LUIS LI (State Bar No. 156081) Luis.Li@mto

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EPLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

LUIS LI (State Bar No. 156081) [email protected] CRAIG JENNINGS LAVOIE (State Bar No. 293079) [email protected] JENNIFER L. BRYANT (State Bar No. 293371) [email protected] MARI T. SAIGAL (State Bar No. 318556) [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

VANESSA BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER [Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig Jennings Lavoie; and [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith] Date: June 7, 2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7A Judge: Hon. John F. Walter Pre-Trial Conf.: October 29, 2021 Trial Date: November 16, 2021

Case 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E Document 76 Filed 05/10/21 of 3 Page ID #:1359

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EPLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 7, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon

thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 7A of the United States

Courthouse for the Central District of California, located at 350 West 1st Street, Los

Angeles, CA 90012, before the Honorable John F. Walter, Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant

(“Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Bryant”) will and hereby does move this Court to modify the

Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 29).

Good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling order under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 16. Facts recently adduced in discovery have revealed the

misconduct by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s

Department” or “LASD”) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (the “Fire

Department” or “LAFD”) is both more expansive and more egregious than Plaintiff

originally understood. According to Defendants’ interrogatory responses, sixty-six

employees of the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) have relevant knowledge,

and documents have revealed that at least eighteen agents or employees of the

Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department took, shared, or possessed improper

photos of the accident scene where Mrs. Bryant’s loved ones tragically perished.

(Lavoie Decl. ¶ 19.)

On top of the many depositions that are necessary—and cannot begin in

earnest until Defendants’ document productions are completed later this summer—

discovery in this case also requires time-intensive forensic examinations of

electronic devices and cloud-based storage accounts to try to recover deleted

evidence and shed light on the extent of Defendants’ dissemination of the illicit

photos. In light of all this, despite Mrs. Bryant’s diligence, it is not feasible to

complete discovery in advance of the current deadline of August 16, 2021. As a

result, maintaining the current schedule would prejudice Mrs. Bryant’s ability to

prosecute her claims and hold Defendants accountable. A continuance of the

discovery deadline, the trial date, and other pre-trial deadlines is necessary to ensure


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EPLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Mrs. Bryant gets a fair day in court. Mrs. Bryant respectfully requests that the Court

modify the schedule for the remaining deadlines as follows:

Matter Current Dates New Dates Last Day to Conduct Settlement Conference/Mediation

6/7/2021 11/12/2021

Last day to File Joint Report re Settlement Conference/Mediation

6/11/2021 11/17/2021

Discovery Cutoff 8/16/2021 2/11/2022 Last Day for Hearing Motions 9/6/2021 2/25/2022 Pre-Trial Submissions 10/14/2021 3/25/2022 Pre-Trial Conference 10/29/2021 4/8/2022 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions

11/5/2021 4/15/2022

Trial (Jury) 11/16/2021 4/27/2022 This motion is made following the conference of lead counsel pursuant to

Local Rule 7-3, which took place by videoconference on April 21, 2021. (See ECF

No. 74; Lavoie Decl. ¶ 35.) This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and

Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities that follows, the concurrently

filed declaration of Craig Jennings Lavoie, all pleadings and papers on file in this

action, any reply memorandum that may be filed, and any further evidence or

argument as may be presented to the Court prior to or at the hearing on this motion.

DATED: May 10, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: /s/ Luis Li Luis Li

Attorneys for Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER




VANESSA BRYANT,

Plaintiff,


Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER [Notice of Motion and Motion to Modify the Court’s Scheduling Order; Declaration of Craig Jennings Lavoie; and [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith] Date: June 7, 2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7A Judge: Hon. John F. Walter Pre-Trial Conf.: October 29, 2021 Trial Date: November 16, 2021

Case 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E Document 76-1 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1362

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

-i- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF


I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

II. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................... 5

III. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 5

A. Mrs. Bryant Immediately Sought Information About the Improper Taking and Sharing of Photos of Her Loved Ones’ Remains by County Employees .............................................................. 5

B. The Court Issued Its Initial Scheduling Order ........................................ 6

C. Mrs. Bryant Continued to Press for Information in Discovery .............. 7

D. The County Continued to Drag Its Heels in Producing Documents ............................................................................................... 9

E. Mrs. Bryant Amended Her Complaint, and Then Even More Misconduct Came to Light .................................................................... 11

F. The Amount of Outstanding Discovery Continues to Pile Up ............. 12

G. Defendants Would Not Stipulate to a Continuance of the Discovery Cutoff, Necessitating This Motion ...................................... 13

IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 14

A. Despite Mrs. Bryant’s Diligence, Discovery Cannot Reasonably Be Completed by August 16, 2021 ....................................................... 14

1. Mrs. Bryant Has Been Diligent .................................................. 14

2. The Current Schedule Prejudices Mrs. Bryant’s Ability to Prosecute Her Claims ................................................................. 17

(a) Time-Intensive Inspections Remain To Be Done ............ 17

(b) Numerous Depositions Remain To Be Done, and Cannot Begin Until Later This Summer, at the Earliest .............................................................................. 18

(c) Follow-Up Discovery Must Be Pursued .......................... 20

B. Modifying the Scheduling Order Will Benefit Defendants and Cause No Prejudice ............................................................................... 21

V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

-ii- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF


FEDERAL CASES

Aardwolf Industries, LLC v. Abaco Machines USA, Inc., 2017 WL 6888242 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017) ................................................... 5, 16

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., 2012 WL 762240 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012) ......................................................... 19

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. Flexicare Inc., 2020 WL 7094074 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) ...................................................... 16

Gilman v. Davis, 2009 WL 577768 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009).......................................................... 21

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................. 5

Muhammad v. California, 2019 WL 6315536 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) ..................................................... 15

MultiCraft Imports, Inc. v. Mariposa USA, Inc., 2017 WL 5665214 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) ........................................................ 15

Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................ 5

So v. Land Base, LLC, 2009 WL 2566816 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009) ................................................. 5, 15

FEDERAL RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 ................................................................................................... 5, 21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ..................................................................................................... 7, 8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Following the tragic loss of her husband and daughter in a helicopter crash on

January 26, 2020, Mrs. Bryant has faced resistance from the County in her efforts to

obtain information about photos of her deceased loved ones that were taken and

shared by Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department personnel for their personal

gratification. Because Mrs. Bryant’s pursuit of the truth has been met by deflection

and delay by the County at virtually every turn, she brings this motion to request a

continuance of the discovery deadline, which is currently August 16, 2021. In light

of the substantial discovery that remains to be done, a modification of the

scheduling order is necessary to ensure Mrs. Bryant has a fair opportunity to

investigate Defendants’ misconduct and adduce evidence of her claims.

For several reasons, good cause exists for the requested modification.

First, although Mrs. Bryant has diligently prosecuted this action, the current

deadlines cannot be met because Defendants have impeded the progress of

discovery. Among other things, Defendants failed to identify a single witness in

their initial disclosures, produced only sixty-one documents over the first five

months of this case, and forced Mrs. Bryant to file a motion to obtain LASD’s

internal investigation report regarding the improper photos—the document the

County itself identified as most relevant in the entire case. As of today, the

County’s document production remains incomplete, and Defendants do not

anticipate completing productions from the Fire Department and the four individual

defendants (the “Deputy Defendants”) until “sometime this summer.” (ECF No. 71

¶ 8.) It remains to be seen whether this puts the completion of Defendants’

document production at the beginning of summer (June 21, 2021), the end of

summer (September 22, 2021), or somewhere in between. Regardless, the current

discovery cutoff in mid-August is unworkable with Defendants’ production

timeline, as Mrs. Bryant cannot effectively depose the relevant LASD and LAFD


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



personnel until she has received and reviewed their documents. Mrs. Bryant

respectfully requests a continuance of the discovery cutoff so that Defendants’

delays do not deprive her of a full and fair opportunity to develop her claims for

trial.

Second, the scope of necessary discovery is more expansive than was

anticipated at the initial scheduling conference in November 2020. At that time, the

information available to Mrs. Bryant suggested that only eight Sheriff’s deputies

were involved in the misconduct. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 37.) Mrs. Bryant has since

learned that the number of LASD and LAFD employees who took, shared, and/or

possessed improper photos of the accident scene is actually eighteen (and counting)

and that sixty-six County employees have relevant knowledge of the misconduct.

(Id. ¶ 19.)

Information recently adduced in discovery about misconduct by Fire

Department personnel has also broadened the scope of this case. While the County

has been in possession of internal investigation reports detailing misconduct by Fire

Department personnel since August 2020, it chose to wait until March 22, 2021 to

produce those reports to Mrs. Bryant—nearly four months after the County decided

to discharge two of firefighters involved and suspend a third, and more than four

months after Mrs. Bryant propounded requests for production (“RFPs”) that called

for such documents. (Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 3, 21–22.) According to the reports, two Fire

Department employees took photos of the victims’ remains that “served no business

necessity” and instead “only served to appeal to baser instincts and desires for what

amounted to visual gossip.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Both of the employees sent their graphic

photos to a third Fire Department employee who was on site to assist with press

briefings. (Id.) Then, the employee who received the photos shared them with a

group of off-duty firefighters and their wives and girlfriends during an awards

ceremony at a Hilton hotel in February 2020. (Id.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



In addition, developments since the initial scheduling conference have

undermined the County’s representation that Sheriff Villanueva’s order to destroy

the photos was altruistic. LASD’s internal investigation report reveals that a former

Captain at the Lost Hills Sheriff’s station ordered a standard inquiry after a civilian

submitted a complaint that a deputy had shared graphic photos of Kobe Bryant’s

remains at a bar in Norwalk, but Sheriff Villanueva and his staff intervened to stop

the standard investigation. (Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 24–25.) On the Sheriff’s orders,

deputies were summoned to the Lost Hills station and told that they would not face

any discipline if they “came clean” and deleted any photos in their possession.

(FAC ¶ 46; Lavoie Decl. ¶ 25.)

The Lost Hills Captain believed Sheriff Villanueva’s orders were “very out of

the ordinary” and immediately become concerned that his staff was receiving

instructions outside the chain of command. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 25.) The Captain halted

the order to delete the photos and called his supervisor to express concern that the

Sheriff’s order might constitute an instruction to destroy evidence of a violation of

federal law, reminding the supervisor that the “last time our deputies got instructions

from our executives” of a similar nature, “they were arrested and tried for crimes.”

(Id.) After checking-in with the Sheriff’s office, the supervisor called the Captain

back and stated, “this is the direction we’re gonna go.” (Id.) This recently

discovered information, along with other information related to the Sheriff’s

deletion order, underscores that additional discovery is needed to substantiate Mrs.

Bryant’s allegation that Sheriff Villanueva’s actions constitute spoliation.

Third, a modification of the scheduling order will facilitate efficiencies in

discovery that will benefit all parties and enhance judicial economy. Three other

victims’ families have claims against Defendants based on the same underlying

conduct at issue in this action: the Chester plaintiffs (Case No. 2:20-cv-10844-JFW-

E) (“Chester”), the Mauser plaintiffs (Case No. 2:21-cv-00497-JFW-E) (“Mauser”),

and the Altobelli plaintiffs (“Altobelli,” and collectively with Chester and Mauser,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



the “Related Cases”). To avoid duplicative and overlapping discovery burdens,

Defendants have asked Mrs. Bryant to stipulate before Magistrate Judge Eick to

consolidate discovery in this action with discovery in the Related Cases. (Lavoie

Decl. ¶ 34.) But such consolidation is currently impractical because it would

effectively truncate most of the other plaintiffs’ time to complete discovery. J.J. and

Alexis Altobelli (the “Altobellis”), whose parents and sister tragically perished in

the crash, would be especially disadvantaged by such consolidation because the

Altobellis’ soon-forthcoming lawsuit has not yet been filed. (See ECF No. 71 ¶ 4;

Lavoie Decl. ¶ 34.) The requested modification of the scheduling order in this

action would pave the way for all plaintiffs to be on the same timetable and

accommodate Defendants’ desire to consolidate discovery across the related actions,

such that each witness need only be deposed once.

To allow a full and fair opportunity to develop her claims for trial, while at

the same time relieving all parties of undesirable redundancies in discovery, Mrs.

Bryant respectfully requests a continuance of the discovery cutoff until February 11,

2022—less than a year from the date Mrs. Bryant filed her operative First Amended

Complaint—and a concomitant adjustment of the other remaining pre-trial and trial

dates, as follows:

Matter Current Dates New Dates Last Day to Conduct Settlement Conference/Mediation 6/7/2021 11/12/2021

Last day to File Joint Report re Settlement Conference/Mediation 6/11/2021 11/17/2021

Discovery Cutoff 8/16/2021 2/11/2022 Last Day for Hearing Motions 9/6/2021 2/25/2022 Pre-Trial Submissions 10/14/2021 3/25/2022 Pre-Trial Conference 10/29/2021 4/8/2022 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions 11/5/2021 4/15/2022

Trial (Jury) 11/16/2021 4/27/2022


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pretrial scheduling orders may be modified for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). This “‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment” and the “moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Other

relevant considerations may include “whether trial is imminent,” “whether the

request is opposed,” “whether the [non-]moving party would be prejudiced,” “the

foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for

discovery by the district court,” and “the likelihood that discovery will lead to

relevant evidence.” So v. Land Base, LLC, 2009 WL 2566816, at *1 (C.D. Cal.

Aug. 18, 2009) (citing Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987)).

In assessing the moving party’s diligence, courts consider (1) whether

“movant was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order,”

(2) whether movant is unable to comply with the scheduling order “because of the

development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or

anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference,” and (3) “whether

movant was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became

apparent that movant could not comply with the order.” Aardwolf Indus., LLC v.

Abaco Machines USA, Inc., 2017 WL 6888242, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017)

(brackets omitted). Modification of a pretrial schedule is appropriate where the

schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). III. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Mrs. Bryant Immediately Sought Information About the Improper Taking and Sharing of Photos of Her Loved Ones’ Remains by County Employees

On March 2, 2020—just four days after the Los Angeles Times reported that

LASD and LAFD personnel shared graphic photos from the crash scene—and again


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NC29248D0B96211D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=frcp+16

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NC29248D0B96211D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=frcp+16

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib939deb394d611d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=975+F.2d+604

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I916ec4898e3511deb08de1b7506ad85b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2009+WL+2566816


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Icfdb0db9956711d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=834+F.2d+166

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I092ec510f79411e7818da80a62699cb5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2017+WL+6888242


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib939deb394d611d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=975+F.2d+604

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



on March 8, 2020, Mrs. Bryant privately wrote to the Sheriff’s Department and Fire

Department seeking information. (Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 26–27, Exs. 6–8.) Among other

things, Mrs. Bryant asked for information regarding the extent of the improper

dissemination, the investigatory steps taken to secure all photos, and the disciplinary

actions taken to address the misconduct. (Id.) When the Sheriff’s Department and

Fire Department responded later that month, they both refused to provide answers

and asserted that they had no legal obligation to respond to Mrs. Bryant’s questions.

(Id. ¶ 28, Exs. 9 and 10.)

Mrs. Bryant then submitted notices of claim to the Sheriff’s Department and

Fire Department under the California Government Code, but received no response.

(Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 29–30.) Mrs. Bryant then filed suit in state court against the

County, the Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and Doe defendants who

took or shared photos of the crash site.1 (Id. ¶ 31.) In the state court action, Mrs.

Bryant promptly served interrogatories, several of which sought the names of the

LASD and LAFD personnel who took or shared photos of the victims’ remains.

(Id.) However, before Defendants’ responses became due, Defendants removed the

action to federal court on October 19, 2020. (Id.) B. The Court Issued Its Initial Scheduling Order

Soon after removal, the Court issued its scheduling order on November 18,

2020. (ECF No. 29.) The order set trial for November 16, 2021, with the following

pretrial deadlines:

Last Day to Conduct Settlement Conference/Mediation 6/7/2021

Last day to File Joint Report re Settlement Conference/Mediation 6/11/2021

Discovery Cutoff 8/16/2021 Last Day for Hearing Motions 9/6/2021

1 Given the limited information known about the Fire Department’s misconduct at that time, Mrs. Bryant did not originally name the Fire Department in her complaint.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Pre-Trial Submissions 10/14/2021 Pre-Trial Conference 10/29/2021 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions 11/5/2021

Id. at 34. These dates set by the Court were consistent with the case schedule the

parties had proposed in their joint Rule 26(f) report. (See ECF No. 27 at 9–10.) At

the time of the parties’ submission on November 16, 2020, however, Mrs. Bryant

had not yet received any witness disclosures or other information from Defendants

and thus did not yet apprehend the breadth of the misconduct or the scope of

discovery that would be necessary to prosecute her claims. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 37.)

Aside from a prior continuance of the deadline to amend the complaint (ECF No.

37), the Court’s Scheduling Order has not been modified since it was issued in

November 2020. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 38.)

C. Mrs. Bryant Continued to Press for Information in Discovery

Promptly upon the opening of discovery in this action, on November 2, 2020,

Plaintiff served two new interrogatories seeking the names of (1) all LASD and

LAFD personnel whom the County had reason to believe may have taken and/or

shared photos of the accident scene, and (2) all LASD and LAFD personnel who

were involved in investigating or responding to reports that LASD and LAFD

personnel had taken and/or shared such photos. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 2.) In December

2020, the County served an objections-only response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories,

refusing to provide the names of any LASD and LAFD personnel or any other

substantive information. (Id., Ex. 1.)

While Mrs. Bryant’s interrogatories were pending, the parties exchanged

initial disclosures on November 18, 2020. Consistent with the requirements of Rule

26, Mrs. Bryant served eight pages of disclosures that identified fourteen potential

witnesses and listed categories of relevant documents in her possession. (Lavoie

Decl. ¶ 4.) By contrast, Defendants’ disclosures did not name a single individual

who might be used to support their defenses (not even Sheriff Villanueva) and did


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



not list a single category of relevant documents. (Id., Ex. 2 at 25-26.) The

disclosures stated that Defendants were not identifying any witnesses “due to

privacy and confidentiality concerns.” (Id. at 25.) In place of the required

information, Defendants identified a single document—an internal affairs report

prepared by the Sheriff’s Department (the “IA Report”)—and stated: “Defendants

believe that the IA Report contains all of the information Plaintiff is seeking.” (Id.

at 26.) However, the disclosures also stated that Defendants would produce the IA

Report only if Mrs. Bryant filed a motion to compel.2 (Id.)

In meet and confer, Plaintiff explained that Defendants had violated their

obligations under Rule 26 and that their refusal to provide relevant information was

prejudicing Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery and obtain the names of the

wrongdoers in advance of the Court’s deadline to amend the complaint and join

additional defendants. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 3 at 33.) Rather than provide the

requested information, the County again asserted that it would produce the IA

Report—which Defendants identified as the single most relevant document in the

case—only if Mrs. Bryant filed a motion to compel. (Id. ¶ 6.) Faced with the

imminent deadline to amend the complaint, Plaintiff acquiesced and filed a motion

to compel (id.), and on December 27, 2020, Judge Eick granted Plaintiff’s motion

and ordered Defendants to produce the IA Report within seven days. (ECF No. 47.)

On January 6, 2021—nearly three months after Defendants removed this

action to federal court—the County produced the IA Report. It contained over

1,100 pages of summaries, interview transcripts, and other materials related to

LASD’s internal investigation of the illicit photos. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 7.) And it

revealed—for the first time—the names of dozens of LASD personnel and other

2 The Court need not take Plaintiff’s word for it that Defendants’ written discovery responses were deficient. Both Defendants’ objections-only interrogatory responses and their initial disclosures are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Lavoie declaration filed herewith.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



witnesses with knowledge of both the underlying misconduct and the department’s

departure from normal internal investigation protocols in responding to it. (Id.)

However, the County designated all 1,100+ pages of the IA Report as

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” meaning that Mrs. Bryant was blocked from viewing even

a single word of the report. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel for Mrs. Bryant promptly called

counsel for Defendants and requested that Defendants downgrade the IA Report

from “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to “Confidential” in order to enable Mrs. Bryant to

view the report, but Defendants refused, stating that Plaintiff’s counsel could only

discuss the report with Mrs. Bryant and not show it to her. (Id., Ex. 4.) One month

after this exchange, counsel for Mrs. Bryant formally wrote to Defendants

threatening motion practice if the County did not downgrade the IA Report to

“Confidential.” (Id., Ex. 5.) Only then, on February 5, 2021, did Defendants

downgrade the report. (Id.)

More than a month later, on March 12 and March 31, 2021—again, only at

Plaintiff’s persistent urging—the County supplemented its prior objections-only

interrogatory responses. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 19.) The County’s supplemental responses

identified sixty-six LASD and LAFD witnesses with relevant knowledge, including

eighteen individuals who took, shared, or possessed photos of the accident scene.

(Id.; ECF No. 71 ¶ 7.) D. The County Continued to Drag Its Heels in Producing Documents

Meanwhile, Plaintiff awaited a production of documents in response to RFPs

she had propounded on the County and LASD in November 2020. (See Lavoie

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9–10.) Among other things, the RFPs sought “all documents and

communications relating to any taking or sharing of photos of the accident scene or

victims’ remains by any person who is not an employee of the Coroner’s Office or

NTSB.” (Id. ¶ 3.) In response to the RFPs, the County and LASD committed to

producing responsive documents within forty-five days. (Id.) Forty-five days later,

however, they had not produced a single document other than the IA Report. (Id.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



¶ 9.) Ultimately, between November 16, 2020 and March 21, 2021—a period of

125 days—the County produced a mere sixty-one documents. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Even the County’s production of the IA Report was incomplete.

Notwithstanding Judge Eick’s order that Defendants produce the IA Report by

January 6, 2021 (ECF No. 47), Defendants did not produce all exhibits to the IA

Report until eighty days later, on March 26, 2021. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 11.) Among the

exhibits produced for the first time on March 26 was surveillance footage from the

bar in Norwalk on the night Defendant Cruz was displaying photos of Kobe

Bryant’s remains. (Id.) The surveillance footage revealed material new

information, including Cruz smiling as he displayed his phone not only to a

bartender (twice), but also to a patron seated next to him at the bar. (See id.)

In the last month, the pace of the County’s document production has started to

increase, with approximately 8,000 new records produced since late March. (Lavoie

Decl. ¶¶ 11–12.) Plaintiff has been diligently reviewing these documents, only to

find that a substantial proportion are public press articles (including more than 1,500

Google Alerts alone) that are of little, if any, value. (Id. ¶ 12.) Further, as the

County stated in a filing with the Court on April 12, 2021, it is continuing to review

“tens of thousands of records” and does not expect to “substantially complete its

[document] production” in response to Plaintiff’s original RFPs until later this

month. (ECF 71 ¶ 8.)

The County’s mid-May estimate for substantially completing its production

does not account for several RFPs that have been the subject of ongoing meet and

confer between the parties. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 13.) As of the date of this motion,

certain RFPs remain in dispute. (Id.) For example, the County is currently

equivocating on whether it will produce documents the Sheriff’s Department

produced in response to a subpoena issued by the Office of Inspector General

related to the improper photos. (Id.) The County is also objecting to producing

documents related to LASD’s awareness of the constitutional right to control the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



death images of loved ones and documents regarding the Deputy Defendants’

training. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff has initiated the motion to compel process under

the Local Rules to obtain certain categories of documents to which she is entitled.

(Id.) Such motion practice will further delay the completion of Defendants’

document production in response to the RFPs that have been pending since

November 16, 2020. (Id.)

E. Mrs. Bryant Amended Her Complaint, and Then Even More Misconduct Came to Light

After diligently analyzing the IA Report’s 1,100+ pages of investigative

materials, on February 1, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants the amended

complaint that Plaintiff intended to file based on previously undisclosed information

revealed in the IA Report. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 14.) The County’s lawyers responded

with a letter refusing to consent to the filing of the amended complaint unless

Plaintiff “agree[d] to take out the confidential material” from the IA Report. (Id.)

As a result of the County’s position, Mrs. Bryant’s counsel had to engage in

extended meet and confer regarding a potential motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. (Id.) Then, after the County abandoned its insistence that Mrs. Bryant

file a motion for leave to amend her complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel had to engage in

further meet and confer about whether the amended complaint could be filed in the

public record. (Id.) Because the parties were unable to reach an agreement on that

issue, a sealing application was filed on February 24, 2021 (id.), which the Court

denied on March 8, 2021. (ECF No. 53.) As a result, while the County’s effort to

keep the wrongdoing from public view was ultimately unsuccessful, it delayed Mrs.

Bryant’s filing of her amended complaint to add four individual LASD deputies and

the Fire Department as defendants. (See ECF No. 54.)

Then, on March 22, 2021—one week after Mrs. Bryant filed her First

Amended Complaint and only one day before Mrs. Bryant’s deadline to further

amend her complaint and join parties—the County produced approximately eighty


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



pages of internal investigation reports, dated August 31, 2020, that detailed

misconduct by Fire Department personnel who took and shared photos of the

remains of Mrs. Bryant’s loved ones. (Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 21–22.)

While the County began investigating that misconduct in early March 2020

and had decided to discharge two of the LAFD personnel and suspend a third by

December 2, 2020 (id. ¶ 22), Mrs. Bryant was not given any information about what

had transpired—either in response to her informal requests for information in March

2020, or in response to her discovery requests in this litigation—for months.

Although the reports were responsive to the RFPs Mrs. Bryant had propounded in

November 2020, the production on March 22, 2021 was the first time the County

had provided any documents to Mrs. Bryant related to the improper photos taken

and shared by LAFD personnel. (Id. ¶ 21.) As of the date of this motion, the

County has produced a mere thirty-one records from the two LAFD personnel

known to have taken photos of victims’ remains at the crash site. (Id. ¶ 23.) F. The Amount of Outstanding Discovery Continues to Pile Up

Promptly upon naming the new defendants in her First Amended Complaint,

Mrs. Bryant served demands to inspect any electronic devices, cell phones, and

cloud-based accounts that the Fire Department personnel and Deputy Defendants

had used to open, view, store, or share photos of the accident scene or victims’

remains. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 15.) These inspection demands followed similar demands

Plaintiff had previously served on LASD on March 10, 2021. (Id. ¶ 16.) In

response to those prior demands, LASD asserted it did not have possession, custody,

or control of any relevant devices and committed only to making the Deputy

Defendants’ devices available for inspection—while refusing to provide any

information about whether they have interviewed the LASD personnel involved to

determine if any department-issued devices may also contain relevant evidence.

(Id.) As a consequence of LASD’s position that it lacks possession, custody, or

control of its employees’ personal devices, in addition to serving inspection


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



demands on the four named defendants, Plaintiff has had to serve subpoenas on

seven additional LASD personnel known to have possessed photos of the accident

scene on their personal cell phones. (Id.) While the parties have not yet agreed on

all the devices that will be examined, they have agreed in principle to an inspection

protocol under which a neutral third-party firm will forensically examine the

relevant devices and accounts. (Id.) As Defendants stated in a filing with the Court

on April 12, 2021, “[t]he parties anticipate a time-intensive examination process and

that the neutral examiner’s findings may identify areas for further discovery.” (ECF

No. 71 ¶ 9.)

On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff served RFPs on the newly added defendants.

(Lavoie Decl. ¶ 17.) Both the Fire Department and the Deputy Defendants have yet

to produce documents in response to those RFPs. (Id.) In a filing with the Court on

April 12, 2021, the Fire Department and Deputy Defendants stated that they intend

to produce documents “sometime this summer.” (ECF 71 ¶ 8.)

On April 27, 2021, the Fire Department and Deputy Defendants served their

initial disclosures. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 18.) Collectively, the two sets of disclosures

identified forty-seven witnesses with discoverable information—forty-six of whom

have yet to be deposed—and several categories of documents that have yet to be

fully produced, including “[c]itizens’ complaint(s) regarding potential sharing of

incident site photographs” and “[i]ncident site photographs.” (Id.)

G. Defendants Would Not Stipulate to a Continuance of the Discovery Cutoff, Necessitating This Motion

On April 19, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants to

ask if they would stipulate to a modified scheduling order consistent with the

schedule the parties had previously proposed for a potential consolidated action.3

3 Because the Court denied the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the Related Cases for all purposes, it did not address the other portions of the stipulation related to the potential consolidated action, such as the case schedule. (See ECF No. 72.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



(Lavoie Decl. ¶ 33; ECF No. 71 ¶¶ 6–10.) Plaintiff’s counsel explained that the

good cause outlined in the parties’ stipulation for setting a February 11, 2022

discovery cutoff in the proposed consolidated action applies equally to extending the

discovery cutoff in this matter, even absent consolidation. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 33.)

Defendants were unwilling to stipulate to a modification of the scheduling order.

(Id.)

The next day, however, Defendants asked the plaintiffs in the Related Cases

to stipulate before Judge Eick to consolidate for purposes of discovery. (Id. ¶ 34.)

Defendants’ proposal did not address how such consolidation could be achieved

given that the forthcoming Altobelli lawsuit will inevitably be on an entirely

different discovery schedule than this one. (Id.) IV. ARGUMENT

A. Despite Mrs. Bryant’s Diligence, Discovery Cannot Reasonably Be Completed by August 16, 2021

At all times in this litigation—and even before—Mrs. Bryant has been

diligent in unravelling the truth to ensure that the wrongdoers are held accountable

for violating the dignity of her loved ones. Within days of the Los Angeles Times

reports that brought the misconduct to light, Mrs. Bryant began seeking further

information, and she has been equally diligent in her pursuit of discovery in this

litigation. But despite her best efforts, it has taken many months to extract

information from the County. As a result, most of the essential discovery in this

case remains to be done—and it cannot reasonably be completed before August 16,

2021. 1. Mrs. Bryant Has Been Diligent

Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and RFPs as soon as she could in

November 2020. Through no fault of her own, this discovery did not bear any fruit

for months. Defendants did not start identifying witnesses in response to Plaintiff’s

first two interrogatories until more than four months after the interrogatories were


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



served. See, e.g., Muhammad v. California, 2019 WL 6315536, at *7 (C.D. Cal.

Sept. 19, 2019) (granting motion to modify scheduling order where defendants

“avoid[ed] producing even the most basic discovery requested”); MultiCraft

Imports, Inc. v. Mariposa USA, Inc., 2017 WL 5665214, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 8,

2017) (granting motion to modify scheduling order where it took plaintiff “almost

four months to acquire the information from [defendant] it first sought in its original

discovery request”). And even now—after nearly six months—the County and

Sheriff’s Department have failed to complete their document productions in

response to Plaintiff’s initial RFPs served in November 2020.

Discovery against the newly added defendants—the Deputy Defendants and

the Fire Department—is even further behind. Plaintiff did not receive the new

defendants’ initial disclosures until April 27, 2021, and the Deputy Defendants and

Fire Department have yet to produce any documents in response to the RFPs

propounded on them. This discovery is in its infancy for reasons outside of Mrs.

Bryant’s control. Progress in discovery was immediately setback because the

County did not produce the IA Report with its initial disclosures and instead forced

Mrs. Bryant to file a motion to compel, a process that took nearly two months. (See

Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 4–7.) Then, after Mrs. Bryant successfully fought to get access to

the IA Report, diligently analyzed it, and amended her complaint to name new

defendants based on the information therein, the County put up roadblocks to delay

the filing of the First Amended Complaint until March 17, 2021. (See Part III.E

supra, at 11.) The recent addition of new defendants in the First Amended

Complaint in and of itself justifies the requested continuance. See, e.g., So v. Land

Base, 2009 WL 2566816, at *2 (granting six-month continuance of all dates in light

of new defendants added in amended complaint).

The County’s recent production of the Fire Department’s internal

investigation reports is a paradigmatic example of the discovery delays Mrs. Bryant

has encountered, despite her diligence. Mrs. Bryant has been informally requesting


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3ea70db0108d11ea942eedc092039568/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6315536

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3ea70db0108d11ea942eedc092039568/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6315536

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iae55a570d3fb11e7929ecf6e705a87cd/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2017+WL+5665214





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



information about the Fire Department’s investigation into the improper photos

since March 2020 and formally requesting such documents in this litigation since

November 16, 2020, when she served an RFP requesting “all documents and

communications relating to any taking or sharing of photos of the accident scene or

victims’ remains by any person who is not an employee of the Coroner’s Office or

NTSB.” (Lavoie Decl. ¶¶ 3, 27–28.) At the time Mrs. Bryant served this RFP that

called for the production of the Fire Department reports, the County was already in

possession of the reports, which are dated August 31, 2020. (See id. ¶ 22.) The

County has also long known that the internal investigation uncovered significant

misconduct. On December 2, 2020—just three weeks after Mrs. Bryant served her

RFPs—the County sent notices of discharge to two offending firefighters and a

notice of suspension to a third. (See id.) Despite all of this, the County did not

disclose or produce the reports to Mrs. Bryant until March 22, 2021—one week

after Mrs. Bryant had filed her First Amended Complaint and just one day before

Mrs. Bryant’s deadline to add individual defendants to her lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 21.)

Because Mrs. Bryant did not even know about the existence of the Fire

Department’s reports until March of this year, there was nothing she could have

done to get the information—or pursue discovery based on that information—any

sooner.

Finally, Plaintiff has also been diligent in seeking to modify the scheduling

order as soon as it became clear that a modification was necessary. See, e.g.,

Aardwolf, 2017 WL 6888242, at *4. She is bringing the instant motion well in

advance of the current discovery cutoff of August 16, 2021, and more than six

months before the existing trial date. See, e.g., Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v.

Flexicare Inc., 2020 WL 7094074, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (granting motion

to amend scheduling order where “the close of fact discovery ha[d] still not lapsed”

and the court was unlikely to be able to accommodate the current trial date in any

event given the trial delays caused by COVID-19). The recent events necessitating



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0cd71f3036fe11eba9c4c2beee9e04d0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+7094074

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0cd71f3036fe11eba9c4c2beee9e04d0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+7094074

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



modification—chief among them Defendants’ serial delays in producing essential

documents, including the IA Report and Fire Department investigation reports—all

occurred after the Court’s initial scheduling order. None of these developments

were reasonably foreseeable to Plaintiff at the time of the initial scheduling

conference. At that time, she had no reason to expect that more than sixty-six

witnesses possess relevant knowledge, much less that it would take months to obtain

the names of those witnesses. Nor could she have reasonably anticipated that she

would not obtain the documents to effectively depose the dozens of LASD and

LAFD personnel implicated in the misconduct until “sometime this summer.” (ECF

71 ¶ 8.) 2. The Current Schedule Prejudices Mrs. Bryant’s Ability to

Prosecute Her Claims

Given the current status of discovery, Mrs. Bryant cannot reasonably

complete the discovery she needs by August 16, 2021. As a practical matter, under

the current schedule, certain avenues of discovery would have to go unexplored,

which would prejudice Mrs. Bryant’s ability to present her claims at trial. (a) Time-Intensive Inspections Remain To Be Done

Because both LASD and LAFD personnel deleted evidence of the improper

photos in their possession, investigating the misconduct is more difficult and time

intensive than it otherwise would be. A forensic examination of all the phones,

devices, and cloud-based accounts that once held (and potentially still hold) the

photos is a critical step to determining whether deleted evidence of dissemination

can be recovered. While Defendants have agreed to submit some devices to

inspection, the parties continue to confer about the particular devices that will be

examined by a neutral third-party forensics expert. Once an agreement has been

reached on the scope of the examination, it will take significant time for the neutral

examiner to conduct a thorough analysis, as Defendants have themselves

acknowledged. (See ECF No. 71 ¶ 9.) Moreover, the examiner’s findings will


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



likely identify further areas for discovery that cannot begin until the examination has

been completed. Under the current schedule, Mrs. Bryant would be put in the

position of having to limit the scope of the neutral’s forensic examination—or

potentially having to sacrifice some or all of the follow-up discovery called for by

the neutral’s findings. In addition, Mrs. Bryant cannot effectively depose the

personnel whose devices are to be examined until after the examinations are

complete. If she were to press ahead with these depositions now, with the

examinations proceeding on a dual-track, she would be forced to forfeit her chance

to depose the personnel regarding the examination’s findings. (b) Numerous Depositions Remain To Be Done, and Cannot

Begin Until Later This Summer, at the Earliest

Completing discovery by mid-August is also impractical because more than

sixty-six witnesses have relevant knowledge. Although Plaintiff does not intend to

depose all individuals with relevant knowledge, a substantial number of depositions

will be necessary to investigate her claims, including but not limited to:

• Sheriff Villanueva;

• the four Deputy Defendants;

• at least seven additional LASD personnel who took, shared, or possessed photos;

• at least three additional LASD personnel with knowledge of the photos and LASD operations at the crash site;

• the Lost Hills Captain who attempted to launch an inquiry into the citizen complaint and expressed concerns about the Sheriff’s deletion

order;

• the Lost Hills officer who was directed to conduct the inquiry that was cut short by Sheriff Villanueva’s intervention;

• five LASD personnel involved in carrying out Sheriff Villanueva’s deletion order;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



• three LASD personnel involved in a formal internal investigation launched following the Los Angeles Times reports;

• six LAFD personnel who took or shared photos, or have relevant knowledge of the photos and LAFD operations at the crash site;

• the group of ten firefighters and significant others who were present when an LAFD employee displayed photos of the victims’ remains at

an awards show;

• three 30(b)(6) depositions (of the Fire Department, Coroner’s Office, and Sheriff’s Department); and

• a yet-to-be-determined number of civilians with knowledge of the photos’ dissemination or display amongst members of the public,

including the individual who was seated next to Cruz at the bar in

Norwalk (if he can be found).

(Id. ¶ 20.) To date, only two witnesses—both civilians—have been deposed. (Id.)

While Plaintiff is eager to depose LASD and LAFD witnesses, she cannot

effectively do so until Defendants have completed their document production. See,

e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., 2012 WL 762240, *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

8, 2012) (documents are necessary for “competent deposition preparation”; “the

deposition may be the only opportunity to authenticate documents and determine

their potential value and admissibility for trial”). The County’s production did not

begin in earnest until just a few weeks ago, and by Defendants’ own estimation it

will not be complete until mid-May, at the earliest. Neither the LAFD nor the

Deputy Defendants have even started to produce documents (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 17),

and their production will not be complete until “sometime this summer,” according

to Defendants. (See ECF No. 71 ¶ 8.) A production of potentially highly probative

documents in the personal possession of additional, non-party LASD deputies who

possessed the photos has also yet to begin in response to Plaintiff’s third-party

subpoenas. (Lavoie Decl. ¶ 17.) Among other things, Plaintiff seeks the cell phone


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1eb33e5c6c3711e1be29b2facdefeebe/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+762240

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1eb33e5c6c3711e1be29b2facdefeebe/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2012+WL+762240

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



records of the Deputy Defendants and the subpoenaed individuals to determine who

those with possession of the photos texted immediately following the accident—a

necessary, but also time-intensive, inquiry. (Id.) And if past is prologue, Plaintiff

will have to continue to fight Defendants to compel a fulsome document production.

All of this will leave Plaintiff insufficient time to depose all of the implicated

LASD and LAFD personnel after reviewing the relevant documents. Even

assuming Plaintiff receives a complete production of documents by the first day of

summer—an unlikely best-case scenario—under the current schedule she would

have a mere eight weeks to conduct upwards of 45–50 important depositions while

simultaneously conducting expert discovery and pushing forward the forensic

examinations of numerous electronic devices. More likely, given Defendants’

estimate that their production will be complete “sometime this summer,” Plaintiff

would be left with no time at all to take depositions after Defendants’ document

production is finally complete. Under either scenario, Plaintiff would be forced to

sacrifice numerous depositions and leave potentially critical evidence undiscovered. (c) Follow-Up Discovery Must Be Pursued

Developments in recent weeks underscore the need for a reasonable period of

time to conduct follow-up discovery. Each time Defendants have made a substantial

production of documents to date, those documents have revealed additional

witnesses and incidents requiring further investigation. The Lost Hills Captain’s

interview in the IA Report, for example, revealed a pressing need to explore the

circumstances surrounding the Sheriff’s deletion order, which Plaintiff contends

constituted spoliation. Similarly, the LAFD reports disclosed a previously unknown

instance of public display of the photos at an awards show involving at least ten

witnesses. And the recent production of the surveillance footage from the bar in

Norwalk has demonstrated a need to track down additional witnesses, in particular

the bar patron seated next to Cruz who viewed his phone. Mrs. Bryant respectfully

respects a continuance of the discovery cutoff to ensure she can reasonably


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



investigate all of these leads—as well as any others that come to light as discovery

progresses.

A modification of the scheduling order is necessary to ensure that the

County’s delay tactics—and LASD’s destruction of evidence—are not rewarded,

and that Mrs. Bryant can complete a reasonable investigation before she has to

present her case at trial.

B. Modifying the Scheduling Order Will Benefit Defendants and Cause No Prejudice

While the current schedule would prejudice Mrs. Bryant’s ability to develop

her case for trial, there is no countervailing prejudice to Defendants from the

requested continuance. In meet and confer, Defendants never suggested otherwise.

(Lavoie Decl. ¶ 35.) Nor could they. The modified schedule does not impact their

ability to mount a defense in any way. Any additional costs that result from the

additional time for discovery are irrelevant, as additional costs in and of themselves

are not prejudicial. See, e.g., Gilman v. Davis, 2009 WL 577768, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

Mar. 4, 2009) (“Defending a lawsuit . . . necessarily involves significant costs.

These costs are not themselves prejudicial.”).

And even if additional costs, standing alone, were relevant to Rule 16’s “good

cause” inquiry, it is hard to see how such considerations could come into play here.

If anything, the requested modification of the scheduling order would make

litigation less expensive and less burdensome for Defendants. To avoid potentially

duplicative and overlapping discovery burdens, Defendants have asked Mrs. Bryant

and the plaintiffs in the Related Cases to stipulate to consolidate discovery.

However, absent a modification of the scheduling order in this case, such

consolidation is inherently unworkable because it would prejudice the Altobelli

plaintiffs, whose lawsuit is forthcoming. (ECF No. 71 ¶ 4; Lavoie Decl. ¶ 34.) As a

matter of basic fairness, the Altobelli plaintiffs are entitled to more than just three

months to conduct discovery. Mrs. Bryant’s requested continuance of the discovery


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I16b0a0710c9811deb77d9846f86fae5c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2009+WL+577768

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I16b0a0710c9811deb77d9846f86fae5c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=2009+WL+577768

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



cutoff would roughly align the discovery schedule in this action with the discovery

schedule of the last-filed Related Case. In so doing, it would facilitate the very

consolidation that Defendants seek and allow Defendants to enjoy efficiencies in

discovery that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

As a result, although Defendants ostensibly oppose this motion, their

opposition merits no weight because they will not suffer any prejudice from a

modification of the scheduling order in this case. V. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and

modify the scheduling order to allow more time for Mrs. Bryant to conduct critical

discovery. Given the progress of discovery to date, the existing schedule would

impose a severe hardship on Mrs. Bryant and make it all the more difficult for her to

overcome Defendants’ obstruction—and destruction of evidence—to get to the

bottom of what happened, determine the full extent of the misconduct, and hold the

wrongdoers accountable. To avoid such undue prejudice, Mrs. Bryant respectfully

requests that the Court modify the schedule for the remaining deadlines as follows:



Discovery Cutoff 2/11/2022 Last Day for Hearing Motions 2/25/2022 Pre-Trial Submissions 3/25/2022 Pre-Trial Conference 4/8/2022 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions 4/15/2022

Trial (Jury) 4/27/2022


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



DATED: May 10, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: /s/ Luis Li Luis Li

Attorneys for Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E LAVOIE DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER




VANESSA BRYANT,

Plaintiff,


Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E DECLARATION OF CRAIG JENNINGS LAVOIE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER [Notice of Motion and Motion to Modify the Court’s Scheduling Order; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith] Date: June 7, 2021 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7A Judge: Hon. John F. Walter Pre-Trial Conf.: October 29, 2021 Trial Date: November 16, 2021


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E LAVOIE DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

DECLARATION OF CRAIG JENNINGS LAVOIE

I, Craig Jennings Lavoie, hereby declare:

1. I am admitted to practice before all of the courts of the State of

California and this Court. I am an attorney at the law firm of Munger, Tolles &

Olson LLP and counsel of record for Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant in the above-

captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

declaration, and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the

matters set forth herein.1

Plaintiff’s Diligent Pursuit of Discovery in This Action

2. Promptly upon the opening of discovery in this action, on November 2,

2020, Plaintiff served two interrogatories seeking the names of (1) all LASD and

LAFD personnel whom the County had reason to believe may have taken and/or

shared photos of the accident scene, and (2) all LASD and LAFD personnel who

were involved in investigating or responding to reports that LASD and LAFD

personnel had taken and/or shared such photos. On December 7, 2020, the County

served an objections-only response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, refusing to provide

the names of any LASD and LAFD personnel or any other substantive information.

A true and correct copy of the County’s objections-only response to Plaintiff’s first

set of interrogatories is attached as Exhibit 1.

3. Plaintiff also promptly propounded requests for production (“RFPs”)

on the County and LASD on November 16 and November 17, 2020. Among other

things, the RFPs sought “all documents and communications relating to any taking

or sharing of photos of the accident scene or victims’ remains by any person who is

not an employee of the Coroner’s Office or NTSB.” The County and LASD each

served written responses and objections on December 21, 2020. Where Defendants

1 Defined terms used herein have the same meaning set forth in Plaintiff’s motion filed herewith.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


did not object entirely to an RFP, they agreed to produce responsive documents

within forty-five days.

4. On November 18, 2020, the parties exchanged initial disclosures.

Plaintiff served eight pages of disclosures that identified fourteen potential witnesses

and listed categories of relevant documents in her possession. By contrast,

Defendants’ disclosures did not name a single individual who might be used to

support their defenses and did not list a single category of relevant documents. A

true and correct copy of Defendants’ November 18, 2020 initial disclosures is

attached as Exhibit 2.

5. The next day, I sent correspondence to Defendants explaining that they

had violated their obligations under Rule 26 and that their refusal to provide relevant

information was prejudicing Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery and obtain the

names of the wrongdoers in advance of the Court’s deadline to amend the complaint

and join additional defendants. A true and correct copy of this correspondence,

dated November 19, 2020, is attached as Exhibit 3.

6. In response, rather than supplement the initial disclosures as requested,

Defendants’ counsel stated that they would produce LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau

Investigative Report (the “IA Report”), which contained the names of witnesses

with discoverable information, only if Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Faced

with an imminent deadline to amend the complaint and join parties, Plaintiff

acquiesced and filed a motion to compel.

7. After Magistrate Judge Eick granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel

production of the IA Report, Defendants produced the IA Report on January 6,

2021. It contained over 1,100 pages of summaries, interview transcripts, and other

materials related to LASD’s internal investigation of the illicit photos. And it

revealed—for the first time—the names of dozens of LASD personnel and other

witnesses with knowledge of both the underlying misconduct and the department’s

departure from normal internal affairs’ protocols in responding to it.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


8. However, the County initially designated every single word in the IA

Report “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” meaning that Mrs. Bryant was blocked from

viewing even a single page of the report. On January 8, 2021, I called counsel for

the County and requested that Defendants downgrade the IA Report from

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to “Confidential” in order to enable Mrs. Bryant to view the

report herself, but Defendants refused. In an email later that day, counsel for the

County stated that Plaintiff’s counsel could “discuss” the report with Mrs. Bryant,

“[b]ut . . . you must not show or give the IAB Report to your client.” A true and

correct copy of this correspondence, dated January 8, 2021, is attached hereto as

Exhibit 4. One month after this exchange, counsel for Mrs. Bryant formally wrote

to Defendants threatening motion practice if the County did not downgrade the IA

Report to “Confidential,” such that Mrs. Bryant would be allowed to view it. A true

and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Only then, on

February 5, 2021, did Defendants downgrade the report.

9. As of February 4, 2021—forty-five days after Defendants served their

written responses and objections to Plaintiff’s RFPs—the County and LASD had not

produced a single document other than the IA Report.

10. Aside from the IA Report, Defendants produced a total of sixty

documents between November 16, 2020, and March 21, 2021.

11. Defendants did not produce the complete set of exhibits to the IA

Report—approximately 2,200 records—until March 26, 2021. Among the exhibits

produced for the first time on March 26 was surveillance footage from a bar in

Norwalk on the night that, according to the IA Report, Defendant Joey Cruz was

displaying photos of the crash scene. The surveillance footage shows Cruz smiling

as he displayed his phone not only to a bartender, but also to a patron seated next to

him at the bar. The patron seated next to Cruz and other witnesses shown in the

surveillance footage have not yet been identified. At a later point in the video, Cruz

can be seen a second time displaying his phone to the bartender, who peered down


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to study the phone for over a minute. As the bartender walked away after viewing

Cruz’s phone, Cruz can be seen smiling and saying something to the bartender.

Cruz and the bartender then burst into laughter.

12. Since March 30, 2021, the County has produced approximately 5,870

documents. A substantial proportion of these documents have been public press

articles. More than 1,500 records are Google Alerts.

13. During meet and confer, Defendants’ counsel have estimated that the

County’s production in response to the November 2020 RFPs will be substantially

complete by mid-May. However, the County’s mid-May estimate for substantially

completing its production does not account for several RFPs that have been the

subject of ongoing meet and confer between the parties. As of today, certain RFPs

remain in dispute. For example, the County has equivocated regarding its

commitment to produce documents the Sheriff’s Department produced in response

to a subpoena issued by the County of Los Angeles Inspector General related to the

improper photos. The County is also objecting to producing documents related to

LASD’s awareness of the constitutional right to control the death images of loved

ones and documents related to the training of the Deputy Defendants on avoiding

violations of that right. As a result, Plaintiff has initiated the required process to

move to compel. Such motion practice will further delay the completion of

Defendants’ document production in response to the RFPs that have been pending

since November 16, 2020.

14. After diligently analyzing the IA Report’s 1,100+ pages of materials,

on February 1, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants the amended complaint that

Plaintiff intended to file based on previously undisclosed information revealed in the

IA Report. The County’s lawyers responded with a letter refusing to consent to the

filing of the First Amended Complaint unless Plaintiff “agree[d] to take out the

confidential material” from the IA Report. As a result of the County’s position,

Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in extended meet and confer regarding a potential


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


motion for leave to file an amended complaint. After the County finally agreed to

not force Mrs. Bryant to file such a motion, Plaintiff’s counsel had to engage in

further meet and confer about whether the amended complaint could be filed in the

public record. Because the parties were unable to reach an agreement on that issue,

a sealing application was filed on February 24, 2021, which was ultimately denied

on March 8, 2021.

15. Promptly upon naming the Deputy Defendants and Fire Department as

defendants in her First Amended Complaint, on March 23, 2021 and April 5, 2021,

Mrs. Bryant served demands to inspect any electronic devices, cell phones, and

cloud-based accounts that the new defendants had used to open, view, store, or share

photos of the accident scene or victims’ remains.

16. These inspection demands followed similar demands Plaintiff had

previously served on LASD on March 10, 2021. In response to those prior

demands, LASD asserted it did not have possession, custody, or control of any

relevant devices and committed only to making the Deputy Defendants’ devices

available for inspection. In subsequent meet and confer, however, Defendants’

counsel have refused to provide any information about whether they have

interviewed the LASD personnel involved to determine if any department-issued

devices may contain relevant evidence. As a consequence of LASD’s position that

it lacks possession, custody, or control of its employees’ personal devices, in

addition to seeking inspections from the four Deputy Defendants, Plaintiff has had

to serve subpoenas on seven LASD personnel known to have possessed photos of

the accident scene on their personal cell phones. While the parties have not yet

agreed on all the devices that will be examined, they have agreed in principle to an

inspection protocol under which a neutral third-party firm will forensically examine

the relevant devices and accounts.

17. On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff served RFPs on the Fire Department and

Deputy Defendants. Both have yet to produce documents in response to those


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


RFPs. The non-party LASD deputies who possessed the photos have also yet to

produce any documents in response to Plaintiff’s third-party subpoenas. Among

other things, Plaintiff seeks the cell phone records of the Deputy Defendants and the

subpoenaed individuals to determine who those with possession of the photos texted

immediately following the accident—a necessary, but also time-intensive, inquiry.

18. On April 27, 2021, the Fire Department and Deputy Defendants served

their initial disclosures. Collectively, the two sets of disclosures identified forty-

seven witnesses with discoverable information—forty-six of whom have yet to be

deposed—and several categories of documents that have yet to be fully produced,

including “[c]itizens’ complaint(s) regarding potential sharing of incident site

photographs” and “[i]ncident site photographs.”

Developments Following the Initial Scheduling Conference

19. After Plaintiff’s counsel sent several emails demanding that the County

supplement its prior objections-only interrogatory responses, the County served

supplemental responses on March 12, 2021 and March 31, 2021. The County’s

supplemental responses identified sixty-six LASD and LAFD witnesses with

relevant knowledge. Documents obtained in discovery reveal that eighteen of these

witnesses took, shared, or possessed photos of the accident scene.

20. Although Plaintiff does not intend to depose all individuals with

relevant knowledge, a substantial number of depositions will be necessary to

investigate Mrs. Bryant’s claims, including but not limited to: Sheriff Villanueva;

the four Deputy Defendants; at least seven additional LASD personnel who took,

shared, or possessed photos; at least three additional LASD personnel with

knowledge of the photos and LASD operations at the crash site; the Lost Hills

Captain who attempted to launch an inquiry into the citizen complaint and expressed

concerns about the Sheriff’s deletion order (see infra ¶ 25); the Lost Hills officer

who was directed to conduct the inquiry that was cut short by Sheriff Villanueva’s

intervention; five LASD personnel involved in carrying out Sheriff Villanueva’s


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


deletion order; three LASD personnel involved in a formal internal investigation

launched following the Los Angeles Times reports; six LAFD personnel who took or

shared photos, or who have relevant knowledge of the photos and LAFD operations

at the crash site; the group of ten firefighters and significant others who were present

when an LAFD employee displayed photos of the victims’ remains at an awards

show (see infra ¶ 22); three 30(b)(6) depositions (of the Fire Department, Coroner’s

Office, and Sheriff’s Department); and a yet-to-be-determined number of civilians

with knowledge of the photos’ dissemination or display amongst members of the

public, including the individual who was seated next to Cruz at the bar in Norwalk

(if he can be found). To date, only two witnesses—both civilians—have been

deposed.

21. On March 22, 2021, the County produced approximately eighty pages

of internal investigation reports detailing conduct by Fire Department personnel who

took and shared photos of victims at the crash site. The production was the first

time the County had provided any documents to Mrs. Bryant about LAFD personnel

taking or sharing photos of the victims’ remains. Every single page of the reports

was designated as Confidential under the Protective Order.

22. To respect confidentiality and privacy concerns expressed by

Defendants and to obviate the need for a sealing application in connection with this

motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to summarize content from the reports herein,

rather than attach the full documents as exhibits. Following meet and confer

regarding Defendants’ confidentiality designation and Plaintiff’s intent to use

certain information from the reports in connection with this motion, Defendants’

counsel have agreed that the following summary and excerpts may be filed publicly:

a. The LAFD’s investigation reports, dated August 31, 2020, are

attached to three letters dated December 2, 2020, that are addressed to three LAFD

personnel. The letters announce an “intention to discharge” two of the recipients

and an “intention to suspend” the third.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


b. According to the reports and letters, two Fire Department

employees took photos of victims’ remains at the crash site that “served no business

necessity” and instead “only served to appeal to baser instincts and desires for what

amounted to visual gossip.” One of the employees, a safety officer who was at the

site solely to monitor safety procedures, was observed taking graphic photos focused

on the victims’ remains. Both of the employees who took photos of remains sent

them to a third Fire Department employee who was on site to assist with press

briefings and to respond to inquiries from the media.

c. Then, according to a civilian witness who submitted a complaint

to the Fire Department, the employee who received the photos shared them with off-

duty firefighters and their wives and girlfriends while socializing amongst a group

of ten people at an awards ceremony at a Hilton hotel in February 2020.

d. The citizen complainant was interviewed by LAFD investigators

on March 9, 2020.

23. As of today’s date, the County has produced just thirty-one records

from the two LAFD personnel known to have taken photos of victims’ remains at

the crash site.

24. On June 30, 2020, a former Captain of the Lost Hills Sheriff’s station

was interviewed by LASD investigators. The transcript of the interview was

included in the IA Report produced to Plaintiff on January 6, 2021. Every single

page of the report was designated as Confidential under the Protective Order.

25. To respect confidentiality and privacy concerns expressed by

Defendants and to obviate the need for a sealing application in connection with this

motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to summarize and excerpt content from the

Captain’s interview transcript herein, rather than attach the full transcript as an

exhibit. Following meet and confer regarding Defendants’ confidentiality

designation and Plaintiff’s intent to use certain information from the transcript in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


connection with this motion, Defendants’ counsel have agreed that the following

summary and excerpts may be filed publicly:

a. After a private citizen emailed a complaint to the Sheriff’s

Department that a deputy was showing photographs of the crash site at a bar, the

Lost Hills station Captain informed his supervisors of the complaint on Wednesday,

January 29, 2020, and assigned a member of his staff to conduct an inquiry. The

following day, the Captain directed his staff to take a statement from the informant,

identify the bartender, look for video footage, and request an administrative

investigation.

b. After having been awake for thirty-two hours straight, the

Captain left work and was sleeping between the hours of 2:00pm and 6:00pm on

Thursday, January 30, 2020. When he woke up at 6:00pm, he had a text message

from a member of his staff that said: “Please call me.” When they spoke, the staff

member told the Captain that he had been instructed to call in all Lost Hills

personnel who had been at the crash site, find out if they had photos of the accident

scene and, if so, to delete them. If the deputies complied, “there would be no

discipline.” However, “if the pictures got out into the media or the public, all bets

were off and they would be fired.” The Captain immediately told his staff member

to stop but learned they had “already done about over half the people.”

c. The Captain called his chief and “bombard[ed] him with

questions” because the Captain had “a lot of concerns over this direction” and was

“worried about the exposure of [his] staff.” One of the Captain’s big concerns was

that his staff “were receiving instructions from the Sheriff outside of the chain of

command.” He told his chief: “[H]ow do we know that we’re not breaking some

obscure federal law that we’re not aware of? And if so, then are we telling them by

deleting these photographs that we’re destroying evidence?” He also “reminded the

chief that the last time our deputies got instructions from our executives in a federal

case that they were arrested and tried for crimes, just to get to those executives.” In


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


his interview, the Captain further explained that the instructions were “very out of

the ordinary and [he] had concerns for his people.”

d. After the Captain expressed his concerns to his chief, the chief

told him that he would talk to the Sheriff’s office. The chief called the Captain back

shortly thereafter. In a “very short” call, the chief said that he had discussed the

matter with the Sheriff, who had assured him that “this is the proper way that we’re

gonna go.” When the Captain pointed out that it was unusual to not conduct an

internal affairs investigation, the supervisor responded “that’s fine but this is the

direction we’re gonna go.” The Captain “felt like that was probably going to be the

end of the discussion.” He said: “[O]kay sir. Well, I’m only telling you because

you’re my immediate supervisor and I have my concerns.” The Captain then called

his staff member back and told him what the chief had said: “[T]his is what the

Sheriff wants and so we’re gonna go ahead and we’re gonna continue what you’re

doing.”

Mrs. Bryant’s Efforts to Obtain Information Prior to This Action

26. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a March 2, 2020

letter sent by Mrs. Bryant’s counsel to Sheriff Villanueva. Attached as Exhibit 7 is

a follow-up letter Mrs. Bryant’s counsel sent on March 8, 2020.

27. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a March 2, 2020

letter sent by Mrs. Bryant’s counsel to Fire Chief Daryl L. Osby.

28. After a series of letters acknowledging receipt of Mrs. Bryant’s

correspondence, on March 26, 2020, outside counsel for LASD and LAFD

substantively responded to Mrs. Bryant’s letters. True and correct copies of these

responses are attached as Exhibits 9 and 10.

29. On May 8, 2020, pursuant to California Government Code section 900

et seq., Mrs. Bryant filed a written notice of claims against the Sheriff’s Department,

Sheriff Villanueva, and then-unknown deputies who took and shared photos of her


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


loved ones’ remains. The County has not substantively responded to Mrs. Bryant’s

notice.

30. On July 20, 2020, pursuant to California Government Code section 900

et seq., Mrs. Bryant filed a written notice of claims against the Fire Department and

then-unknown members of the Fire Department who took and shared photos of her

loved ones’ remains. The County has not substantively responded to Mrs. Bryant’s

notice.

31. After receiving no response to her notice of claims, Mrs. Bryant filed

suit in state court against the County, the Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Alex

Villanueva, and Doe defendants who took or shared photos of the accident scene or

one of the Bryants’ remains. Mrs. Bryant then promptly served interrogatories,

several of which sought the names of the LASD and LAFD personnel who took or

shared photos of the victims’ remains. However, before Defendants’ responses

became due, Defendants removed the action to federal court on October 19, 2020.

Meet and Confer Regarding This Motion

32. Prior to this motion, the parties had jointly requested a new case

schedule in connection with potential consolidation of this action with the Related

Cases.2 (ECF No. 71.) Because the Court denied the parties’ stipulation to

consolidate for all purposes, it did not address the other portions of the stipulation

related to the potential consolidated action, such as the case schedule. (See ECF No.

72.)

33. On April 19, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants

to ask if they would stipulate to a modified scheduling order consistent with the

schedule the parties had previously proposed for the potential consolidated action.

2 The Related Cases were brought by the Chester plaintiffs (Case No. 2:20-cv-10844-JFW-E) (“Chester”), the Mauser plaintiffs (Case No. 2:21-cv-00497-JFW-E) (“Mauser”), and, it is anticipated, the Altobelli plaintiffs (“Altobelli”).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


(ECF No. 71 ¶¶ 6–10.) Plaintiff’s counsel explained that the good cause outlined in

the parties’ stipulation for setting a February 11, 2022 discovery cutoff in the

proposed consolidated action applies equally to extending the discovery cutoff in

this matter, even absent consolidation. Defendants were unwilling to stipulate to a

modification of the scheduling order.

34. The next day, however, Defendants emailed Plaintiff’s counsel as well

as plaintiffs in the Related Cases and asked if they would stipulate before Judge

Eick to consolidating for purposes of discovery. Defendants later followed up with

a proposed stipulation to consolidate discovery. Defendants’ proposal did not

address how such consolidation could be achieved given that the forthcoming

Altobelli lawsuit (see ECF No. 71 ¶ 4), which has not yet been filed, will inevitably

be on an entirely different discovery schedule than this case.

35. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 and this Court’s Standing Order, on April

21, 2021, the parties met and conferred via videoconference to discuss this motion.

At no time did Defendants’ counsel suggest they would be prejudiced by the

requested modification of the scheduling order. The parties were nonetheless unable

to reach an agreement.

The Court’s Scheduling Order

36. On November 18, 2020, the Court set the following dates in this case:



Discovery Cutoff 8/16/2021 Last Day for Hearing Motions 9/6/2021 Pre-Trial Submissions 10/14/2021 Pre-Trial Conference 10/29/2021 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions 11/5/2021

Trial 11/16/2021


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


37. These dates set by the Court were consistent with the case schedule the

parties had proposed in their joint Rule 26(f) report. (See ECF No. 27 at 9–10.) At

the time of the parties’ submission on November 16, 2020, however, the information

available to Mrs. Bryant suggested that only eight Sheriff’s deputies were involved

in the misconduct. (See Compl. ¶ 31.) Mrs. Bryant had not yet received any

witness disclosures or other information from Defendants and thus did not yet

apprehend the breadth of the misconduct or the scope of discovery that would be

necessary to prosecute her claims.

38. The parties previously stipulated to continue the deadline to join parties

and amend the complaint. (ECF No. 35.) The Court continued that deadline from

February 11, 2021, to March 24, 2021. (ECF No. 37.) The Court’s Scheduling

Order has not been otherwise modified since it was issued in November 2020.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 10th day of May, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.

Craig Jennings Lavoie


EXHIBIT 1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

.1 Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EDEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) [email protected] MIRA HASHMALL (State Bar No. 216842) [email protected] EMILY A. RODRIGUEZ-SANCHIRICO (State Bar No. 311294) [email protected] MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4400 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400

Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



VANESSA BRYANT, a California resident,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ALEX VILLANUEVA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles and as an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Assigned to Hon. John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

.1 2 Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EDEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF

RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SET NO.: ONE (1)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b), Defendant County of Los

Angeles (“Responding Party” or the “County”) hereby responds and objects to the

First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”) propounded by Plaintiff

(“Propounding Party” or “Plaintiff”) as set forth below.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Preliminary Statement applies to all responses that Responding Party

may hereafter make to the Interrogatories. Responding Party’s responses are made

without waiving, or intending to waive, but on the contrary, expressly reserving:

(1) the right to object on any and all proper grounds to the use of these responses in

any other action; (2) the right to object on any and all proper grounds to the

admissibility of these responses; (3) the right to object on any and all proper grounds

to any other discovery procedure involving or relating to the subject matter of the

Interrogatories; and (4) the right at any time to revise, correct, add to, or clarify any

of these responses.

Responding Party has made an effort to respond to the Interrogatories, to the

extent they call for information that is not otherwise privileged or objectionable, as

Responding Party understands and interprets them. If Propounding Party

subsequently asserts a different interpretation, Responding Party reserves the right

to supplement Responding Party’s responses.

Responding Party’s responses to these Interrogatories are based upon facts

presently known to Responding Party. Responding Party’s investigation and

discovery, including the review of Responding Party’s own files, are continuing and

Responding Party may subsequently learn additional facts and uncover additional

documents in Responding Party’s possession. Responding Party reserves the right


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to rely upon all such evidence as may become available during the course of

discovery and trial preparation and to use the same at trial or otherwise in this

action. However, Responding Party undertakes no duty to supplement Responding

Party’s responses beyond the requirements in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

State the full name, home address, residential and cellular telephone numbers,

rank, and job title of all current and former agents or employees of the Los Angeles

County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department whom

YOU have reason to believe may have taken and/or SHARED one or more

PHOTOS of the ACCIDENT SCENE, including but not limited to PHOTOS of

human remains at the ACCIDENT SCENE.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product, or any other

applicable privilege. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the ground

that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the right to privacy

under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information from

confidential personnel records that are protected from disclosure under California

Penal Code section 832.7(a). Responding Party objects to this interrogatory because

it seeks information that is the subject of a pending lawsuit. Association for Los

Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Alex Villanueva, Los Angeles County Sheriff et al., Los

Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCP01761. Responding Party also objects to

this interrogatory on the ground that Responding Party has received third party

objections from counsel for individuals represented by the Association for Los

Angeles Deputy Sheriffs regarding the disclosure of any names, as contemplated by

this interrogatory.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

State the full name, home address, residential and cellular telephone numbers,

rank, and job title of all current and former agents or employees of the Los Angeles

County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department who

were involved in any manner whatsoever in investigating or responding to the

possibility that agents or employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

Department or Los Angeles County Fire Department took and/or SHARED one or

more PHOTOS of the ACCIDENT SCENE, including but not limited to PHOTOS

of human remains at the ACCIDENT SCENE.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product, or any other

applicable privilege. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the ground

that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the right to privacy

under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Responding Party

objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information from

confidential personnel records that are protected from disclosure under California

Penal Code section 832.7(a). Responding Party objects to this interrogatory because

it seeks information that is the subject of a pending lawsuit. Association for Los

Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Alex Villanueva, Los Angeles County Sheriff et al., Los

Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCP01761. Responding Party also objects to

this interrogatory on the ground that Responding Party has received third party

objections from counsel for individuals represented by the Association for Los

Angeles Deputy Sheriffs regarding the disclosure of any names, as contemplated by

this interrogatory.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DATED: December 7, 2020 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP By:

MIRA HASHMALL Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

On December 7, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

on the interested parties in this action as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on December 7, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

Emily A. Rodriguez-Sanchirico


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


SERVICE LIST Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582

Luis Li Craig Jennings Lavoie Mari T. Saigal MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426

Attorneys for Plaintiff VANESSA BRYANT

Tel.: (213) 683-9100 Fax: (213) 687-3702 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Jonathan C. McCaverty, Principal Deputy County Counsel

General Litigation Division 500 West Temple Street, Suite 468 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Attorneys for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and ALEX VILLANUEVA

Tel.: (213) 974-1828 Fax: (213) 626-7446 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


EXHIBIT 2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

486437.1 Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EDEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES

JONATHAN C. MCCAVERTY (State Bar No. 210922) Principal Deputy County Counsel OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL General Litigation Division 500 West Temple Street, Suite 468 Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel.: (213) 974-1828 | Fax: (213) 626-7446 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and ALEX VILLANUEVA LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) MIRA HASHMALL (State Bar No. 216842) EMILY A. RODRIGUEZ-SANCHIRICO (State Bar No. 311294) MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel.: (310) 552-4400 | Fax: (310) 552-8400 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



VANESSA BRYANT, a California resident,

Plaintiff,

v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ALEX VILLANUEVA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles and as an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES Assigned to Hon. John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

486437.1 2 Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-EDEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva (collectively,

“Defendants”) hereby make their initial disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(1) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants are making these disclosures based on the information that is

reasonably available to them at this time in a good-faith effort to comply with their

obligations under Rule 26(a)(1). Discovery is ongoing, and Defendants reserve the

right to supplement, update and/or amend these disclosures as appropriate during the

course of this action. By making these disclosures, Defendants do not represent that

they are identifying every document or witness relevant to their claims or defenses,

do not concede admissibility of the information disclosed, and do not waive any

protections available to them under the attorney-client privilege, the work product

doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. No incidental or implied admissions are

intended by these Initial Disclosures. This disclosure does not include any expert

witnesses. Expert witnesses will be disclosed in accordance with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and applicable scheduling orders of the Court.

Finally, Defendants’ disclosures are made without waiver of: (1) the right to

object to the use of any information disclosed herein in this action or any other

action; (2) the right to object to any discovery request relating to these disclosures;

and (3) the right to seek a protective order.

A. Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i), and

subject to the reservation of all rights and privileges described above, Defendants

believe that the individuals identified in the Internal Affairs Bureau Investigative

Report, described below, are likely to have discoverable information regarding their

claims and defenses. Defendants are not listing those individuals here due to

privacy and confidentiality concerns.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


B. Categories of Documents Defendants May Use

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), and

subject to the reservation of all rights and privileges described above and any ruling

by the Court as to scope, Defendants provide the following list of categories of

documents in their possession, custody or control that they may use in support of

their defenses, excluding documents that would be used solely for impeachment.

Category Location

Internal Affairs Bureau Investigative Report

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

Defendants believe that the IA Report contains all of the information Plaintiff

is seeking, including the names of all witnesses who are likely to have discoverable

information regarding her claims and Defendants’ defenses. The IA Report does,

however, contain confidential personnel information and can only be produced

subject to a protective order and a court order compelling its production.

Defendants anticipate briefing these issues in connection with a motion to compel

responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production.

Defendants also anticipate that the third parties whose rights as peace officers

may be implicated by any disclosure of the IA Report may intervene and lodge their

own objections. Defendants have notified those individuals of the potential

disclosure.

C. Insurance

Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff for any damages. In any

event, there is no applicable insurance agreement.

D. Reservation of Rights

Defendants reserve their rights to supplement or amend these disclosures in

light of further discovery, investigation, and trial preparation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DATED: November 18, 2020 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP By: /s/ Louis R. Miller LOUIS R. MILLER

Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATED: November 18, 2020 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL By: /s/ Jonathan C. McCaverty JONATHAN C. McCAVERTY

Attorneys for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and ALEX VILLANUEVA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles and as an individual


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

On November 18, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES

on the interested parties in this action as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on November 18, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

Emily A. Rodriguez-Sanchirico


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


SERVICE LIST Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582

Luis Li Craig Jennings Lavoie Mari T. Saigal MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426

Attorneys for Plaintiff VANESSA BRYANT Tel.: (213) 683-9100 Fax: (213) 687-3702 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Jonathan C. McCaverty, Principal Deputy County Counsel

General Litigation Division 500 West Temple Street, Suite 468 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Attorneys for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and ALEX VILLANUEVA Tel.: (213) 974-1828 Fax: (213) 626-7446 Email: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 3


Writer’s Direct Contact (213) 683-9224

(213) 593-2824 FAX [email protected]

November 19, 2020

Via E-Mail

Louis “Skip” Miller Miller Barondess, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected]

Jonathan C. McCaverty Office of the County Counsel 500 West Temple Street, Suite 468 Los Angeles, California 90012 [email protected]

Re: Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No.: 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E)

Dear Skip and Jonathan:

We write regarding the initial disclosures served yesterday by the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Alex Villanueva (collectively, “Defendants”). As you know, immediately upon learning that at least eight sheriff’s deputies had taken and shared improper photos of her daughter’s and husband’s remains, and on several occasions thereafter, Mrs. Bryant asked the County, the Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Villanueva for the names of the deputies who took and shared the photos. Each time, the Department refused her request. And now, despite the County, the Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Villanueva being legally required to provide the names of the deputies in their initial disclosures, they continue to refuse to provide even the most basic information.

Defendants’ initial disclosures acknowledge the existence of numerous witnesses they may use to support their defenses, yet refuse to name a single one. The disclosures also represent that there is only one document—the Sheriff’s Department’s internal affairs


Louis Miller & Jonathan McCaverty November 19, 2020 Page 2

investigation report regarding the improper photos—that Defendants may use to support their defenses. In short, the disclosures are blatantly deficient and violate the letter and spirit of Rule 26. We ask that, no later than Monday, November 23, Defendants supplement their initialdisclosures to (1) add the names of the individuals referred to (but not named) in Defendants’originally-served disclosures, along with the subjects of relevant information they possess; and(2) describe by category all documents in Defendants’ possession that they may use to supporttheir defenses.

Absent such a supplement, we intend to move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions. Hence, if Defendants do not intend to honor our request that they supplement their disclosures on the above timeline, please provide your availability for this Monday for a meet and confer with us. Although we hope a motion to compel will not be necessary, we send this letter pursuant to Local Rule 37-1 to provide notice of the issues we would raise.

I. Defendants Fail to Provide the Names of Any Witnesses

Defendants’ disclosures acknowledge that “individuals identified in the [Sheriff’sDepartment’s] Internal Affairs Bureau Investigative Report . . . are likely to have discoverable information regarding [Defendants’] claims and defenses.” (Def. Initial Disclosures at 2.) But merely alluding to the existence of witnesses Defendants may use violates Rule 26, which calls for disclosure of “the name . . . of each individual likely to have discoverable information,” as well as “the subjects of that information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see Brinkman v. Ryan, 2017 WL 11453550, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2017) (holding disclosures inadequate where party “did not disclose the names of individuals likely to have discoverable information” and instead identified witnesses by “vague references to titles or functions”); In re Sambrano, 440 B.R. 702, 706 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2010) (holding disclosures inadequate where party “merely listed ‘employees and agents of Hartford’ as persons likely to have discoverable information” and “did not identify the subject matter of any information held by the disclosed individuals”); Erickson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 5527512, at *6 (D. Mont. Nov. 14, 2007) (holding disclosures inadequate where party “d[id] not even list names” of individuals or “the subjects of their information”).1

Without citing any legal authority, Defendants’ disclosures state that the names of their potential witnesses are omitted “due to privacy and confidentiality concerns.” (Def. Initial Disclosures at 2.) This is unexplained, baseless, and improper. The names of Defendants’ potential witnesses in this litigation cannot be “confidential”—i.e., hidden from an opposing party. Nor is there any “privacy” interest that shields individuals who possess discoverable

1 It is worth noting that Defendants’ disclosures fail to list Sheriff Villanueva himself as an “individual likely to have discoverable information . . . that [Defendants] may use to support [their] . . . defenses.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). The idea that there is no possibility Defendants will use Sheriff Villanueva as a witness is absurd.



information from being identified through the process set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants’ disclosures state that they believe third parties may intervene and lodge objections to the disclosure of their information, but this has no bearing on Defendants’ obligations under Rule 26. We are aware of no legal authority (and Defendants’ disclosures cite none) that recognizes the theoretical intervention of a third party as a legitimate basis for withholding information that is required to be disclosed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the deputies who took or shared photos of the Bryants’ remains wish to baselessly contend that their names may be kept secret in this litigation, the proper procedure is for them to intervene in this action and seek a protective order. See, e.g., Johnson v. Hankook Tire Mfg., Co., 2013 WL 664720, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 22, 2013) (allowing third party to intervene to seek protection for its otherwise discoverable information and documents); Appleton v. F.D.A., 310 F. Supp. 2d 194, 197 (D.D.C. 2004) (allowing third parties to intervene to prevent their information from being disclosed by parties in the litigation). But no such protective order has been sought or issued, so Defendants must comply with their disclosure obligations immediately.

Defendants’ flagrantly deficient disclosures are prejudicing Mrs. Bryant in her prosecution of this action. As Defendants know, pursuant to the deadline set by the Court, Plaintiff must amend her complaint to add the deputies who took or shared improper photos of her loved ones’ remains by January 15, 2021. But she cannot do so if she does not know their names.

II. Defendants Fail to Properly Identify Documents

Defendants also fail to apply the Rule 26 standard for disclosing documents. Defendants’disclosures list a single document—the Sheriff’s Department’s internal affairs investigation report—and assert that this one document “contains all of the information Plaintiff is seeking.” (Def. Initial Disclosures at 3.) Setting aside that Defendants have severely misjudged Plaintiff’s desires, this is not the standard for disclosure. Rather, Rule 26 requires a disclosing party to describe all categories of documents in its possession, other than materials intended solely for impeachment, that the disclosing party “may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii).

By signing an initial disclosure, an attorney certifies that, “to the best of [the attorney’s] knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry,” the disclosure is “complete and correct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A); Poitra v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the Cty. of Denver, 311 F.R.D. 659, 663 (D. Colo. 2015) (disclosures must be “complete and detailed” and “give the opposing party information as to the identification and location of persons with knowledge so that they can be contacted in connection with the litigation”). If an attorney’s certification is signed without substantial justification, sanctions are mandatory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).



Counsel for Defendants have had ample time to conduct the “reasonable inquiry” required by Rule 26. Sheriff Villanueva announced in March 2020—nearly nine months ago—that the Sheriff’s Department was conducting a formal investigation of the improper photos. And Mrs. Bryant submitted her notice of claim to the Sheriff’s Department on May 8, 2020—more than six months ago. After all this time, it is implausible that Defendants are aware of only one document they may use to support their defenses in this litigation.

* * * * *

Please confirm that Defendants will supplement their initial disclosures no later than Monday, November 23, to include (1) the names and contact information of the individuals identified in the internal affairs reported referenced in Defendants’ originally-served disclosures, along with the subjects of the discoverable information held by each individual; and (2) a description by category and location of all documents Defendants have in their possession and may use to support their defenses.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Craig Jennings Lavoie

Craig Jennings Lavoie


EXHIBIT 4


1

Galindo, Jennifer

From: Lavoie, CraigSent: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:19 AMTo: Skip MillerCc: Mira Hashmall; Emily A. Rodriguez-Sanchirico; Li, Luis; Saigal, Mari T.; Jonathan

McCavertySubject: RE: Bryant v. County: MTD Ruling/Forensic Protocol

Skip, Thanks for your note. As I mentioned on the phone, we will likely disagree about the document being designated attorneys’ eyes only, but we appreciate your agreement that we can discuss the document with Vanessa. With respect to the handling of the document itself, we will comply with the requirements of the protective order. -Craig Craig Jennings Lavoie | he / him / his | Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 350 South Grand Avenue | Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213.683.9224 | [email protected] | www.mto.com

***NOTICE*** This message is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. If you have received this message in error, do not read it. Please delete it without copying it, and notify the sender by separate e-mail so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Skip Miller <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 7:01 PM To: Lavoie, Craig <[email protected]> Cc: Mira Hashmall <[email protected]>; Emily A. Rodriguez‐Sanchirico <[email protected]>; Li, Luis <[email protected]>; Jonathan McCaverty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Bryant v. County: MTD Ruling/Forensic Protocol Craig, Per our t/c, it’s ok for you to discuss with your client, in a confidential attorney‐client discussion, the IAB Report that we produced to you on Wed pursuant to the parties’ protective order and for attorneys eyes only. But, pursuant to the PO, you must not show or give the IAB Report to your client or anyone else outside of your law firm. Thanks, Skip.

Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2021, at 5:11 PM, Lavoie, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:

Hey Skip, Could I catch you for a minute to talk about this? -Craig Craig Jennings Lavoie | he / him / his | Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 350 South Grand Avenue | Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213.683.9224 | [email protected] | www.mto.com

***NOTICE***


2

This message is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. If you have received this message in error, do not read it. Please delete it without copying it, and notify the sender by separate e-mail so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you.

From: Emily A. Rodriguez‐Sanchirico <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 12:28 PM To: Li, Luis <[email protected]>; Lavoie, Craig <[email protected]>; Saigal, Mari T. <[email protected]> Cc: Skip Miller <[email protected]>; Mira Hashmall <[email protected]>; Jason H. Tokoro <[email protected]>; Max W. Hirsch <[email protected]>; Jonathan Mccaverty ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Bryant v. County: MTD Ruling/Forensic Protocol Hi all, I hope you’re doing well. Following up on my email below. Please let us know if you plan to amend. Thank you, Emily

Emily A. Rodriguez‐Sanchirico

M I L L E R | B A R O N D E S S LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Main: 310-552-4400 Direct: 310-552-7555 Fax: 310-552-8400 Mobile: 607-351-3266 [email protected] www.millerbarondess.com Biography Please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?

From: Emily A. Rodriguez-Sanchirico Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 6:20 PM To: Li, Luis; 'Lavoie, Craig'; Saigal, Mari T. Cc: Skip Miller; Mira Hashmall; Jason H. Tokoro; Jonathan Mccaverty ([email protected]) Subject: Bryant v. County: MTD Ruling/Forensic Protocol Hi all, Please let us know if you intend to amend your complaint so that we can plan accordingly. We are also still waiting on your thoughts on the proposed forensic protocol. My November 16 email is attached here for convenience. Thank you, Emily


3

Emily A. Rodriguez‐Sanchirico

M I L L E R | B A R O N D E S S LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Main: 310-552-4400 Direct: 310-552-7555 Fax: 310-552-8400 Mobile: 607-351-3266 [email protected] www.millerbarondess.com Biography Please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Miller Barondess. Do not click on any links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified the email address and know the content is safe.


EXHIBIT 5


February 2, 2020

Via E-Mail Louis “Skip” Miller Miller Barondess, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected]

Jonathan C. McCaverty Office of the County Counsel 500 West Temple Street, Suite 468 Los Angeles, California 90012 [email protected]

Re: Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No.: 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E) Dear Skip and Jonathan:

I am writing to address two issues related to Defendants’ confidentiality designations.

First, as you know, last month the County produced an internal affairs investigative report (“IA Report”) containing information that is highly relevant to the litigation, including memos authored by Sheriff’s Department personnel who took and shared photos of the victims’ remains, transcripts of interviews with those same individuals, and a summary of the Sheriff’s Department’s findings regarding the improper photos. This is information that Vanessa Bryant deserves to know, and there is no reason she should not be able to review the IA Report. However, the County has blocked Mrs. Bryant from seeing even a single page of the IA Report by mass-designating all 1,140 pages of it as attorneys’ eyes only.

This was improper. The Protective Order defines “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” as “[e]xtremely sensitive confidential information . . . the disclosure of which to another Party or


mailto:[email protected]








Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means.” (¶ 2.4.) The IA Report contains no such information. Although the Sheriff’s Department and individuals who took and shared photos of human remains may rightfully be ashamed of the actions described in the IA Report, that is not a reason to block Mrs. Bryant from viewing it. In addition, to the extent any information in the IA Report may properly be considered confidential, the harm from disclosure would arise from disclosure to the public, not to Mrs. Bryant. If the County believes that certain passages of the IA Report require protection, it may attempt to designate them as “confidential,” which is a less restrictive means of protecting the information than an attorneys’ eyes only designation.

In addition, the Protective Order provides:

The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited.

(¶ 5.1.) By designating every word and page of the IA Report as attorneys’ eyes only, Defendants have violated this provision of the Protective Order.

We ask that the County re-produce the IA Report no later than Tuesday, February 9 at 5:00 p.m. without any attorneys’ eyes only designations and without any mass, indiscriminate confidentiality designations of any kind. If the County does not satisfy this request, Plaintiff will challenge the attorneys’ eyes only designation of the IA Report via a motion before Judge Eick. Hence, if the County does not intend to honor our request that it change its designation of the IA Report on the above timeline, please provide your availability to meet and confer this Thursday or Friday. Although we hope a motion will not be necessary, please consider this letter notice pursuant to Local Rule 37-1 of the issues we would raise in a motion.

Second, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production stated that they will produce responsive documents by this Thursday, February 4. In advance of that production, we write to caution Defendants against improperly designating material as attorneys’ eyes only and mass-designating documents without isolating “only those parts” that qualify for protection. (¶ 5.1.) If Defendants repeat the practice employed by the County with respect to the IA Report, Plaintiff will file a motion to challenge Defendants’ designations.

Very truly yours, /s/ Craig Jennings Lavoie Craig Jennings Lavoie


EXHIBIT 6


MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

RONALD L OLSOt-l ROBERT E DC:NHAH .JEFFREY I WEINBERGER CARY B LERMAN GREGORY P STONE BRAO D BRIAN BRADLEY S, PHfLLIPS GEORGE N GARVEY WILLIAM O TEMKO JOHN W SPIEGEL DONALD B VERRILLI, JR • TERRY E SANCHEZ STEVEN M PERRY MARK B H£LM JOSEPH D, L£.E MlCHAEL R DOYEN MICHAEL E SOLOFF GREGORY D PH!LUPS KATHLEEN M M·"DOVvELL GLENN D POMERANTZ THOMAS B WALPER HENRY WElSSMANN KEVIN S ALLRED JEFFREY A HEINTZ JUDITH T. t'\ffANO .JEROME C ROTH GARTH T, VINCENT TED DANE STUART f< SENATOR MARTIN O BERN ROBERT L, DELL At~GELO BRUCE A ABBOTT JONATHAN E ALTMAi'l KELLY M KLAUS OAV!O B GOLDMAN DAVID H FRY USA J DEMSt<Y MALCOLM A HE!N1CK£ TAMERLIN .J GOOLEY JAMES C, RUTTEN RICHARD ST JOHN ROHff K SINGLA LUIS U CAROLYN LUEDTKE C DAVID MARK H BRCTT J RODDA FRED A ROWLEY, JR KATHERINE M FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG ROSEMARIE. T RJNG MEUNDA EADES Lt:MOINE

DANIEL M!R!AM MISTY M SANFORD HA!LYN J, CHEN BETHANY W l<R!STOVICH .JACOB S KAEILKAMP JEFrREY Y VVU LAURA O 5MOLOWE ANJAN CHOUDHURY KYLE W, MACH HEATHER E TAKAHA$HI E.R!N J COX BENJAMIN J HORWICH E MARTIN ESTRADA MATn-lE\N A. MACDONALD BRYAN H HECKENUVELY ELAINE J GOLDENBERG• MARK R YOHALEM CHAD GOLDEW GINGER D ANDERS" MARGARET G MARA$CH!NO JOHN M GILDERSLEEVE ADAM 8 WEISS GEORGE CLAYTON FATHERC.E, Ill KELLY LC KRIEBS JEREMY A LAWRENCE LAURA K LIN ACHYVT J. PHAOKE ZACHARY M. BRIERS .JENN!FER M. BRODER KURLMLLA J OLASA JUS11N P RAPHAEL ROSE LEDA EHLER ERIC P TUTTLE JOHN W BERRY ROBYN K, BACON KENNETH M TRUJILLO·JAMISON JORDAN O SEGALL WESLEY T L, BURRELL KAREN A LORANG CRAIG A LAVOIE JOSHUA S MELTZER ADAM P BARRY JEl'>INtrE.R L BRYANT ANDREW CATH RUBENSTEIN HANNAH L DUB!NA

350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE

FIFTIETH FLOOR

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9007 I -3426

TELEPHONE (2 I 3l 683-91 00

FACSIMILE (2 I 3l 687-3702

560 Ml5510N STREET

TWENTY-SEVENTH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94 I 05·3089

TELEPHONE <4 I SJ 5 I 2·4000

FACSIMILE l4 I 5l 5 I 2 407 7

1155 F STREET NW

SEVENTH FLOOR

WASHINGTON, D.C 20004 I 36 I

TELEPHONE 1202l 220· I I 00

FACSIMILE {202) 220·2300

March 2, 2020

Via FedEx and Electronic Mail

Sheriff Alex Villanueva c/o Elizabeth D. Miller, Assistant County Counsel Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street #648 Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]

f>JICHOLAS D, FRAM JOHN L SCHWAS

ASHLEY D, KAPLAN JESSICA RE1CH BARIL

JULIANA M YEE JEREMY K BEECHER

MATTHEW K DONOHUE EMILY CURRAN+iUBER'TY

JORDAN X NAVARETTE JOHN B MAJOR

LAUREN C, BARNETT C HUNTER HAYES

lREVOR N. TEMPLETON SKYLAR D BROOK$ ELIZABETH R OYER

SARAH S LEE ELIZABETH A. KIM

UI.URA M LOPE'.Z MICHAEL C BAKER

SARAH G BOYCE• ADELE M EL·KHOURI ~

COUN A DEVINE DANE P. SHIKMAN

LEXI PEACOCK MAGGIE THOMPSON

SAMUEL H _ ALLEN ALLISON M. DAY

G!OVANN! S SAARMAN GONZALEZ JONATHAN S ME11ZER"

SAMUEL JOSE DfAZ LAUREN M, HARDING

NEFI D ACOSTA STE:PHAN!E G HERRERA

TERESA REED DiPPO DANIEL BENYAMIN

SARA A MCDERMOTT J. MAX ROSEN

RACHEL G. MILLER,ZIEGLER~ ALISON F KAROL $IGUR05SON

ANNE K CONLEY GRAHAM 6 COLE

l<ATHER!N E G lNCANTALUPO DAVID P THORESON

DAVID W. MORESHEAD ANDRE W BREWSTER I!!

TERRA D LAUG HTOt-.1 ROWLEY J RICE

JEREMY S KREISBERG• JOHN D MAHER

GINA F ELLIOTT BRANDON R. TEACHOUT SEGUN I BABATUNDE 11

CARSON C, ZHENG LUCAS J AITTA!Z

USHA CHILUKURI VANCE BRIAN J SPRINGER

lYLER HILTON Vl~~CENT UNG

ALEXANDER S, GORIN BRENDAN CANTS" MARKUS BAA.ZILL

MARI T SA!GAL LAURENT Ross•

ZOE Bi::DELL .. BEN 8AROKH

ABE DYK MICHELE C NIELSEN

OF COUNSEL

ROBERT K. JOHNSON PATRICK .J, CAFFER1'( JR_

PETER A, DETRE ALLISON B STEIN BRAD SCHNEIDER

PETER E GRATZ1NGER JENNY H HONG

KIMBERLY A CH! DAVID S. HONG

ADAM R LAWTON MATTHE'N S. SCHONHOLZ

MICHAEL E GREANEY

E LEROY TOLLES 11 922•2008!

'AL)MIHLl) NOC

ALL 0!!H·.J·d AUM!I H::.0 !NGA

Writer's Direct Contact (213) 683-9205


Re: Dissemination of Photos of January 26, 2020 Helicopter Crash Scene

Dear Sheriff Villanueva:

We, along with Robb & Robb LLC, represent Vanessa Bryant in all of her legal claims arising out of the helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe, and her daughter, Gianna. We write in regards to disturbing and distressing reports that Los Angeles County sheriff deputies have shared graphic photos of the January 26, 2020 helicopter crash that killed nine victims, including Kobe and Gianna Bryant. These reports indicate that photos of the crash scene and the victims' remains have been shared by sheriff deputies in settings "that had nothing to do with the investigation of the crash," and that the sharing of these photos was "a topic of discussion" among first responders in the days following the crash. (See Alene Tchekmedyian & Paul Pringle, L.A. County deputies shared graphic photos of Kobe Bryant crash scene, sources say, L.A. Times (Feb. 28, 2020), available at https://www.latimes. com/califomia/story/2020-02-2 7 /ko be-bryant-photos-lost-hills-sheriff-deputies.)



Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department March 2, 2020 Page 2

Additional reporting has indicated that, upon becoming aware that unauthorized crashscene photographs had been taken and shared for no official purpose, the Sheriffs Office offered informal immunity to the transgressors, potentially tainting a proper review of this matter. (See TMZ.com, Kobe Bryant Crash Site Pies; Sheriff's Dept. Attempted Cover-Up; Come Clean & You 're Safe (Feb. 29, 2020), available at https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/29/kobe-bryant-crashpictures-remains-deputies-delete-cover-up-sheriffs-department/.)

These reports are deeply distressing to Mrs. Bryant and her family, who have already endured the unimaginable loss of their loved ones. The public dissemination of photos of the victims' remains would only worsen the family's pain and suffering.

We formally request that the Sheriffs Department take immediate action to secure all photos and videos of the January 26, 2020 crash scene in the Sheriffs Department's possession, whether taken in official capacity or not, including any photos or videos in the possession of or disseminated by Sheriffs Department personnel. We further request that the Sheriffs Department conduct an Internal Affairs investigation to determine the extent of the unauthorized taking and dissemination of photos and the identities of the deputies or other personnel involved.

In addition, please promptly provide us a copy of any and all complaints received by your Office regarding the unauthorized taking or sharing of crash-scene photos1 and provide answers in writing regarding (i) all steps the Sheriffs Department has taken to ensure all photos of the crash scene have been secured; (ii) whether the Department has initiated an investigation into this matter and when the investigation is expected to conclude; (iii) the names of all Sheriffs Department personnel who shared photos of the crash scene; and (iv) whether the Sheriffs Department has terminated, suspended, or otherwise disciplined said personnel for their actions. We expect that such egregious violations of policy and decency will result in the most severe discipline.

The Sheriffs Department and its personnel owe a duty of care to victims' families to refrain from publicly disseminating photos of victims' remains, given the potential for exploitation, Internet sensationalism, and the foreseeable agony such dissemination would inflict. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol, 181 Cal. App. 4th 856,886,888 (2010). The unauthorized dissemination of photos of victims' remains could give rise to liability for, among other things, invasion of privacy, negligence, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. We fully intend to hold the Sheriffs Department and its personnel accountable for any harm caused by the unauthorized taking or dissemination of photos.

1 See TMZ.com, Kobe Bryant Helicopter Crash; Irate Bartender Busts Sheriff's Deputies ... Who Shared Gruesome Crash Photos (Feb. 28, 2020), available at https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/28/ 1 a-co unty-sheriff-ko be-bryant-crash-si te-photos/.



Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department March 2, 2020 Page 3

Our client and we are presently evaluating all of her legal options relative to this matter. She reserves all rights.

cc: Brad D. Brian Gary Robb Anita Robb


EXHIBIT 7


March 8, 2020

Via FedEx and Electronic Mail Sheriff Alex Villanueva c/o Elizabeth D. Miller, Assistant County Counsel Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street #648 Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]

Re: Dissemination of Photos of January 26, 2020 Helicopter Crash Scene Dear Sheriff Villanueva:

We write to follow up on our March 2 letter, to which we have not yet received a response.

Since we last wrote, additional disturbing reports have emerged regarding sheriff’s deputies sharing unauthorized photographs of the crash scene and the victims’ remains. You have publicly stated that at least eight deputies took illicit photos, and news outlets have reported that the photos have been sent to people outside the Sheriff’s Department. Reports also indicate that the Department knew of its deputies’ misconduct as early as January 29, when a citizen filed a complaint notifying the Department. Yet the Department did not inform the victims’ families until the L.A. Times was poised to report on the misconduct nearly five weeks later.


The Department’s response to the misconduct also has been deeply troubling. According to reports by the L.A. Times, Department leadership “tried to keep a lid” on the potential scandal by deviating from “normal investigative protocols.”1 Reports further indicate that, rather than formally investigate, Department leadership told the deputies that if they “came clean and deleted the photos, they would not face any discipline.”2 Indeed, the Department appears to have initiated a formal investigation only after news of the deputies’ misconduct became public. Once news of the misconduct broke, you told news outlets that the Department does not have a policy addressing deputies using their personal cellphones to take photos of accident scenes, even though the Department’s policy on use of communication devices prohibits precisely that. (Policy 3-01/100.46, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policy and Procedures, available at http://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/10008/Content/10426 (“Members shall not use a personal cellular telephone . . . to record, store, document, catalog, transmit, and/or forward any image . . . captured as a result of their employment and/or while performing official Department business that is not available or accessible to the general public.”).)

All of this leaves Mrs. Bryant with substantial uncertainty as to whether the misconduct was truly limited to eight deputies and whether the photographs of her husband’s and daughter’s remains (or copies of them that may have been shared with others or stored online) will become public. Mrs. Bryant deserves to know whatever the Department knows regarding these questions. To that end, we ask on Mrs. Bryant’s behalf that you respond to the below requests no later than close of business on Tuesday, March 10.

• Describe what steps, if any, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to identify all personnel who had or have photographs or recordings of the crash scene or victims’ remains on their electronic devices (including cellphones) or cloud accounts.

• Describe what steps, if any, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to determine whether and to what extent personnel who had such photographs or recordings shared them with other members of the Department or third parties.

• Describe what steps, if any, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to secure all unauthorized photographs or recordings in the possession of its personnel such that they are not subject to further sharing.

1 Alene Tchekmedyian & Paul Pringle, A deputy allegedly showed off gruesome Kobe Bryant crash photos at bar. A cover-up scandal ensued, L.A. Times (Mar. 3, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-03/kobe-bryant-crash-photos-sheriffs-department-tried-to-keep-quiet. 2 Id.


• Identify by name all personnel who had or have photographs or recordings of the crash scene or victims’ remains on their electronic devices.

• State whether the Sheriff’s Department confiscated and/or inspected the electronic devices of the personnel who had or have photographs or recordings of the crash scene or victims’ remains.

• Describe what steps, if any, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to secure all photographs of the crash scene or victims’ remains that its personnel sent to people outside of the crash investigation.

• Describe what steps, if any, the Sheriff’s Department has taken to review photographs of the crash scene or victims’ remains on its personnel’s electronic devices to determine their investigative value, and whether the Sheriff’s Department has turned images with investigative value over to the National Transportation Safety Board.

As we noted in our March 2 letter, our client is evaluating all of her legal options and reserves all rights.

Sincerely, /s/ Luis Li Luis Li

CC: Brad D. Brian Gary Robb Anita Robb


EXHIBIT 8



RONALD L OLSON ROBERT E DENHAM JEFFREY ! WEINBERGER CARY B LERMAN GREGORY P STONE 8RAD D BRIAN BRADLEY S PHILLIPS GEORGE M GARVEY WILLIAM O TE.MKO JOHN W SPIEGEL DONALD B VERRILLI, JR • TERRY E SANCHEZ STEVEN M PERRY MARK B HELM JO$£PH D LEE MlCHAEL R DOYEN MICHAEL E SOLOFF GREGORY D PHlLUPS KATHLEEN M M'OOWCLL GLENN D POMERANTZ rnoMAS B WALPER HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S ALLRED JEFFREY A HEINTZ JUDfTH T. KffANO JEROME C ROTH GARTH T, V!~lCENT TED DANE SnJART N SENATOR MARTIN D BERN ROBERT L DELL ANGELO BRUCE A ABBOTT JONATHAN E ALTMAN KELLY M KLAUS DAVID 8 GOLDMAN DAVID H FRY LISA J DEMSKY MALCOLM A HEINICKE TAMERLIN J GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN RICHARD ST JOHN ROHIT K SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYM HOECKER LUEDTKE C DAVID LEE M.4.RK H K!M BRITT J RODDA F'RED A ROWLEY JR KATiiERl~lE M FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG R05EMARlE T RING MELINDA EADE~ LE.J-IOINE

SETH GOLDMAN GRANT A OAVt!;,,"DtNNY .JONATHAN H BLAYIN DANIEL B LEVIN MIRIAM KIM N!STY M SA!~FORD HMLYN J, CHEN BETHANY W l<RISTOV!CH JACOB S J<;AE!LKAMP ,JEFFREY Y. V.-U LAURA D 5MOLOWE AN.JAN CHOUDHURY t<YLE W. MACH HE.ATHEH E TAKAHA!;H! ER!N J COX BEN.JAMIN .J HOR'N!CH E MARTIN ESTRADA MAT1liEW A, MACDONALD BRYAN H HECKENLIVELY ELAINE J, GOLDENBERG• MARK R YOHALEM CHAD GOLDER* GINGER D ANDERS' MARGARET G MARASCHINO JOHN M GILDER.SLEEVE ADAM 8 WEIS$ GEORGE CLA'rTON FATHEREE, !II f\ElLY LC. KRIEBS .JEREMY A LAWRENCE LAURA K LIN ACHYUT J. PHAOKE ZACHARY M. BRIERS JENt4tFER M. BRODER KURUVILLA J OLASA JUSTIN P RAPHACL ROSE LEDA EHLER ERIC P 1UTTLE JOHN W, BERRY ROBYN K, BACON KENNETH M 1RU.JILLO·JAM!50N JORDAN D SEGALL WESLEY T L BURRELL KAREN A LORANG CR.AtG A LAVOIE JO~HUA S H[LTZER .6.DAM P BARRY JENNlrER L BRYANT ANDREW CATH RUBENSTEIN HANtlAH L, DUBINA

350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE

Fl FTI ETH FLOOR

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-3426

TELEPHONE <2 13l 683·9 I 00

FACSIMILE <2 I 3J 687-3702

560 MISSION STREET

TWENTY-SEVENTH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORN!A 94 I 05 3089

TELEPHONE (4 I 5l 5 I 2 4000

FACSIMILE <4 I 5J 5 I 2·4077

I I 55 F STREET N.W

SEVENTH FLOOR

WASHINGTON, D.C 20004 I 361

TELEPt10Nt {2021 220· I I 00

FACSIMILE (202l 220·2300

March 2, 2020

Via FedEx and Electronic Mail

Daryl L. Osby, Fire Chief Los Angeles County Fire Department c/o Mary Wickham, Los Angeles County Counsel Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street #648 Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]

NICHOLAS D FRAM JOHN L SCHWAS

ASHLEY D, KAPLAN

JESSICA REICH BARIL JULIANA M YEE

JEREMY K BEECHER MATTHEW K DONOHUE

ENILY CURRAN·HUBERTY JORDAN X NAVARETTI.:

JOHN B MAJOR LAUREN C BARNETT

C HUNTER HAYES TREVOR N. TEMPLETON

SKYLAR D BROOKS EUZ.ABETl-l R OYER

SARAH S LEE ELIZABETH A, K!M L'\URA M LOPEZ

MICHAEL C BAKER SARAH G BOYCE•

ADELE M EL·KHOUR!• COLIN A DEVINE

DANE P: SH!KMAN

LEXI PEACOCK MAGGIE THOMPSON

SAMUEL H. ALLEN ALLISON M DAY

GlOVANN! S SAARMAN GONZALEZ JONATHAN $ ME.LTZE.R#

SAMUEL JOSE OiAZ LAUREN M, HARDING

NEFl D ACOSTA STEPHANIE G HERRERA

TERESA REED DIPPO DANIEL BENYAMIN

SARA A, MCDERMOTT J MAX ROSEN

RACHEL G MILLER-ZIEGLER~ ALISON F K.A.ROL $IGUROS50N

ANNE K CONLEY GRAHAM B COLE

1<.:ATHERJNE G. lNCANTALUPO OAVtD P THORESON

DAVID W MORESHEAD ANDREW BREWSTER !II

TERRA O LA,UGHTON ROWLEY J, RICE

JEREMY 5 l<..RE!5BER0~ JOHN O MAHER

GlNA F' ELLIOTT BRANDON R, TEACHOUT SE GUN ! . 8A8ATUNDE II

CARSON C, ZHENG LUCAS J ARTAIZ

USHA CHILUKURI VNJCE BRIAN J SPRINGER

T(LER HILTON VINCE.NT UNG

ALEXANDER $_ GORIN BRENDAN GAtJTS• MARKUS l:'.3RAZ!LL

MARI T SAIGAL LAUREN T ROSS•

ZOE • BEN

OM

SHANNON

or COUNSEL

ROBERT K . .JOHNSON PATRICK J, CAFFERTY. JR

PETER A. DETRE ALLISON B. STEIN BRAD SCHNEIDER

PETER E GRATZINGER .JENNY H HONG

KtMBERLY A CHI DAVID $, HONG

ADAM R LAWTON MATTHDN 5 SCHONHOLZ

MICHAEL E GREANEY

E LEROY TOLLES ! I 922·2006)

•A.l)MlliLiJ IN \..X.:

AU..Ult!Li-s.'J ,O.t)M/1!1:c.:J IN (,A

Writer's Direct Contact (213) 683-9205


Re: Dissemination of Photos of January 26, 2020 Helicopter Crash Scene

Dear Chief Osby:

We, along with Robb & Robb LLC, represent Vanessa Bryant in all of her legal claims arising out of the helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe, and her daughter, Gianna. We write in regards to disturbing and distressing reports that Los Angeles County firefighters have shared graphic photos of the January 26, 2020 helicopter crash that killed nine victims, including Kobe and Gianna Bryant. These reports indicate that photos of the crash scene have been "passed around" by firefighters for no official purpose. (See CBS Los Angeles, Report: Firefighters Also Shared Graphic Images From Scene of Helicopter Crash That Killed Kobe Bryant (Feb. 28, 2020), available at https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/4467516-reportfirefighters-also-shared-graphic-images-from-scene-of-helicopter-crash-that-killed-kobe-bryant/;



Los Angeles County Fire Department March 2, 2020 Page 2

TMZ.com, Kobe Bryant Helicopter Crash; Irate Bartender Busts Sherif.f's Deputies ... Who Shared Gruesome Crash Photos (Feb. 28, 2020), available at https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/28/ la-county-sheriff-ko be-bryant-crash-si te-photos/.)

These reports are deeply distressing to Mrs. Bryant and her family, who have already endured the unimaginable loss of their loved ones. The public dissemination of photos of the victims' remains would only worsen the family's pain and suffering.

We formally request that the Fire Department take immediate action to secure all photos and videos of the January 26, 2020 crash scene in the Fire Department's possession, whether taken in official capacity or not, including any photos or videos in the possession of or disseminated by Fire Department personnel. We further request that the Fire Department conduct an investigation to determine the extent of the unauthorized taking and dissemination of photos and the identities of the firefighters or other personnel involved.

In addition, please promptly provide us a copy of any and all complaints received by your Office regarding the unauthorized taking or sharing of crash-scene photos and provide answers in writing regarding (i) all steps the Fire Department has taken to ensure all photos of the crash scene have been secured; (ii) whether the Department has initiated an investigation into this matter and when the investigation is expected to conclude; (iii) the names of all Fire Department personnel who shared photos of the crash scene; and (iv) whether the Fire Department has terminated, suspended, or otherwise disciplined said personnel for their actions. We expect that such egregious violations of policy and decency will result in the most severe discipline.

The Fire Department and its personnel owe a duty of care to victims' families to refrain from publicly disseminating photos of victims' remains, given the potential for exploitation, Internet sensationalism, and the foreseeable agony such dissemination would inflict. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol, 181 Cal. App. 4th 856, 886, 888 (2010). The unauthorized dissemination of photos of victims' remains could give rise to liability for, among other things, invasion of privacy, negligence, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. We fully intend to hold the Fire Department and its personnel accountable for any harm caused by the unauthorized taking or dissemination of photos.



Los Angeles County Fire Department March 2, 2020 Page 3

Our client and we are presently evaluating all of her legal options relative to this matter. She reserves all rights.

CC: Brad D. Brian Gary Robb Anita Robb


EXHIBIT 9


EXHIBIT 10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER



VANESSA BRYANT,

Plaintiff,


Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER Honorable John F. Walter


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s

Scheduling Order and other documents in support of and in opposition to the

Motion, being fully advised in the matter, and good cause appearing, the Court

hereby GRANTS the Motion in its entirety. The operative schedule of trial and pre-

trial dates shall be as follows:

Last Day to Conduct Settlement Conference/Mediation

11/12/2021

Last day to File Joint Report re Settlement Conference/Mediation

11/17/2021

Discovery Cutoff 2/11/2022 Last Day for Hearing Motions 2/25/2022 Pre-Trial Submissions 3/25/2022 Pre-Trial Conference 4/8/2022 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Disputed Jury Instructions

4/15/2022

Trial (Jury) 4/27/2022

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________, 2021

Hon. John F. Walter Judge of the United States District Court


LUIS LI (State Bar No. 156081) Luis.Li@mto

Documents

Transcript of LUIS LI (State Bar No. 156081) Luis.Li@mto