Post on 07-Aug-2018
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
1/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1036
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)))))))))))
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, ArizonaSeptember 24, 20159:04 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 5, pages 1036-1278)
Court Reporter: Gary Moll401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
2/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1037
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union FoundationImmigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union FoundationImmigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Andre Segura, Esq.125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004
American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148Phoenix, Arizona 85011
Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Tammy Albarran, Esq.By: Lauren E. Pedley, Esq.1 Front Street, 35th FloorSan Francisco, California 94111
Covington & Burling, LLP
By: Stanley Young, Esq.By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, California 94065
For the Defendant Maricopa County:Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:Mitchell Stein Carey, PCBy: Lee D. Stein, Esq.1 Renaissance Square2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85004
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
3/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1038
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:
Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLCBy: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.By: John T. Masterson, Esq.By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PCBy: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.P.O. Box 20527Phoenix, Arizona 85036
For the Intervenor United States of America:U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th FloorWashington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011Washington, D.C. 20004
For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:Dickinson Wright, PLLCBy: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400Phoenix, Arizona 85004
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLPBy: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
4/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1039
A P P E A R A N C E S
For Timothy J. Casey:Adams & Clark, PCBy: Karen Clark, Esq.520 E. Portland StreetPhoenix, Arizona 85004
Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian SandsChief Deputy Gerard SheridanDeputy Chief Jack MacIntyreLieutenant Joseph Sousa
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
5/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1040
I N D E X
Witness: Page
GERARD SHERIDAN
Direct Examination Continued by Ms. Wang 1069
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
1001 Memorandum, 11/20/14, from D. Tennyson to 1048G. Sheridan, Subject: Found Identification
(Armendariz Search Warrant)
2008 Employee Grievance Response by Chief Deputy 1206Sheridan dated 7/28/2015 (MELC724585-MELC724587)
2062 Documents from IA 15-022 dated 7/2015 1216(MELC680471-MELC680481)
2070 E-mail chain: From Steve Bailey to Larry 1121Farnsworth re HSU portion of op manual dated11/4/2013 (MELC1032200-MELC1032203)
2510 Notice of meeting to discuss the Melendres 1090case dated 4/3/2012 (MELC833475)
2519 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Administra- 1221tive Investigation of Deputy Richard Lopez(MELC676786-676814)
2520 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Notice of 1204Findings dated 6/1/2015 (MELC229076-229093)
2521 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office internal 1240affairs investigations, findings, copy ofinitial complaint, transcripts of interviews(MELC820994-MELC821177)
2857A Audio Clip 1 Name Clearing Sheridan, 5/11/2015 1239
2878 Sheridan Presentation on Uninvestigated Sex 1104Crimes; Montgomery Presentation on Melendresand DOJ dated 1/31/2012
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
6/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1041
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE CLERK: This is Civil Case No. 07-2513, Melendres,
et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continuation of evidentiary
hearing.
THE COURT: Are the parties going to announce, please.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning. Cecillia
Wang of the ACLU for the plaintiff.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Stanley Young
of Covington & Burling. With me are my colleagues Michelle
Morin, Tammy Albarran, and Lauren Pedley.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. SEGURA: Good morning. Andre Segura of the ACLU
for the plaintiffs.
MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona for
plaintiffs.
MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul
Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States, plaintiff
intervenors.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge Snow. John
Masterson and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO, and
with us is Holly McGee, who will be assisting us.
THE COURT: All right. Just so we're clear, MCSO is
not a party to this action; Maricopa County is.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
7/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1042
MR. MASTERSON: I understand. I'm just trying to let
you know we represent more folks than just Sheriff Arpaio.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
and Charles Jirauch on behalf of Maricopa County.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor.
Mel McDonald, special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Lee Stein
specially appearing for Chief Deputy Sheridan.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. COMO: Good morning, Judge. Greg Como
representing retired Chief Brian Sands, who's present today.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the unnamed contemnors.
And I just want to point out that Lieutenant Sousa is
in the courtroom, his attorney is not present, so I just wanted
to make his presence known.
THE COURT: Well, you are his attorney, are you not?
MS. IAFRATE: I am, but normally --
THE COURT: As well as Mr. Masterson and
Mr. Popolizio?
MS. IAFRATE: That is why --
THE COURT: You're talking about his specially
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
8/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1043
appearing attorney.
MS. IAFRATE: Correct.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BIRNBAUM: Good morning, Your Honor. Gary
Birnbaum specially appearing for Department Chief
John MacIntyre, and Chief MacIntyre is in the courtroom as
well.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. CLARK: Karen Clark, ethics counsel for Tim Casey.
MR. WOODS: Terrence P. Woods. I represent nonparties
Stutz and Liddy.
THE COURT: Anyone else that wishes to make an
appearance?
All right. We have a few matters to take up before we
begin the hearing just that are housekeeping. We had discussed
not actually a final pretrial order, but something along the
lines of a statement that would direct the parties in terms of
topics and documents.
Have the parties been able to arrive at that yet?
MS. WANG: No, Your Honor, we have not. We did
provide the defendants with all of our exhibits, and we've been
meeting and conferring, basically last night, over whether we
can stipulate to the admission of any of the exhibits. The
County has provided objections to some of them. Mr. Masterson
has joined in those objections, but my understanding from
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
9/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1044
Mr. Masterson is they're not prepared at this time to stipulate
to the admission of any exhibits. And we do not have any
stip -- other stipulations on a pretrial order of the sort
you're describing.
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, we've received the initial list
of witnesses from the plaintiffs which listed nine witnesses
for I think the first two to possibly three to four days of the
hearing, so we have that information.
I requested that they provide information on the
issues that they would be presenting testimony for each
witness, and I was told that -- to basically look at the
depositions, because it's going to involve the issues that were
discussed in the depositions. So that was not much help, but
at least I have that much information.
So last night, I believe, we started getting exhibits,
and we have over a thousand exhibits that have been listed, so
we just have not had time to go through those and select which
ones we can stipulate to. But I assure you that I will not
needlessly object to exhibits when they come to light during
the presentation of plaintiffs' case.
THE COURT: All right. I appreciate that.
We have in the past, or at least the first iteration,
the first part of this contempt hearing, I treated witnesses
pretty much as called by both sides. You may have reviewed the
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
10/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1045
transcript and know, for example, that I let plaintiffs ask;
then I let all the defense parties ask; then if I had any
questions, I asked. Then plaintiffs asked redirect and we had
defendants ask redirect so we wouldn't have to be calling
witnesses multiple times.
Is that going to be acceptable to you?
MR. MASTERSON: Well, here's the initial plan, Judge,
and this obviously could evolve as we progress. But I know
that the Court is going to -- well, at the close of plaintiffs'
case we discussed Rule 50 motions. Those will certainly be
made.
Through the course of our status conferences over the
last few months, specially appearing counsel have had
discussions with you. Mr. Birnbaum's discussed with you the
status of Deputy Chief MacIntyre. Mr. Eisenberg has discussed
the status of Joe Sousa. So at the close of plaintiffs' case,
I'm thinking that you're going to be presented with Rule 50
motions, both on civil issues and on criminal issues. At that
point, then, defendants are going to have more guidance on what
exactly the Court's going to be interested in moving forward.
THE COURT: Right. So --
MR. MASTERSON: At this point we're kind of going to
stick to Rule 611(b) and just address issues discussed by the
plaintiffs. Now, if something we obviously know we're going to
get into regardless, we'll do that as well to save time, but we
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
11/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1046
may be recalling certain of these witnesses during our case.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then, as plaintiffs have
provided you with a witness list, I would expect you would do
the same for them.
And I want a copy of whatever you gave Mr. Masterson.
Mr. Masterson, I'm going to want a copy of whatever
you've given or what you will give Ms. Wang. And if both -- if
everybody's saying it's not practical to stip -- I would still
appreciate an attempt to stipulate to certain exhibits, and if
you can let me know what those are start of the day tomorrow,
or even afternoon today, that would be helpful.
MR. MASTERSON: Certainly, Judge.
THE COURT: Let me ask you, it occurred to me -- I did
sit through, at the request of the parties, the deposition
of -- or virtually the entire deposition of Mr. Casey. I
assume that you finished it up -- because you didn't call me
back -- without needing me.
And the issues -- as I recall, the issues pertaining
to the May 14, 2014 meetings that may or may not have existed
between your clients and counsel never really were teed up. I
said I was going to -- I was going to deal with them on a
question-by-question basis, and as I recall, I never had to
deal with too many, both because I think you were reasonable in
allowing questions that sort of related to that, and
Ms. Wang -- or whoever was taking the deposition, and I think
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
12/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1047
it was Ms. Wang -- didn't push too hard on trying to inquire
into the substance of the May 14, 2014 meeting.
Is advice of counsel going to be a defense on the May
14, 2014 meeting? Can you tell me? If you can't, that's fine.
MR. MASTERSON: I can't at this point, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. And so that may yet be an
issue for trial for me to rule on.
MR. MASTERSON: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Very well. I will keep that
in mind.
I did review yesterday, tried to briefly review the
testimony -- the previous testimony of Chief Deputy Sheridan
because I assumed he would be up today. And in the course of
that review I noted that I never moved to admit Exhibit 1001,
which was an exhibit that Chief Deputy Sheridan identified as
one that he had received from Sergeant Tennyson, and on which
he had made written notations.
I do have a copy of that testimony, in case you wanted
to look at it to see if you felt like an adequate foundation
was made, that I'm happy to give to you if you'd like to see it
and any other parties, but I just wondered if we could
stipulate to the admission of that, since I had previously
neglected to do that.
Do you want to see the testimony, the relevant
testimony?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
13/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1048
MR. MASTERSON: I do not yet, Judge.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, plaintiffs would so stipulate
and we'd move for the admission of Exhibit 1001.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. MASTERSON: No objection, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Como?
MR. COMO: I have no objection.
THE COURT: All right. Exhibit 1001 --
MR. JIRAUCH: Your Honor, Maricopa County has no
objections.
THE COURT: All right. Let me just say I do have
pending from Maricopa County a question about its participation
as a full party participant. I haven't ruled on it yet.
But for your guidance, Mr. Jirauch and Mr. Walker,
you're here because the Ninth Circuit has directed your
reintroduction into this matter as the jural entity to be sued,
since Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a jural entity.
That is how I'm going to treat you, as the jural entity that
encompasses Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. And I will
review the full motions and make a ruling if that's -- if there
are any issues that are outstanding other than that.
But Exhibit 1001 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 1001 is admitted into evidence.)
THE COURT: To the extent that Maricopa County or
Mr. Como want to participate in that pretrial-like statement,
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
14/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1049
I'm going to require you also to exchange witnesses and topics
of testimony, at least generally, as well as documents, and to
stipulate to them. Because even though in light of the fact of
late-provided discovery, I indicated I will give plaintiffs
some leeway if they can convince me that they've -- they didn't
have time to process what they had, I would -- I would give
some leeway in terms of allowing topics and questions that
weren't in the -- this pretrial-like statement.
I am going to pretty much govern this trial by what is
disclosed in that statement. And if you're going to try and
move beyond it, and I mean any party's going to try and move
beyond it, they're going to have to convince me that there's a
justification in light of late discovery or for some other
reason to introduce other topics.
Is everyone clear on that? Does anyone have any
concerns about it?
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I do have one issue with
respect to late discovery, and it also relates to the order of
questioning witnesses.
We had asked for the depositions of Detective
Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo prior to the hearing that's starting
today. We were not able to manage that.
We understand from Mr. Masterson's office that both of
them are available for a deposition on October 7. We are
hoping to do that, although I also understand that
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
15/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1050
Mr. Masterson -- well, actually, Mr. Masterson has asked us to
serve Mr. Zullo personally rather than through his office, so
how he responds to that we're not yet certain.
I want to raise the issue because as to witnesses,
over the next two days and over next week we'll be calling
witnesses without having first had a chance to depose Mr. Zullo
and Detective Mackiewicz. It may be, as a result of that late
discovery, which we tried to get but weren't able to schedule
before today, that we will need to call back some of the
witnesses we call over the next six days. And I just want to
make sure that Your Honor is aware of that fact.
THE COURT: I am aware of the fact that you've
attempted to get Mr. Zullo and Mr. Mackiewicz prior to this
hearing, that they are now scheduled at sort of one of the
interim days.
MR. YOUNG: October 7, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Are there going to be any
issues, Mr. Masterson? I guess I'll ask you, and maybe this
isn't a necessary question. I haven't --
I'm not going to ignore you, Mr. Jirauch.
Are there going to be any issues as it relates to
advice of counsel defense and May 14, 2014? I mean,
everybody's had a chance to depose those witnesses, but if
you're going to really invoke that as a defense, I want to make
sure you had a full opportunity to depose counsel's witnesses.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
16/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1051
Counsel has witnesses on that issue if you want it.
MR. MASTERSON: I want to take a close look at that
issue, Judge, and I'll probably have some more information on
that to you this afternoon.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Jirauch.
MR. JIRAUCH: Thank you, Your Honor. Just for
purposes of the record, I would note that the defendants,
Maricopa County and the sheriff's office, the sheriff, have
given responses to all of the exhibits that plaintiff has
identified that they intend to use. Some of the exhibits,
probably about 20 percent of them, we're not able to at this
point in time evaluate as to how they will use them. But as to
the rest, they were given responses yesterday evening. It was
an informal response through an e-mail, but it covered every
document that they have identified.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. JIRAUCH: And we can provide Your Honor a copy.
THE COURT: Can you not hear me?
MS. WANG: I couldn't hear what you just said, Your
Honor. I think it was just because Mr. Jirauch was also
speaking.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I assume that the
parties realize I want this statement and that you'll get it
done, including stipulations to exhibits.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
17/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1052
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
Just for the record, we gave defendants the vast
majority of our exhibits on Tuesday, which was the date that
the Court had directed. We did continue to provide some of the
late-breaking exhibits through yesterday. And we appreciate
that Mr. Jirauch did get back to us with his agreement on some
of them, and we did seek to enter into those stipulations.
We do have a number of other issues relating to the
exhibits, and to evidence generally, that I wanted to raise.
Over the course of the depositions over the last two weeks, a
number of new documents came to light through witness
testimony. There are 13 documents or categories of documents
that we requested of defendants over the course of the
depositions that are still outstanding. They did give us some
of the documents requested, but there are still 13 outstanding.
There's a 14th category, Your Honor, which is that in
the deposition of Tim Casey, it appeared to me that the
redacted copy that we have through the -- through Mr. Vogel's
exhibits to the 14543 investigation are more heavily redacted
than comports with the Court's ruling on the attorney-client
privilege.
I, frankly, do not recall whether I asked for a
less-redacted version from Mr. Casey but we would request that
at this time. But there are 13 categories of documents teed up
already that -- on which we are still waiting for a document
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
18/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1053
from the defendants.
THE COURT: All right. Can you try to work those out
in the interstices between testimony as well?
MS. WANG: We will do our best, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And then we'll just raise them; we'll
raise them and I'll deal with them. I mean, I've got days with
interspersed dates, and if we have to do more, we will do more;
and if we don't have to do more, we're not going to do any more
than we have to do.
MS. WANG: That would be our hope as well.
One other issue, Your Honor, is that there were a
great number of documents disclosed with the designation
"attorneys' eyes only." Some of the documents bear that
designation on their face. Many of the documents were produced
with a cover letter that said these are attorneys' eyes only,
which plaintiffs believe is contrary to the terms of the
protective order and put a burden on us to figure out whether
any given document in a voluminous production was attorneys'
eyes only.
I will say plaintiffs' view is that as to Internal
Affairs files where the investigation is closed, that those
documents should not be attorneys' eyes only. If there is any
information contained within those documents, such as personal
identifying information, we would request that defendants
provide a redacted copy that could become part of the record in
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
19/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1054
this case. But we are ready to proceed today, and we would ask
that we not be required to submit those documents for closed IA
investigations under seal.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Masterson, anything from you?
MR. MASTERSON: Well, I guess the only thing I have to
say about that, Judge, is I'd be more than happy to look at the
documents that are marked attorneys' eyes only, but I'm going
to request that plaintiffs, they pare it down from a thousand,
I'll take a look. But I don't think I need to look through 900
if they're not going to introduce them. So if they want to
introduce one, I'll take a look at it and make a decision and
tell you we can take off the eyes only, or it can be for public
consumption.
THE COURT: You know, Ms. Wang, I will say that -- and
I don't know that you practice this way, but safe practitioners
often mark many more documents than actually get introduced at
trial. And it does seem to me that it's not fair, really, to
ask Mr. Masterson to just review all of the documents, unless
you really believe that you may be introducing them at trial.
So if you could give him a tighter designation on that, and
then as to the others that may only become necessary, it may be
shorter just to deal with them if and when they come up.
MS. WANG: I can tell him right now that my suggestion
would be to start with exhibits that were introduced during
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
20/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1055
depositions.
THE COURT: All right. But can you give him that
list?
MS. WANG: I can, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. It also --
Ms. Clark. I'm going to require you to approach a
microphone.
I have your request for reconsideration. Is that what
you're up about?
MS. CLARK: No, it's not.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: I was up because of the statement by
Ms. Wang that she would be seeking the document, whose number I
did not catch from Casey, and as the Court is aware, you've
previously ordered Mr. Casey's client file went to defendants'
attorneys, the new counsel, in December last year, so he -- but
by your previous orders, those requests from Ms. Wang are
directed to the defendants to produce, and I just wanted to get
that on the record.
THE COURT: Thank you. Stay right there, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark filed a motion for reconsideration. Parties
don't respond unless I invite them to respond. I'm not going
to invite them to respond because I'm not going to reconsider
my order. Mr. Casey's going to have to come. He's going to
have to be present. He's going to have to testify.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
21/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1056
You, of course, are authorized, as his counsel, under
the circumstances, to be present and to interpose objections
that may be separate from those that may be interposed by the
defendants or the plaintiffs.
I will suggest, though, in order to -- and I'm going
to allow you to make whatever objections you feel you need to
make to protect your client, but I would suggest that any
objections I directed the defendant -- or not the defendant,
that I directed Mr. Casey to answer over a 1.6 objection at his
deposition I am similarly going to order him to answer here in
open court.
If that provides you any guidance, I'm not going to
prevent you from making those objections, but I'm going to tell
you that the 1.6 objections will be overruled if they were
overruled in the deposition.
MS. CLARK: I understand, Judge. Because the
depositions, you ruled it was a question-by-question basis, the
only way for me to know that you --
THE COURT: Well, oftentimes even with that general
statement, I recognize oftentimes there is questions that
require parsing.
MS. CLARK: Exactly, Judge. And if the question is
worded exactly the same as it was at the deposition, then that
creates a problem as well. So I very much appreciate your
ruling on my motion.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
22/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1057
THE COURT: All right.
It also seems to me, Ms. Wang, I did notice that last
evening --
You can go, Ms. Clark, unless somebody else has
anything for you.
Oh, Mr. Woods.
MR. WOODS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, would I be correct in
expecting that the rules as to my participation would be
identical, if and when my clients testify?
THE COURT: You would be correct. But I will say,
just -- and I was present briefly telephonically for some of
Ms. Stutz's deposition; I was not present for Mr. Liddy's
deposition. But I will say that some of -- that the trial may
be more involved, depending upon whether Mr. Masterson is going
to assert an advice of counsel defense as to those May 14, 2014
meetings. I think that would involve you more directly. It
may also involve Mr. Casey, depending upon what his testimony
is at that time.
So you may want to consider that as well.
MR. WOODS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Anyone else specially appearing wants to be heard? We
might actually get to testimony by this afternoon.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
23/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1058
MR. KILLEBREW: Your Honor, I just wanted to seek
clarification on the pretrial statement. As you know, the
United States intends to call an expert if the Court permits
it.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KILLEBREW: We have not identified that expert to
the defendants yet, and we would seek the Court's permission to
wait to identify that expert until we know whether the Court
will permit us to put the expert on.
THE COURT: I think that's okay.
Is that all right with you, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON: It is, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
You have any problem with that, Mr. Como?
MR. COMO: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be fine.
MR. KILLEBREW: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Walker.
MR. WALKER: Your Honor, just one very brief
housekeeping matter that doesn't have directly to do with
anything we're here about today.
The County has received and has been holding, awaiting
the Court's review and approval of the monitor's bill, I think
from July, and I just wanted to make the Court aware of the
fact that we're awaiting the Court's direction on it.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
24/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1059
THE COURT: Well, I appreciate you bringing that up.
I thought I probably had approved it. If I haven't, I will do
my best to look and let you know.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
I did receive late last night, and I don't mean late,
late last night, but before I went home I checked the record
and found two motions in limine filed by the defendants
regarding the Montgomery investigation and testimony of Don
Vogel, and IA 542 and 543.
Do you wish to address those at this point?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, we do, Your Honor.
First with respect to the motion as to Mr. Vogel,
Federal Rule 701 does allow opinion testimony by lay witnesses
under certain circumstances. It's unclear whether the motion
is designed to prohibit Mr. Vogel from testifying at all or
prohibiting certain questions. I think if you look at the very
end of the motion it's unclear.
But it's undisputed that Mr. Vogel has relevant facts
going to the 542 investigation internally done by the MCSO as
to lack of supervision of Deputy Armendariz, and to the 543
internal investigation relating to the violation of the
preliminary injunction.
It is our claim that the Internal Affairs procedure
and process within the MCSO is in dire need of reform and
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
25/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1060
additional injunctive relief, and the facts of what happened
during that investigation, which Mr. Vogel conducted, are
highly relevant to that issue.
If he testifies to what he did and what he thought
during the course of that investigation, I think that's highly
relevant and should not be prohibited. If the objection to a
particular question is that it calls for expert testimony, and
Mr. Vogel is deemed not to be an expert for which that
testimony would be appropriate, then an objection can be made
and I would suggest that Your Honor simply deal with those on a
question-by-question basis as they come up. But the motion as
phrased should be denied.
THE COURT: All right. I am going to --
Mr. Masterson, anything you want to be heard on that at all? I
mean, you did file the motion, and I don't usually hear replies
on motions in limine, but I'll let you say something briefly.
MR. MASTERSON: I just want to make it clear, to
alleviate some concern Mr. Young has, is we're not saying that
Mr. Vogel can't testify at all; just that he can't offer expert
opinions and opine about, well, what they should have done.
He can testify as to all the facts he determined
during his investigation, but his opinions of maybe what they
should have done, he's not an expert witness, he wasn't
designated an expert witness, he wasn't disclosed as an expert
witness, there's no expert witness report under 26(a)(2)(B), so
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
26/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1061
any of those opinions should be excluded from evidence.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to wait until -- I'm not
going to grant your motion in limine. I will rule on
individual objections during the testimony of Mr. Vogel, and
you can raise those objections at that time.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Montgomery investigation.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to offer
Your Honor something in the nature of an offer of proof with
respect to the relevance of the Montgomery investigation. And
the state of mind of the alleged contemnors is obviously
important in determining the nature of the remedy and the other
questions that Your Honor has posed. The state of mind as of
the time of the May 14, 2014 violation of this Court's orders
is highly relevant, and the state of mind and the general
nature of the defendants' responses to adverse Court rulings is
relevant to the other violations that are listed in the OSC.
So what I'd like to do -- and this may take a few
moments, and we're going to go through some documents, Your
Honor -- is show how the Montgomery investigation is a direct
response, both at its outset and up to the present point, to
this Court's rulings and to this Court's contempt proceeding.
So I would start, if Mr. Klein, our technical person,
can pull up Exhibit 2283, we have a June 28, 2012 article
relating to the issue of whether Your Honor should recuse
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
27/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1062
himself due to the fact that his brother-in-law works at my law
firm.
MR. MASTERSON: Is this document in evidence?
MR. YOUNG: Well, nothing is in evidence yet. It is a
marked exhibit. It was at a deposition.
MR. MASTERSON: Well, I'm not sure we should be
reading from unmarked -- excuse me, unadmitted exhibits or
letting the trier-of-fact see unadmitted exhibits at this
point.
THE COURT: That will be fine. I don't want to see
the exhibits.
MR. YOUNG: All right. Well, let me describe for you
what we intend to show during the testimony. As of that time,
as Your Honor has previously described, Sheriff Arpaio
stipulated to Your Honor serving on the case and going through
the trial that was then about to take place. The trial did
take place. Your Honor took several months to come to a
ruling, ruled in May 2013; in October 2013 issued a
supplemental injunction in which Your Honor announced that you
would appoint a monitor in the case.
That very month, October 2013, Sheriff Arpaio met with
Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, and another man, Timothy
Blixeth, during which a discussion arose as to an individual
employed by a federal intelligence agency who ended up being
Mr. Montgomery.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
28/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1063
Then we have on November 5, 2013, just about a month
after Your Honor's supplemental injunction, a document faxed
from Bellevue, Washington, to Sheriff Arpaio, received by and
reviewed by Sheriff Arpaio. We know that because his
handwriting is on that document. And that document is entitled
DOJ/Arpaio. It is a timeline of the DOJ investigation with
references to members of the Department of Justice, and refers
to the Melendres case which is before Your Honor.
The next page of that exhibit, although it's not clear
exactly when it was prepared, is a typewritten document by
Sheriff Arpaio. This is November 6. It actually refers to a
November 6, 2013, telephone call received by the sheriff.
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON: Well, again, Judge, we're --
THE COURT: You know what? I do think we can shortcut
a lot of this. I think I've already explained on the record
why I believe the Montgomery investigation is relevant. I did
that, I don't -- I don't think you were in the case yet,
Mr. Masterson, but when I first got the document productions, I
indicated on the record why I thought that these matters might
be relevant.
I grant you that they are not directly relevant as it
pertains to liability, but it does seem to me that they're
relevant as it pertains to remedies, and they're also relevant
as it pertains to the credibility of the witnesses in this
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
29/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1064
case.
So I think if we can save you going through a whole
lot more, I'll invite you to respond, if you wish to,
Mr. Masterson.
MR. YOUNG: If Your Honor is inclined to deny the
motion, then I should actually sit down. But I'll reserve the
right to respond to Mr. Masterson if he comes up with anything.
THE COURT: I will give you that right.
MR. MASTERSON: Since Mr. Young wisely chose to sit
down, I'm going to pretty much do the same, except to ask for a
limitation. And I understand what the Court's saying with
respect to previous statements you've made on the record about
the relevance, minimal as it might be, the potential for
relevance of the Montgomery issues.
But I'm going to refer the Court to an August 21, 2015
status conference in which we discussed this issue. And
Mr. Young, I raised the potential of the talk that the Court
had with me about the expenditures on the Montgomery
investigation, and the Court's concern that possibly moneys
were being spent on investigations rather than being spent on
compliance. And we had a discussion about that.
Mr. Young said at page 57: Actually, I don't know
that the expenditure of funds is going to be at issue. He
said: I don't think we are planning to ask questions about it
or make much of an issue about it with respect to the
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
30/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1065
proceedings going forward.
The Court then on page 58 said: I'm not concerned
about expenditures.
So what I do want to do, then, is limit the testimony
with respect to Mr. Montgomery, because we spent an awful lot
of time in depositions over the last couple weeks going over
expenses and expenditures made on the Montgomery investigation,
and the Court's already indicated that it doesn't want to hear
about it. And Mr. Young told the Court he doesn't intend to
get into it. It kind of surprised me at the depositions when
it came up again, so I thought I'd bring that to the Court's
attention, ask that we not get into that going forward in these
proceedings.
THE COURT: Well, let me just say I'm going to deny
the motion because the motion is based completely on anything
relating to the Montgomery investigation, so I'm denying the
motion.
As it pertains to expenditures, I'm not sure that the
amount spent by Sheriff Arpaio is going to be super relevant to
my considerations about -- even about remedies, although it
does seem to me that the amount -- the process of expenditure
may reveal things as to times and persons involved and other
things that may be relevant.
So I can't rule absolutely at this point that I'm not
going to allow in information that relates to expenditures to
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
31/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:4
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1066
the extent that it may inform those other considerations. But
I would tend to agree that the, you know, the total amount
spent is not something that I'm super interested in unless you
can convince me it's relevant.
Mr. Young.
MS. WANG: Well, it is relevant, Your Honor, and
actually, since that status conference there's been subsequent
discovery. And we do believe that the impropriety of some of
the expenditures is an issue now that we did not know about
then, and it does make at least the impropriety of the
expenditure an issue, perhaps not the precise amounts, but
certainly the nature of the funds that were used during that
investigation will be an issue.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we can take those up one
by one and see if they're relevant, and I'll just rule on them
at that time, because I don't have enough information right now
to determine one way or the other.
Certainly, I'm not sure that the amount of expenditure
makes a lot of difference to me. I mean, it may make a
difference -- it may make a difference to other people in
others contexts. But I can't say that the issues will be
completely unrelated, so I can't really give you much guidance
on your request for limitation, other than to say I'll welcome
you raising it at the appropriate moment.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
32/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1067
THE COURT: Are we ready, then, to proceed?
MS. WANG: We are, Your Honor. Plaintiffs call Gerard
Sheridan.
THE COURT: Chief Deputy Sheridan, I know it was a
long time ago, but you were already placed under oath in April.
You're still under oath.
You understand that?
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: Yes, sir.
MS. WANG: I'm sorry, Your Honor. If I could have a
moment.
THE COURT: Yes..
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. WANG: Your Honor, may we e-mail a copy of the
list of exhibits I'll use with this witness to Ms. Zoratti? We
apologize. I thought it had been.
THE COURT: All right. Somebody's waving at you in
the back.
MS. WANG: I may be able to locate it.
MR. YOUNG: (Handing).
MS. WANG: I apologize.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, could we get a copy of that,
please?
THE COURT: Do you have an extra copy?
MS. WANG: I do not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
33/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1068
Kathleen, I'm sorry to do this to you, but if you
would be so kind as to run back and copy it.
How many copies?
We need at least three copies.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
MS. WANG: Should I proceed, Your Honor, or wait for
Ms. Zoratti?
THE COURT: Well, are you going to be using any
exhibits?
MS. WANG: Pretty soon, I think.
THE COURT: Why don't we wait for Ms. Zoratti, then.
MS. WANG: Okay. I apologize.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. WANG: In the meantime, Your Honor, I may be
referring to Chief Sheridan's previous deposition testimony or
his testimony from April 24th. Perhaps to save time I can hand
up a copy of those transcripts to him so they'll be available.
THE COURT: Yes, you may do that.
MS. WANG: (Handing).
May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: One moment.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: All right. When we ended the testimony in
April, as I recall and am reminded, I was asking questions like
I normally do prior to redirect. Ms. Wang had indicated that
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
34/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1069
she didn't ask all the questions that she intended to ask on
direct anyway, because she realized that we would need to
resume questioning at a later date, which we then thought to be
June. And so since there's apparently some direct and some
redirect, I just propose that we treat this as direct.
Any objection to that, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON: No objection, Judge.
MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: None.
THE COURT: All right.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
clerk.)
THE COURT: Apparently there's enough to get started
on.
MS. WANG: All right. Thank you, Your Honor. And I
appreciate Ms. Zoratti's patience with me. Thank you.
GERARD SHERIDAN,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Good morning, Chief Sheridan.
A. Good morning.
Q. Chief, I'm going to start with the charge of contempt
relating to MCSO's violations of the preliminary injunction
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
35/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1070
order. You're familiar with that topic?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, the last time you sat in that chair on April 24th of
this year, your counsel, Ms. Iafrate, asked you whether you had
had meetings with the attorneys regarding the Melendres
litigation prior to trial.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you answered, and I'll quote from the transcript of
that testimony at 950, lines 11 through 15:
"No. In fact, I did not even talk to Tim Casey until
the end of the trial in August of 2012. I knew who he was, but
I don't ever recall having a conversation with him even once,"
end quote.
Sir, do you stand by that testimony today?
A. I do.
Q. Ms. Iafrate also asked you whether you talked to the
attorneys in this case in preparation for trial.
Do you recall that?
A. I'm sorry, I was reading this. Can you repeat that?
Q. Sure. Do you recall that Ms. Iafrate asked you, when you
were on the stand previously, whether you talked to the
attorneys in order to prepare for the trial in this case?
Do you recall that?
I'll direct you to page 953 of the April 24th
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
36/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1071
transcript.
A. Okay. Okay.
Q. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And your answer was, quote: "I'd never talked
to either Tim Casey or Tom Liddy about the Melendres case until
after it was concluded."
Do you stand by that testimony?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you also testified on April 24th that you did not know
about the Court's preliminary injunction order in this case
until March 27th, 2014, during your deposition in the United
States versus Maricopa County case.
Do you recall that testimony?
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Judge.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MASTERSON: I kind of prefer to go on a
question-and-answer format rather than Ms. Wang reading
testimony from the previous hearing and then asking the witness
if he agrees with that testimony.
Can we just have some questions rather than reading
from testimony?
THE COURT: What's your objection?
MR. MASTERSON: 403.
THE COURT: Overruled.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
37/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1072
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you recall that the testimony, sir?
A. I do.
Q. Do you stand by that testimony today?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. Sir, plaintiffs have received some new
documents from the defendants since last time you sat in that
chair, and I'm going to ask you about those today. All right?
A. Okay.
Q. I've asked you about some of them during your deposition.
Do you recall that?
A. I recall a lot of questions.
Q. All right. Now, you are aware sitting here today that
defendants filed an immediate appeal from Judge Snow's
preliminary injunction order, correct?
A. I'm aware of that now, yes.
Q. But you contend that you were not aware of that appeal at
the time it was filed, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And sitting here today you are aware that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided defendants' appeal on the
preliminary injunction order in September of 2012.
You're aware of that today, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
38/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1073
Q. But you contend that you were not aware of that ruling from
the federal appeals court at the time it issued in September of
2012, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And that's an appellate ruling, you understand
now, in which MCSO lost. Do you know that now?
A. I'm aware of it, yes.
Q. Okay. I'm going to have you take a look at Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2511, which should be in front of you there, I hope.
Do you have it there?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Sir, Exhibit 2511 appears to be an e-mail from Tim
Casey dated September 25th, 2012, sent to John MacIntyre,
Gerard Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Amy Lake.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. This is not yet in evidence. If you look at what Mr. Casey
writes, he says: "Folks, I have not yet read the opinion but
the Ninth Circuit just affirmed Judge Snow's December 23rd,
2011 ruling on the Fourth Amendment detention of Mr. Melendres
and the preliminary injunction."
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me. Objection, Judge, counsel
reading from document not in evidence.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I just want to -- it's not in
evidence. I want to ask Mr. Sheridan if he received and opened
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
39/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1074
the e-mail.
THE COURT: All right. You can do that.
MS. WANG: I'll do that now.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, do you recall receiving this e-mail on September 25th,
2012?
A. I do not recall this e-mail.
Q. Okay. Have you reviewed it since then, either with your
counsel or during a deposition in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you understand that this document has been produced
by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in the litigation in
this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that it is not an
authentic record from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE WITNESS: From the Maricopa County Attorney's
Office or Sheriff's Office?
BY MS. WANG:
Q. From the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
A. I would have no reason to doubt it.
THE COURT: Chief Deputy, when I sustain an objection,
it means you don't have to answer.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
40/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1075
THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
THE COURT: And in fact, it means you shouldn't
answer.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, have you reviewed a copy of this e-mail that was given
to you by counsel for the Sheriff's Office or for the sheriff
in his official capacity?
A. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused now since the judge
talked to me.
Can you repeat that?
Q. Sir, do you have an understanding of whether the same
e-mail, as sent to you and others at MCSO, was also found in
MCSO's e-mail archives?
A. I don't know where the e-mail came from.
Q. All right. Fair enough, sir.
So you're aware sitting here today that on September
25th, 2012, Tim Casey sent you, John MacIntyre, Brian Sands,
and Amy Lake a copy of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on MCSO's
appeal from Judge Snow's preliminary injunction order, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And is it your contention that you did not pay attention to
that e-mail at the time you received it on September 25th,
2012?
A. It is.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
41/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1076
Q. Now, one of the recipients of the e-mail, which is not in
evidence, is Amy Lake.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Amy Lake is Sheriff Arpaio's assistant, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you're familiar with Sheriff Arpaio's regular practices
in terms of communicating via e-mail or otherwise, is that
right?
A. I am.
Q. You work closely with the sheriff, correct?
A. Very closely.
Q. And are you familiar with the fact that the sheriff --
well, do you know whether the sheriff personally uses e-mail?
A. He does not.
Q. And if you want to send something to the sheriff via an
e-mail, would you send it to Amy Lake?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Thank you. Now, again, you contend that you were not aware
of Judge Snow's preliminary injunction order until March 27,
2014, correct?
A. I am.
Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 2512.
Do you have it in front of you, sir?
A. I do.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
42/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1077
Q. Okay. Exhibit 2512, if you go to the -- I want to call
your attention to the second e-mail on the page. That's an
e-mail from Tim Casey dated October 11, 2012, addressed to
Gerard Sheridan, John MacIntyre, and Brian Sands, and the
subject line reads "Injunction Compliance - Melendres Ortega v.
Arpaio."
Do you see that, sir?
A. I do.
Q. Sitting here today, sir, you're aware that on that date,
October 11, 2012, Tim Casey sent you, John MacIntyre, and Brian
Sands an e-mail communicating that the plaintiffs in this case,
the Melendres versus Arpaio case, had accused MCSO of violating
Judge Snow's preliminary injunction order.
You're aware of that sitting here today, correct?
A. I am.
Q. And you're also aware sitting here today that in his
e-mail, Tim Casey mentioned the fact that the sheriff was up
for reelection soon, was that right?
A. I haven't read the e-mail, so is that in there somewhere?
Q. Yes. Go ahead and take the time you need to read that.
And we did go over this during your previous
depositions over the last couple of weeks.
A. Okay. Could you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure. Are you aware sitting here today that in his e-mail
of October 11, 2012, Tim Casey was advising you, John
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
43/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1078
MacIntyre, and Brian Sands, that he was concerned that
plaintiffs might try to use these allegations about violations
of the preliminary injunction order to hurt the sheriff's
reelection campaign?
Are you aware of that sitting here now?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And, sir, do you contend that you do not recall
getting this e-mail from Tim Casey on October 11 of 2012?
A. I do.
Q. Now, at that time, October 11 of 2012, you were aware that
the sheriff was up for reelection, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were also aware that the sheriff was, at that time,
under heavy criticism about allegations of racial profiling,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were protesters outside your office and his
office, the MCSO headquarters, relating to allegations of
racial profiling, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you personally were very engaged in
working on the United States versus Maricopa County case which
related to racial profiling allegations, correct?
A. I was.
Q. Sir, do you agree that it is a serious matter for attorneys
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
44/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
10:0
10:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1079
to write to you with allegations that MCSO has violated a
federal court order?
A. I do.
Q. That is something that the chief deputy should pay
attention to, is it not?
A. I do.
Q. You agree with that statement?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And yet you contend that you do not recall getting this
e-mail at the time?
A. That's exactly what I contend.
Q. And you contend that nobody else called the matters in this
e-mail to your attention in October of 2012?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, by then it was October of 2012 -- well, withdrawn.
You have testified, sir, that you did begin paying
attention to the Melendres versus Arpaio case after the trial,
is that correct?
A. I don't believe that's exactly correct, no.
Q. Well, you do admit that, and you have admitted, that you
spoke with Tim Casey about this case after or during the trial,
correct?
A. Yes. It was either at the very end of the case or after
the -- sometime shortly after the trial ended in August of
2012.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
45/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1080
Q. So fair to say that after the trial in this case ended in
August of 2012, the case was on your radar, so to speak, is
that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And October of 2012 was after you had the Melendres case on
your radar, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But you contend still that you were not aware of these
allegations that the plaintiffs in this case made as to
violations of the preliminary injunction order when Tim Casey
sent this e-mail in October of 2012?
A. I contend that it was not something that I considered to be
something that demanded much of my attention.
Q. And you contend that plaintiffs' allegations of violations
of the preliminary injunction order, which were conveyed by Tim
Casey via e-mail on October 11, 2012, did not command any of
your attention at the time. Is that your testimony?
A. I wasn't aware of them, so no.
Q. Despite the fact that you apparently received this e-mail
on October 11, 2012?
A. I don't ever recall reading it. I assume I received it
because my name was on the e-mail. But as I've testified
before, I did not historically open those e-mails. They were
delegated to an executive chief, and I did not, as the chief
deputy, spend much time on those issues since they were
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
46/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1081
delegated to someone else.
Q. But you testified a moment ago that if plaintiffs in a
lawsuit are accusing MCSO of violating a federal court order,
that is something the chief deputy should pay attention to,
correct?
A. I'm saying right now sitting here today that is something
that the chief deputy should have done, but that is not what I
did.
Q. Thank you, sir.
I want you to turn on -- within the same exhibit,
number 2512, to the page that is marked MCAO00034. This is the
second page of an MCSO news release dated September 21st, 2012.
Let me know when you get there, please.
A. I'm sorry. Which --
Q. It's the same exhibit you had in front of you. 2012 --
2512.
A. And can you repeat the page, please.
Q. Sure. It's MCAO34. And if it helps you, it's a -- there
are news releases from MCSO attached to this document, the
e-mail, and this is the news release dated September 21st,
2012.
A. Oh, I'm there.
Q. You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If you look at page MCAO34, there is a quote from
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
47/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1082
the sheriff in about the middle of the page.
A. I see that.
Q. Which reads -- it reads: I expected --
MR. MASTERSON: Objection again, Your Honor.
Counsel's again reading from a document not in evidence.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I need to ask the chief deputy
whether he was aware of information in this document at the
time.
THE COURT: Well, you can ask him that without reading
from the document.
MS. WANG: Yes, sir.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, can you look at the quote attributed to Sheriff Arpaio
in the middle of the page referring to a backup plan?
Do you see that?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Okay. Sir, at the time that this news release was issued,
or as of September 21st, 2012, you were aware of what's
referred to there as the sheriff's backup plan, correct?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. Let me see if I can give you something that will
refresh your recollection. Do you recall that I deposed you on
September 15th just a couple of weeks ago?
A. Yes.
Q. You should have the deposition transcript in front of you
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1369 Sept 24 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 5 Evidentiary Hearing
48/243
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/24/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1083
there, the September 15th, 2015 --
A. I do.
Q. -- transcript.
Please turn to page 384, starting at line 4.
Here is the question and answer from your deposition
of September 15th, 2015.
"Question: As of the beginning of October 2012, were
you aware of the sheriff's backup plan to deal with suspects
arrested by MCSO who did not have state charges against them,
but who were suspected of being illegal immigrants?"
Your answer was: "Vaguely."
Was that your testimony?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And was that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Sir, w