Melendres # 715 140516 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 715 - Transcript - May 16 2014 Hearing

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
Phoenix, Arizona
na
May 16, 2014
12:01 p.m.
OG
10
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
S
Manuel de Jesus Ortega

Melendres, et al.,
BO
.C
OM
11
EF
12
13
TH
14
REPORTER'S
OF PROCEEDINGS
RT 'S TRANSCRIPT
RTE
TR
TRAN
16
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
OF
15
17
(Telephone Conference)
18
ND
19
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Court Reporter:
Co
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription

CV07-2513 Melendres v. Arpaio 5/16/14 Telephone Conference
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

q.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
RTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
ZONA
ON
3707 N. 7th Street
eet
Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona
zona 85014
850
(602) 650-1854
1854
85
BO
8
9
OG
10
Cecillia
Wang, Esq.
ia
a D. Wang
AMERICAN
ICAN
CAN CIVIL
IL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
UNDATION
NDATION
Immigrants'
Immigrants
mmigran ' Rights Project
39 Drumm S
Street
San Francisco,
California 94111
Fran
ra
(415)
(415
415)
) 343-0775
11
EF
12
For the Defendants:
OF
16
17
18
For Defendant A
Arpaio:
ND
19
15
TH
13
14
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Stanley Young, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
94
(650) 632-4700
.C
OM
Timothy J. Casey, Esq.

Tim
Ti
SCHMITT,
SCHNECK, SMYTH,
S
CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
1221 E. Osborn Road
Suite 105
Phoenix, Arizona 85014-5540
(602) 277-7000
Thomas P. Liddy
Senior Litigation Counsel
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Services Division
222 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 506-8066

P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
THE CLERK:
This is civil case 07-2513, Melendres v.
Arpaio, on for telephonic conference.
.C
OM
Counsel, please announce your appearances.
MS. WANG:
For
plaintiff,
or plaintif
plainti
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
12:01:24
this is Cecillia Wang of the ACLU.
Pochoda of the ACLU and Stan Young of Covington

ngton
gton & Burling.
Burl
u
MR. CASEY:
BO
Also on the
e phone are Dan
Good afternoon, Your

Honor.
ur Honor
Hono
.
This is Tim
Casey, and I understand that my co-counsel,

Liddy of the
counsel
ounse , Tom
T
To
11
Maricopa County Attorney's Office,

e, is
i also
ls on the phone.
OG
10
MR. LIDDY:
Good morning,
rning,
rning
, Your Honor.
13
THE COURT:
Good
d morning to
t you all, or good
EF
12
afternoon, whatever it
point, and I thank you all
t is at
a this
th
thi
15
for calling in.
TH
14
16
12:01:56
OF
I have,
given everybody a pretty good idea of
ve,
ve
, I think,
t
think
17
what is at issue
in the order I filed yesterday.
ssue
su here
e
18
it's a hearing as to whether or not we remove the seal as to
ND
S
Really,
matters
-all the matters that have taken place under seal
tters
ter - al
20
this week.
week
21
offer, I take it, to stipulate by Mr. Casey.

offer
IE
19
FR
22
I did receive earlier this morning a -- what is an
12:02:13
Mr. Casey, I'll remind you that when you're dealing
2
23
with sealed matters, you need to file them under seal, and you
24
didn't do that.
25
12:01:43
MR. CASEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
I apologize.
12:02:29

THE COURT:
But the substance of the stipulation, if
you have not yet had a chance to see it, Ms. Wang, is that the
sheriff stipulates that the seal -- all seals can be removed
from this matter.
.C
OM
Does plaintiff have any objection to that?
MS. WANG:
10
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, to the
he extent,
extent then,
that any part of this hearing has been under seal,

seal it is now
not under seal and it is being recorded.
rded
ded.
.
12:02:56
OG
No, Your Honor, plaintiffs do not object to
unsealing these matters.
12:02:45
BO
I am going to state for the record

the reasons why
co
11
this was under -- why it was under seal

seal, why the Court now is
13
going to grant the stipulation

lation
tion that
hat the parties have apparently
14
resolved and take it out of seal,

and the Court is going to
seal
ea
15
have a few other observations

and suggestions and orders for
ob
obs
vation
tio
16
the parties, but I will

hear the parties concerning the
w
17
additional orders
intend to enter.
rders
de
I i
First,
First
irst on May 7th of this month, at sidebar, although
18
I don't
don
on't think we --
ND
19
Did we ever put this under seal?

D
20
FR
22
I don't know that we
12:03:39
did.
did
di
.
IE
21
12:03:14
OF
TH
EF
12
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, this is Tim Casey.
2
23
requested a sidebar subject to -- I think it is sealed pursuant
24
to a request for a motion for protection orally done, and we
25
can remove that as well, I believe, from the protection.
12:03:54

THE COURT:
All right.
Well, then to the extent that
that matter was ever under seal as opposed to just taking place
at sidebar, the seal is now removed.
.C
OM
But in that conversation Mr. Casey informed all
parties that a search of Mr. Armendariz's apartment had

d led
le to
identification, documents, money, drugs, other matters

ters that
seemed to implicate some of the issues in this case

case,
, and Deputy
Armendariz was a witness in the trial of this

is matter and was
involved in both large-scale/small-scale

patrols,
e saturation
saturati
saturatio
BO
the operations of the HSU, and the arrest

one of the named
rrest of o
11
plaintiffs.
12
parties and the Court would be aware

war of the proceedings by MCSO
13
to investigate those matters.

ters
rs.
OG
10
EF
Mr. Casey put that on the

so that all
th record
re
reco
TH
aware through the co

court
that the MCSO had voluntarily
c
t monitor
mon
moni
16
approached the
and told him that in addition to other
e monit
monitor a
17
items of contraband
o traband
raband seized from Deputy Armendariz, there were
18
approximately
imately
mately 540
0 DVD recordings that were apparently taken by
ND
S
19
eyeglass
camera
that Deputy Armendariz wore during his traffic
egla
eglass
came
20
stops.
stops.
IE
FR
12:05:00
OF
15
22
12:04:37
Subsequently,
Tuesday evening the Court became
y, on Tuesda
Tuesd
14
21
12:04:12
12:05:34
They then had showed the monitor a few examples of
some of these stops, and so the Court scheduled a hearing the

so
2
23
following day and Ms. Wang, Mr. Pochoda, were present on behalf
24
of the plaintiffs, the matter was taken under seal, and we had
25
approximately a two-hour hearing.
12:05:52

During that hearing the MCSO represented that there
were 540, approximately, DVDs that appeared to be from an
eyeglass camera, or perhaps from a dash camera that was also
installed in Deputy Armendariz's vehicle.
some of these stops as showing what the MCSO characterized

ized
ed as
s
problematic behavior by Deputy Armendariz.
of the Court, the MCSO revealed that the limited

of
ed amount
amoun o
videotape stops that they had reviewed also demonstrat

demonstrated that
demonstr
others may have been present during some

e of these -- others
.C
OM
They characterized
ized
ed
BO
And on questioning
questionin
were present during some of these stops,

a specific
tops,
tops
, including
inclu
ncl
11
supervisor, who also testified at

t the tri
trial of this matter.
OG
10
EF
policy concerning an individual

deputy's ability to record
ividual
idual dep
14
traffic stops, and that

that there was reason to
at he
e believed
beli
belie
15
think that there was

recording devices that
wa other
ther
er officer-owned
o
16
were being used

of the MCSO.
ed by members
m
membe
12:07:02
OF
TH
13
He
that there were some video-mount
e also
ls indicated
indi
n
17
cameras
-cameras that had been issued by MCSO that
s - dash-mount
das
19
had
operating
for a number of years, and some body-mount
d been
be
oper
20
cameras that had been making recordings of traffic stops

video came
21
for a number of years.

fo
IE
ND
18
FR
12:06:39
Chief Deputy Sheridan

that the MCSO had no
an indicated
indi
indicate
12
22
12:06:12
12:07:21
The Court had also learned through his monitor about
2
23
audio recording devices that were routinely used by deputies
24
for a number of years and inquired about those, and Chief
25
Deputy Sheridan indicated that he believed that those had been
12:07:39

used for a number of years.

So the Court had sealed this proceeding, as indicated
in the two-hour conversation, and the record itself will more
accurately reflect what I'm about to generally describe.
the Court was initially concerned about making sure that

at -- the
th
Court was willing to seal the proceedings so that we could ai

aid
the MCSO, and others, in the quick but low-key retrieval of any
such recordings, devices, or materials that may be being

used;
b
bei
and the Court expressed the concern, which

ich I think
thin was joined
10
by all parties, that if in fact there

some MCSO officers
re
e were so
som
11
that had engaged -- engaging in stop behavior

that was
behavi
ha
12
problematic like at least a few of the stops of Deputy
13
Armendariz were, there would

some temptation, upon learning
ould
ld be som
14
that those were being

g retrieved,
retrieved to destroy them.
.C
OM
That
ha
12:08:20
TH
EF
OG
BO
12:07:56
So in order
the collection and
de to
der
o facilitate
fac
faci
16
preservation of evidence,
we were going to proceed under seal,
evid
evidence
17
the MCSO would

formulate a plan quickly in conjunction with the
o ld
d formul
form
18
monitor,
r, would
ould accept the monitor's advice and would reveal to
19
the
e monitor if
i they were not going to accept his advice, and
20
they would quickly execute such an operation, and that the
21
investigation and operation would remain under seal pending the

invest
inves
22
limited time that it took to undertake such an operation.

lim
li
12:08:39
12:09:00
FR
IE
ND
OF
15
2
23
The hearing began at 10:00, lasted about noon, until
24
about noon, the monitor arranged to meet with the MCSO at
25
2 o'clock, and during this meeting they formulated a plan in
12:09:23

which the Internal Affairs officers of the MCSO would meet,
beginning with those deputies that they knew had MCSO-issued
devices, to obtain individually the materials that they had,
and then, as they became aware of other possible devices, would

ou
meet individually with such officers and secure the devices

vices
ce and
an
recordings that were available.
.C
OM
I will say, the Court will say that from

rom my
perspective, what happened next is the following.

lowing
owing.
At 5:30, the
A
monitor returned to my chambers to give me a report

on the
repo
repor
BO
operation plan arrived at in conjunction

ction with
ith the MCSO.
11
as he was entering my office he received a phone call from
12
Chief Deputy Sheridan that had

ad advi
advised him that he had just
13
become aware that while the

e monitor was in the meeting with
14
Chief Deputy Sheridan and

an others
other at the MCSO, Chief Trombi had
15
written an e-mail to
t certain
ertain
tai supervisory personnel, to include
16
20 personnel, and among

them was the supervisor in question who
am
17
appeared in
n at
t least
s one of the recordings, advising them of
18
the desire,
sire
r , on a departmental-wide basis, to recover all of the
19
recordings
that may have been made, and thus frustrating the
cordings th
20
plan that had been arrived at by Chief Deputy Sheridan and the
21
monitor.
monito
monit
Just
TH
OF
12:10:33
ND
IE
FR
12:10:06
EF
OG
10
22
12:09:49
12:11:02
This Court asked the monitor to immediately provide a
2
23
written report as to how that happened, and Chief Deputy
24
Sheridan, on the same day that same evening, has provided this
25
Court with a written report of events.
But in short, it seems
12:11:23

that Chief Trombi's e-mail makes the opportunity and
justification for proceeding under seal not feasible, and both
parties apparently agree, or if they do not agree they at least

st
stipulate to the release of the seal and the opening of all

ll the
t
material that has taken place under seal, to include this

his
s week
and anything in the May 7th hearing that may have been under
unde
seal.
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
Is that correct?
BO
Yes, Your Honor, that's

at's
at
's correct.
corre
correc
MR. CASEY:
This is Tim Casey

sey for the
th defendants.
11
We agree that we're releasing

leasing
easin -- stipulating to
OG
10
release the seal.

THE COURT:
13
12:12:03
EF
12
12:11:49
All right
right.
ight.
.
Well, I just want to express,

We
and I realize that the

want to say something, too,
e parties may
m
15
and I certainly don't

to prevent that, but I want to
on
want
nt t
16
express concern,
Mr. Casey, what I'm going to ask
rn,
rn
, and I guess,
g
17
you is:
18
investigation?
igation
gation?
?
12:12:20
OF
TH
14
ND
S
Is
intention to remain the point on this
s it
t the MCSO's
MC
19
MR CASEY:
MR.
It is.
20
THE COURT:
T
All right.
The concern I have is this.
an order yesterday that requires -- I think it

I' e entered
I've
e
22
pretty much just spells out some of the things that I was
pr
FR
IE
21
12:12:40
2
23
requiring in the Tuesday hearing -- or in the Wednesday hearing
24
and anything I orally ordered remains unchanged, including the
25
requirement that the MCSO provide an investigation plan to my
12:13:02

CV07-2513 Melendres v. Arpaio 5/16/14 Telephone Conference 10
monitor today, as well as the MCSO had agreed to deliver copies
of all the DVDs to my monitor today, and we don't yet have
copies of those.
tell you that I expect that both of those will be delivered

ed
today unless you can tell me what the issues are that would
ul
prevent that.
.C
OM
I'll point that out to you, Mr. Casey, and
12:13:23
I did express in the hearing on Wednesday

sday some
som concern
c
in light of the potential conflicts of interest

MCSO
rest of the
t
being point on this investigation.
BO
Ms. Wang also expressed
such concerns, and she requested a written

of the
writte description
de
des
11
actions that had been taken by the

in
he MCSO
MC
i light of those
12
concerns.
12:13:41
EF
OG
10
13
Ms. Wang, have you

received that?
u yet rec
14
MS. WANG:
15
THE COURT:
T:
TH
We
not,
e have not
ot Your Honor.
right.
All rig
ri
Mr. Casey, I do believe that
you agreed to provide

under seal.
provid that
th
17
longer under
seal,
e seal
se
, I would still expect that you would provide
18
that to
and I don't see any reason for it to be under
o Ms.
M . Wang,
Ms
Wa
Wan
19
seal
al
l at
a this point.
Now that we are no
ND
OF
16
12:13:56
Do you have any objection to providing Ms. Wang that

D
20
written description of the investigative actions taken to date

writte
writt
22
to Ms. Wang without the seal?
FR
IE
21
12:14:12
2
23
24
25
MR. CASEY:
I do not have an objection to that, Your
THE COURT:
All right.
Honor.
Let me just also express two
12:14:24

other things that I think I want the MCSO to do.

I did express in the hearing, while I had concerns
about the conflict, I expressed doubts about my ability to
order the MCSO to give up the investigation or to vest it in

n
another law enforcement agency.
wished, to provide me authority that would suggest I had such

u
authority in this circumstance.
12:14:44
I did invite Ms. Wang,

g, if
i she
he
And while I continue to welcome any

briefing, I
ny such
suc brie
br
BO
8
9
.C
OM
continue to have doubts about any authority

would
have to
rity I woul
ou
require the transfer of the investigation
another law
gation to a
11
enforcement agency, and so I don't

t think I can order it at this
12
point.
12:15:02
EF
OG
10
But I do have and

nd continue to have some concerns about
13
the conflict issues that

hat may be involved here, and I have a
15
proposal, and I think

going to allow both parties to
hi
hin
I'm
m go
g
16
address my proposal
suggest their own, but it is my proposal
oposal or s
17
and may result

s lt
t in an
a order so I do want the parties' input on
18
it.
19
are
parties can best address it.
e so the
he pa
12:15:27
OF
TH
14
ND
And
me explain what the order is and what my purposes
nd
d let m
First off, to the extent that the MCSO has any role in
F
20
investigating these matters, and I think all parties have

invest
inves
22
admitted they fall directly under my -- there isn't any despite

adm
ad
FR
IE
21
12:15:44
2
23
that they fall directly under the supplemental order, my
24
monitor will remain active, as he has, and the MCSO will
25
continue to provide him with all the information I have ordered
12:16:04

both in the written order and orally at the hearing.

He will continue to offer direction, and if you're not
going to take that direction you'll continue to provide me with

th
immediate justification of why you haven't taken that
direction.
.C
OM
12:16:24
But I'm going to make an observation, and that is I'

I'm
not making any determinations about what happened,

ned,
ned
, or what
wha
ha the
motivations are as to what happened on Wednesday

but I
nesday
esday evening,
eveni
ve
am going to observe that my monitor, as able as

a he
h is, and as
BO
able as his team members are, are only

nly a team
eam of 10 people.
11
The appropriate investigation called

is lengthy and
lled for
r here
he
12
extensive.
13
direction, is not here, and

d he does
oes not have the team, people
14
required to conduct such

and as a result,
uch an investigation
inve
nv
15
whether or not it wa
was intent
intentional,
his role and suggestions
w
ten
16
were subverted
very afternoon that he was making them,
d in the
th ve
17
and that gives

some concern.
gi es
s me som
s
OG
10
12:16:43
12:17:07
OF
TH
EF
And he, while he can

strategy and some
ca provide
pr
provid
plaintiff
will doubtless want to address what at
The p
pl
i
the
appears to have the potential of being a very large
e moment ap
20
amount of material that was pertinent to the case that was
21
already tried that was not disclosed at the time by the MCSO.
alread
alrea
22
And I certainly don't want to preclude plaintiffs' ability to

An
2
23
thoroughly investigate any of this as it may relate to relief
24
they wish to seek, any supplemental relief they may wish to
25
seek in this lawsuit.
12:17:25
IE
ND
19
FR
18
12:17:43

But I do recognize that that is complicated, perhaps,

by jurisdictional issues, and even if there wasn't that
complication it's expensive, time-consuming, and does not
address the need to act quickly and promptly and professionally

onally
al
now to make sure that we have a full, complete investigation.

igation
ti .
I want to also observe and recognize that it was

MCSO
wa MCS
M
that fully came forward, as far as I'm aware, with all of the
material that they have found from Deputy Armendariz

in the
rmendariz i
first place.
BO
And I do acknowledge that they have done so, and
as far as I am presently aware, at least

that was
east the
he material
m
11
obtained from Deputy Armendariz has been fully

provided and
fu
12
full disclosure has been made

that to the best of MCSO's
e as to tha
13
ability at the time they were

making that disclosure.
ere makin
TH
But in doing
g so,
s , it
so
i did
di become apparent that there
were significant reco
recordings
re
dings
ngs the MCSO knew of and had not
16
previously disclosed,
dash cams, body cams, and audio
sclosed, including
sclosed
in
17
recordings,
was also reason to believe that there
, and
nd there
the
18
were unofficial
nofficial
officia recordings that the officers were -- deputies
IE
ND
S
19
were
re
e making on
o their own that had not been previously
20
disclosed.
disclosed
FR
22
12:18:45
OF
15
21
12:18:24
EF
OG
10
14
12:17:59
.C
OM
12:19:04
Further, again, I don't intend to rub MCSO's nose in
this, but MCSO has already been sanctioned for the destruction
th
2
23
of evidence in this case, and there have been a few issues of
24
compliance with my initial order, although there have been, I
25
believe, full attempts to correct some of that.
12:19:19

But in addition, whether inadvertent or otherwise,
MCSO's actions frustrated the ability to implement the strategy
for quietly and efficiently preserving from destruction any
additional evidence that might be out there.
Sheridan does in his report suggest that he does not think

hink
nk it
t
will make any difference, or significant difference.

e.
certain that we all join him in hoping that that

at is correct.
corre
.C
OM
Chief Deputy
y
12:19:39
I'm
I
But it was the best plan that we could

ould come
e up with,
and he joined in saying that that was the

plan, and it's
he best pl
pla
BO
been frustrated, it seems to me, by activity b

by the MCSO,
11
whether that was inadvertent or otherwise

otherwise, and I'm not
12
suggesting either way.
12:19:58
EF
OG
10
So in order to, in
sense -- well, I believe
n a certain
certa
13
that this -- what I would

has the benefit of protecting
oul propose
ould
propo
propos
15
MCSO from itself, bu

but I'm
not going to be too paternalistic
m no
n
16
about that.
17
involved in
n working
orking with the parties to try to protect and
18
preserve
evidence, and has the obligation to protect evidence
ve eviden
evide
TH
14
12:20:20
ND
S
OF
I believe
that to the extent this Court has been
belie
t
as it may
relate to the plaintiff class here, and I think there
y rel
20
that there's reason to believe that the evidence

is no dispute
disp
21
to the plaintiff class, the Court is required to

does relate
r
22
ensure that the -- do what it can to ensure that the

en
12:20:47
FR
IE
19
2
23
investigation is thorough, professional, above board, complete,
24
and beyond reproach.
25
that, but to the extent I have the ability I'm going to do it.
There may be limits on my ability to do

12:21:08

For reasons I've just outlined, the monitor alone,
1
2
although he can play a big role and it will increase his
function significantly, cannot ensure that.
what he can -- his best to provide strategies and to monitor

tor
r
compliance with his strategies, but as we've seen on Wednesday,

Wednesday
nesday,
that doesn't mean, necessarily, that it will result

t in
implementation of his strategies.
.C
OM
12:21:26
And again, for the reasons I've set

forth,
t forth
for
, it would be
BO
8
9
He can only do
ineffective and incomplete for the plaintiff

this point to
ntiff at
a th
t
try to speedily be in charge of the investigation
and, of
investiga
investigat
11
course, they couldn't be in charge

but to
rge
ge of
o the
he investigation,
i
12
monitor the investigation through

civil litigation
rough traditional
tradi
t
13
remedies.
12:21:45
EF
OG
10
And so what I would

to do, what I propose to
woul propose
pr
r
TH
14
do is order that in addition

ddition
tio to the matter being unsealed, and
16
I do recognize
e that that is, in and of itself, substantial
17
protection so that
the
t
th public can be made completely aware of
18
what is
to the extent that that would be a motivator
s happening
happen
happeni
19
to hold
completely responsible and above board in all
hol the MCSO
M
20
obligations, and I recognize the good faith in the MCSO

of its obl
21
making and stipulating to that suggestion, in addition, I'm

in mak
ma
22
going to require that the MCSO affirmatively provide all of the

go
12:22:01
12:22:23
FR
IE
ND
OF
15
2
23
sealed materials to the county attorney of Maricopa County,
24
Mr. Bill Montgomery, and also affirmatively provide him a copy
25
of Chief Deputy Sheridan's report of May 14th about what
12:22:49

happened on May 14th.

I'm also going to require MCSO to provide similar
copies to the United States Department of Justice.
I am aware
e
that the plaintiffs' attorneys, or at least, Mr. Casey, you

ou
have indicated to me that the plaintiffs' attorneys have

ve some
sort of a cooperation agreement with the Department

t of Justice
Justic
as it relates to their other lawsuit, and I understand

MCSO's
derstand MC
concern that this case not bleed over into that too much,
and
mu
so I'm not necessarily directing that it

in the
t be disclosed
discl
disclo
.C
OM
BO
12:23:11
course of that lawsuit, but I am directing

rectin -recting
- or I am inclined
11
to direct that it be disclosed to

Department
of Justice,
o the Depar
ep
12
for the following reasons.
12:23:27
EF
MR. CASEY:
13
OG
10
Your
r Honor,
Honor may
ma I add real quick -- this
is Tim Casey -- that I spoke with

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli
wi
wit
15
lawyer Joseph Popolizio

ol
oliz
o this
thi morning.
16
letter went out

ut to DOJ,
D , a lawyer, I think his name is Caspar,
DOJ
17
Ed Caspar, perhaps.
erhaps
rh
.
18
Court, send
end to the
h monitor, and send to plaintiffs' counsel.
19
The
advised of what the Jones, Skelton lawyers are
e DOJ
DO has been
b
20
aware of
of,
, which, you know, may be a little bit different than
21
ours, our knowledge as counsel in Melendres, but nonetheless, I

ours,
22
wanted you to be aware of that and then the plaintiffs'

wa
Yesterday a detailed
12:23:41
OF
TH
14
12:24:02
FR
IE
ND
That letter is available to send to the
2
23
24
25
counsel.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, what I'm going to
suggest is that plaintiffs' counsel and defense counsel in this
12:24:15

case work on the appropriate persons to reveal this to in the
Department of Justice, and if you can't come up with anybody
else I'm going to suggest John Leonardo, who's the United
States Attorney for Arizona, and then he can direct the matter
atter
te
where he believes it should go.
.C
OM
12:24:31
But it seems to me that while I'm making, certainly,

certainly
no decision that this involves, necessarily involves

volves criminal
crim
ramifications, it seems to me that there is reason

to
reas
t believe
that there may be evidence of criminal conduct,

what
conduct both
b
bo
BO
may -- what could conceivably constitute

crimes as well
itute
tute federal
feder
ede
11
as state crimes, and what could conceivably

constitute even
conceivab
12
state civil rights violations.

s.
And certainly what

here on Wednesday -- and
hat
t I saw h
13
again, I acknowledge that what I saw, I saw through the
15
voluntary conduct of
MCSO in disclosing it -- but it seems
o the
he MCS
MC
16
to me that that
could be evidence that civil rights
at certainly
cert
certainl
17
of the United
t d States
State citizens were being violated.
12:25:12
OF
TH
14
acknowledge, to make it clear, that the

I further
fur
18
examples
ampl s shown
ample
show by the MCSO do not necessarily involve members
20
plaintiff class, although they didn't represent that

of the pla
21
there were no -- I don't think anybody takes the position that
22
there isn't concern that such evidence might exist.

th
IE
ND
19
FR
12:24:54
EF
OG
10
12:25:30
And to the
2
23
extent that it involved the violations of the civil rights of
24
American citizens in any case, it seems to me that the DOJ has
25
a right to determine whether or not they have an investigative
12:25:50

interest in these matters and to monitor and/or coordinate with
the MCSO in its investigation, which will be a protection both
to the MCSO, to the society, and to all of us.
That would be my suggestion, and I'm now ready to

o hear
he
what the parties have to say concerning it.

MS. WANG:
12:26:06
Your Honor, this is Cecillia Wang

ang for
fo
.C
OM
plaintiffs.
We would agree with the Court's proposal

both
roposal bot
ot to
unseal, of course, what we've discussed, and

7th and the
d on the 7t
14th.
BO
And in addition, we would agree with and

would in fact
an wo
w
request that the materials that have

uncovered and that
e been unco
unc
11
will continue to be uncovered be provided t

to the Department of
12
Justice, and in particular to

States Attorneys
o the United
U
Unite
13
Office in Arizona.
I think that plaintiffs

plaintiff do have an interest in
TH
14
actually receiving
those
materials to the extent that they
g t
se mat
ma
16
relate to this
litigation in the Ortega Melendres case.
s litigatio
litig
17
I'm not sure

r at this
i point how exactly to accomplish that and
18
to identify
the materials that we as plaintiffs are entitled to
ntify
tify th
19
see,
I would
hope to work that out with the defense.
e, but
b
wo
12:26:48
And
ND
OF
15
THE COURT:
T
21
MR. POCHODA:
22
I will just state for the record I did receive a call
IE
20
FR
12:26:29
EF
OG
10
Mr. Casey.
12:27:11
Your Honor, this is Dan Pochoda.
2
23
from Ed Caspar, who is the, at least on the trial level, the
24
lead attorney for the DOJ in their litigation about this issue,
25
because they had been informed by Mr. Popolizio and there were
12:27:27

going to be further discussions.

I obviously informed him that I could not discuss this
matter, but that I would urge that, of course, that trial team
m
be given the same materials that go to Mr. Leonardo.
.C
OM
THE COURT:
Mr. Casey.
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, let me start off by a point of
12:27:49
clarification.
My assumption is when we're talking

lking about what
I'm going to broadly call the Armendariz material,

teria , my
terial
m
assumption is that is any and all videotape,

format
tape,
tape
, whatever
what
whate
BO
it's in, whether it's a CD, a disk, a thumb

whatever
humb drive,
d
dr
11
video that Armendariz had, that's

s what
wha we need to provide, as
12
well as copies of basically what I would

woul call the results of
13
the search warrant execution:

tion
on: copies
copie of driver's licenses and
14
particular cards, passports,

sort of things.
ssports
sports,
, those
th
tho
12:28:08
TH
EF
OG
10
Is that the
that the Court is
th same
ame
e understanding
u
un
15
expressing and
d that the plaintiffs' counsel are expressing that
17
needs to go to
o these
s people?
18
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
OF
16
But also
Well, yes, as an initial matter.
12:28:34
as a matter o
of context, I'm going to require you to provide a
20
copy of the
th transcript of the May 7th hearing that was closed,
21
a copy
op of the transcript of the May 14th hearing that was
22
closed, a copy of my May 15th order that was filed under seal,
cl
12:28:47
FR
IE
ND
19
2
23
a copy --
24
MR. CASEY:
And this hearing.
25
THE COURT:
-- a copy of Chief Deputy Sheridan's
12:29:01

report to me of May 14, and a copy of this hearing, even though
this hearing is no longer under seal.

MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
This is Tim Casey.
Okay.
.C
OM
I fully understand and I
appreciate it.
objections; I'm making sure that I understand as counsel

ounsel wh
what
the expectations are of the Court and of the plaintiffs.

laintiff .
laintiffs
12:29:18
BO
With that said, I believe I have an

understanding of
n understan
underst
that, and I do not have -- pardon?

MR. POCHODA:
10
In terms of understandi
understanding of the
understand
OG
I'm not asking the question to raise
plaintiffs, Your Honor, I thought

ht
t that
tha in your May 15th order
12
you went beyond just the tapes

es from Mr.
Mr Armendariz and have
13
asked them to collect any

tapes of that type, and I
y unknown t
14
would -- I would assume

would also be included in what
me those
ho
w
wo
15
would be turned over

ve -ver
-
TH
EF
11
12:29:36
THE COURT
COURT:
:
Well, what I want to be -- what I want to

Wel
OF
16
12:29:57
order be turned
u ned
ed over
e is what we have right now.
The material
18
in my order
rder of May 15th goes to the monitor and is collected by
19
the
MCSO.
e MCSO
MC
.
ND
17
I will tell you that to the extent I would believe
20
that it
i should be turned over, but I'm not going to preclude
22
MCSO, if they have some basis for believing it shouldn't be

MC
FR
IE
21
12:30:13
2
23
turned over, to raising it to me.
And since I don't know what
24
may be turned up, I'm just going to require them to turn over
25
everything we now have.
12:30:30

And then if the DOJ wants to start their own
investigation, wants to assume some sort of jurisdiction, if
the Maricopa County Attorney wants to do the same, they will at
least be informed.
prevents you, Mr. Pochoda, Ms. Wang, or anybody else from

rom
m
informing them of what's happened here, and I assume

me that
tha it's
it'
it
all going to be available to them to the extent

may be
t that it
i m
relevant in their other lawsuit or to the extent

xtent that
a they or
deputy county -- or County Attorney Montgomery

tgomery are
ar considering
.C
OM
There isn't anything in a seal now that

at
BO
whether or not the County has jurisdiction

dictio to initiate either
diction
11
its own criminal investigation and/or

criminal charges
nd/
nd
/or separate
separ
ep
12
against anyone, or other civil

for that matter.
il matters,
matt
matters
13
MR. POCHODA:
14
MR. CASEY:
EF
OG
10
Thank
you.
hank
nk you
yo
.
TH
Honor, this is Tim Casey.

Your Honor
You
I believe
16
And, for example,

hypothetically to Dan Pochoda's
ex
exampl
OF
I understand exactly,
and
is what we are going to do.
tl
tly
d that
t
th
question, i
if in fact
c we learn that there is a plethora of other
18
video out
there, well, we all have to know about that.
ut ther
ND
S
17
20
material.
material.
21
we ll cross that bridge, too.

we'll
IE
right
ght now I'
I'm
m not -- you know, right now that's not Armendariz
I don't even have that material yet.
12:31:26
But
19
FR
12:31:07
That's all.
15
22
12:30:49
So I guess
12:31:47
But meanwhile, everything related to Armendariz will
2
23
be going to the people you've identified, including the
24
plaintiffs here.
25
involved here, will be cooperating in good faith with the
And then we obviously will, as long as I'm

12:32:02

plaintiffs' counsel to expand, as we can agree upon, with great
latitude and deference towards the plaintiffs on this matter,
we will get them whatever is needed, okay?

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
8
9
Then I'm going to --
I appreciate that.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
I couldn't hear you,

ou,
ou
, Ms
Ms. Wang.
W
Wan
I apologize.
MS. WANG:
12:32:21
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
Mr. Casey.
thanking
I was
wa than
th
BO
All right.
.C
OM
THE COURT:
All right.
Is there anyt
anything else -any
11
MR. LIDDY:
Your Honor, this

Tom Liddy.
thi is
s To
OG
10
I have a
point, I don't know if it's a question

or a comment, but Your
quest
13
Honor, you made comments about

by MCSO which may have
bout actions
acti
cti
14
frustrated a plan to collect

material on the very evening
collec this
th
thi
15
that the monitor and

Sheridan came up with it.
an Chief
hief
ef Deputy
D
TH
EF
12
12:32:43
I want
sure the Court is aware that there was
nt to make
m
OF
16
12:32:28
an effort u
underway
derway
erway to collect this material from the moment
18
that it
that it may exist, which would have
t was learned
le
IE
ND
S
17
19
predated
edat
edated
any plan arrived at by the monitor and the sheriff by
20
approximately 48 hours.
approximat
21
viewed unfavorably by the monitor or the Court if there's a

viewe
22
confusion about efforts to identify/collect this material that

co
FR
And I would hate to have the MCSO
2
23
was initiated prior to even a hearing that was sealed, much
24
less an effort, intentionally or otherwise, to frustrate a plan
25
that was arrived at by the monitor 48 hours after the fact.
12:33:02
12:33:24

Perhaps Mr. Casey can further elaborate.
THE COURT:
Well, I think you've stated the position
adequately for the record, and I'd -- you know, I was not
intending, and I do not believe I misstated anything, but to

o
the extent that you feel like you need to make it clear
r that
th
the MCSO was fully cooperating with this Court and with the
e
parties to the extent that it found anything in

n the Armendariz
Armen
investigation, I believe I've indicated that

no reason
t I have
h
n
to believe otherwise.
.C
OM
BO
Your Honor, I just want t

to put on the
OG
MR. LIDDY:
10
record that any idea, that any activity

ctivi
b the MCSO to collect
by
12
up the data from Armendariz' garage or to learn whether there
13
was other video evidence out

ut there by other deputies, it would
14
have started 48 hours prior to t

the hearing, should not be
15
viewed by the monitor

it
ito
or the
th Court as any effort to frustrate a
16
plan arrived at later

on.
late on
12:34:08
12:34:26
OF
TH
EF
11
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
Well, again, Mr. Liddy, I appreciate your
making the
position
of your client clear, and I'm not
h posi
pos
i
19
preventing
you from doing that, but I'm not making any findings
eventing yo
20
now.
here and n
ND
18
I've stated --
MR. LIDDY:
Appreciate that, Your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
I've stated the facts as best I can, and
IE
21
FR
12:33:43
2
23
if you're concer -- and I've allowed you to make sure that they
24
not be misconstrued by stating your position, which I believe
25
I've commented on adequately.
12:34:42
12:34:55

Do you wish to say anything, Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG:
My understanding is that the materials that were
.C
OM
Just one clarifying question, Your Honor.
recovered from Deputy Armendariz' home will be provided to

o us,
us
the plaintiffs, and to the Department of Justice.
materials still subject to a confidence -- to a confidentiality

nfidentiali
limitation?
I got distracted.
Could you repeat that,

t, please?
please?
MS. WANG:
10
I just wanted clarification

as to whether
larificati
larificatio
the Armendariz materials as we've

them, Mr. Casey,
e described
describ
12
would be subject to the same confidentiality

restrictions that
confid
confidenti
13
we've received other documents

uments
ents under.
unde
nde
MR. CASEY:
12:35:33
EF
11
to get back -- my general

I would
woul like
li
lik
TH
14
12:35:14
I apologize,
OG
Cecillia, this is Tim Casey.

Casey
BO
MR. CASEY:
Are those
ho
thought is no, but

like to get back with Christine
t I would
ld l
16
Stutz from the

MCAO,
because she did send me -- well, hold on.
e MC
MCAO
AO,
, bec
17
I may be looking
lo king
in at
t -- there may be an issue -- there may be an
18
issue as to anyone
that's in the videos other than Armendariz,
an
any
19
and
don't
d I don
n't -- it's an area of the law that I'm not familiar
20
with, and I just have to check with her, okay?

with,
12:35:49
OF
15
THE COURT:
22
Because I believe that MCSO probably has not had a
RI
21
12:36:15
Well, here's what I will do.
2
23
chance to view all of the videos, and because there may be
24
material in there that we all agree is, for one reason or
25
another, subject to some sort of seal, depending upon whether
12:36:37

or not it gives rise to an investigative lead that needs to be
kept confidential for a brief period of time, I'm not going to
prohibit the MCSO from asserting that that should be held at
least under seal for a brief period of time.
to blanketly open them up to you right at this point, Ms.

. Wang,
Wang
ng,
do you understand what -- open them up to you out of seal

sea at
a
this point.
clarification I was seeking.
Understood.
.
We will keep
eep those confidential
c
OG
until we're advised otherwise.

MR. CASEY:
the
That was
Th
w
Your Honor, this

Tim Casey.
thi is
s Ti
12:37:14
I don't
want to get into the details,

, because
becau
I don't -- you're not
13
making any findings of fact,

act
t, but may
ma I ask of the Court, it is
14
my impression and understanding

derstanding
erstanding from talking to Jerry Sheridan
15
that it was represented

that what you have described as
se
sent
d to him
h
16
a preliminary report that

tha was sent from Jerry Sheridan to
17
monitor Bob
b Warshaw
arshaw was something that actually you had ordered
18
to be done.
done
n .
THE COURT:
ND
19
That is correct.
What I did is I ordered
Mr. Warshaw
Mr.
Warsha to provide me a formal written report as soon as I
21
heard that the activity had been taken by Chief Trombi.
22
instructed Mr. Warshaw that I wanted a formal written report

in
FR
IE
20
24
25
12:37:31
OF
TH
EF
12
2
23
12:36:57
Understood.
BO
MS. WANG:
11
So I'm not going

in
Do you understand what I'm saying,

, Ms
Ms. Wang?
Wang?
10
.C
OM
12:37:48
about why that happened and how it occurred.

MR. CASEY:
Yes.
And Your Honor, but it sounds that
that written report was of the -- it sounds to me what you said
12:38:12

is a written report from Bob Warshaw.

My concern, just so it's clear, is that if in fact the
Court was ordering my client to do something is exactly how my

y
client understood it, he did it, he did it sometime in the

e
evening, and I'm not -- I know that I, as his counsel, was

as not
involved in that, and I'm pretty confident to say that I
believe that my other counsel, co-counsel Tom Liddy,

Liddy, was not
involved.
.C
OM
BO
And it's one thing to have your

do a report,
r monitor d
but if there's a court order requiring

client to do
ing my clie
cli
11
something, it would seem to me that

don't
hat I don
on't want -- I'm very
12
concerned that that's how that

across to my client and he
at came acr
13
did something without his

being involved, his trial
s lawyers b
14
counsel.
TH
And I'm not

not accusing anyone of
no being
ng negative,
n
15
anything, but I am concerned

that -- I'm just concerned to how
c
conce
17
that report
rt came
am to
o you signed by Jerry Sheridan, because my
18
client understood
underst d it was a court order that the monitor said,
12:39:06
ND
S
OF
16
The
wants this and you gotta do it.
e judge wan
20
saying is you wanted a report, but my impression is it was to
21
Bob Warshaw.
come from
f
IE
19
22
FR
12:38:48
EF
OG
10
THE COURT:
And what I hear you
I've indicated that I want you to provide that to the DOJ and
24
to -MR. CASEY:
12:39:32
Well, let's take up the initial matter.
2
23
25
12:38:36
Yes, sir.
12:39:45

THE COURT:
-- the Maricopa County attorney.
Do you have any issue -- because of what you've just

indicated, do you have any issue with providing the content of
f
that report to them?

MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, this is again Tim Casey.

sey.
.
No, I do not.
Yes, I will do that.
But I guess
gues what
w
wha
I'm articulating to the Court is the Court is the Court,

Court, the
Cour
monitor is your agent, but it is a concern I have wh

when
perhaps -- and I'm not -- I don't know what happen

happened, so I
happe
BO
assume the best in everyone with good

intentions, but my
od faith in
i
11
concern is it's a very different thing for

fo an agent of the
12
Court to say, You are ordered,

you are ordered by
d, monitoree,
moni
monitore
13
Judge Snow to give me this,

then the monitor gives it to
is, and the
14
you and all of a sudden

it's
en now
ow it
t' an official report.
12:40:17
TH
EF
OG
10
You know,
, by rough
ugh analogy, it's like, you know, you
15
go, The President

dent of the United States wants this done, you
17
never talk to
President.
o the
t
P
Pre
18
the President.
esident
ident.
.
19
just
st concerned
concerne that we don't have a history develop of that
20
where the monitor says, This needs to be done,

sort of thing
th
21
under your authority, and then my client is doing something
22
without the benefit of his counsel.

wi
OF
16
12:40:38
Well, you're the equivalent of

And I'm
You're the one with the authority.

Y
ND
IE
FR
12:39:57
.C
OM
12:40:53
And I just wanted to alert
2
23
you to that because I saw your order, and I didn't know what
24
the heck it was about, a preliminary report, because I wasn't
25
involved in it, I wasn't told anything about it, but I did see
12:41:12

it.
THE COURT:
Well --
MR. CASEY:
I did get it eventually, and I was
.C
OM
concerned about it because neither Liddy or I have been
involved in it, and that's a real problem.

THE COURT:
Well --
MR. CASEY:
For what it's worth.
patience, Your Honor.
other than I want to inform you of that.

.
Thank
nk you for your
I guess I'm not asking

ing
ng for
fo an
n end result
BO
12:41:22
will be glad
But we
e w
10
to share that, because the chief has

s sent it
it,
, and it is what
11
the chief said factually and he stands

it and we'll send it
stand by i
12
to anyone you want us to send

but I did want you to be
d it to,
to bu
13
aware of that for the future.

ture
re.
14
THE COURT:
EF
OG
12:41:33
TH
Well,
your raising that.
Well
Wel
, I appreciate
ap
app
will advise you that

it is fair and I would expect
ha I believe
hat
belie
eli
16
you to do whatever
says you should do.
tever my
m monitor
mo
17
completely
y that
hat
at what
wha he says has the complete imprimatur of
18
this Court,
ourt
ur , which
wh h it does, and if there needs to be -- if you
19
need
ed
d to
t raise this as an issue, you may raise it.
20
he and I will talk about it.
21
MR. CASEY:
IE
ND
OF
15
FR
22
final point on that?

fi
Yes.
I understand
Otherwise,
All right?
12:42:07
And Your Honor, may I just make one
I have the greatest respect for the
2
23
counsel on this phone and for the Court, and that's not
24
apple-polishing.
25
12:41:47
As an officer of the Court and also as an advocate for
12:42:23

my client, one of the concerns that I have been told by other
lawyers who have been in this situation, because this is my
first rodeo advising a client in a monitorship, is that while
he is your agent, that it is a dangerous situation for a
monitor to start ordering my client to do certain things

ngs under
the imprimatur that it is an order from Murray Snow

w or
o any
other federal judge.
.C
OM
And again, I don't know if this is the time

e or place,
BO
8
9
but I'm very concerned that that is something

happened
ething that's
that
ha
10
here because it isolates my client from

counsel, and it also
rom counse
couns
11
isolates the process from you, who

because the
ho issues orders,
o
12
powers, even though he's your

r agent
agent, the
th powers have been
13
determined by your October

2nd,
2013, order, and that order, to
er 2
nd,
nd
, 201
14
my recollection and good

ood faith
faith, allows a lot of leeway, but it
15
does not provide the

for him to order my client,
th authority
uthori
hor
16
without the benefit

counsel, to give him something to give
enefit of c
17
to the Court.
r
TH
EF
OG
12:43:03
12:43:30
OF
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
18
Well --
MR CASEY:
MR.
And I just --
20
THE COURT:
T
-- let me just say, Mr. Casey --
21
MR. CASEY:
Thank you.
22
THE COURT:
-- that you have said what you had to say.
FR
IE
ND
19
2
23
I'm not sure that the monitor has had a chance to respond.
24
going to certainly give him that chance.
25
12:42:43
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
12:43:41
I'm
12:43:51

THE COURT:
The other thing is I highly doubt, but I
could be wrong, but I highly doubt that my monitor required
Chief Deputy Sheridan to do anything without the advice of
counsel.
saying I wanted a report from him.
may have been something that might have been a misunderstanding

understandi
between the two of them.
Chief Warshaw, and in the meantime, I will tell you that

the
th
best way to solve the problem seems to me to b

following.
be the
t
th
.C
OM
Chief Deputy Sheridan may have interpreted him to be

b
BO
But I'm going to check

ck with
Your client should accept instruction

instructio from
12:44:27
OG
10
Chief Warshaw as instruction from

m me.
me
Your
client should never
Yo
12
feel like it can't check with

Mr. Liddy about that
h you or
o with
wi
13
advice before acting upon

if -- particularly
n it
it,
, and i
14
Mr. Sheridan, and if you feel like

you want to challenge the
li
l
15
order, you can.
TH
EF
11
12:44:51
But I would lik

like to promote an environment where we
OF
16
don't have a whole

lot
wh
lo of obstruction and difficulty going on,
18
and if we have a whole lot of obstruction and difficulty going
19
on I will do something different to resolve the problem.
20
this with -will address

addre
ND
17
22
CHIEF WARSHAW:
FR
IE
Are you on the line, Chief Warshaw?
24
25
THE COURT:
But I
12:45:08
21
2
23
12:44:08
I don't question that

hat
t that
Yes, I am, Judge.
Well, why don't I let you address this
matter, then.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
Yes.
And Mr. Casey, I understood
12:45:16

exactly what you said and what your concerns are, but I would
add that I specifically and repeatedly and emphatically told
Chief Sheridan, as pertained to his reports, that he should and

nd
should be perfectly free and I encouraged him to reach out

t to
counsel.
.C
OM
12:45:48
And I believe that in the report that he filed,

filed, or
r in
i
a subsequent e-mail which I simply don't have in front of me,
that he represented that he attempted to reach

to
ach out
o
t yourself,
Mr. Liddy, and Ms. Stutz, and was unable

e to reach any of the
THE COURT:
11
12
All right.
CHIEF WARSHAW:
14
THE COURT:
TH
OF
THE
HE COURT:
C R
All right.
ND
22
MR. CASEY:
FR
IE
MS. WANG:
25
Did somebody join the

12:46:24
This is Chief Martinez.
I got
All right, thank you.

Is there anything else that needs to be
here?
raised her
21
24
Yes, I shall.
dropped off
a minute
ago.
f about
bo
m
19
2
23
All right.
right
CHIEF
F MARTINEZ:
MARTI
MARTINEZ
18
20
Yes,
Judge.
Yes
es,
, Judge
conversation here?
?
16
17
Chief, will you please do

And Chie
Chief
me the favor of providing me with a cop

copy of that e-mail?
13
15
12:46:06
OG
three of you.
EF
10
BO
12:46:31
No, Your Honor, not from plaintiffs.

And not from the defendants, Your Honor.
This is Tim Casey.

THE COURT:
All right.
Then I believe that an order
will issue this afternoon indicating that all those matters are
12:46:45

out from under seal, and that the MCSO shall provide the
matters indicated to the United States Attorney, John Leonardo,
and to Bill Montgomery, who is the Maricopa County Attorney.
.C
OM
I am going to further authorize either party who wish

is
4
5
to speak to Mr. Leonardo or Mr. --
I'm sorry, who did I say?
MR. CASEY:
Bill Montgomery, sir?
THE COURT:
Oh, yeah, Bill Montgomery.

mery.
mery
.
Leonardo
Mr.
. L
BO
12:47:09
or Mr. Montgomery, if either party wishes

es to speak
spea with them
about it, or if they wish to speak to
party, they're
o either
ither p
11
certainly authorized to do so, as

isn't anything under
s there i
isn
12
seal in this case at the moment.

ent.
ent
(Proceedings concluded
ncluded
luded at 12:47 p.m.)
TH
14
18
ND
19
17
OF
15
16
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Thank
you all.
T
EF
13
OG
10
12:47:26

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

dul
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter

for
Repor
p
the United States District Court for the

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

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

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

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

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

Melendres # 715 140516 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 715 - Transcript - May 16 2014 Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres # 715 140516 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 715 - Transcript - May 16 2014 Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 33

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

For the Defendants:

Stanley Young, Esq.

Timothy J. Casey, Esq.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 33

This is civil case 07-2513, Melendres v.

Arpaio, on for telephonic conference.

Counsel, please announce your appearances.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

this is Cecillia Wang of the ACLU.

Pochoda of the ACLU and Stan Young of Covington

Good afternoon, Your

Casey, and I understand that my co-counsel,

Maricopa County Attorney's Office,

for calling in.

it's a hearing as to whether or not we remove the seal as to

offer, I take it, to stipulate by Mr. Casey.

I did receive earlier this morning a -- what is an

Mr. Casey, I'll remind you that when you're dealing

Yes, Your Honor.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 33

But the substance of the stipulation, if

sheriff stipulates that the seal -- all seals can be removed

from this matter.

Does plaintiff have any objection to that?

that any part of this hearing has been under seal,

No, Your Honor, plaintiffs do not object to

unsealing these matters.

I am going to state for the record

this was under -- why it was under seal

going to grant the stipulation

resolved and take it out of seal,

have a few other observations

the parties, but I will

Did we ever put this under seal?

I don't know that we

Your Honor, this is Tim Casey.

requested a sidebar subject to -- I think it is sealed pursuant

to a request for a motion for protection orally done, and we

can remove that as well, I believe, from the protection.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 715 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 33

Well, then to the extent that

at sidebar, the seal is now removed.

But in that conversation Mr. Casey informed all

parties that a search of Mr. Armendariz's apartment had

identification, documents, money, drugs, other matters

seemed to implicate some of the issues in this case

Armendariz was a witness in the trial of this

involved in both large-scale/small-scale

the operations of the HSU, and the arrest

parties and the Court would be aware

to investigate those matters.

Mr. Casey put that on the

aware through the co

They then had showed the monitor a few examples of

some of these stops, and so the Court scheduled a hearing the