Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10
11
12 A.P. and I.P., by and through their
guardian ad litem Diana Ms. Perez, in
13 each case individually and as successors
in interest to Luis Morin, Jr., deceased;
14 J.M. and E.M., by and through their
guardian ad litem Fabiola Velasquez, in
15 each case individually and as successors
in interest to Luis Morin Jr., deceased;
16 MARIA GOMEZ; and LUIS MORIN,,
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
Defendants.
21
22
23
1
2 1.
1)
Plaintiffs' counsel contends that a prior interrogatory covers the same area
17 because it asked about prior contacts between Deputy Rodriguez and Ms. Perez.
18 However, Interrogatory No. 3 (Doc. 85-1) does not cover any personal allegedly sexual
19 relationship between Deputy Rodriguez and Ms. Perez, which subject was brought up
20 through questioning of Deputy Rodriguez during his deposition. Defendant County has
21 the right to question Ms. Perez about these allegations of a sexual relationship raised by
22 plaintiffs' counsel.
23
2)
Plaintiffs' counsel contends that Ms. Perez need not be deposed because
24 the deposition of decedent's mother, Maria Gomez, covers the same area or put
25 Defendant on notice of Deputy Rodriguez's relationship with Ms. Perez. However, as
26 Ms. Gomez answered that she did not know that the deputy involved had contact with a
27 family member (Doc. 85-2), there was no reason to question her further about this
28 subject matter. Moreover, the deposition testimony of Maria Gomez cannot cover the
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx
1 same ground as the personal knowledge of Ms. Perez about her relationship with
2 Deputy Rodriguez. Nobody but Ms. Perez herself can answer the questions that were
3 raised by plaintiffs' counsel during Deputy Rodriguez's deposition, such as whether Ms.
4 Perez and Deputy Rodriguez were involved in a romantic and sexual relationship;
5 whether Deputy Rodriguez sent a text message to Ms. Perez a few hours before the
6 subject incident; whether Ms. Perez gave information of a public location to Deputy
7 Rodriguez in which to "lure "Luis Morin; whether Ms. Perez provided Deputy
8 Rodriguez with the Coachella address where Luis Morin was "murdered "in the days
9 and weeks prior to January 27, 2014; or whether Ms. Perez sent a text message to
10 Deputy Rodriguez later in the evening on January 27, 2014, after Luis Morin had been
11 "murdered." The only person who can testify about these matters is Ms. Perez.
12
3)
Plaintiffs' counsel contends that they "may" agree to the deposition of Ms.
4)
Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the County need not depose Ms. Perez
26 because it has the number of her cell telephone and plaintiffs will "soon" have
27 subpoenaed records from the hotels showing the sexual relationship between Ms. Perez
28 and Deputy Rodriguez. This assertion is ludicrous because the County still will need to
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx
1 depose Ms. Perez about her communications and relationship with Deputy Rodriguez.
2 The records alone are not sufficient. Moreover, to date plaintiffs have not produced any
3 such records to Defendant.
4
5)
Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the County need not depose Ms. Perez
6)
10 obtain the requested information at Ms. Perez's prior deposition. This is incorrect as
11 defense counsel just recently was notified of the serious allegations raised by plaintiffs
12 during the September 9, 2015, deposition of Defendant Deputy Rodriguez.
13
7)
Plaintiffs have failed to give a legitimate reason for not allowing the County to
20 redepose Ms. Perez about the subject matters raised in the deposition of Deputy
21 Rodriguez. Absent ex parte and expedited relief, Defendant County will suffer undue
22 prejudice in not being able to participate in a meaningful mediation on October 8, 2015,
23 without being able to first re-depose Ms. Perez about the allegations suggested by the
24 cross-examination of Deputy Rodriguez at his deposition. Accordingly, Defendant
25 respectfully requests that the Court order the redeposition of Diana Perez prior to the
26 October 8, 2015 mediation date. If the suggested date of October 6, 2015, is not
27 available, Defendant seeks an order to re-depose Ms. Perez at a time and place within
28 four weeks from the date the Order is signed, prior to the discovery cut-off date of
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx
1 December 3, 2015.
2
3 2.
CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant
8
9
10
11
12
13
By:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx