,Thomas)(Entered:
04/29/2015)
04/29/2015
1042 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyAdamLongoforCBS5NewsKPHO-TVfor
TestimonyofJerrySheridanproceedingsheldon04/24/2015,JudgeGMurray
Snowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:04/29/2015)
04/30/2015
1044 NOTICEre:CompliancebyTimothyJCasey.(Clark,Karen)(Entered:
RE 986
148/197
(1052 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 154 of 202
04/30/2015)
04/30/2015
1045 MOTIONforDiscoveryofAttorney-ClientandWorkProductionInformationby
AffidavitDeclarationofJoshuaBendor,#2ExhibitIndexandExhibitsA-Eto
DeclarationofJoshuaBendor,#3ExhibitExhibitsF-StoDeclarationofJoshua
Bendor,#4TextofProposedOrder)(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:04/30/2015)
05/04/2015
1046 ORDERgranting1038MotiontoSealTranscript.TheCourtdirectstheClerkof
theCourttosealthetranscriptoftheApril22,2015EvidentiaryHearing(Doc.
1021)topreservetheprivilegednatureoftheinformationcommunicatedtothe
CourtbyThomasLiddy,oftheMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice,regarding
thenatureofhisethicalconflictandpendingMotiontoWithdraw.Aversionof
thetranscriptthatomitsthechallengedsidebardiscussionwillberefiledand
availableforordershortlythereafter.TheprivilegedexcerptoftheApril22,
2015hearingtranscript,page307,line23topage311,line16,shallbe
maintainedunderseal.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/4/15.(MAP)
(Entered:05/04/2015)
05/05/2015
1047 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTREBENCHTRIALbyBrianSandsforproceedings
heldon7-19,24,25,26,31and8/1,2012,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Como,Gregory)(Entered:05/05/2015)
05/05/2015
1048 ORDERthattheproceduresetforthunderOrder696istemporarilysuspended.
Ms.WilsonisdirectedtoauthorizepaymentoftheMonitor'sAprilinvoice.Ms.
Wilsonandhercounselremainundertheconfidentialityobligationssetforth
underOrder696forthosereviewsthattheyhaveconductedtodate.SeeOrder
fordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/5/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:
05/05/2015)
05/05/2015
1049 ORDER:AStatusConferenceissetforMay8,2015.Thepartiesaretobe
preparedtodiscussvariousmatters(seeattachedOrderfordetails).
Continued/supplementalContemptHearingissetforJune16-19,2015at9:00
AMinCourtroom602,401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003before
JudgeGMurraySnow.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/5/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:05/05/2015)
05/05/2015
1051 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALREDACTEDTRANSCRIPTof
EvidentiaryHearing-Day2(Pages286-511)-Redacted-SealedProceedings
OmittedProceedingsheldon04/22/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Court
Reporter:GaryMoll).FiledpursuanttoOrder1046.Theorderingpartywill
05/06/2015
1050 TRANSCRIPTREQUEST(AMENDED)byBrianSandsforproceedingsheld
on7/19,7/24-26,7/31,8/1-2/2012,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
RE 987
149/197
(1053 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 155 of 202
05/07/2015
1052 NOTICEre:CompletionofInternalInvestigationsbyJosephMArpaio,
05/07/2015
1053 *ORDERReDeterminationWhetherDocumentsareProtectedfromDisclosure
bytheAttorney-ClientPrivilegeand/orWork-ProductImmunity.SeeOrderfor
Details.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon5/7/15.(cc:AUSA/Dft's
Cnsl/KarenClark/LeeDavidStein/GregoryStephenComo/MelvinMcDonald/
GaryBirnbaum/DavidEisenberg/RobertWarshaw)(MAP)*Modifiedon
5/13/2015toUnsealPursuanttoOrder1082(MAP)*.(Entered:05/07/2015)
05/07/2015
1054 OBJECTIONre:1048Order,andMotionforRescissionorModificationof,
OrderrePaymentofMonitorBillingsbyDefendantMaricopa,Countyof.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Walker,Richard)(Entered:05/07/2015)
05/07/2015
1055 *NOTICEofAppearancebyTerrencePWoodsonbehalfofInterestedParties
TomLiddy,AnnUgliettaandDouglasSchwab.(Woods,Terrence)*Modifiedto
addfilerson5/8/2015(KMG).(Entered:05/07/2015)
05/07/2015
1056 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1045MOTIONforDiscoveryofAttorney-Client
andWorkProductionInformationfiledbyJosephMArpaio.(Iafrate,Michele)
(Entered:05/07/2015)
05/07/2015
1057 *STRICKENbyDoc.1093--MOTIONtoIntervenebyDennisLMontgomery.
(submittedbyJonathonAMoseley)(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder)(KMG)
Modifiedon5/14/2015(KFZ).(Entered:05/08/2015)
05/07/2015
1058 *MEMORANDUMinSupportof1057MOTIONtoInterveneand1067Motion
toDisqualifyJudgeSnowbyIntervenorDennisLMontgomery.(submittedby
JonathonAMoseley)(KMG)*Modifiedtoincludedocumentlinkageon
5/8/2015(KMG).(Entered:05/08/2015)
05/07/2015
1067 *STRICKENbyDoc.1093--MOTIONtoDisqualifyJudgeUnder28:144by
IntervenorDennisLMontgomery.(submittedbyJonathonMoseley)(KMG)
05/08/2015
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,AndreSeguraandHyunByun
(telephonically),StanleyYoung,DanielPochodaandJoshBendorforPlaintiffs.
MicheleIafrateandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.Arpaio
andMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.
DavidEisenberg(telephonically)forLieutenantJosephSousa.GaryBirnbaum
forDeputyChiefMacIntyre.BarryMitchellforChiefDeputySheridan,whois
alsopresent.GregoryComoforBrianSands.TerrenceWoodsforThomas
Liddy,AnnUgliettaandDouglasSchwab.KarenClarkforTimCasey.Chief
RobertWarshaw,DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez,andSandi
Wilsonalsopresent.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:01AMto
10:22AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
05/08/2015
1060 ORDERReApplicationofAttorneyforAdmissiontoPracticeProHacVice
fromMr.JonathonA.Moseley.ORDEREDdirectingtheClerkofCourttosend
RE 988
150/197
(1054 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 156 of 202
acopyofthisOrderto:JonathonA.Moseley.FURTHERORDEREDdirecting
theClerkofCourttosendacopyofthedditionalInformationbymailtoall
Plaintiffs'CounselandDefenseCounselofrecord.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon5/8/15.(MAP)(Entered:05/08/2015)
05/08/2015
05/08/2015
1062 SealedAdditionalAttachmenttoOrder1060.(cc:Plaintiffs'Cnsl/Dfts'Cnsl)
(MAP)(Entered:05/08/2015)
05/08/2015
05/08/2015
1064 ORDERDeputyCountyAttorneysThomasLiddy,AnnThompsonUglietta,and
DouglasSchwab'sAmendedandSupplementalApplicationtoWithdrawas
CounselofRecordforDefendants(Doc.1028)isGRANTED.TheCourtwill
holdweeklystatusconferencesaccordingtotheschedulesetforthbelow,at
whichout-of-statecounselmayappeartelephonically:Thursday,May14,2015
at9:30a.m.Friday,May22,2015at9:30a.m.Friday,May29,2015at10:00
a.m.Friday,June5,2015at9:30a.m.Friday,June12,2015at9:30a.m.The
PartiesshallholdthedatesofJune2326,2015tofollowtheresumptionofthe
showcauseproceedingsonJune16-19,2015.Thehearingswillbecontinuedas
follows:Tuesday,June23,2015at1:30p.m.Wednesday,June24,2015at9:00
a.m.Thursday,June25,2015at1:30p.m.Friday,June26,2015at9:00a.m.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/8/2015.(SeeOrderforcompletedetails.)
05/08/2015
1065 AMENDEDORDER-Previouslythepartiesagreedtoaconfidentialprocedure
inwhichSandiWilson,DeputyCountyManagerforMaricopaCounty,andher
attorneyreviewedonamonthlyandconfidentialbasisthedetailedbillingsofthe
monitorpriortoauthorizingpayment.Thedetailsofthatarrangementandthe
requiredconfidentialityproceduresweresetforthintheCourt'sOrder(Doc.696
).Recently,MaricopaCountyhasseparatelyre-enteredthisactiontoassertrights
thatitclaimstobeseparatefromtheinterestsofSheriffArpaioand/orthe
MCSO.Inlightofthatindependentrepresentationwhichmaywellencompass
Ms.Wilson'sinterests,theCourtisuncomfortableauthorizingthiscontinued
reviewwithoutreconsideringthematterwiththeparties.Therefore,pending
reconsiderationofthismatterwithallparties,theproceduresetforthunderthe
Order(Doc.696)isatleasttemporarilysuspended.MaricopaCountyisdirected
toauthorizepaymentoftheMonitor'sAprilinvoice.Ms.Wilsonandhercounsel
remainundertheconfidentialityobligationssetforthundertheOrder(Doc.696)
forthosereviewsthattheyhaveconductedtodate.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
05/08/2015
1066 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopa,CountyofforproceedingsheldonMay
8,2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,Richard)(Entered:
05/08/2015)
RE 989
151/197
(1055 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 157 of 202
05/08/2015
1068 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyFernandaSantosforTheNewYorkTimesfor
entiretranscriptforEvidentiaryHearingproceedingsheldApril21-24,2015,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:05/08/2015)
05/08/2015
1086 *(AMENDEDBYDOC.1464)NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIAL
TRANSCRIPTofStatusConferenceProceedingsheldon05/08/2015,before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Theorderingpartywill
(RAP)*Modifiedon10/14/2015(RAP).(Entered:05/14/2015)
05/11/2015
05-08-2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,Lynnette)
(Entered:05/11/2015)
05/11/2015
1070 NOTICEre:CorrespondenceSenttoCentralIntelligenceAgencybyJosephM
Arpaio.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:05/11/2015)
05/12/2015
1071 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonB.SilverforStatusConferenceproceedings
05/12/2015)
05/12/2015
1072 *AMENDEDatDoc.1073SEALEDObjectiontoUnsealingofOrderand
DocumentsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedon5/13/2015(SCH).*Modifiedon5/13/2015to
changefromlodgedtofiledpursuanttoJZBChambers(MAP)*.(Entered:
05/12/2015)
05/12/2015
1073 *SEALEDAmendedObjectiontoUnsealingofOrderandDocument-Cover
SheetAddedfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
(Iafrate,Michele)*Modifiedon5/13/2015tochangefromlodgedtofiled
pursuanttoJZBChambers(MAP)*.(Entered:05/12/2015)
05/12/2015
1074 NOTICEre:LodgingUnderSealObjectiontoUnsealingofOrderand
DocumentsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:1073
SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:05/12/2015)
05/13/2015
1075 NOTICEre:LodgingbyTimothyJCasey.(Clark,Karen)(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1076 NOTICEre:SupplementtoNoticeRegardingCompletionofInternal
InvestigationsbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficere:1052
Notice(Other).(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1077 *SEALEDNon-PartyCasey'sObjectionToMagistrateJudgeBoyle'sSealed
OrderDatedMay7,2015-FiledUnderSealfiledbyTimothyJCasey.(Clark,
Karen)*Modifiedon5/13/2015tochangefromlodgedtofiledpursuanttoJZB
Chambers(MAP)*.(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1078 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1045MOTIONforDiscoveryofAttorney-
RE 990
152/197
(1056 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 158 of 202
ClientandWorkProductionInformationfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1079 ORDER:AStatusConferenceissetforMay14,2015at9:30a.m.Theparties
aretobepreparedtodiscussvariousmatters(seeattachedOrderfordetails).
05/13/2015
1080 NOTICEofClarificationofMotionforAdmittanceProHacViceofJonathonA
MoseleybyDennisLMontgomery.(KMG)(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1081 NOTICEofSUPPLEMENTALMemoranduminSupportofMotionre:1057
MOTIONtoIntervenebyIntervenorDennisLMontgomery.(KMG)(Entered:
05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1082 ORDERThattheClerkshallunsealDoc.1053andtheappendeddocuments.
Theobjections(Docs.1072,1073,and1077)shallremainunderseal.Signed
byMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon5/13/15.(MAP)(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1083 RESPONSEtoCourt'sInquiryRegardingEthicalRule3.3(a)(3)byDefendant
JosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1ExhibitCover,1-2)(Iafrate,Michele)
(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1084 SEALEDORDERReUnsealingofCourt'sOrderandDocuments.SeeOrderfor
Details.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon5/13/15.(cc:CnslforPlas,
Dfts/KarenClark/LeeDavidStein/GregoryStephenComo/MelvinMcDonald/
GaryBirnbaum/DavidEisenberg/RobertWarshaw)(MAP)(Entered:
05/13/2015)
05/13/2015
1085 MOTIONtoCompelProductionofInternalAffairsReportsbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
Order)(Segura,Andre)(Entered:05/13/2015)
05/14/2015
14,2015StatusConference,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,
05/14/2015
1088 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Status
APPEARANCES:AndreSeguraandTammyAlbarran(telephonically),Cecillia
Wang,StanleyYoung,DanielPochodaandJoshuaBendorforPlaintiffs.
MicheleIafrateandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.Arpaio,
whoisalsopresent,andMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerfor
MaricopaCounty.DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa.GaryBirnbaum
forDeputyChiefMacIntyre.BarryMitchellforChiefDeputySheridan,whois
alsopresent.GregoryComoforBrianSands.KarenClarkforTimCasey.Chief
RobertWarshaw,DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvin,SherryKiyler,andRaul
Martinez(telephonically).(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:34AMto
10:59AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
05/14/2015
RE 991
153/197
(1057 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 159 of 202
05/14/2015
05/14/2015
1091 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyTomLiddyforproceedingsheldon05-14-15,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Woods,Terrence)(Entered:
05/14/2015)
05/14/2015
1092 OBJECTIONtotheCourt'sExpansionofPlaintiffClassbyDefendantsJoseph
MArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
05/14/2015)
05/14/2015
1093 ORDERthatthismatterisreferredbacktoJudgeBoyleforre-evaluationon
discoverymattersJonathonA.Moseley'sApplicationofAttorneyforAdmission
toPracticeProHacViceisdenied1057MotiontoInterveneisstricken1067
MotiontoDisqualifyJudgeisstricken.TheCourtordersthatthepartiesproceed
toeffectivelymanagediscovery.SeeattachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon5/14/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:05/14/2015)
05/14/2015
1094 ORDERgrantinginpartanddenyinginpart1045Plaintiffs'Motionfor
Discovery.SeeattachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
5/14/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:05/14/2015)
05/15/2015
1095 ORDERofUSCA(re15-71433)-Petitionerhasnotdemonstratedthatthiscase
warrantstheinterventionofthiscourtbymeansoftheextraordinaryremedyof
mandamus.Accordingly,theemergencypetitionisdenied.Nofurtherfilings
willbeentertainedinthisclosedcase.(LAD)(DistributedbytheNinthCircuit)
(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1098 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyAdamLongoofKPHO-TVforStatusConference
(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
05-14-2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,Lynnette)
RE 992
154/197
(1058 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 160 of 202
(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1100 ORDER:OnMay14,2015,DistrictJudgeG.MurraySnowreferredtothis
Courtanevaluationofwhetherthework-productimmunitycontinuestoapplyto
theredactedmaterialsappendedtoDoc.1053,inlightofstatementsmadeby
ChiefDeputySheridantothepress.(Doc.1093.)PursuanttoJudgeSnow's
Order,ifthepartieswishtosubmitbriefingtoMagistrateJudgeBoyleonthis
issue,theymustdosonolaterthanTuesday,May19,2015at5:00P.M.Signed
byMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon5/15/2015.(REK)(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1101 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJonathonMoseleyforStatusConference
(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1102 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJonathonMoseleyforStatusConference
(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1103 *OBJECTIONtoandMOTIONtoLimitExpansionof,orInclusioninto,
PlaintiffClassDesignationofPersonsPlacedinto,orTransportedin,Vehiclesas
aResultofSheriff's"WorksiteOperations",andtoDiscoveryRelatedTheretoby
DefendantMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)*ModifiedtiincludeMotion
on5/18/2015(KMG).(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/15/2015
1104 NOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuitCourtofAppealsre:606Permanent
Injunction,Judgment,579FindingsofFact&ConclusionsofLaw,494Orderon
MotionforSummaryJudgment,OrderonMotiontoCertifyClass,Orderon
MotionforPartialSummaryJudgment,OrderonMotionforLeavetoFile,670
PermanentInjunctionbyMaricopa,Countyof.Filingfeereceived:$505.00,
receiptnumber0970-11686464.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit,#3
Exhibit)(Walker,Richard)(Entered:05/15/2015)
05/18/2015
Circuit.(copiessentbytheNinthCircuit)(REW)(Entered:05/18/2015)
05/19/2015
May14,2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Caspar,Edward)
(Entered:05/19/2015)
05/19/2015
1107 SEALEDLODGEDProposedObjectiontoRe-EvaluationofDisclosuresMade
onBehalfofTimCasey.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionorStipulation
toSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
05/19/2015
1108 NOTICEre:LodgingUnderSealObjectiontoRe-EvaluationofDisclosures
MadeonBehalfofTimCaseybyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officere:1107SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
05/19/2015)
05/19/2015
1112 MOTIONforReconsiderationre:1093OrderonMotionforAdmittanceProHac
ViceofJonathonA.MoseleyonbehalfofDennisLMontgomery.(33pages)
05/20/2015
1109 MOTIONforLeavetoAppearByTelephonebyJosephSousa.(Attachments:#
1TextofProposedOrder)(Eisenberg,David)Modifiedon5/20/2015(KFZ).
RE 993
155/197
(1059 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 161 of 202
(Entered:05/20/2015)
05/20/2015
1110 AMENDEDMOTIONforLeavetoAppearbyTelephonebyJosephSousa.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Eisenberg,David)Modifiedon
5/20/2015(KFZ).(Entered:05/20/2015)
05/20/2015
1111 ITISORDEREDgranting1110Mr.Eisenberg'sMotionforLeavetoAppear
TelephonicallyfortheStatusConferenceon5/22/15at9:30a.m.Orderedby
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(GMS,ag)(ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereis
no.pdfdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.)(Entered:05/20/2015)
05/20/2015
1113 RESPONSEre:1092ObjectiontothePurported"Expansion"ofthePlaintiff
ClassbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Albarran,Tammy)(Entered:05/20/2015)
05/20/2015
1114 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1085MOTIONtoCompelProductionofInternal
AffairsReportsfiledbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
05/21/2015
1115 ORDERForthereasonsdiscussed(seeOrderforcompletedetails,)theCourt
findsthatChiefDeputySheridan'sstatementstothepresswaivedtheworkproductprotectionsastotheredactedportionsoftheNovember6,2013letter
thatarespecificallyaddressedinthosestatements.Thewaiver,however,does
notextendtotheotherredactedportionsoftheletterthatwerenotdiscussedby
ChiefDeputySheridanintheinterview.AcopyofthenewlyredactedNovember
6,2013letterisattachedtothisOrder.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyle
on5/21/2015.(KMG)(Entered:05/21/2015)
05/21/2015
1116 NOTICEre:ofFilingPetitionforPanelRehearingandEnBancDetermination
RecentlyFiledinU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitbyMaricopa,
Countyof.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Walker,Richard)(Entered:05/21/2015)
05/22/2015
1117 MOTIONforRecusal,MOTIONtoDisqualifyJudgebyJosephMArpaio,
GerardSheridan.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1,#2Exhibit2,#3Exhibit3,#4
Exhibit4,#5Exhibit5,#6Exhibit6,#7Exhibit7,#8Exhibit8,#9Exhibit9,
#10Exhibit10,#11CertificateofGoodFaith,#12CertificateofGoodFaith,#
13CertificateofGoodFaith)(McDonald,Andrew)(Entered:05/22/2015)
05/22/2015
1118 MINUTEORDER:ITISORDEREDthatTerrenceWoodsshallimmediately
fileaNoticeofAppearanceonbehalfofChristineStutz.ThisisaTEXT
(Entered:05/22/2015)
05/22/2015
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,StanleyYoungandTammyAlbarran
(telephonically),CecilliaWangandDanielPochodaforPlaintiffs.Michele
IafrateandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.Arpaioand
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.David
Eisenberg(telephonically)forLieutenantJosephSousa.GaryBirnbaumfor
DeputyChiefMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.BarryMitchellforChiefDeputy
Sheridan,whoisalsopresent.M.CraigMurdyforBrianSands.TerrenceWoods
RE 994
156/197
(1060 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 162 of 202
forThomasLiddyandChristineStutz.KarenClarkforTimothyCasey.Deputy
MonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez(telephonically).(CourtReporter
CandyPotter.)Hearingheld9:37AMto9:49AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRY
05/22/2015)
05/22/2015
1120 ORDER:InlightoftheMotionforRecusalorMotiontoDisqualify1117filed
thismorning,ITISHEREBYORDEREDvacatingtheStatusConferencesset
forMay29,June5andJune12,2015.TheCourtshallissuenofurtherorders
untiltheMotionisfullybriefedand/orarulinghasbeenissued.FURTHER
ORDEREDdirectingthepartiestocontinuetoholdthedatesinJuneforthe
continuedcivilcontempthearingsorfordiscovery,untilfurthernoticeofthe
Court.FURTHERORDEREDdirectingthepartiestoinformtheCourtoftheir
intentiontofileresponsestotheMotiononorbeforeMay29,2015andsubmita
jointexpeditedscheduleforresponsesand/orreplies.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
Snowon5/22/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:05/22/2015)
05/22/2015
1121 NOTICEofAppearancebyTerrencePWoodsonbehalfofChristineStutz.
(Woods,Terrence)(Entered:05/22/2015)
05/22/2015
05/22/2015
05/22/2015
ManuelNieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguezforproceedings
heldon05/22/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)
(Entered:05/22/2015)
05/26/2015
05/26/2015)
05/26/2015
1127 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyLaurenEPedleyonbehalf
ofplaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,ManuelNieto,Jr,David
05/27/2015)
05/26/2015
Reporter:CandyL.Potter).Theorderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccesstothe
05/27/2015)
05/27/2015
1126 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTforStatusConferencebyUnitedStatesofAmerica
RE 995
157/197
(1061 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 163 of 202
forproceedingsheldon05-22-2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
(Kimmins,Lynnette)(Entered:05/27/2015)
05/27/2015
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX158940astoLaurenE
Pedley.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
05/27/2015
05/27/2015
1129 NOTICEre:ofitsPositionrePendingMotionforRecusalorDisqualificationby
Maricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:05/27/2015)
05/27/2015
1131 NOTICEofAppearancebyErnestCalderononbehalfofWilliamMontgomery,
MaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice.(Calderon,Ernest)(Entered:05/27/2015)
05/29/2015
05/29/2015
1133 *AmendedbyDoc.1134-NOTICEre:DocumentRequestbytheU.S.
DepartmentofJustice.Earlierthisweek,theCourt-appointedMonitorreceiveda
requestfromtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJusticetocopytheharddrives
containingthedocumentsthatDennisMontgomerydeliveredtotheMaricopa
CountySherriff'sOffice,andthatwereallegedlyharvestedfromtheCentral
IntelligenceAgency.TheDepartmentofJusticehasrequestedtocopythesehard
drivesonTuesday,June2,2015underthesupervisionofacourt-appointed
securityofficer.ShouldanyPartywishtobeheardregardingthisrequestor
procedure,itshouldimmediatelynotifytheCourtwithitscommentsor
objectionsandthereasonstherefore.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
5/29/2015.(KFZ)Modifiedon5/29/2015(KFZ).(Entered:05/29/2015)
05/29/2015
1134 AMENDEDNOTICEre:DocumentRequestbytheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.
Earlierthisweek,theCourt-appointedMonitorreceivedarequestfromthe
UnitedStatesDepartmentofJusticetocopythedocumentsandharddrives
containingmaterialsthatDennisMontgomerydeliveredtotheMaricopaCounty
Sherriff'sOfficeandthatwereallegedlyharvestedfromtheCentralIntelligence
Agency.TheDepartmentofJusticehasrequestedtocopytheseharddriveson
Tuesday,June2,2015underthesupervisionofacourt-appointedsecurity
officer.ShouldanyPartywishtobeheardregardingthisrequestorprocedure,it
shouldimmediatelynotifytheCourtwithitscommentsorobjectionsandthe
reasonstherefore.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon5/29/2015(KFZ)
(Entered:05/29/2015)
05/29/2015
1135 *NOTICEre:ResponsetoCourtOrder1120regarding1117MOTIONfor
RecusalorMOTIONtoDisqualifyJudgebyJosephSousa.(Eisenberg,David)
RE 996
158/197
(1062 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 164 of 202
*Modifiedtoincludedocumentrelationshipon6/1/2015(KMG).(Entered:
05/29/2015)
05/29/2015
1136 NOTICEre:BrianSands'ResponsetoOrderDatedMay22,2015byBrian
Sandsre:1120Order,TerminateHearings.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:
05/29/2015)
05/29/2015
1137 *NOTICEre:NoticeofResponsetoOrderDatedMay22,2015re1117byTom
Liddy.(Woods,Terrence)*Modifiedtoincludedocumentrelationshipon
6/1/2015(KMG).(Entered:05/29/2015)
05/29/2015
1138 OBJECTIONre:1134Notice(Other)toProcedureSetForthbyCourtby
DefendantsJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Iafrate,
05/29/2015
1139 NOTICEre:JointBriefingScheduleforResponseandReplyregarding
Defendants'MotionforRecusalbyJosephMArpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff's
Officere:1120Order,TerminateHearings.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
05/29/2015)
05/30/2015
06/08/2015)
06/01/2015
1140 SUPPLEMENTto1112MOTIONforReconsiderationandOBJECTIONto
ProcedureSetForthbytheCourt's1134AmendedNoticereDocumentRequest
bytheUSDepartmentofJusticebyIntervenorDennisLMontgomery.(LAD)(6
pages)(Entered:06/01/2015)
06/01/2015
1141 CLARIFICATIONReDocuments1117and1120andVACATINGEvidentiary
HearingofJune16-1923-26,2015.Seeattachmentfordetails.SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon6/1/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:06/01/2015)
06/02/2015
06/02/2015
1143 NOTICEofAppearancebyJohnTMastersononbehalfofJosephMArpaio.
(Masterson,John)(Entered:06/02/2015)
06/02/2015
06/02/2015)
06/03/2015
1145 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1112MOTIONforReconsiderationre:1093Orderon
MotiontoIntervene,OrderonMotiontoDisqualifyJudgeSheriffJosephArpaio
andChiefDeputyGerardSheridan'sResponsetoPutativeIntervenorDennis
RE 997
159/197
(1063 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 165 of 202
Montgomery'sSupplementtoMotionforReconsiderationfiledbyJosephM
Arpaio.(McDonald,Andrew)(Entered:06/03/2015)
06/03/2015
1146 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyDeborahL.GarnerbyJosephMArpaio,
06/05/2015
1147 ORDER:TheCourtdirectsthatMs.WilsonelectronicallyfileherMay7
objectionsandMay28submissioninaccordancewiththeproceduresutilizedin
theDistrictofArizona,sothatallpartiesmayhaveaccessthereto.IfMs.Wilson
objectstothedocumentsbeingfiledpublicly,sheisdirectedtolodgethefilings
undersealalongwithanyobjectionswithinfivedays.Seeorderforadditional
details.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/5/2015.(LMR)(Entered:
06/05/2015)
06/08/2015
1148 NOTICEre:SubmissionofDocumentsPreviouslyFiledInCameraUnderSeal
byMaricopaCountyAdministration.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibits1-2)
(Baker,Katherine)(Entered:06/08/2015)
06/12/2015
1150 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1117MOTIONforRecusalMOTIONto
DisqualifyJudgefiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Attachments:#1Affidavit,#2Affidavit)(Wang,Cecillia)(Entered:
06/12/2015)
06/12/2015
1151 NOTICEre:ofLodgingUnderSealbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
06/12/2015
1152 MOTIONtoSealDocument(Unopposed)byManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Wang,
06/15/2015
1153 *FILEDatDoc.1166--SEALEDLODGEDProposedSealedDeclarationof
CecilliaWanginSupportofPlaintiffs'OppositiontoMotionforRecusalor
DisqualificationoftheCourtre:1152MOTIONtoSealDocument(Unopposed).
DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionorStipulationtoSealisgranted.Filed
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Wang,Cecillia)
Modifiedon7/10/2015(SJF).(Entered:06/15/2015)
06/15/2015
1154 NOTICEre:ofServicebyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americare:1153SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Wang,Cecillia)
(Entered:06/15/2015)
06/15/2015
1155 ORDERregardingClarificationdatedJune1,2015Doc.1141.TheCourthas
receivedandreviewedtheMonitor'sinvoicedatedJune2,2015forservices
renderedbytheMonitorinMay2015.TheCourtfindstheinvoiceandcharges
tobereasonableanddirectsMaricopaCountytoauthorizepaymentofthe
Monitor'sinvoice.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon6/15/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:06/15/2015)
RE 998
160/197
(1064 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 166 of 202
06/15/2015
1156 NOTICEofFOURTHQUARTERLYCOMPLIANCEREPORTbyJosephM
Arpaio,MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,
Michele)Modifiedon6/16/2015(KMG).(Entered:06/15/2015)
06/17/2015
1157 STATUSREPORTrePaymentofMonitor'sMay2015BillPersonnelto
PerformIn-CameraReviewProcedureforJune2015BillLackofContract
AmendmentbetweenMonitorandMaricopaCountybyMaricopaCounty
Administration.(Baker,Katherine)(Entered:06/17/2015)
06/22/2015
1158 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1117MOTIONforRecusalMOTIONto
DisqualifyJudgefiledbyJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1Exhibit
DeclarationSupplement)(Masterson,John)(Entered:06/22/2015)
06/23/2015
1159 NOTICEofErratare:1158ReplytoResponsetoMotionforRecusalor
DisqualificationonJudgeSnowbyDefendantJosephMArpaio..(Masterson,
John)(Entered:06/23/2015)
06/24/2015
1160 REPLY/SupplementtoMotionre:1112MOTIONforReconsiderationre:1093
OrderonMotiontoIntervene,OrderonMotiontoDisqualifyJudgefiledby
DennisLMontgomery.(KMG)(Entered:06/25/2015)
07/08/2015
1161 SUPPLEMENT(Fourth)toMotionre:1112MOTIONforReconsiderationre:
1093OrderonMotiontoIntervene,OrderonMotiontoDisqualifyJudgeby
IntervenorDennisLMontgomery.(Attachments:#1Continued)(KMG)
(Entered:07/08/2015)
07/08/2015
1162 NOTICEre:ofAppearanceofCo-CounselforDefendantMaricopaCounty,
ArizonabyMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:07/08/2015)
07/09/2015
1163 MANDATEofUSCA,affirmedinpart,vacatedandremandedinparteach
partyshallbearitsowncostsonappeal,re:13-16285and13-17238587,616,
677NoticesofAppeal.(Attachments:#1Order,#2Opinion,#3NDA)(copies
sentbytheNinthCircuit)(REW)(Entered:07/09/2015)
07/10/2015
1164 ORDERthatSheriffArpaioandChiefDeputySheridan'sMotionfor
Recusal/Disqualification(Doc.1117)isDENIED.FURTHERORDEREDthat
anystayonpre-hearingdiscoveryand/ortheactivitiesoftheMonitorrelatedto
theresumptionoftheshow-causehearingsislifted.FURTHERORDERED
settingastatusconferenceinthesemattersforMonday,07/20/15,at11:00AM
inCourtroom602,SandraDayO'ConnorU.S.FederalCourthouse,401W.
WashingtonSt.,Phoenix,Arizona85003.Allpartiesandspeciallyappearing
non-partiesarerequiredtoattend.Thepartiesshallbepreparedtodiscuss:(1)
Defendants'MotionrelatingtothedefinitionofthePlaintiffClass(Doc.1103)
(2)Plaintiffs'MotiontoCompel(Doc.1085)(3)thestatusofMCSO's
remaininginternalinvestigations(4)theDepartmentofJustice'srequesttosee
thedatabaseofdocumentsgivenbyMontgomerytotheMCSO,whichheclaims
tohavetakenfromtheCIA(5)theprocedurespertainingtoMaricopaCounty's
independentreviewoftheMonitor'sbilling(6)whetherMaricopaCountyis
entitledtorepresentationinthislitigationseparatefromSheriffArpaioand(7)
theschedulingofthesecondphaseofthecivilcontempthearings.Seeorderfor
completedetails.SignedbyJudgeG.MurraySnowon7/10/15.(NKS)(Entered:
07/10/2015)
07/10/2015
1165 ORDERdenying1152MotiontoSealDocument1153.FURTHERORDERED
RE 999
161/197
(1065 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 167 of 202
directingtheClerkoftheCourttofilethelodgeddocumentasapublicrecord.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/10/15.(SJF)(Entered:07/10/2015)
07/10/2015
1166 DECLARATIONofCecilliaWangre:1150ResponseinOppositiontoMotion
byPlaintiffs.(SJF)(Entered:07/10/2015)
07/10/2015
1167 ORDERdenying1112Mr.Moseley'sMotionforReconsideration.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon7/10/15.(SJF)(Entered:07/10/2015)
07/10/2015
1168 ORDERgranting1146MotiontoWithdrawDeborahL.GarnerasCounselof
RecordforDefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/10/15.(SJF)(Entered:07/10/2015)
07/10/2015
1169 NOTICEre:Monitor'sBillingProceduresre:County'sStatusReportRe:
RetentionofAccountantforBillReview(Doc.1148,Ex.2)andtheWilson
StatusReport(Doc.1157).(SJF)(Entered:07/10/2015)
07/14/2015
1170 FOURTHQUARTERLYREPORTfromIndependentMonitorRobertWarshaw
fortheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Plaintiffs'
Comments,#2Defendant'sComments)(KFZ)(Entered:07/14/2015)
07/14/2015
1171 MOTIONtoStaybyJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
OrderOrderRegardingMotiontoStay)(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:
07/14/2015)
07/14/2015
1172 NOTICEofErratare:1171MOTIONtoStaybyDefendantJosephMArpaio..
(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibit1)(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:07/14/2015)
07/15/2015
1173 NOTICEOFAPPEALto9thCircuitCourtofAppealsre:1167OrderonMotion
forReconsideration,1164OrderonMotionforRecusal,OrderonMotionto
DisqualifyJudge,and1093OrderonMotiontoIntervene,OrderonMotionto
DisqualifyJudgebyDennisLMontgomery.FilingfeeDUE.(LSP)(Entered:
07/15/2015)
07/15/2015
1174 USCAAppealFeesreceivedre:1173NoticeofAppealfiledbyDennisL
Montgomery.FilingFee$505.00,receiptnumberPHX160708.(LSP)(Entered:
07/15/2015)
07/16/2015
1175 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1171MOTIONtoStayfiledbyManueldeJesus
QuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Bendor,Joshua)(Entered:07/16/2015)
07/17/2015
1176 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1171MOTIONtoStayReplyinSupportof
MotiontoStayfiledbyJosephMArpaio.(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:
07/17/2015)
07/20/2015
1177 MOTIONtoIntervenebyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1,
#2Exhibit2,#3Exhibit3,#4Exhibit3,#5TextofProposedOrder)(Caspar,
07/20/2015
1178 MailReturnedasUndeliverable.MailsenttoScottHuminski.Reasonforreturn:
Attempted-NotKnown.Documentnumber1173.(KGM)(Entered:
07/20/2015)
07/20/2015
RE 1000
162/197
(1066 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 168 of 202
Conferenceheldon7/20/2015.ITISORDEREDdenying1171MotiontoStay.
StatusConferencesetfor7/31/2015at2:00PMinCourtroom602,401West
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.ByJ uly
29,2015,Partiesareorderedtofile(1)suggestedrevisionstotheSupplemental
PermanentInjunctioninlightoftherecentMandateoftheNinthCircuitCourtof
Appeals(seeDoc.1163)(2)schedulesforthecompletionofoutstanding
internalinvestigations,documentproductionrequests,and/orotherdiscovery
and(3)responsestoLarryKlayman'sMotionforAdmissionProHacVice.
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,CecilliaWangandJorgeCastillo(all
telephonically),StanleyYoung,DanielPochodaandJoshuaBendorandfor
Plaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,JohnMasterson,JosephPopolizioandA.Melvin
MaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharlesJirauchfor
MaricopaCounty.LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChiefDeputyGerard
Sheridan,whoisalsopresent.GregoryComoforBrianSands,whoisalso
present.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyandChristineStutz.AprilHamiltonfor
MaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.DavidOuimette
forDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.DavidEisenbergfor
LieutenantJosephSousa.KarenClarkforTimCasey.RaphaelGomezfor
UnitedStatesofAmerica.ChiefRobertWarshaw,DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvin
andRaulMartinez,andmonitorteam.RosaleenO'GaraandLynnetteKimmins
alsopresenttelephonically.LarryKlaymanforDennisMontgomery.(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld11:03AMto12:31PM.ThisisaTEXT
(Entered:07/20/2015)
07/20/2015
1180 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLarryKlaymanforStatusHearingproceedings
07/20/2015)
07/21/2015
1181 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopa,CountyofforproceedingsheldonJuly
07/21/2015
07/20/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:
07/21/2015)
07/21/2015
07/21/2015
1184 NOTICEre:TrialConflictbyBrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:
07/21/2015)
07/21/2015
07/21/2015)
07/21/2015
RE 1001
163/197
(1067 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 169 of 202
07/22/2015)
07/22/2015
1187 ORDER:TheCourthasreceivedandreviewedtheMonitor'sinvoicedatedJuly
2,2015forservicesrenderedbytheMonitorinJune2015.TheCourtfindsthe
invoiceandchargestobereasonableanddirectsMaricopaCountytoauthorize
paymentoftheMonitor'sinvoice.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
7/22/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:07/22/2015)
07/22/2015
Circuit.(CopiessentbytheNinthCircuit.)(KMG)(Entered:07/22/2015)
07/22/2015
(Entered:07/22/2015)
07/24/2015
1190 ORDERsettingIn-CourtHearingfor7/24/2015at03:00PMinCourtroom602,
401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.
SeeattachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/24/2015.
07/24/2015
Hearingheldon7/24/2015.Ordertofollow.
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,CecilliaWangandStanleyYoung(all
telephonically),DanielPochodaandJoshuaBendorandforPlaintiffs.A.Melvin
McDonald,Jr.(telephonically),MicheleIafrate,JohnMastersonandJoseph
PopolizioforDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.CharlesJirauch(telephonically)andRichardWalkerforMaricopa
County.BarryMitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan.GregoryComo
(telephonically)forBrianSands.TerrenceWoods(telephonically)forTom
LiddyandChristineStutz.AprilHamiltonforMaricopaCountyAttorney's
OfficeandWilliamMontgomery.DavidOuimette(telephonically)forDeputy
ChiefJohnMacIntyre.KarenClark(telephonically)forTimCasey.ChiefRobert
Warshaw,DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez,andmonitorteam.
(Entered:07/24/2015)
07/24/2015
1192 ORDER:Defendantsareherebyorderedtoturnoverallitemsofevidence
associatedwithDR14-007250.Defendantsarefurtherorderedtoproducetothe
Marshalsthe1,459identificationsthatlackanassociatedDRnumber.SeeOrder
fordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/24/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:
07/24/2015)
07/24/2015
1193 TRANSCRIPTREQUEST(3:00PMIn-CourtHearing)byJosephMArpaiofor
proceedingsheldon7/24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
RE 1002
164/197
(1068 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 170 of 202
(Ackerman,Justin)(Entered:07/24/2015)
07/25/2015
1194 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofIn-CourtHearing
proceedingsheldon07/24/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Court
07/27/2015)
07/27/2015
1195 STATEMENTofNon-OppositiontoUnitedStates'MotionToIntervenere:
1177MOTIONtoIntervenebyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
07/27/2015
07/27/2015
1197 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverforIn-CourtHearingproceedings
07/27/2015)
07/28/2015
1198 RESPONSEinOppositiontoMotionforAdmissionProHacViceofLarry
KlaymanbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1Exhibit1,#2Exhibit2)(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
07/28/2015)
07/28/2015
1199 ORDERreDRfilesDR15-14899andDR15-011082:Defendantsarehereby
orderedtoturnovereachoftheseDepartmentalReportsandallitemsof
evidenceassociatedwiththoseDRfilestothecustodyoftheUnitedStates
Marshal.RepresentativesoftheMarshalshallcontacttheMCSOtocoordinate
suchtransferwhichshallbetimelyandefficientlyaccomplishedbytheMCSO.
SeeOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon7/28/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:07/28/2015)
07/29/2015
(Entered:07/29/2015)
07/29/2015
1201 NOTICEre:Plaintiffs'ProposedRevisionstoSupplementalPermanent
Injunction/JudgmentOrderbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
Americare:1179OrderonMotiontoStay,StatusConference,Set/Reset
Hearings,CommonPrompts(TextOnly).(Attachments:#1TextofProposed
Order)(Segura,Andre)(Entered:07/29/2015)
07/29/2015
1202 RESPONSEinOppositiontoMotionforAdmissionProHacViceofLarry
KlaymanbyDefendantMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:
RE 1003
165/197
(1069 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 171 of 202
07/29/2015)
07/29/2015
1203 STATEMENTofProposedDeadlinesforDocumentProductionbyDefendants
JosephMArpaio,Maricopa,Countyof.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:07/29/2015)
07/29/2015
1204 RESPONSEre:1179OrderonMotiontoStay,StatusConference,Set/Reset
Hearings,CommonPrompts(TextOnly)ResponsetoMotionforProHacVice
byDefendantJosephMArpaio.(Masterson,John)(Entered:07/29/2015)
07/29/2015
1205 *ProposedRevisionstotheSupplementalPermanentInjunction/JudgmentOrder
re:1179OrderonMotiontoStay,StatusConference,Set/ResetHearings,
CommonPrompts(TextOnly)(DefendantArpaioandMaricopaCounty's
ProposedRevisionstotheSupplementalPermanentInjunction/JudgmentOrder)
byJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Masterson,
John)Modifiedon8/27/2015(KMG).(Entered:07/29/2015)
07/30/2015
1206 *OBJECTIONToDef.Arpaio's/MCSOStatement1203ReProposedDeadline
forDocumentProductionbyInterestedPartyTimothyJCasey.(Attachments:#
1ExhibitExhibits1to8)(Clark,Karen)*Modifiedtoincludedocumentlinkage
on7/31/2015(KMG).(Entered:07/30/2015)
07/31/2015
1207 **AMENDEDbyDoc.1257**MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbefore
JudgeGMurraySnow:StatusConferenceheldon7/31/2015.Ordertofollow.
Wang,StanleyYoung,JoshuaBendor,DanialPochoda,andLaurenPedleyfor
Plaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,MelvinMcDonald,Jr.,andJosephPopoliziofor
DefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.Charles
JirauchandRichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.GregoryComoforBrian
Sands.LeesteinforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.Gary
BirnbaumforDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.David
EisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa,whoisalsopresent.JakeMcLaughlinfor
forTomLiddyandChristineStutz.AprilHamiltonforMaricopaCounty
Attorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.KarenClarkforTimothyCasey.
DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez(telephonically).(Court
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(MMO)
Modifiedon8/20/2015(MMO).(Entered:07/31/2015)
07/31/2015
1208 *AMENDEDbyDoc.1274(Page3,lines3-5only)-ORDER:ITISHEREBY
ORDEREDthatDefendantsaretoturnovertotheUnitedStatesMarshalService
theitemsstatedherein.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthattheDefendantshall
providetheMonitorwiththeaccessandmaterialsdiscussedinthesealedportion
ofthehearingpursuanttothepreviousordersoftheCourtrelatingtosuch
matters.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthepartiesshallholdopenthe
followingdatesfortheresumptionofthecontempthearing:September22-25,
September29-October2,October8-9,13-14,27-30,November2-6,10,12-13,
2015.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatDefendantsshallprovidetotheParties
thedocumentsprovidedforhereinpursuanttothedeadlinesestablisedherein.IT
ISFURTHERORDEREDsettingweeklyStatusConferencesforthefollowing
datesandtimes:8/11/2015at09:00AM,8/21/2015at10:00AM,8/28/2015at
09:30AM,9/4/2015at09:00AM,9/10/2015at09:00AM,and9/18/2015at
RE 1004
166/197
(1070 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 172 of 202
10:30AMinCourtroom602,401WestWashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003
beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.(SeeOrderforcompletedetails.)SignedbyJudge
GMurraySnowon7/31/2015.(MMO)Modifiedon8/28/2015(KFZ).(Entered:
07/31/2015)
07/31/2015
1257 AMENDEDMINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbeforeJudgeGMurray
Snow:AmendingDoc.1207MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldbefore
JudgeGMurraySnow:StatusConferenceheldon7/31/2015.Ordertofollow.
At3:30PM,thepublicwasexcusedfromthecourtroomandtheCourtheld
sealeddiscussionwithparties,counsel,speciallyappearingnon-parties,and
monitors.
Wang,StanleyYoung,JoshuaBendor,DanialPochoda,andLaurenPedleyfor
Plaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,MelvinMcDonald,Jr.,andJosephPopoliziofor
DefendantsJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.Charles
JirauchandRichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.GregoryComoforBrian
Sands.LeesteinforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.Gary
BirnbaumforDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.David
EisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa,whoisalsopresent.JakeMcLaughlinfor
forTomLiddyandChristineStutz.AprilHamiltonforMaricopaCounty
Attorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.KarenClarkforTimothyCasey.
DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez(telephonically).(Court
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(MMO)
ReasonforAmendment:toreflectsealeddiscussionheld.(MMO)(Entered:
08/20/2015)
08/03/2015
1209 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopa,CountyofforproceedingsheldonJuly
08/03/2015
1210 REQUESTre:BrianSands'RequesttobeExcusedfromStatusConferencesby
InterestedPartyBrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:08/03/2015)
08/03/2015
TRANSCRIPTofStatusConferenceVolume1,Pages1-70(SealedProceedings
Omitted)proceedingsheldon07/31/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(Court
9/3/2015.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor11/2/2015.(RAP)*Modified
on8/11/2015(RAP).(Entered:08/11/2015)
08/04/2015
RE 1005
167/197
(1071 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 173 of 202
08/05/2015
1212 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTUnsealedportionbyUnitedStatesofAmericafor
proceedingsheldonVolI-07/31/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
08/05/2015
08/05/2015)
08/06/2015
1214 MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentbyBrianSands.(Como,Gregory)(Entered:
08/06/2015)
08/06/2015
1215 STATEMENTOFFACTSre:1214MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentby
InterestedPartyBrianSands.(Attachments:#1Exhibit1-7,#2Exhibit8-14,#
3Exhibit15-19,#4Exhibit20-21)(Como,Gregory)(Entered:08/06/2015)
08/06/2015
1216 ORDER:ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatahearingonthismatterissetfor
tomorrow,August7,2015at1:00p.m.inCourtroom602,401West
WashingtonStreet,Phoenix,AZ85003beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.See
attachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/6/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:08/06/2015)
08/06/2015
1217 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1177MOTIONtoIntervene(DefendantArpaio's
ResponsetoUnitedStates'MotiontoInterveneandMemoranduminSupport)
filedbyJosephMArpaio.(Masterson,John)(Entered:08/06/2015)
08/06/2015
1218 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1177MOTIONtoIntervenefiledbyMaricopa,
Countyof.(Attachments:#1Exhibit)(Walker,Richard)(Entered:08/06/2015)
08/07/2015
1219 NOTICEre:MaterialsDiscussedinSealedPortionofHearingProvidedtothe
MonitorbyJosephMArpaiore:1208Order,Set/ResetHearings.(Iafrate,
08/07/2015
Hearingheldon8/7/2015.Initialportionofproceedingsheldunderseal,withthe
partiesandcounsel.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,AndreSegura,LaurenPedley,JorgeCastillo
andMichelleMorin(alltelephonically),andJoshuaBendorforPlaintiffs.
MicheleIafrate,JohnMasterson,JosephPopolizioandLindaTivorsakforA.
MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharlesJirauchforMaricopaCounty.Barry
MitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.GregoryComo
andJohnD.WilenchikforBrianSands.TerrenceWoods(telephonically)for
TomLiddyandChristineStutz.DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa.
ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorRaulMartinez(bothtelephonically).
CaptainSteveBailey,MaricopaCountySheriffsOffice.(CourtReporterGary
Moll.)Hearingheld1:02PMto1:40PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.There
08/07/2015
1230 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALAMENDEDTRANSCRIPTofStatus
ConferenceVolume1,Pages1-70(SealedProceedingsOmitted)proceedings
heldon07/31/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).
Addedmissingcourtreporterinformationoncoverpage.Theorderingpartywill
RE 1006
168/197
(1072 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 174 of 202
08/10/2015
1221 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1177MOTIONtoIntervenefiledbyUnited
StatesofAmerica.(Caspar,Edward)(Entered:08/10/2015)
08/10/2015
August7,2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,Richard)
(Entered:08/10/2015)
08/10/2015
1223 REPLYtoResponsetoMotiontoAppearProHacVicere:1057MOTIONto
IntervenefiledbyDennisLMontgomery.(Attachments:#1continued)
(submittedbyLarryKlayman)(KMG)(Entered:08/10/2015)
08/10/2015
1231 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofIn-CourtHearing
(Volume2,Pages25-39)proceedingsheldon08/07/2015,beforeJudgeG.
08/10/2015
1232 *SEALEDTRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon8/7/15beforeJudgeG.
MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:In-CourtHearing
(Volume1,Pages1-24).(MAP)*Modifiedon8/14/2015UnsealedPursuantto
GMSChambers(MAP)*.(Entered:08/12/2015)
08/11/2015
08/11/2015)
08/11/2015
1225 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedPursuanttoCourtOrdersbyJosephMArpaio
re:1208Order,Set/ResetHearings,1192Order.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
08/11/2015)
08/11/2015
Conferenceheldon8/11/2015.
APPEARANCES:AndreSeguraandMichelleMorin(bothtelephonically),
CecilliaWangandJoshuaBendorforPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,John
Masterson,JosephPopolizioandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJoseph
M.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharles
JirauchforMaricopaCounty.LeeSteinforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan.Dane
DoddforBrianSands.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyandChristineStutz.
DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa,whoisalsopresent.Gary
RE 1007
169/197
(1073 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 175 of 202
BirnbaumforDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre,whoisalsopresent.Ernest
CalderonforMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.
EdwardCasparandPaulKillebrewforUnitedStatesofAmerica.Deputy
MonitorRaulMartinez(telephonically).(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearing
held9:03AMto10:37AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
08/11/2015
08/11/2015
1227 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyMichelleLMorinon
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX161616astoMichelleL
Morin.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
08/11/2015
08/12/2015
Americaforproceedingsheldon8/7/2015,8/11/2015,JudgeGMurraySnow
hearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:08/12/2015)
08/12/2015
1234 NOTICEOFWAIVEROFELECTRONICSERVICEbyCharitieLHartsig,
counselforDefendantMaricopa,Countyof.(Fry,John)(Entered:08/12/2015)
08/12/2015
(Entered:08/12/2015)
08/12/2015
heldon07/31/2015and08/07/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
08/12/2015
08/13/2015)
08/12/2015
1238 NOTICEOFINTERLOCUTORYAPPEALto9thCircuitCourtofAppealsre:
1167OrderonMotionforReconsideration,1093OrderonMotiontoIntervene,
RE 1008
170/197
(1074 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 176 of 202
OrderonMotiontoDisqualifyJudgebyDennisLMontgomery.Filingfee
received:$505.00,receiptnumberPHX161632.(Attachments:#1Appeal
FilingFee)(KMG)Modifiedon9/2/2015(REW).(Entered:08/13/2015)
08/13/2015
1239 ORDERthattheUnitedStates'MotiontoIntervene(Doc.1177)ishereby
GRANTED.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/13/2015.(KMG)(Entered:
08/13/2015)
08/13/2015
1240 NOTICEOFATTORNEYAPPEARANCE:PaulKillebrewappearingfor
UnitedStatesofAmerica..(Killebrew,Paul)(Entered:08/13/2015)
08/13/2015
1241 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMeganCassidywiththeArizonaRepublicfor
(Entered:08/13/2015)
08/13/2015
08/13/2015)
08/13/2015
1246 *SEALEDTRANSCRIPTofProceedingsheldon7/31/15beforeJudgeG.
MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:StatusConference
(Volume2,Pages71-81).(MAP)*Modifiedon8/17/2015toUnsealPursuantto
GMSChambers(MAP)*.(Entered:08/17/2015)
08/14/2015
1243 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJudeJoffe-BlockofKJZZPublicRadioforSealed
portionofStatusConferenceproceedingsheldon07/31/2015,JudgeGMurray
08/14/2015
1244 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLarryKlaymanforStatusConferenceproceedings
08/14/2015)
08/14/2015
1245 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTAMENDEDbyLarryKlaymanforStatusConference
(Entered:08/14/2015)
08/17/2015
1247 *MOTIONtobeExcusedfromStatusConferencesandContemptHearingsfrom
October11-23,2015byInterestedPartyGerardSheridan.(Attachments:#1
TextofProposedOrder)(Stein,Lee)*Modifiedtocorrecteventon8/17/2015
(KMG).(Entered:08/17/2015)
08/17/2015
Circuit.(CopiessentbytheNinthCircuit.)(KMG)(Entered:08/17/2015)
08/18/2015
1249 ORDER:ThesealisliftedonthoseportionsoftheCourt'shearingsinthismatter
on7/31/2015and8/7/2015thatwereheldunderseal.Thepartiesandrepresented
non-partiesareauthorizedtoworkoutthetermsofanappropriateprotective
ordertofurtherimplementthetermsofthisOrder.Seeorderforadditional
details.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/18/2015.(LMR)(Entered:
08/18/2015)
08/19/2015
1250 STIPULATIONtoEntryofProtectiveOrderbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Segura,
Andre)(Entered:08/19/2015)
RE 1009
171/197
(1075 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 177 of 202
08/20/2015
04/20/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:
08/20/2015)
08/20/2015
1252 NOTICEOFDEFICIENCYre:1251TranscriptRequestfiledbyJosephM
Arpaio.Descriptionofdeficiency:PursuanttotheFederalRulesofCivil
Procedure,andtheGeneralOrders,LocalRules,andCM/ECFAdministrative
PoliciesandProceduresManualofthisCourt,thefollowingdeficiencyhasbeen
identifiedwiththeelectronicallyfileddocument:1)AO435TranscriptOrder
form,box#11-Nocourtproceedingsweretranscribed/recordedon
20April2015.ACTIONREQUIREDBYTHEREQUESTER:Thedeficiency
mustbecorrectedwithinone(1)businessdayofthisnotice.Pleaseprovidea
validdateofproceedingfortranscription.Therequestermustre-filetheentire
document,AO435TranscriptOrderform,asaTranscriptRequestAMENDED.
entry.(RAP)(Entered:08/20/2015)
08/20/2015
1253 ORDER:TheCourthasreceivedandreviewedtheMonitor'sinvoicedated
August3,2015forservicesrenderedbytheMonitorinJuly2015.TheCourt
findstheinvoiceandchargestobereasonableanddirectsMaricopaCountyto
authorizepaymentoftheMonitor'sinvoice.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
8/20/2015.(LMR)(Entered:08/20/2015)
08/20/2015
1254 REQUESTre:DefenseCounselMicheleM.IafratetobeExcusedfromAugust
21,2015StatusConferenceduetoTrialbyDefendantJosephMArpaio.(Iafrate,
08/20/2015
1255 NOTICEre:DocumentsprovidedreNo.8byJosephMArpaiore:1208Order,
Set/ResetHearings.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:08/20/2015)
08/20/2015
1256 MOTIONforExtensionofTimetoDiscloseE-mailsbyJosephMArpaio.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:
08/20/2015)
08/21/2015
1258 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedrenumbers4and5byJosephMArpaiore:
1208Order,Set/ResetHearings.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:08/21/2015)
08/21/2015
1259 *SEALEDMotiontoSealMotionandMotionfortheAppointmentofCounsel
filedbyJosephSousa.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Eisenberg,
David)*Modifiedon8/21/2015tochangefromlodgedtofiled(MAP)*.
(Entered:08/21/2015)
08/21/2015
1260 *FILEDatDoc.1313*SEALEDLODGEDProposedMotiontoAppoint
Counselre:1259SEALEDMOTIONtoSealDocument.Documenttobefiled
byClerkifMotionorStipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJosephSousa.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Eisenberg,David)
*Modifiedon9/8/2015(MAP)*.(Entered:08/21/2015)
08/21/2015
Conferenceheldon8/21/2015.Separateordertoissue.
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,CecilliaWang,JoshuaBendor,StanleyYoung,
MichelleMorin(telephonically),TammyAlbarran(telephonically)andLauren
RE 1010
172/197
(1076 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 178 of 202
Pedley(telephonically)forPlaintiffs.MicheleIafrate,JohnMasterson,Joseph
PopolizioandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.(telephonically)forDefendantJoseph
M.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharles
JirauchforMaricopaCounty.BarryMitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,
whoisalsopresent.GregoryComoforBrianSands.TerrenceWoods
(telephonically)forTomLiddyandChristineStutz.DavidEisenbergfor
LieutenantJosephSousa,whoisalsopresent.DavidOuimetteforDeputyChief
JohnMacIntyre.AprilHamiltonforMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeand
WilliamMontgomery.PaulKillebrewandPuneetCheema(bothtelephonically)
forUnitedStatesofAmerica.ChiefRobertWarshaw,DeputyMonitorJohn
GirvinandDeputyMonitorRaulMartinez(alltelephonically).(CourtReporter
GaryMoll.)Hearingheld10:03AMto11:30AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRY
ONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(LMR)(Entered:
08/21/2015)
08/21/2015
1262 STIPULATEDPROTECTIVEORDERpursuanttotheparties'1250Stipulation.
SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon8/21/2015.(LMR)(Entered:08/21/2015)
08/21/2015
1263 MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorneyJoshuaBendorbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Bendor,
08/22/2015
1264 NOTICEofAppearancebyPuneetCheemaonbehalfofUnitedStatesof
America.(Cheema,Puneet)(Entered:08/22/2015)
08/24/2015
08/24/2015
1266 ORDERgranting1263MotiontoWithdrawasCounselofRecordandallowing
JoshuaBendortowithdrawascounselofrecordforthePlaintiffs.Signedby
JudgeGMurraySnowon8/24/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:08/24/2015)
08/24/2015
(Entered:08/24/2015)
08/24/2015
08/28/2015)
08/26/2015
RE 1011
173/197
(1077 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 179 of 202
08/26/2015
08/26/2015
1270 ORDERAMENDINGSUPPLEMENTALPERMANENT
INJUNCTION/JUDGMENTORDER(Doc.606).SeeattachedOrderfordetails.
08/26/2015
1271 ORDERGRANTING1247ChiefDeputyGerardSheridan'sMotiontobe
ExcusedandDENYING1256Defendants'MotionforExtensionofTimeto
DiscloseE-mails.Documentstobeprovidedtoallpartiesandnon-partiesnamed
intheOrdertoShowCausebyAugust28,2015.SeeattachedOrderfordetails.
08/28/2015
1272 MOTIONRecognitionofitsRightsasaPartyLitigantbyMaricopa,Countyof.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit,#3TextofProposedOrder)(Walker,
08/28/2015
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,TammyAlbarran,LaurenPedleyandMichelle
Morin(alltelephonically),CecilliaWangandStanleyYoungforPlaintiffs.A.
MelvinMcDonald,Jr.(telephonically),MicheleIafrate,JohnMastersonand
JosephPopolizioandforDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCounty
Sheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharlesJirauchforMaricopaCounty.Lee
SteinforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.GregoryComofor
BrianSands.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyandChristineStutz.David
EisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa.MiteshPatelforGaryBirnbaumfor
DeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre.ErnestCalderonforMaricopaCountyAttorney's
OfficeandWilliamMontgomery.PaulKillebrewandEdwardCaspar(both
telephonically)forUnitedStatesofAmerica.RaphaelGomez(telephonically)
forUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputy
MonitorsRaulMartinezandJohnGirvin(alltelephonically).(CourtReporter
GaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:37AMto10:23AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRY
08/28/2015)
08/28/2015
1274 ORDERthattheCourt'sOrderdatedJuly31,20151208shallbeamendedas
follows:Onpage3oftheorder,lines3-5,thetextofthefifthdocument
productiondateduplicatesverbatimthetextofthefourthdocumentproduction
date.Thistextshouldbeeliminated.FURTHERORDEREDthattheDepartment
ofJusticefilethecomplaintinintervention.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
8/28/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:08/28/2015)
08/28/2015
1276 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Segura,Andre)(Entered:08/28/2015)
08/31/2015
1277 INTERVENORCOMPLAINTfiledbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Attachments:
#1ExhibitA)(Caspar,Edward)(Entered:08/31/2015)
08/31/2015
1278 NOTICEofDepositionofDavidTennyson,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
RE 1012
174/197
(1078 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 180 of 202
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Segura,Andre)(Entered:08/31/2015)
08/31/2015
1279 NOTICEofDepositionofSuzanneKimberlySeagraves-Young,filedbyManuel
08/31/2015)
08/31/2015
1280 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Killebrew,
Paul)(Entered:08/31/2015)
08/31/2015
1281 NOTICEofDepositionofDonVogel,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
08/31/2015
08/31/2015)
08/31/2015
1283 NOTICEofDepositionofSteveBailey,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
08/31/2015
1284 NOTICEofDepositionofEdwardPatrickLopez,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/01/2015
(Entered:09/01/2015)
09/01/2015
09/01/2015
1287 NOTICEofDepositionofBillKnight,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1288 NOTICEofDepositionofTravisAnglin,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1289 NOTICEofDepositionofStephenFax,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1290 NOTICEofDepositionofJohn("Jack")MacIntyre,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/01/2015
1291 NOTICEofDepositionofJonathanKnapp,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1292 NOTICEofDepositionofJosephM.Arpaio,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
RE 1013
175/197
(1079 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 181 of 202
09/01/2015
1293 NOTICEofDepositionofBrettPalmer,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1294 NOTICEofDepositionofMikeOlson,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1295 NOTICEofDepositionofJosephSousa,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
09/01/2015
1297 NOTICEofDepositionofBrianMackiewicz,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/01/2015
1298 NOTICEofDepositionofMichaelZullo,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/02/2015
1299 NOTICEOFATTORNEYAPPEARANCE:CynthiaCoeappearingforUnited
StatesofAmerica..(Coe,Cynthia)(Entered:09/02/2015)
09/02/2015
08/21/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Killebrew,Paul)(Entered:
09/02/2015)
09/02/2015
09/02/2015)
09/02/2015
09/02/2015)
09/02/2015
09/04/2015)
09/03/2015
RE 1014
176/197
(1080 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 182 of 202
America.Amendmentto1278NoticeofDepositionofDavidTennyson.(Segura,
Andre)(Entered:09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
1304 NOTICEofDepositionofThomasP.Liddy,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/03/2015
1305 NOTICEofDepositionofChristineBaileyStutz,filedbyManueldeJesus
09/03/2015
1306 NOTICEre:Non-PartyTimothyJ.Casey'sNoticeofPositionReHisDeposition
byTimothyJCasey.(Clark,Karen)(Entered:09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
1307 REQUESTre:tobeExcusedfromSeptember10,2015StatusConferenceby
DefendantJosephMArpaio.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:09/03/2015)
09/04/2015
09/04/2015)
09/04/2015
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWang,AndreSegura,MichelleMorinandJorge
Castillo(alltelephonically),StanleyYoungandAnneLaiforPlaintiffs.A.
MelvinMcDonald,Jr.(telephonically),MicheleIafrate,JohnMastersonand
JosephPopolizioforDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.RichardWalkerandCharlesJirauchforMaricopaCounty.A.Melvin
McDonald,Jr.(telephonically)forLeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChief
DeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.GregoryComoforBrianSands.
TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyandChristineStutz.DavidEisenbergfor
LieutenantJosephSousa.GaryBirnbaumandDavidOuimetteforDeputyChief
JohnMacIntyre.ErnestCalderonforMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeand
WilliamMontgomery.PaulKillebrew,CynthiaCoeandPuneetCheema(all
telephonically)forUnitedStatesofAmerica.RaphaelGomez(telephonically)
forUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.KarenClark(telephonically)forTim
Casey.ChiefRobertWarshawandDeputyMonitorsRaulMartinezandJohn
Girvin(alltelephonically).(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:06AM
to10:36AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
09/08/2015
America.Amendmentto1289NoticeofDepositionofStephenFax.(Morin,
Michelle)(Entered:09/08/2015)
09/08/2015
1312 ORDERthatcounselforDefendantsshallreviewtheclientfilethatTimothy
CaseyprovidedtotheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOfficeandproducethe
documentsrequestedinPlaintiff'ssubpoenaducestecumtoMr.Casey.
FURTHERORDEREDthatthePartiescomplywiththeproceduresuggestedby
Mr.Gomez,counselfortheUnitedStates,fortheexaminationofthefiftyhard
RE 1015
177/197
(1081 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 183 of 202
drives.FURTHERORDEREDthatthedeadlineforresponsestopending
interrogatoriesandrequestsforadmissionsshallbeSeptember15,2015.See
attachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon9/8/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:09/08/2015)
09/08/2015
09/09/2015
9/4/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,Richard)(Entered:
09/09/2015)
09/09/2015
America.Amendmentto1290NoticeofDepositionofJohn("Jack")MacIntyre.
09/09/2015
America.Amendmentto1281NoticeofDepositionofDonVogel.(Wang,
09/09/2015
09/15/2015)
09/10/2015
1319 MOTIONtoCompelTestimonyRe:July17,2015MeetingandMCSOs
Nondisclosureofthe1500IDsbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Attachments:#1AffidavitofAnneLaiwithExhibits,#2Textof
ProposedOrder)(Lai,Anne)(Entered:09/10/2015)
09/10/2015
1320 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMarniShapiroofDavisWrightTremaineLLPfor
StatusConferenceproceedingsheldon08/28/2015,JudgeGMurraySnow
hearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:09/10/2015)
09/10/2015
Conferenceheldon9/10/2015.TheCourtsetsexpeditedbriefingon1319
MotiontoCompelTestimonyRe:July17,2015MeetingandMCSOs
Nondisclosureofthe1500IDs.Responseisdueby10:00AMon9/17/2015
Replyisdueby12:00PMon9/18/2015.
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoung,AndreSegura,andJorgeCastillo(all
telephonically),CecilliaWangandMichelleMorinforPlaintiffs.A.Melvin
RE 1016
178/197
(1082 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 184 of 202
McDonald,Jr.(telephonically)andJohnMastersonforDefendantJosephM.
ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharles
Jirauch(late)forMaricopaCounty.A.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.(telephonically)for
LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalso
present.DaneDoddforBrianSands.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyand
ChristineStutz.DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa.GaryBirnbaum
forDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre.ErnestCalderonforMaricopaCounty
Attorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.CynthiaCoeandPuneetCheema
(bothtelephonically)forUnitedStatesofAmerica.RaphaelGomez
(telephonically)forUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.ChiefRobertWarshaw
andDeputyMonitorJohnGirvin(bothtelephonically).(CourtReporterGary
Moll.)Hearingheld9:05AMto9:53AM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.
09/10/2015)
09/10/2015
1322 MINUTEORDERsettingaTelephoneConferencefor9/10/2015at3:30PM
beforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Thepartiesmayappearinpersonorappear
telephonicallybycallingthenumberandparticipantcodeprovidedviae-mail.
09/10/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day3)proceedingsheldon04/23/2015,JudgeGMurray
09/10/2015
09/10/2015
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoungandCecilliaWangforPlaintiffs.John
Masterson(inperson),MicheleIafrateandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.for
DefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.Richard
WalkerandCharlesJirauchforMaricopaCounty.A.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.for
LeeSteinandBarryMitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan.DaneDoddfor
BrianSands.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyandChristineStutz.April
HamiltonforMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.
CynthiaCoeandPuneetCheemaforUnitedStatesofAmerica.ChiefRobert
WarshawandDeputyMonitorJohnGirvin.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearing
held3:35PMto3:53PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
09/10/2015
1326 ORDERthatcounselforDefendantsshallproduceallmaterialscontainedinthe
clientfileTimothyCaseyprovidedtocounsel,requestedinPlaintiff'ssubpoena
ducestecumtoMr.Casey,andconsistentwiththepreviousordersofthisCourt.
FURTHERORDEREDthatRichardWalkershallconferwithallparties
requestingthedesignatedarchivedMaricopaCountyfilestoascertainthemost
appropriateandworkableproductionformatthatincludesallrelevanttext,meta
data,andattachments.SeeattachedOrderfordetails.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
RE 1017
179/197
(1083 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 185 of 202
09/10/2015
1327 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverofGordon&ReesforStatus
Conferenceproceedingsheldon09/04/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(RAP)(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1328 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTallvolumesbyUnitedStatesofAmericafor
proceedingsheldon8/7/158/11/158/21/158/28/159/4/15,JudgeGMurray
Snowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,Lynnette)(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1329 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLarryKlaymanforStatusConference/In-Court
Hearingproceedingsheldon05/22/2015,07/31/2015(Volumes1&2),and
08/07/2015(Volumes1&2),JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)
(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1330 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverofGordon&Reesforproceedings
heldon09/10/2015(Volumes1and2),JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/11/2015
1331 NOTICEre:FilingFifthQuarterlyComplianceReportbyJosephMArpaio.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1332 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1214MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentfiledby
Rodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Albarran,Tammy)
(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1333 STATEMENTOFFACTSre:1332ResponsetoMotionforSummaryJudgment
1Exhibit1-16)(Albarran,Tammy)(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1334 MOTIONtoSealDocumentExhibits8-11and13-16ofPlaintiffs'Rule56.1(B)
StatementofFactsandRule56(D)StatementofUnavailableFactsinOpposition
toSands'MotionforSummaryJudgmentbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,
SomosAmerica.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Albarran,Tammy)
(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/11/2015
1335 SEALEDLODGEDProposedExhibitstoMotiontoSealre:1334MOTIONto
SealDocumentExhibits8-11and13-16ofPlaintiffs'Rule56.1(B)Statementof
FactsandRule56(D)StatementofUnavailableFactsinOppositiontoSands'
MotionforSummaryJudgment.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionor
StipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Albarran,Tammy)(Entered:09/11/2015)
09/12/2015
RE 1018
180/197
(1084 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 186 of 202
(Entered:09/15/2015)
09/12/2015
1355 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofTelephonicConference
(Entered:09/15/2015)
09/14/2015
1336 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1272MOTIONRecognitionofitsRightsasa
PartyLitigantfiledbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Coe,Cynthia)(Entered:
09/14/2015)
09/14/2015
1337 MINUTEORDERsettingaTelephonicStatusConferencefor9/14/2015at1:45
PMbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.Plaintiffs'counselshallprovidethecall-in
numberviae-mail.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocument
09/14/2015
1338 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedbyJosephMArpaiore:1326Order.(Iafrate,
09/14/2015
09/10/15AMandPMproceedings,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/14/2015
September10,2015at9:00am,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
(Walker,Richard)(Entered:09/14/2015)
09/14/2015
September10,2015at3:30pm,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/14/2015
1342 NOTICEre:ofServiceofElectronicallyStoredInformationbyMaricopa,
Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:09/14/2015)
09/14/2015
America.Amendmentto1268NoticeofDepositionofTimothyJ.Casey.(Wang,
09/14/2015
1344 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1272MOTIONRecognitionofitsRightsasa
PartyLitigantfiledbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
09/14/2015
RE 1019
181/197
(1085 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 187 of 202
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon9/22/2015-10/2/2015,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:09/14/2015)
09/14/2015
TelephonicStatusConferenceheldon9/14/2015.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWangandMichelleMorinforPlaintiffs.Michele
Iafrate,JosephPopolizioandA.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forDefendantJosephM.
ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.RichardWalkerandCharles
JirauchforMaricopaCounty.A.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.forLeeSteinandBarry
MitchellforChiefDeputyGerardSheridan.TerrenceWoodsforTomLiddyand
ChristineStutz.AprilHamiltonforMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOfficeand
WilliamMontgomery.DavidOuimetteforDeputyChiefJohnMacIntyre.
GregoryComoforBrianSands.KarenClarkforTimCasey.PaulKillebrewfor
UnitedStatesofAmerica.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld1:52PMto
2:09PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
withthisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:09/14/2015)
09/15/2015
09/15/2015)
09/15/2015
September14,2015at1:45pm,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/15/2015
1349 ORDEROnSeptember14,2015,DistrictJudgeG.MurraySnowreferredtothis
Courtanincamerareviewofcertainemailstodeterminewhethertheyare
protectedfromdisclosurebytheattorney-clientprivilegeand/orwork-product
doctrine.Accordingly,theCourtconcludesthatthedocumentsBatesnumbered
MELC1397334,MELC1397335,andMELC1397336areprotectedfrom
disclosurebytheattorney-clientprivilegeandthework-productdoctrine,and
thoseprotectionshavenotbeenwaived.ThedocumentBatesnumbered
CaseySub000166relatestocompliancewiththeCourt'sPreliminaryInjunction
and,therefore,anyattorney-clientorworkproductprotectionsastothat
documenthavebeenwaived.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon
9/15/2015.(SeeOrderforcompletedetails.)(KMG)(Entered:09/15/2015)
09/15/2015
America.Amendmentto1291NoticeofDepositionofJonathanKnapp.
09/15/2015
1351 NOTICEre:FilingAnnualComplianceReportbyJosephMArpaio.
(Attachments:#1Exhibit1)(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:09/15/2015)
09/15/2015
1352 NOTICEre:DocumentProvidedbyJosephMArpaiore:1349Order.(Iafrate,
09/15/2015
1356 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyJosephMArpaio.(Popolizio,Joseph)
(Entered:09/15/2015)
09/16/2015
1357 ORDERonSeptember15,2015,DistrictJudgeG.MurraySnowreferredtothis
Courtanincamerareviewofcertaindocumentstodeterminewhethertheyare
RE 1020
182/197
(1086 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 188 of 202
protectedfromdisclosurebytheattorney-clientprivilegeand/orwork-product
doctrine.Onthesameday,counselforMaricopaCountyAttorneyWilliam
MontgomeryandtheMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice(MCAO)providedthis
CourtwithaprivilegeloganddocumentspotentiallyresponsivetoaMay26,
2015subpoena.Basedontheabove,theCourtfindsthatthedocumentBates
numberedMCAO00572isprotectedfromdisclosurebytheattorney-client
privilegeandworkproductdoctrine,andfallsoutsidethesubject-matterwaiver
identifiedintheCourt'sMay14,2015OrderatDoc.1094.TheCourtfindsthat
thedocumentsBatesnumberedMCAO00640,MCAO00650,MCAO00573-76,
andMCAO00626-29fallwithinthesubject-matterwaiver.However,ifMr.
Montgomery/MCAOorDefendantArpaiowishestoobjecttodisclosureofthese
documents,theymustdosonolaterthan5:00P.M.onFriday,September18,
2015.Finally,theCourtfindsthattheremainingdocumentsthatappearonthe
privilegelogandwereprovidedtotheCourt,evenifcoveredbytheattorneyclientprivilegeorwork-productdoctrine,fallwithinthesubjectmatterwaiver
identifiedbytheCourtinDoc.1094.Therefore,Defendantsmustdisclosethese
documentsimmediately.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon
9/16/2015.(SeeOrderforcompletedetails.)(KMG)(Entered:09/16/2015)
09/16/2015
Conferenceproceedingsheldon09/14/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.
(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/17/2015
1358 RESPONSEinOppositionre:1319MOTIONtoCompelTestimonyRe:July17,
2015MeetingandMCSOsNondisclosureofthe1500IDsfiledbyJosephM
Arpaio.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitPart1of2,#2ExhibitExhibitPart2
of2)(Masterson,John)(Entered:09/17/2015)
09/17/2015
1359 NOTICEofDepositionofRollieSeebert,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Segura,Andre)(Entered:09/17/2015)
09/17/2015
1360 NOTICEre:AuthoritiesbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Morin,Michelle)(Entered:09/17/2015)
09/17/2015
1361 NOTICEre:DocumentsProvidedbyJosephMArpaiore:1357Order.(Iafrate,
09/17/2015
1362 NOTICEre:DefendantArpaio'sNoticeofAuthoritiesbyJosephMArpaio.
09/17/2015
1363 NOTICEofErratare:1362Notice(Other)(DefendantArpaio'sNoticeofErrata
RegardingDefendantArpaio'sNoticeofAuthorities)byDefendantJosephM
Arpaio..(Masterson,John)(Entered:09/17/2015)
09/18/2015
1364 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1319MOTIONtoCompelTestimonyRe:
RE 1021
183/197
(1087 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 189 of 202
July17,2015MeetingandMCSOsNondisclosureofthe1500IDsfiledby
AffidavitofAnneLaiwithExhibits)(Lai,Anne)(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/18/2015
1365 NOTICEre:AuthoritiesbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
America.(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2ExhibitB,#3ExhibitC,#4Exhibit
D)(Morin,Michelle)(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/18/2015
1367 *OBJECTIONtoDisclosurebyMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice,William
Montgomeryre:1357Order.(Calderon,Ernest)*Modifiedtocorrecteventon
9/18/2015(LAD).(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/18/2015
Conferenceheldon9/18/2015.ThecontinuedEvidentiaryHearingshallresume
on9/24/2015at9:00a.m.,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow,inCourtoom602,
Phoenix,AZ.Ordertofollow.
APPEARANCES:AndreSegura,JorgeCastillo,MichelleMorin(all
telephonically),StanleyYoung,CecilliaWang,DanielPochodaandAnneLai
forPlaintiffs.A.MelvinMcDonald,Jr.andJosephPopolizio(both
telephonically),MicheleIafrate,JohnMastersonandJustinAckermanfor
DefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.Charles
Jirauch(telephonically)andRichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.LeeStein
(telephonically)forChiefDeputyGerardSheridan,whoisalsopresent.Gregory
Como(telephonically)forBrianSands.TerrenceWoods(telephonically)for
TomLiddyandChristineStutz.DavidEisenbergforLieutenantJosephSousa,
whoisalsopresent.MiteshPatelforGaryBirnbaumforDeputyChiefJohn
MacIntyre.AprilHamilton(telephonically)andErnestCalderonforMaricopa
CountyAttorney'sOfficeandWilliamMontgomery.CynthiaCoe
(telephonically)andPuneetCheemaforUnitedStatesofAmerica.Paul
KillebrewforUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.KarenClarkforTimCasey.
DeputyMonitorsJohnGirvinandRaulMartinez(bothtelephonically).(Court
ReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld10:34AMto12:04PM.ThisisaTEXT
09/18/2015
Hearingheldon9/18/2015.TheCourthasreviewedtheexcerptsprovided
pursuanttotheagreementoftheparties.THECOURTFINDSthatthereisa
subjectmatterprivilegewaiverwithrespecttotheJanuary2,2014meeting.
APPEARANCES:CecilliaWangforPlaintiffs.JohnMastersonandJustin
AckermanforDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopaCountySheriff's
Office.RichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.PaulKillebrewforUnitedStates
DepartmentofJustice.KarenClarkforTimCasey.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
Hearingheld12:48PMto12:51PM.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.Thereis
noPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(KFZ)(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/18/2015
1370 ORDERthattheMonitorTeamshallsendtothePartiesthetallyofthe1500
identificationsbelongingtomembersofthePlaintiffClass.FURTHERRE 1022
184/197
(1088 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 190 of 202
ORDEREDthatasubjectmatterwaiverexistsregardingtheapproximately
1,459identificationdocuments(seeattachedOrderfordetails).FURTHER
ORDEREDthatasubjectmatterwaiverexistsregardingcommunications
betweenMCSOemployeesandcounselattheJanuary2,2014meeting.
FURTHERORDEREDthatMagistrateJudgeBoylewillattendthedepositionof
TomLiddyonMonday,September21,2015.FURTHERORDEREDthatthe
depositionofTimCaseywillcontinueonTuesday,September22,2015.The
Courtwillbeavailableviatelephone.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon
9/18/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:09/18/2015)
09/18/2015
09/21/2015
1372 ORDER-TheCourthasreceivedandreviewedMaricopaCountyAttorney
WilliamMontgomeryandMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice's(MCAO)
ObjectiontoDisclosureofMCAO00640andMCAO00650.(Doc.1367.)The
CourtfindsthattheportionsofMCAO00640andMCAO00650towhichMr.
MontgomeryandMCAOasserttheworkproductdoctrineappliesareprotected
fromdisclosureandfalloutsidethesubject-matterwaiverfoundbytheCourtin
itsMay14,2015Order.Therefore,theCourtsustainstheobjection.The
discoverableportionsofMCAO00640andMCAO00650havealreadybeen
disclosedbyDefendants.(SeeDoc.1361.)TheCourthasnotreceivedany
objectiontothedisclosureofthedocumentsBatesnumberedMCAO00573-76
andMCAO00626-29.Iftheyhaven'tdonesoalready,Defendantsshalldisclose
thosedocumentsimmediately.SignedbyMagistrateJudgeJohnZBoyleon
9/21/2015.(KMG)(Entered:09/21/2015)
09/21/2015
1373 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyMaricopaCountyAttorney'sOffice,William
Montgomeryforproceedingsheldon09-18-2015,JudgeGMurraySnow
hearingjudge(s).(Hamilton,April)(Entered:09/21/2015)
09/21/2015
September18,2015StatusConference,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/21/2015
09/21/2015
1376 NOTICEofDepositionofSteveBailey,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
09/21/2015
1377 NOTICEofDepositionofSuzanneKimberlySeagraves-Young,filedbyManuel
09/21/2015)
09/21/2015
1378 NOTICEofDepositionofStephenFax,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
RE 1023
185/197
(1089 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 191 of 202
09/21/2015
1379 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericafor
proceedingsheldon09/18/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/21/2015
1380 MOTIONforExtensionofTimetoRespondtotheUnitedStates'Complaintin
InterventionbyJosephMArpaio,Maricopa,Countyof.(Attachments:#1Text
ofProposedOrderProposedOrder)(Ackerman,Justin)(Entered:09/21/2015)
09/21/2015
(Entered:09/22/2015)
09/22/2015
1382 ORDERgranting1380Defendants'requesttoextendtimetofiletheirresponsive
pleadingtotheUnitedStates'ComplaintinIntervention(Doc.1277)by30days,
toOctober21,2015.SignedbyJudgeGMurraySnowon9/22/2015.(KFZ)
(Entered:09/22/2015)
09/23/2015
1383 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverofGordon&ReesforStatus
Conferenceproceedingsheldon09/14/2015and09/18/2015,JudgeGMurray
09/23/2015
1384 FirstMOTIONforReconsiderationMotiontoQuashTrialSubpoenaby
TimothyJCasey.(Attachments:#1ExhibitProposedOrder)(Clark,Karen)
(Entered:09/23/2015)
09/23/2015
1385 MOTIONinLiminere:Re:MontgomeryInvestigationbyJosephMArpaio.
(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrderProposedOrder)(Masterson,John)
(Entered:09/23/2015)
09/23/2015
1386 MOTIONinLiminere:Re:TestimonyofDonVogelandIA542and543by
JosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#1ExhibitAandB,#2TextofProposed
OrderProposedOrder)(Masterson,John)(Entered:09/23/2015)
09/23/2015
1387 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1272MOTIONRecognitionofitsRightsasa
PartyLitigantfiledbyMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:
09/23/2015)
09/24/2015
1393 MINUTEENTRYforproceedingsheldon9/24/2015beforeJudgeGMurray
Snow:EvidentiaryHearing(Day5)continuedfrom4/24/2015.TheCourtdenies
MotionforReconsideration1384andgrantsMotionforPermissiontoMake
Objectionsdenies1385MotioninLimineandgrants1386MotioninLimine.
Courtstandsinrecessuntil9:00AMon9/25/2015.Seeminutesfordetails.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:03AMto4:59PM.(KFZ)(Entered:
09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
1388 NOTICEofServiceofDiscoveryfiledbyUnitedStatesofAmerica.(Killebrew,
RE 1024
186/197
(1090 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 192 of 202
09/25/2015
1389 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearingDay5(Pages1036-1278)proceedingsheldon09/24/2015,beforeJudgeG.
Deadlinesetfor10/26/2015.ReleaseofTranscriptRestrictionsetfor
12/24/2015.(RAP)(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
09-14-15and09-18-15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,
09/25/2015
1392 *TRANSCRIPTREQUESTre:RequestforTranscriptof9/24/15Evidentiary
Hearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Masterson,John)*Modified
toindicatetranscriptrequesteventNEFregeneratedon9/25/2015(CEI).
(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
September24,2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Walker,Richard)
(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
1395 NOTICEre:ServiceofSubpoenaCommandingtheProductionofDocumentson
Level3CommunicationsLLCbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,Velia
America.(Morin,Michelle)(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
1396 NOTICEre:ServiceofSubpoenaCommandingDepositionTestimonyand
ProductionofDocumentstoMichaelZullobyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Morin,Michelle)(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/25/2015
1397 MOTIONforAdmissionProHacViceastoattorneyRebeccaAJacobson
09/25/2015
09/25/2015
PROHACVICEFEEPAID.$35,receiptnumberPHX163222astoRebeccaA
Jacobs.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociated
RE 1025
187/197
(1091 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 193 of 202
09/25/2015
1399 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyLeonSilverofGordon&ReesforEvidentiary
Hearing-Day5proceedingsheldon09/24/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
09/25/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day6)heldon9/25/2015.ITISORDEREDdirectingthe
Monitortoprovideplaintiffs'withacompletecopyofalloftheIAinvestigations
andresultsthatithasbeenprovidedbytheMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.
Seeminutesfordetails.Courtstandsinrecessuntil9:00AMon9/29/2015and
shallcontinuethrough10/2/2015.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:03
AMto4:59PM.(KFZ)(Entered:09/25/2015)
09/26/2015
1401 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheldon9/25/15,
9/29/15,9/30/15,10/1/15,10/2/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/26/2015
TRANSCRIPTofEvidentiaryHearing-Day6(Pages1279-1487)proceedings
heldon09/25/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).
Theorderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.All
12/28/2015.(RAP)*Modifiedon10/14/2015(RAP).(Entered:09/29/2015)
09/27/2015
1402 NOTICEofDepositionofDavidTennyson(SecondNotice),filedbyManuelde
09/27/2015)
09/28/2015
1403 NOTICEOFDEFICIENCYre:1401TranscriptRequestfiledbyJosephM
Arpaio.Descriptionofdeficiency:PursuanttotheFederalRulesofCivil
Procedure,andtheGeneralOrders,LocalRules,andCM/ECFAdministrative
PoliciesandProceduresManualofthisCourt,thefollowingdeficiencieshave
beenfoundwiththeelectronicallyfileddocument:1)AO435,Box17ismissing
specificportionsandspecificdatesofproceedingstobeproduced.2)AO435,
Box18(CATEGORY)noreturndeadlineselected.3)AO435,Box18(Delivery
Instructions)nodeliveryformatselected.ACTIONREQUIREDBYTHE
REQUESTER:Thedeficienciesmustbecorrectedwithinone(1)businessday
ofthisnotice.Therequestermustre-filetheentirecorrecteddocumentAO435
TranscriptOrderformasaTranscriptRequestAMENDED..ThisisaTEXT
ENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDFdocumentassociatedwiththisentry.(RAP)
(Entered:09/28/2015)
09/28/2015
1404 ORDER:TheCourthasreceivedandreviewedtheMonitor'sinvoicedated
September1,2015forservicesrenderedbytheMonitorinAugust2015.The
RE 1026
188/197
(1092 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 194 of 202
CourtfindstheinvoiceandchargestobereasonableanddirectsMaricopa
CountytoauthorizepaymentoftheMonitor'sinvoice.SignedbyJudgeG
MurraySnowon9/28/2015.(KFZ)(Entered:09/28/2015)
09/28/2015
1405 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTAmendedbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheld
on9/29/15,9/30/15,10/1/15,10/2/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
09/28/2015
1406 ORDERclarifyingthatpursuanttotheCourt'srulingfromthebenchandthe
OrderissuedonSeptember18,2015Doc.1370,ITISORDEREDgranting
1319MotiontoCompel.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.ThereisnoPDF
09/28/2015
September25,2015-ContemptHearingDay2,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Walker,Richard)(Entered:09/28/2015)
09/28/2015
Hearingproceedingsheldon09/25/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
09/28/2015
09/24/15and09/25/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,
09/29/2015
1411 MOTIONtoQuashPartiallyQuashPlaintiffs'SubpoenatoProduceDocuments,
Information,orObjectsRe:MichaelZullobyJosephMArpaio.(Attachments:#
1TextofProposedOrderProposedOrder)(Masterson,John)(Entered:
09/29/2015)
09/29/2015
1412 STIPULATIONtoExtendtheDeadlinetoReplyinSupportofHisMotionfor
SummaryJudgmentbyPlaintiffsandbyBrianSands.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrderDeadlinetoReplyinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment)
(Dodd,Dane)(Entered:09/29/2015)
09/29/2015
1413 ORDERgranting1412Stipulation.ThedeadlineforRetiredChiefBrianSands
toReplyinSupportofHisMotionforSummaryJudgment(Doc.1214)is
extendedfromOctober1,2015toOctober9,2015.SignedbyJudgeGMurray
09/29/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day7)heldon9/29/2015.Seeminutesfordetails.Court
standsinrecessuntil8:45AMon9/30/2015.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)
Hearingheld9:05AMto4:49PM.(KFZ)(Entered:09/29/2015)
09/29/2015
1415 RESPONSEtoMotionre:1411MOTIONtoQuashPartiallyQuashPlaintiffs'
SubpoenatoProduceDocuments,Information,orObjectsRe:MichaelZullo
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Morin,
09/30/2015
September29,2015ContemptHearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
RE 1027
189/197
(1093 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 195 of 202
09/30/2015
09/30/2015
09/18/2015,09/24/2015,09/25/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
(Killebrew,Paul)(Entered:09/30/2015)
09/30/2015
09/30/2015
1420 SEALEDLODGEDProposedInformationRegardingInvestigations.Document
tobefiledbyClerkifMotionorStipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyJoseph
MArpaio.(Iafrate,Michele)(Entered:09/30/2015)
09/30/2015
JosephMArpaiore:1420SealedLodgedProposedDocument.(Iafrate,
09/30/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day8)heldon9/30/2015.ITISORDEREDdenyingin
partandgrantinginpart1411MotiontoQuash.Seeminutesfordetails.Court
Hearingheld8:49AMto5:06PM.(KFZ)(Entered:10/01/2015)
10/01/2015
10/01/2015
September30,2015ContemptHearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
10/01/2015
10/01/2015
RE 1028
190/197
(1094 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 196 of 202
EvidentiaryHearing(Day9)heldon10/1/2015.Aportionofthehearingis
sealed.ITISORDEREDthataportionofthetranscriptremainsealedpending
furtherorderoftheCourt.Ms.Mijares-Nashshallfileanoticeofspecial
appearance.Seeminutesfordetails.Courtstandsinrecessuntil9:00AMon
10/2/2015(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:00AMto5:01PM.(KFZ)
(Entered:10/02/2015)
10/02/2015
October1,2015ContemptHearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
10/02/2015
judge(s).(RCO)(Entered:10/02/2015)
10/02/2015
standsinrecessuntil9:00AMon10/8/2015andshallcontinueon10/9/2015.
(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:09AMto5:06PM.(KFZ)(Entered:
10/02/2015)
10/02/2015
10/02/2015
MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:Evidentiary
Hearing,Day9.(MAP)(Entered:10/09/2015)
10/03/2015
10/05/2015
09/29/15and09/30/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,
10/05/2015
October2,2015,ContemptHearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
RE 1029
191/197
(1095 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 197 of 202
10/05/2015
judge(s).(RCO)(Entered:10/05/2015)
10/05/2015
EvidentiaryHearing-Day5proceedingsheldon9/24/2015,JudgeGMurray
Snowhearingjudge(s).(RCO)(Entered:10/05/2015)
10/05/2015
10/05/2015
10/05/2015
10/05/2015
10/05/2015
10/05/2015
1439 NOTICEre:ServiceofSubpoenaCommandingDepositionandTrialTestimony
ofBrianMackiewiczbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,
10/06/2015
TelephoneConferenceheldon10/6/2015.Mr.Zullohasuntil10/16/2015to
respondtothesubpoenaasnarrowedbyplaintiffs.Defendantswillimmediately
providetoPlaintiffsalldocumentsthatarenotsubjecttoreviewforattorneyclientorotherprivilege.Theyshall,astheyconductprivilegereview,provideall
non-privilegeorredacteddocumentsonarollingbasis.Defendantshallcomplete
theirprivilegereviewandprovideallotherpartieswithallresponsivedocuments
andacompleteprivilegelogby10/20/2015.Mr.Zullo'sdepositionshallthen
proceedon10/23/2015.
APPEARANCES:StanleyYoung,CecilliaWangandMichelleMorinfor
plaintiffs.JosephPopolizioforDefendantJosephM.ArpaioandMaricopa
CountySheriff'sOffice.GregoryComoforBrianSands.PaulKillebrewfor
UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.RichardWalkerforMaricopaCounty.
10/06/2015
1441 NOTICEre:NoticeofSpecialAppearanceforStateofArizonabyAggrieved
RE 1030
192/197
(1096 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 198 of 202
andIrreparablyInjuredClassofUnitedStatesandPhoenixCitizens.(Conrad,
Donald)(Entered:10/06/2015)
10/06/2015
1442 MOTIONtoSealDocumentbyDonaldEConrad.(Attachments:#1Textof
ProposedOrder)(Conrad,Donald)(Entered:10/06/2015)
10/06/2015
1443 SEALEDLODGEDProposedResponsetoCourt'sInquiryofAGOre:1442
MOTIONtoSealDocument.DocumenttobefiledbyClerkifMotionor
StipulationtoSealisgranted.FiledbyDonaldEConrad.(Conrad,Donald)
(Entered:10/06/2015)
10/06/2015
1444 NOTICEofAppearancebyAlexandraMijaresNashonbehalfofBrian
Mackiewicz.(Nash,Alexandra)(Entered:10/06/2015)
10/07/2015
09/29/2015,9/30/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Killebrew,
10/07/2015
1446 NOTICEre:ServiceofAmendedSubpoenaCommandingDepositionTestimony
ofMichaelZullobyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmericare:
1396Notice(Other).(Morin,Michelle)(Entered:10/07/2015)
10/07/2015
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldonOctober8and9,2015,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:10/07/2015)
10/07/2015
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldonOctober13-14,2015,Judge
GMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:10/07/2015)
10/07/2015
1464 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALAMENDEDTRANSCRIPTofStatus
Conferenceproceedingsheldon05/08/2015,beforeJudgeG.MurraySnow.
(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Correctionmadetopage24,line23,MR.
SCHWAB:correctedtoTHECOURT:atthebeginningofthesentence.The
orderingpartywillhaveelectronicaccesstothetranscriptimmediately.All
1/5/2016.(RAP)(Entered:10/14/2015)
10/07/2015
1465 NOTICEOFFILINGOFOFFICIALAMENDEDTRANSCRIPTofEvidentiary
Hearing-Day6(Pages1279-1487)proceedingsheldon09/25/2015,before
JudgeG.MurraySnow.(CourtReporter:GaryMoll).Correctionmadetopage
1342,line20,"personnel"changedto"personal".Theorderingpartywillhave
RE 1031
193/197
(1097 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 199 of 202
10/08/2015
1449 NOTICEre:ofFilingPetitionforWritofCertiorariintheUnitedStates
SupremeCourtbyMaricopa,Countyof.(Attachments:#1Exhibit,#2Exhibit)
10/08/2015
October8,2015ContemptHearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
10/08/2015
1451 TRANSCRIPTREQUESTbyJosephMArpaioforproceedingsheldon10/13,
10/14,10/27,10/28,10/29,and10/30/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
judge(s).(Masterson,John)(Entered:10/08/2015)
10/08/2015
Hearingheld9:03AMto4:55PM.(LMR)(Entered:10/08/2015)
10/09/2015
10-01-15and10-02-15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Kimmins,
10/09/2015
October9,2015Contempthearing,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
10/09/2015
10/09/2015
1459 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre:1214MOTIONforSummaryJudgmentfiled
byBrianSands.(Dodd,Dane)(Entered:10/09/2015)
10/09/2015
Hearing-Days11and12proceedingsheldon10/08-09/2015,JudgeGMurray
10/09/2015
Hearingheld9:03AMto5:01PM.(LMR)(Entered:10/09/2015)
10/09/2015
MurraySnow.CourtReporter:GaryMoll.TypeofHearing:Evidentiary
Hearing,Day11.(LAD)(Entered:10/15/2015)
RE 1032
194/197
(1098 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 200 of 202
10/10/2015
10/12/2015
1462 *NOTICE-[CombindedProposedStatementofIssuesforContinuedContempt
Hearing]filedbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
Nieto,Jr,DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica
(Attachments:#1PROPOSEDSTIPULATIONOFEXHIBITS)(Young,
Stanley)*Modifiedtocorrecteventon10/13/2015(KMG).(Entered:
10/12/2015)
10/13/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day13)heldon10/13/2015.SeeattachedMinuteEntryfor
details.Courtstandsinrecessuntil9:00AMon10/14/2015.(CourtReporter
GaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:03AMto5:20PM.(MMO)(Entered:10/13/2015)
10/14/2015
10/14/2015
1468 MOTIONforProtectiveOrderRE:DocumentsfromtheU.S.Departmentof
HomelandSecuritybyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,Manuel
(Attachments:#1ExhibitA,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Lai,Anne)(Entered:
10/14/2015)
10/14/2015
1469 MOTIONtoSupplementandAdmitCertainDepositionTestimonyofRollie
SeebertbyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
1ExhibitA,#2TextofProposedOrder)(Lai,Anne)(Entered:10/14/2015)
10/14/2015
EvidentiaryHearing(Day14)heldon10/14/15.TheCourtanticipateshearing
argumentfromcounselonthemorningofTuesday,11/10/15(thismaychange).
Courtstandsinrecessinthismatteruntil9:00AMonTuesday,10/27/15.See
minutesfordetails.(CourtReporterGaryMoll.)Hearingheld9:04a.m.to5:19
p.m.(NKS)(Entered:10/15/2015)
RE 1033
195/197
(1099 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 201 of 202
10/15/2015
10/15/2015
1473 NOTICEofErratare:1469MOTIONtoSupplementandAdmitCertain
DepositionTestimonyofRollieSeebertbyPlaintiffsManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica..(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitA)(Lai,Anne)
(Entered:10/15/2015)
10/16/2015
1474 FIFTHQUARTERLYREPORTfromIndependentMonitorRobertWarshawfor
theMaricopaCountySheriff'sOffice.(Attachments:#1Plaintiffs'Comments,#
2MCSOComments,#3USDOJComments)(MMO)(Entered:10/16/2015)
10/16/2015
Hearingproceedingsheldon10/13-14/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearing
10/20/2015
1476 NOTICEofDepositionofRussSkinner,filedbyManueldeJesusOrtega
Rodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Pedley,Lauren)(Entered:10/20/2015)
10/20/2015
10/08/1510/09/1510/13/1510/14/15,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).
10/20/2015
1478 NOTICEre:ofPartialCompliancewithSubpoenaServedonandLackof
AuthoritytoAccomplishAdditionalProductionfromMichaelZullobyJoseph
MArpaio.(Popolizio,Joseph)(Entered:10/20/2015)
10/21/2015
EvidentiaryHearingproceedingsheldon10/08/15,10/09/15,and10/13/15,
JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(RAP)(Entered:10/21/2015)
10/21/2015
Rodriguez,SomosAmericaforproceedingsheldon10/27-10/30and11/211/3/2015,JudgeGMurraySnowhearingjudge(s).(Young,Stanley)(Entered:
10/21/2015)
10/21/2015
10/21/2015
1482 NOTICEre:SubpoenatoJones,Skelton&Hochuli,P.L.C.andJosephJ.
PopoliziobyManueldeJesusOrtegaMelendres,VeliaMeraz,ManuelNieto,Jr,
RE 1034
196/197
(1100 of 1100)
10/26/2015
Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID:
CM/ECF-azd
9731587,
DktEntry:
13-5, Page 202 of 202
DavidRodriguez,JessicaQuituguaRodriguez,SomosAmerica.(Morin,
10/21/2015
1483 DefendantArpaio'sANSWERtoComplaintinInterventionofUnitedStatesby
JosephMArpaio.(Masterson,John)(Entered:10/21/2015)
10/21/2015
1484 DefendantMaricopaCounty'sANSWERtoComplaintinInterventionofUnited
StatesbyMaricopa,Countyof.(Walker,Richard)(Entered:10/21/2015)
10/21/2015
1485 *MOTIONtoWithdrawasAttorney(EdwardCaspar)byUnitedStatesof
America.(Attachments:#1TextofProposedOrder)(Coe,Cynthia)*Modifiedto
remove"ExParte"Designationon10/22/2015(KMG).(Entered:10/21/2015)
10/22/2015
1486 NOTICEofErratare:1483AnswertoComplaintbyDefendantJosephM
Arpaio..(Attachments:#1ExhibitA)(Ackerman,Justin)(Entered:10/22/2015)
10/26/2015
1487 MINUTEORDERsettingatTelephonicdiscoveryconferencefor10/26/2015at
11:00AMbeforeJudgeGMurraySnow.ThisisaTEXTENTRYONLY.There
PACERSer viceCenter
Tr ansactionReceipt
10/26/201513:37:13
PACER
Login:
leklayman:3555863:0 ClientCode:
Descr iption:
DocketReport
Sear ch
Cr iter ia:
2:07-cv-02513GMS
Billable
Pages:
30
Cost:
3.00
RE 1035
197/197

15-16440 # 13 W Ex Montgomery Opening Brief W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15-16440 # 13 W Ex Montgomery Opening Brief W Exhibits

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

15-16440 # 13 W Ex Montgomery Opening Brief W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(1 of 1100)

Case: 15-16440, 10/23/2015, ID: 9731587, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 1 of 45

CASE NO. 15-16440

MANUEL de JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, et al., Plaintiffs

Larry Klayman, Esq.

Attorney for Putative Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery

B. STANDING OF MONTGOMERY TO INTERVENE

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona

C. Interested Parties Participating

CERTIFICATE AS TO RELATED CASES

U.S. v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1502 (10th Cir.1988) ...........................................21

FRCP 24(c) ..............................................................................................................20

a reasonable member of the public would believe there is the appearance

RULINGS UNDER REVIEW AND REVIEWABILITY

ER59-62; Transcript, May 14, 2015, 34:15-20, 39:17-19. ER193, 198.

Basis for Claiming that the Order Appealed from is Appealable

This appeal is from final orders as to the Plaintiff-Appellant which disposed

Statutory Basis of Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals

Date of Entry of the Order Appealed From

Date of Filing of the Notice of Appeal.

Statute or Rule Under Which it is Claimed the Appeal is Timely.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) Rule 4(a)(1)(A) the notice

after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ended on October 2, 2013, by a final order labeled as Supplemental Permanent

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL

Appellant Montgomery Seeks to Protect Property Rights

Montgomery seeks to intervene to protect his interests, receive due process,

Transcript, April 24, 2015, 955-958.

property, trade secrets, work product, proprietary information, intellectual

However, Montgomery entrusted MCSO with his documents, property, and

Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust v. eTreppid

evidence supplied by eTreppid, and he never appeared to question

Motion to Intervene and Pro Hac Vice Application Denied

Judge Snow denied Montgomerys motions seeking to receive due process,

developed in the record below to establish or clarify any grounds.

Judge Snows Scape-Goating Montgomery is Irrelevant

Montgomery is simply irrelevant to whether MCSO implemented the 2013

Monitors would not be shackled 20 by Defendants constitutional rights.21 This

Judge Snows Conflicts of Interest Mandate Recusal

Transcript, May 14, 2015, at 49:15-21, 51, 56. ER748.

Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge Snow

Facebook message, attached as Exhibit 5 to Motion for Recusal or

information, technology, commercial work product, intangible property including

matter. There, Larry Klayman as General Counsel of Freedom Watch brought a

District Court Erred Denying Montgomerys Motion To

The District Court erred by denying Montgomerys motion to intervene.

Standing Of Montgomery To Intervene As Of Right

Pursuant to FRCP 24(a)(2), Montgomery has a right to intervene as of

District Court Erred Denying Motion Of Montgomerys Attorney

The District Court erred in denying the motion of Montgomerys attorney to

The Two Lawsuits Are Not Related, And There Is No Conflict Of

substantially related to the current representation. See Gas-A-Tron of Arizona v.

U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976). A substantial relationship is

of a serious conflict of interest in this case.

District Court Erred Denying Montgomerys Motion For Recusal

The Court erred by denying Montgomerys motion for recusal. Montgomery

Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomerys Motion to Disqualify Judge G. Murray