Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melendres-v-arpaio-1417-sept-29-2015-transcript-day-7-evidentiary-hearing 1/247

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1488

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

)))

)))

)

)

)))

No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Phoenix, Arizona

September 29, 2015

9:07 a.m.

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

(Evidentiary Hearing Day 7, Pages 1488-1734)

Court Reporter: Gary Moll

401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38

Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1489

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants' Rights Project

By: Andre Segura, Esq.

125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004

American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148

Phoenix, Arizona 85011

Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Lauren E. Pedley, Esq.

1 Front Street, 35th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.

By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700

Redwood Shores, California 94065

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.

By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center

16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140


For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and MaricopaCounty Attorney William Montgomery:

Ridenour Hienton, PLLC

By: April M. Hamilton, Esq.Chase Tower201 N. Central Avenue, Suite 3300




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:

Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd Avenue


Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC

By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.

By: John T. Masterson, Esq.

By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012

For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC

By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.P.O. Box 20527


For the Intervenor United States of America:

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011

Washington, D.C. 20004

For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:

Dickinson Wright, PLLCBy: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400


For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:Mitchell Stein Carey, PC

By: Barry D. Mitchell, Esq.

1 Renaissance Square2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85004



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

By: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012

For Timothy J. Casey:Adams & Clark, PC

By: Karen Clark, Esq.

520 E. Portland Street


Also present:

Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian Sands

Chief Deputy Gerard SheridanDeputy Chief Jack MacIntyre

Lieutenant Joseph Sousa



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


I N D E X

Witness: Page

GERARD SHERIDAN

Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang 1507Examination by the Court 1543Recross-Examination by Mr. Masterson 1599

Further Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang 1599

TIMOTHY J. CASEY

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang 1612

E X H I B I T S

No. Description Admitted

2072 Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery 1724

investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166)(MELC199917-MELC199935)

2511 Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. 1681Joseph M. Arpaio, et al "Opinion Filed" dated9/25/2012 (MCAO00025-27)

2512 E-mail from Tim Casey to Allen Lisa: Injunction 1684compliance - Melendres Ortega v. Arpaio Letter

to Casey 10/11/2012 encls.pdf dated 10/12/2012(MCAO00028-38)

2514 E-mail from Tim Casey to Brian Sands, Gerard 1697Sheridan, Brian Jakowinicz, and John MacIntyre

re Melendres v. Arpaio (MCSO Response toPlaintiffs' Accusation of Violation of Court's

12/23/11 Injunction.) Dated 10/18/2012

(MCAO00043-48)

2533 IA 14-0543 Casey Billing Records dated 162712/31/2011 (MELC210534-1067)

2534 E-mail from Tim Casey to James Williams 1637copying Eileen Henry re Melendres Order onSummary Judgment dated 12/23/2011

(MCAO0003 - MCA00006)



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


E X H I B I T S


2535 E-mail from Tim Casey to Eileen Henry Fw: 1656Melendres v. Arpaio et al. Research needed

dated 1/4/2012 (MCAO0007-MCAO0012

2537 E-mail from Tim Casey to Thomas Liddy copying 1659

Eileen Henry FW: Putting out training referencethe court order Melendres dated 1/11/2012(MCAO00014-15)

2538 E-mail from Eileen Henry to Tim Casey copying 1666

Eileen Henry FW: Scenarios for review based onjudge's order dated 1/13/2015(CaseySub 000045-49) 2539 E-mail from Brett

Palmer to Carlos Rangel, Christopher Lopez,David Joya, Jesus Cosme, Juan Silva, RolandGonzalez, Victor Navarrette, Alejandro Ortega-

Rodriquez, Charley Armendariz, ChristopherHechavarria, Daniel Frel, Gabriel Almanza,

Hector Martinez, Jesus Jerez, Susan Monroe,Wade Voeltz, Cesar Brockman, Joseph Sousa,

Michael Trowbridge, Albert Brown, Brent Wise,

Brett Palmer, Brian Sands, Cathy David,Christopher Hegstrom, David Ames, DavidLetourneau, David Trombi, Frank Munnell,

Frank Zumbo, George Acritelli, Glen Powe,

Henry Brandimarte, Irene Barron-Irby, JamesBarrett, Jeffrey Sprong, Jesse Spurgin, Justin

Griffin, Lisa Allen, Mari Rawleigh, PerlaPlata, Randy Paulsen, Tim Casey, and Vicki

Kratovil - Subject: My cell number dated

1/19/2012 (CaseySub 000044)

2541 E-mail from Tim Casey to John MacIntyre, Jerry 1673Sheridan, Brian Sands and Joseph Sousa copying

Liddy Thomas, Eileen Henry, James Williams -

Melendres v. Arpaio/Settlement Overture dated1/30/2012 (MELC165701-702)



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


E X H I B I T S


2543 E-mail from Tim Casey to Paul Chagolla, Liddy 1704Thomas copying Larry Farnsworth, Eileen Henry,

James Williams, John MacIntyre, Gerard Sheridan,and David Trombi RE: Attorney ClientCommunication Casey Recommendations re Reading

the Court's Orders dated 4/4/2014(MCAO00634-635)

2557 E-mail from Tim Casey to Eileen Henry re 1698

injunction compliance - Melendres Ortega v.

Arpaio dated 10/18/2012 (CaseySub 000178-000181)

2566 E-mail from Tim Casey to Liddy Thomas and James 1712

Williams copying Eileen Henry and ChristineStutz RE: Attorney Client Communication dated4/4/2014 (MCAO00577-79)

2567 E-mail from Larry Farnsworth to Tim Casey 1703

copying Eileen Henry, James Williams,Christine Stutz, Liddy Thomas, Gerard Sheridan,

John MacIntyre, David Trombi, Benjamin Armer,

Christopher Dowell, Hector Martinez, KipRustenburg, Russ Skinner RE: MelendresOrder dated 3/28/2014 (MCAO00580-621)

2881 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Complaint 1600Acceptance Report (MELC1306914)

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Authorizationto Release Information (MELC1306915)

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Policy and

Procedure, Subject: Internal InvestigationsPolicy Number GH-2, Effective Date 9/5/14

(MELC1306916-MELC1306934)



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Please be seated.

THE CLERK: This is CV 07-2513, Melendres, et al.,

v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued evidentiary hearing.

MS. WANG: Good morning, Your Honor. Cecillia Wang

and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.

MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Stanley Young,

Michelle Morin, and Lauren Pedley for plaintiffs, of

Covington & Burling.

MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda for plaintiffs, ACLU of

Arizona.

MR. KILLEBREW: Paul Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the

United States, plaintiffs intervenor.

MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge. John Masterson,

Joe Popolizio, and Michele Iafrate for Sheriff Arpaio and the

individual contemnors.

MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker

on behalf of Maricopa County.

MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald

making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Judge. Barry Mitchell

specially appearing on behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan.

MR. COMO: Good morning, Judge. Greg Como

representing Brian Sands.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


MR. BIRNBAUM: Good morning, Your Honor. Gary

Birnbaum, special counsel for Deputy Chief MacIntyre.

Mr. MacIntyre's in the courtroom as well.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. HAMILTON: Good morning, Your Honor. April

Hamilton on behalf of Maricopa County Attorney's Office,

Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I proceed with redirect of

Chief Sheridan?

THE COURT: Did you have an issue, Mr. Masterson?

I have a few matters I want to raise, too, before we

begin redirect.

MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I just have one thing. I

talked to Ms. Wang about it this morning, and I know that we

have Rule 615's been invoked. I wanted to alert the Court that

we have some additional members of MCSO in the courtroom today.

I've discussed with Ms. Wang, and she told me they do not

intend to call these people, but I wanted to, just in case

something comes up later, I wanted to alert the Court, too.

We have Chief LeeAnn Bohn, Chief Shelly Bunn, Chief

Paul Chagolla, Captain Fred Aldorasi, Chief Ken Holmes, Chief

Joe Rodriguez, and Chief Traci Haggard.


Have we arrived at proposed witness lists and

stipulated or non-stipulated exhibits?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


MS. WANG: Your Honor, Ms. Morin will address that on

behalf of plaintiffs.

MS. MORIN: Yes, Your Honor. The plaintiffs have

circulated to the parties a proposed pretrial statement on

behalf of plaintiffs' positions, and we are in the process of

discussing that statement of issues and also the exhibits, the

proposed amendment to the exhibit list and proposed stipulation

on exhibits as well.

We have not yet reached any exhibit stipulations. The

parties have reached a stipulation, or have reached agreement

to admit certain portions of Mr. Seebert's deposition

transcript in lieu of calling Mr. Seebert.

THE COURT: Mr. Masterson.

MR. MASTERSON: I didn't know about the draft joint

pretrial. I guess that was submitted while we were on our way

down here this morning, so I haven't seen it yet.

I just had a conference concerning exhibits with

Ms. Wang and Mr. Young this morning. My understanding was that

we're going to get a list of proposed exhibits for each

witness, and then I would then go through each of those

witnesses and let plaintiffs know whether I agreed to stipulate

to the exhibit or not.

I have not gotten that list, but I was told this

morning that my presumption, I guess, was wrong, that their --

they have not made a decision whether they are going to give me



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


such a list for each witness.

And you guys can correct me if I'm wrong; I'm trying

to tell the Court what we just talked about a little bit ago.

I think they're going to discuss with one another

whether they will provide such a list for each witness, and

then I will, of course, go through those exhibits.

Exhibit lists have been supplemented, and I understand

some are taken off and some are added. But my problem is I'm

still faced with over a thousand exhibits. And I, due to all

the proceedings we've had, haven't been able to go through the

thousand exhibits to tell them which ones we'll stipulate to.

But if they'd give me a condensed list for each witness, I will

do that immediately.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I think it might

help expedite and organize this matter.

At the end of hearing last week I indicated, without

objection, that I would have the monitor coordinate with the

parties who were interested as to the status of the Internal

Affairs investigations that had been disclosed to the monitor.

Have all parties done that?

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. We have.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. WANG: On behalf of plaintiff, we have.

THE COURT: Is there anything further you wish to

raise with respect to that?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


MS. WANG: No, Your Honor, not at this time.

THE COURT: Okay. I discussed with you earlier on,

Mr. Masterson, whether we were going to be proceeding as we did

in the first part of this contempt hearing, which is we're all

going to call witnesses all at once, in which case you would

get the final redirect now, or whether you wished to reserve

the right to call your -- call the witnesses in any

case in chief you might wish to present. And you said you were

going to get back to me later on that, and I think now's the

time we need to make that decision.

MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I do wish to reserve the right

to recall witnesses in our case in chief.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you how to proceed,

then. I may have some questions for witnesses. I've asked a

few as we've gone along; I may have a few more. I want to give

you the opportunity to address any questions I have. But if

you're going to reserve the right to call your witness in the

case in chief, I think Ms. Wang gets the final word in her

case in chief.

If I have any for Chief Sheridan, would it be

acceptable to you I wait and hear Ms. Wang's redirect. If I

have any questions of him, I'll ask them. Then I'll allow you

and any other defense witnesses an opportunity to pose him

questions based on my questions. And then we'll give Ms. Wang

the final redirect, if she has any based on my questions, and



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


then we'll move to the next witness.

MR. MASTERSON: I believe that is appropriate. And I

just want to make sure the Court understands that I'm not

guaranteeing you that I will recall all the witnesses, so if

you have questions -- I know you'll ask them.

THE COURT: Yeah, I get that. I just want to make

sure -- and I'm certainly not going to insist that you recall

them -- but I just want to make sure we proceed in an order

that is appropriate in terms of fairness to all the parties.

Does anybody else have any objection if we proceed in

that way?

MS. WANG: No objection, Your Honor. It's helpful to

know that when Mr. Masterson is questioning a witness that that

is, in effect, both his cross following my examination and his

own direct. That will help me to understand which objections

might be appropriate to make. Thank you.

THE COURT: One more item of business before,

Ms. Wang, I turn it over to you.

The marshals informed me this morning -- and I think

we did tentatively discuss this; I'd indicated I might raise

it -- that PSB would like to take individual photographs of

some or all of the identifications in the marshals' custody.

I've told them that I thought that would be acceptable, but I

was going to raise it with all parties to see if anybody had an

objection.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


The marshals indicate to me that they have made

arrangements, I think, Ms. Iafrate, with you, and with the PSB,

to go in this afternoon while we're in trial. We'll have a

marshal present. There will be photographic equipment present.

The marshal will be present while PSB takes photos of any of

the individual identifications that they wish to take photos

of.

Does anybody have -- I think that's the procedure, is

that correct, as far as you understand it, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE: That is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anybody have any objections to proceeding

in that fashion?

MS. WANG: Your Honor, so long as the IDs stay in the

custody of the U.S. Marshals, plaintiffs have no objection. I

don't want there to be any issues about -- I don't want there

to be any issues about chain of custody later on coming from

the defendants' table. And we would request that plaintiffs

receive a copy of any photographs that defendants take of those

identification documents.


Any further issues with any of that?

MR. MASTERSON: Just one, Judge, and we can probably

address it later, because it doesn't sound like it's going to

be an issue today.

It's possible at some point we need -- and I'm not



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


saying we need to take custody of the IDs, but have to go hands

on with them for the process of going through them for fraud --

fraudulent documents. A photograph might not be enough.

THE COURT: That will be fine, and we can take it up.

But as you stand there, I do think of one other issue.

If I understood the potential order of witnesses, it's

likely that we're going to call -- or that the plaintiffs are

going to call Mr. Casey today. I raised with you previously

whether or not you were going to invoke advice-of-counsel

defense as to the May 14, 2014 meeting. You said you would

think about that and get back to me.

Had any further thoughts on that?

MR. MASTERSON: I understand there was more than one

meeting, Judge, and so we will be invoking attorney-client

privilege with respect to certain meetings that took place on

that day.

THE COURT: Are you going to invoke advice of counsel

with respect to advice -- or the course taken by the MCSO with

respect to gathering the identifications --

MR. MASTERSON: At this time --

THE COURT: -- or gathering the videos and other

matters?

MR. MASTERSON: At this time, yes.

THE COURT: You are going to be invoking the advice of

counsel?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


MR. MASTERSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Just so plaintiff is aware of that,

we'll proceed, and then I guess we'll go on a

question-by-question basis from there on out.

All right. Anybody else need to raise anything else?

Ms. Wang.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, as to the last point that was

addressed, this is news to plaintiffs for the first time the

that defendants will rely on an advice-of-counsel defense as to

the events of May 14th, 2015. We have not deposed the relevant

witnesses, including Chief Sheridan --

THE COURT: That would be May 14, 2014.

MS. WANG: Sorry, 2014, Your Honor, correct. And we

have not deposed the relevant witnesses on that subject. Since

this defense was not raised previously we have not deposed

Chief Sheridan on that subject or any of the other relevant

witnesses, including counsel.

And so I guess I have an objection on behalf of

plaintiffs to the late invocation of the advice-of-counsel

defense during the trial.

THE COURT: Well, what do you want to do about it,

Ms. Wang?

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd like to reserve the right

to depose the witnesses, reopen the depositions of the relevant

witnesses, so that we can take discovery on this late-breaking



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:2

09:2

09:2


defense.

THE COURT: Well --

MS. WANG: Or I would move to preclude the invocation

of the defense at this late stage.


MS. WANG: Oh, and I'm further informed, Your Honor,

that in their interrogatory responses prior to the continuation

of this hearing last week, defendants took the position -- I'm

sorry, in March, Your Honor, defendants did take a position

they would not rely on an advice-of-counsel defense as to the

events of May 14th, 2014. So this is a surprise.

MR. MASTERSON: Well, this is not a surprise. We

talked about it the very first day of trial. So everybody knew

this issue was on the table; it just hasn't come up again since

then.

Secondly, with respect to discovery, I don't know what

additional questions plaintiffs think they need to ask. We've

got hundreds and hundreds of pages of deposition for Chief

Sheridan. What additional questions they could ask now because

of this defense I do not understand. They could have asked him

everything about this particular incident they wanted except

attorney-client privileged matters. They chose not to do so.

So I don't see why we need additional depositions at this

point.

THE COURT: Well, advice-of-counsel defense would



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


waive the attorney-client privilege, right?

MR. MASTERSON: Understood. But they didn't even ask

the questions.

THE COURT: All right. What I'm going to do --

Well, I'll hear from you, Mr. Young, but I'm not going

to make a decision right this second. What I'm going to do is

look at some matters at break, and maybe over lunch -- well,

depends on when we get to Mr. Casey. I'll try to look at some

matters before we get to Mr. Casey and make a determination of

how we're going to proceed.

Mr. Young.

MR. YOUNG: Well, I would just note, just to

supplement, we did take a deposition of Mr. Liddy, and there

was some discussion of the May 14, 2014 issues then. But I

believe the discussion during that deposition, which occurred

on September 21, last Monday, was that those questions could

only be asked if it was not deemed to be a subject-matter

waiver as to the May 14, 2014 issue.

So my belief is that as of last week, which is the

last day we took dep- -- or the second-to-last day that we took

depositions prior to this hearing, that the issue of advice of

counsel was not raised and, in fact, it was specifically agreed

that there would not be a subject matter waiver on that issue.

So this is indeed a surprise.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Masterson is right that I asked



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


him this question last Thursday, I think, last Wednesday. I

asked him this question before we re-began or resumed

testimony. So I think to the extent he says it isn't new, to

that extent he's quite right.

I would ask that if you've got interrogatory responses

that say that, if you have relevant excerpts from deposition

transcripts, that you gather them and find them for me now, so

that I can take a look at what happened.

MS. WANG: We will do that, Your Honor.

And just to clarify, it was defendants' position

during the April hearing that they were not waiving the

attorney-client privilege as to matters relating to the May

14th, 2014 events. They specifically said that based on the

testimony, there was a meeting between Chief Sheridan,

Christine Stutz, and Chief Trombi that was not subject to the

privilege in the first place; and they did invoke the privilege

over an earlier meeting on May 14th, 2014, and they've taken

that position consistently, as Mr. Young said, through the

depositions between April and now.

THE COURT: I do recall that, but I want to have as

full picture as both parties can give me.

Are you ready to resume?

MS. WANG: I am, Your Honor.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

Sheridan - Redirect, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1507

GERARD SHERIDAN,

recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly

sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Good morning, Chief.

A. Good morning.

Q. Chief, in response to questioning by Mr. Masterson you

testified that you began to pay close attention to this case

after the trial, is that right?

A. Yes. Specifically, it would have been May of 2013, upon

the Court's issuance of the findings of facts and conclusions

of law.

Q. That would be the trial ruling, is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you testified that you did read the Court's May 2013

trial ruling, correct?

A. I did.

Q. And Mr. Masterson asked you to explain on the stand what

the trial ruling held, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did so --

A. I did.

Q. -- correct?

Now, you contend that you were not aware of the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


preliminary injunction order until your deposition taken in the

United States Department of Justice case on March 27, 2014, is

that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you were not aware, although you read the Court's May

2013 trial ruling, that that ruling itself referenced

violations of the preliminary injunction order?

Is that your testimony?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, in response to Mr. Masterson's questions, you also

mentioned that you gave a press conference outside this

courthouse after the Court's May 2013 trial ruling, is that

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And during that press conference you stated the ways in

which MCSO would comply with that ruling, correct?

A. I don't recall what I said.

Q. All right. Well, you testified that you have a photo of

that press conference on your telephone, correct?

A. That I do.

Q. You're proud of that press conference, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in effect you -- during that press conference you

indicated that MCSO would comply with the Court's trial ruling,

correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


A. Yes.

Q. All right. But in fact, just a few months later, you were

caught on videotape disparaging that ruling by the Court,

correct?

A. Not the ruling, no.

Q. Well, didn't you call the ruling ludicrous and crap?

A. No.

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor. Goes beyond

the scope of the cross-examination.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, Mr. Masterson elicited

testimony about the press conference in which the chief

expressed a willingness to comply with the Court's orders, and

I think this is relevant.

THE COURT: I'll allow it, but I recall very well the

events myself, so you don't have to --

MS. WANG: All right.

THE COURT: -- dwell on them in great detail.

MS. WANG: I'll move on, then, after I hear an answer

from the chief.

THE WITNESS: My response was "No."

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. You did mischaracterize the Court's ruling, did

you not, during this preoperation briefing in October of 2013?

A. I was not referring to the ruling.

Q. Well, wasn't MCSO required to issue a corrective statement



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


about -- in response to your statements during the October 2013

briefing?

A. I think we have a miscommunication again about the

questions you're asking me about my statement in October of

2014.

Q. 2013?

A. 2013, I'm sorry.

Q. All right. Well, the Court has indicated there's already

testimony on that, so we'll move on.

Sir, Mr. Masterson asked you about your reading of the

Court's February 2015 order requiring certain documents to be

produced to the plaintiffs.

Do you recall that?

A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again?

Q. Sure. Mr. Masterson asked you about the Court's February

2015 order requiring the disclosure of certain documents to the

plaintiffs. Do you recall that?

This is about the 1500 IDs.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's Exhibit 2003, if you would like to take a

look. That was the Court's order.

Do you recall Mr. Masterson asking you about that

court order?

Take a look at page 2, the item referring to

identification documents seized from members of the plaintiff



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


class.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you recall that question by Mr. Masterson?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right. And Mr. Masterson asked you whether you knew

for a fact that any of the 1459 IDs from Sergeant Knapp had

been seized from the plaintiff class, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you testified that you did not know, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. But sir, by July 17, 2015, you did know that 30 percent of

the 1459 IDs belonged to people who appeared to be Hispanic,

correct?

A. That's correct, but we don't know if they were taken from

drivers.

Q. Okay. But that's not my question.

I'm just asking you: As of July 17, 2015, you were

well aware that 30 percent of the 1459 IDs apparently belonged

to people who were Hispanic, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's about 500 IDs, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right. And you knew by that point that Sergeant Knapp

had gotten all of the 1459 IDs from the destruction bin in the

Property and Evidence room, correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:3

09:3


A. Yes.

Q. And you've testified before that in order to get into the

destruction bin at Property and Evidence, items would have been

seized by a deputy and processed for destruction, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So by July 17, you knew that 30 percent of the 1500 IDs

belonged to people who appeared to be Hispanic, number one,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And number two, you also knew by then that those IDs would

have been seized in order to get into the destruction bin,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Yet you did not tell the monitor about the existence of the

IDs before -- on July 17, 2015, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you understand that the Court's February 2015 order

relates to the requirement that identification documents be

disclosed to the plaintiffs, correct?

A. I do.

Q. You also understand, sir, that MCSO has an independent and

separate obligation to be truthful to the court-appointed

monitor, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understand that the monitor team is an arm of this



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


Court, correct?

A. I do.

Q. Now, you said that you wanted to wait until you got your

stories straight before telling the monitor about the IDs,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Sir, nothing prevented you from telling the monitor on July

8th, when you found out about the existence of the IDs from

Captain Bailey, nothing prevented you at that point from

telling the monitor: We've just become aware of over a

thousand IDs. I don't know the full story yet, but I want you

to know about this.

You could have told the monitor that on July 8th,

correct?

A. We were waiting for advice from our counsel on how to

proceed.

Q. But, sir, nothing prevented you from telling the monitor

what you knew at the point that Captain Bailey refer --

reported the IDs to you, correct?

A. I wanted to act prudently, so I would disagree with you.

Q. Had your counsel told you before that point, Don't disclose

any IDs to the monitor unless I tell you to?

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, this goes beyond the

scope. I did not address this issue at all in my examination

of Chief Sheridan.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


MS. WANG: Your Honor, I think Mr. Masterson did

elicit testimony relating to why it was that the identification

documents were not disclosed earlier than they were.

THE COURT: Just a moment.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I'll withdraw the

objection.

MS. WANG: Thank you.

THE COURT: Please proceed.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the

question?

BY MS. WANG:

Q. I'll ask you again. Sir, Captain Bailey -- let me break it

down. Captain Bailey informed you around July 8th that

Sergeant Knapp had turned in over a thousand IDs, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At that point, nothing prevented you from telling the

monitor: We've just received over a thousand IDs. I don't

know anything about them yet, but I want you to know.

Nothing prevented you from telling the monitor that,

correct?

A. Nothing prevented me from doing that.

Q. And nothing prevented you from telling the monitor on July

17th that you knew you had almost 1500 IDs, and that one-third

of them appeared to belong to people who were Hispanic,



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And nothing prevented Captain Bailey from responding to the

Monitor Team's question on July 20th by saying there was

another set of over a thousand IDs, but you hadn't gathered the

information on them yet, is that right?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Are you asking about Captain Bailey?

MS. WANG: That's right, Your Honor.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. If you know.

A. I do not know.

Q. You had discussions with Captain Bailey all the way up

through July 17th about the Knapp IDs, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you discussed the Knapp IDs with Captain Bailey during

the week of July 20th, correct?

A. We talked about a lot of things.

Q. Including the Knapp IDs, right?

A. I'm sure we did.

Q. Okay. So my question is: To your knowledge, was there

anything preventing Captain Bailey from telling the Monitor

Team, in response to their question on July 20th, We have

collected a new set of over 1,000 IDs and we're looking into

it?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


A. Yes.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Yes, there was something preventing Captain Bailey from

doing that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you contend that was the advice of Ms. Iafrate?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Sir, sitting here today, do you think that it

was a mistake not to disclose the Knapp IDs to the Monitor Team

on July 20th or earlier?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No. We had every intention to advise

the monitor and the plaintiffs' counsel. I just wanted to be

prudent and make sure what we were bringing forward was the

correct information. I've said that five times in the last two

and a half days.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. So you would do it all over again the same way?

A. Well, I've had to answer this question five times. Maybe I

would have done it differently so I wouldn't have to answer the

question five times. But I believe I would have done it the

same way because I had the same issues. They would have

never -- that would not have changed. I would have had



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


concerns that I voiced before. Those concerns have not

changed.

The Monitor Team, the plaintiffs' counsel, would have

had a full accounting of what we were dealing with. We had

every intention to advise the Monitor Team. We were not trying

to hide anything. They were secured in a locked cabinet behind

a locked room with an IA number pulled and an active

investigation. So I don't know what else to tell you. Why

this is such a big deal, I don't know.

Q. So you don't think it's a big deal that the 1500 IDs were

not disclosed?

A. No. That we didn't ring the phone right away? Yes.

That's why I don't understand it's a big deal.

Q. And you don't think it's a big deal that Captain Bailey

answered the question from the Monitor Team on July 20th the

way that he did?

A. No, I don't, because we had consulted with our counsel, and

we were waiting for advice from our counsel.

Q. So you stand by how MCSO handled the 1500 IDs?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that objection.

MS. WANG: All right. We'll move on to another

subject, sir.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Now, Mr. Masterson asked you a series of questions about



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


matters other than the Melendres case that occupied your

attention in late 2011 and during 2012.

Do you recall those questions?

A. I'm sorry, I was a little distracted for a second.

Can you repeat that?

Q. I can. Do you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you some

questions on Friday about matters other than the Melendres case

that were occupying your attention around the time the

preliminary injunction order issued and afterwards, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right. Now, one of the things that Mr. Masterson asked

you about was an allegation that MCSO had improperly applied

$104 million in funds earmarked for detention purposes to pay

for deputy sheriffs on the enforcement side.

Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right. Now, as chief deputy, you oversee the Budget

and Finance Division, correct?

A. I do.

Q. You testified in response to Mr. Masterson's questions that

the controversy over the $104 million was, quote, more of a

media problem than anything, end quote.


A. Yes.

Q. Actually, sir, that is an accounting problem, not a media



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:4

09:4

09:4


problem. Would you agree with me?

A. I believe I talked about the accounting issues.

Q. It's not just a media problem, it is an accounting problem.

Do you agree with that?

A. Absolutely.

Q. MCSO gets funds from different sources for different

purposes, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Some funds are restricted in how they can be used, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Sir, did your work on that controversy about the

$104 million heighten your awareness of the importance of

proper accounting for different funds used by MCSO?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, during the Seattle investigation, do you agree with me

that it was important to make sure that funds used to pay the

confidential informant were from proper sources?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, beyond the scope of

cross-examination of this witness.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I think it flows from the

testimony about other accounting --

THE COURT: I'll allow it.

MS. WANG: -- issues. Thank you.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you agree with me on that, sir?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


A. I do.

Q. Now, MCSO in general has -- withdrawn.

MCSO has general funds in its budget, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Those can be used for any purpose, correct?

A. Any lawful purpose, yes.

Q. But you and Sheriff Arpaio chose to use state RICO funds to

pay the confidential informant, correct?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, beyond the scope of the

examination by me.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. WANG: All right. We'll move on to another topic.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. I'm going to turn to the subject of Internal Affairs

investigations, sir.

Now, you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you some

questions about the Internal Affairs investigation into

Deputy Ruben Garcia's complaints that fellow deputies had

discriminated against Latinos, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And Mr. Masterson called your attention to the

fact that Deputy Walters had been polygraphed, correct?

A. He did.

Q. And you recall that the complaint that Deputy Garcia made

against Deputy Walters was that he refused to take complaints



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


about crimes from Latino victims, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're also aware that there was another allegation

made by Deputy Garcia that he had been stopped, the subject of

a traffic stop, because of his race, is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Those were different deputies other than Deputy Walters who

were alleged to have done that, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And there was a reserve deputy, Mr. Coogan, who actually

conducted the stop, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he had done so, it was alleged, at the direction of a

regular deputy, Deputy Jackson. Do you recall that?

A. I do.

Q. Deputy Coogan, the one who conducted the stop, was not even

named as a principal in the investigation.

Do you recall that?

A. I recall discussing that in my deposition, but I have not

read the investigation recently.

Q. Okay. Feel free to refer to the exhibit. It's

number 2521. And the findings are listed at -- I'll wait till

you have it. The findings are listed at MELC820996 through 99.

Do you see, sir, that only Deputy Walters and Deputy

Jackson were charged?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Masterson asked you about the facts

relating to the traffic stop of Deputy Garcia.

Do you recall that?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q. Do you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you about the

traffic stop of Deputy Garcia on Friday?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that he had driven by Deputies Coogan and

Jackson at a high rate of speed at 3:00 a.m.


A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, you are aware that Deputy Garcia disputed those facts,

right?

A. I -- I don't recall if he disputed those facts.

Q. Okay. Do you recall whether the IA investigators

polygraphed Deputies Jackson or Coogan?

A. No.

Q. Now, I'd like to ask you to turn to page MELC821009; again,

on the subject of the circumstances of the stop.

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this, again?

MS. WANG: It's 2521, Your Honor.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Are you there, sir?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


A. I am.

Q. Okay.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, this is in evidence. May I ask

that it be published?

THE COURT: You may.


Let's turn to page MELC821009 in Exhibit 2521, please.

And let's highlight the last three paragraphs.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, do you agree with me that Sergeant Morrison -- well,

first, Sergeant Morrison was the IA investigator here, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And he interviewed Reserve Deputy Coogan, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Would you agree with me that Sergeant Morrison,

at this point that's highlighted on the screen in front of you,

is telling Deputy Coogan, first, that he has already spoken to

Deputy Jackson, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And second, Sergeant Morrison tells Deputy Coogan Deputy

Jackson's recollection of the incident is a little different

than Ruben Garcia's. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And do you see that Sergeant Morrison continues to tell

Deputy Coogan what Deputy Jackson's statement was regarding



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


this traffic stop?

A. I do.

Q. Sir, as the chief deputy reviewing an IA file, do you think

that it is problematic for an IA investigator to tell one

deputy accused of participating in an unlawful stop what the

other deputy involved in that stop has said about it?

A. It depends on a lot of variables: Depends on where they

are in their investigation; what is known by the investigator;

what technique the investigator is using; the investigator's

experience level; the body reaction; the verbal responses from

the person they're interviewing; there's a lot of variables.

It's difficult to take one sentence out of a report

that is an inch thick and criticize a question that was

asked --

Q. Okay.

A. -- without reading the whole investigate -- rereading the

whole investigation.

Q. Well, let's focus on this page and the next one for now,

sir. Why don't you -- let me just read you what Sergeant

Morrison says, and I'll ask you some questions about it. All

right?

So here Sergeant Morrison says: "So I can tell you

I've already talked to Deputy Jackson. Deputy Jackson's

recollection of the incident is a little different than Ruben

Garcia's. The way he remembers it is that you guys were pulled



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


over, and that Ruben's vehicle came in the lane right next to

you guys at a speed that he felt was above the posted speed

limit. So he had asked you: Go stop that car and see what the

hell's going on, because they, you know, are putting us in

danger. They're supposed to move over a lane and so forth. So

that the things -- so the things that he described would

certainly be reasonable suspicion, which is all you need for a

traffic stop, and would, I would think, would move to probable

cause, since you're actually witnessing the act and so forth

and so on. But I wanted to get your recollection of the

traffic stop if you could just kind of go into it for me."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you first: Do you agree with me that

it's clear from this transcript that Sergeant Morrison, the

interviewer, first tells Deputy Coogan what Deputy Jackson's

version of events was and then asks Deputy Coogan to tell him

his version of events?

A. I would agree with that.

Q. And do you agree with me, sir, that that interview

technique permits Deputy Coogan to tailor his statement to

Deputy Jackson's?

A. Well, you're assuming that Deputy Coogan is going to be

dishonest.

Q. Sir, I'm asking you: Do you agree with me that the way



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


that Sergeant Morrison conducted this interview gave Deputy

Coogan an opportunity to tailor his testimony to

Deputy Jackson's?

A. No.

Q. Sir, focusing on what Sergeant Morrison says in the second

paragraph on page 821010, do you agree with me that Sergeant

Morrison is telling Deputy Coogan that he, Sergeant Morrison,

has already concluded that this was a lawful stop?


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you agree with that reading of this transcript?

MR. MASTERSON: Same objection.


THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And that's inappropriate, is it not, in an IA interview?

A. For all the reasons I stated earlier, it could be or it

could not be.

Q. Sir, when I deposed you on September 15th, 2015, you agreed

with me that in that respect, Sergeant Morrison went too far,

isn't that right?

A. He could -- he could have. I don't know without reading

this entire inch-thick document, hundreds of pages, what he was

trying to do. Sergeant Morrison is a very well thought of

senior investigator with a lot of experience as a detective and



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


an interviewer. Why he did this, probably should have him on

the stand asking him why he did it, not the chief deputy.

Q. Well, sir, what I'm asking you is what your reaction was as

the chief deputy reviewing an IA file. All right? That's my

focus, to be clear.

On September 15th, 2015, when I deposed you, I asked

you about this passage: Do you think that Morrison's saying,

quote, "So the things that he described would certainly be

reasonable suspicion, which is all you need for a traffic stop

and I would think move to probable cause, end quote. Do you

think that's proper for an investigator to say during an

interview of a principal in an IA case?

"Answer: Probably a little more than he could have

said."

That was your testimony on September 15th, right?

A. That's correct, and I stand by that, and I think I just

said that a minute ago.

Q. Well, a minute ago you wouldn't commit to the testimony

that this was an improper technique to use in an IA interview.

What's your testimony now? Do you agree with me that

that was over the line?

A. It could be.

Q. All right. You also have just testified a moment ago that

you can't be sure whether Sergeant Morrison's interview style

or technique here influenced Deputy Coogan's testimony, is that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


right?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Well, let's turn to page MELC821014, first

paragraph.

Do you see where Deputy Coogan says: I agree with

what -- I beg your pardon. Do you see where Deputy Coogan

said: "I agree what your statements were about Jackson's

statements, same thing"?

Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. And do you agree with me that Deputy Coogan is essentially

agreeing with the version of events that Deputy Jackson gave as

reported by Sergeant Morrison?

A. I don't know if I want to agree to anything else, because I

also see a statement that's not highlighted that says, "I

disagree with him," so I don't know what he's agreeing to here,

what Coogan's agreeing to.

Q. Where do you see a statement that he disagreed with him?

A. Right before the highlighted area. I think that word

"d-i-s-a-g-r-e-e" is "disagree."

Q. Okay. Well, take a look at the previous paragraph, then.

First of all, take a look at the middle of that

paragraph where there's a sentence that says: "I always take

pride and explain it when I've been challenged on the road with

my integrity about racial profiling."



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you agree with me that -- well, let me ask it

this way: Should an IA investigator who hears that statement

follow up on whether Deputy Coogan had previously been accused

of racial profiling?

A. Yes.

Q. And is there any indication in this IA file that that

happened?

A. I don't know. I don't know if I even read this in its

entirety when it was presented to me in 2011.

Q. Okay. So let's continue, because I want to get back to

your point about Deputy Coogan's statement, "I disagree with

him."

So Deputy Coogan goes on to say: "Let me explain this

really clear to you what you were stopped for, and you might

disagree with it. But okay, you've got a cracked window, I

mean, and any stop I've gone on, I've also done the same thing.

What did you get him for? Oh, he's suspended. But what he was

he stopped for? You know, headlight out or taillight out or

something, you know, one of the standard PC stops. So yeah, so

I disagree with him."

Do you agree with him that at that point Deputy Coogan

says "I disagree with him," he's talking about his hypothetical

driver who is accusing him of racial profiling, not that he's



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


disagreeing with Deputy Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. So there is not an indication on page MELC821014 that

Deputy Coogan disagreed with anything in Deputy Jackson's

statement about the stop of Deputy Garcia, correct?

A. That's correct, now that it's explained that way, yes.

Q. Thank you.

All right. Let's move on and talk about the 542 IA

case. This is the investigation into supervision of Deputy

Armendariz.

Sir, in response to a question from Mr. Masterson on

Friday, you testified that in the case involving supervision

issues relating to Charley Armendariz, Chief Trombi and

Lieutenant Sousa received discipline.

Do you recall that?

A. I did.

Q. You testified also that a sergeant also was disciplined in

the 14-542 case. Do you recall that testimony?

A. I did.

Q. Sir, do you stand by that today?

A. That's my belief, yes.

Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 2218. That is the report on

the 14-542 case. And if you will turn to page --

A. Excuse me. Did you say 20- --

Q. 2218. Do you have that in front of you?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

THE CLERK: (Handing).

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, if you'd turn to page MELCIA011167, towards the front.

The cover sheets and findings can be found there. And let me

know if you find any indication that any sergeant received a

finding of sustained in the 542 case.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you see any indication that any sergeant received a

finding of sustained in the 542 case?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Where is that?

A. It's on MELC1A011189.

Q. You mean where it says "preliminary finding" at the bottom

of page -- that page?

A. Yes.

Q. Turn to the next page, and do you see that the final

finding was not sustained?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So I'll ask you again.

Well, let me just tell you, I don't see any indication

in this report that any sergeant received a finding of

sustained in the 542 case. Do you disagree with that?

A. No. The case that I'm talking about with Lieutenant Sousa



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


and Sergeant Palmer, I must be confusing two different cases.

Q. You were talking about the 541 case into the so-called

trinkets, is that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. All right.

A. There's so many cases, IA numbers that were pulled, and

it's hard to, without actually having a list here, to sit here

and testify accurately like this. I know that a sergeant

received it. I must have misunderstood that it was not part of

the 542 case.

Q. Okay. So to be clear, in the case involving supervision

issues on Charley Armendariz, no sergeant received discipline

in that case, correct?

A. Again, without having some document with all the cases and

the discipline and the names of the individuals that received

the discipline, I'm afraid to answer that question.

Q. Fair enough. But my question is only about the case on

Armendariz' supervision, which is the 542 case in front of you.

A. The 542 case --

Q. Correct.

A. -- in front of me? Yes, do agree.

Q. No sergeant received discipline, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Let's move on to the 541 case.

Sir, you testified in response to questions from



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


Mr. Masterson that MCSO, in fact, did open IA cases looking

into the drugs that were found in MCSO evidence envelopes in

Armendariz's home. Do you recall that testimony?

A. I don't think I would have testified to that.

Q. You don't recall that testimony with Mr. Masterson?

A. I don't think I would have testified that we opened

individual cases on drugs found in Charley Armendariz's home,

because I'm fairly sure we did not.

Q. I'm going to read to you from your testimony on Friday,

September 25th, 2015, starting at page 1435, line 22:

Question by Mr. Masterson: "You also talked a bit

with Ms. Wang about some drug issues, I guess drug IAs. She

kept mentioning heroin and methamphetamine.

"Do you remember that?

"Answer: Yes, sir.

"Question: Tell me, what part of Armendariz had

anything to do with heroin or methamphetamine?

"Answer: When sheriff's detectives executed a search

warrant in Charley Armendariz's house, those items were found

in his garage and in his house.

"Question: Did you investigate that?

"Answer: Yes, sir.

"Question: Was it a separate IA? Let's talk about

this. And I think I might have this a little bit confused.

There was an IA concerning Armendariz himself, is that correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


"Answer: Yes, sir.

"Question: Was there another IA, then, or was -- I'm

a little bit confused about 40 IAs. An IA in Armendariz, and

what seems to be another IA we're talking about now about

drugs, methamphetamine, and heroin.

"Can you just kind of straighten that out for me?"

And I'll skip now to page 1437, line 25:

"Question: So you investigated these

drug/heroin/methamphetamine issues, is that correct?

"Answer: Yes, sir.

"Question: You didn't blow them off?

"Answer: No, sir."

Do you recall that testimony now?

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, under Rule 106, I'm going

to ask that ask counsel go back and read this witness's entire

answer on page 1436 and on to 1437, where he clarifies this

whole matter for her.

THE COURT: Why don't you do that, Ms. Wang.

MS. WANG: Sure, I can do that. Let me start again at

1436, line 16.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. "Answer: There were many items. Trying to remember the

number. It was over a thousand items that were confiscated,

seized during the search warrant of Charley Armendariz's home.

Some of those items could be attributed back to other deputies.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


For example, a driver's license, let's say, that we were able

to backtrack through our CAD system, through our Records

Management System to another deputy sheriff. The deputy

sheriff had contact with that individual. We initiated an

internal investigation of that deputy sheriff over that ID.

That would be one of the 40-plus spin-off Armendariz

investigations, as an example. So any item that we had that we

were able to attribute to somebody other than Charley

Armendariz, we could follow up on a separate investigation.

"Now, your question about the drugs specifically, I

don't recall if we were ever able to match up, because some of

those drugs were in evidence bags with a seal with no numbers

on them with some -- with some information on them. If we were

ever able to connect them with another deputy, I don't believe

so. I don't believe we were.

"So that's how the Charley Armendariz investigation

was very big, very volu -- as a matter of fact, the executive

summary was 542 pages. I just reviewed that within the last

week. I sent it back for some editing, not of content, but of

grammar, and there are, I understand, I haven't seen it, there

are 17 volumes or so of support documents, tens of thousands of

pages, support documents for that investigation, so we have

that.

"So then there's the 40 spin-off investigations where

we were able to identify sheriff's personnel that had violated



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


policies, and we were also able to identify some outside law

enforcement agencies, their officers that had violated some

policies, and we notified those agencies about their officers'

behavior.

"Question: So you investigated these

drug/heroin/methamphetamine issues, is that correct?

"Answer: Yes, sir.

"Question: You didn't blow them off?

"Answer: No, sir."

That's the complete testimony, sir. So my question

again is: Do you recall testifying on Friday about IA cases

looking into the drugs found in evidence envelopes in

Armendariz's house?

A. No, because I don't believe we did any individual IA cases

involving the drugs. They were all contained in the one IA

case that -- and I don't know what the number of it was -- the

main Charley Armendariz case.

Q. Not the case into the trinkets, but the case into

Armendariz?

A. Yes. It was the Armendariz case. Not the trinkets; not

the IDs; not any of the other cases.

Q. All right. And do you know whether that case was the

14-221 case?

A. I'm sorry, I don't recall any of those numbers.

Q. Sir, are you aware that defendants were supposed to



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:1

10:1

10:1


disclose all the documents relating to any Armendariz

investigation or Armendariz spin-off investigation to the

plaintiffs in this case?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. So would the documents relating to this -- any

investigation into the drugs found in Armendariz's house, would

those be among the documents turned over to us?

A. It would be in the case that I just reviewed within the

past week or two.

Q. So that has not been turned over --

A. It took me -- it took me about three weeks to read the

542-page executive summary.

Q. Okay, sir. So are you aware that documents relating to the

221 investigation actually have been turned over to plaintiffs?

A. I don't know if they have or not; I haven't signed off on

it yet.

Q. Okay. Sir, Mr. Masterson called your attention to the fact

that I had asked you about allegations that TVs, in the plural,

had been taken by HSU members.


A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And Mr. Masterson elicited from you testimony that you knew

of only one TV that was seized by HSU. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. So I just want to make sure, sir: Is it true that you are



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1


not aware of PSB looking into more than one TV seized by HSU?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. To your knowledge, HSU has only seized one TV.

A. That's my understanding.

Q. All right. Sir, shifting gears slightly, Mr. Masterson

asked you about a new protocol that MCSO has where lieutenants

on the division side, as opposed to the PSB side, who are

involved in Internal Affairs investigations receive training in

Internal Affairs investigations.


A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you said this is a relatively new development for MCSO,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the goal is to have all of the lieutenants who are

assigned to divisions who are involved in IA investigations be

trained in IA investigations, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But that you're not sure you've completely accomplished

that goal yet, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, the lieutenants in the division side who con -- who

are involved in IA investigations do not actually conduct all

of those investigations, correct?

A. That's correct.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1


Q. They would assign investigations to sergeants or other

personnel on the division side, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Those sergeant investigators are not required to go through

the training currently, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And, sir, isn't it true that at the time that you assigned

Captain Bailey to command PSB, he had never been trained in IA

investigations?

A. Correct.

Q. And sir, you have never been trained in IA investigations,

have you?

A. No.

Q. You also testified in response to questions from

Mr. Masterson that PSB does not handle all IA cases at MCSO, is

that right?

A. That's right.

Q. In fact, you testified that they only handle about 200 out

of 550 cases annually, is that right?

A. Approximately.

Q. So in order for PSB to investigate all IA cases within

MCSO, you would need quadruple the PSB staff, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. But you don't have that, right?

A. I do not.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1


Q. PSB is not adequately resourced to handle all of the

internal investigations for this agency, correct?

A. No, I -- I would disagree with that statement.

Q. Well, PS -- you have to assign many IA cases to the

division, correct?

A. Not all of them are necessary to be investigated by PSB.

It would be a waste of resources.

Q. Okay. Well, my only question was: If you wanted to assign

all internal investigations at MCSO to PSB, PSB would not have

the resources to do that, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Sir, you said that you assigned Captain Bailey to command

PSB, correct?

A. I did.

Q. That was in early June of 2014, right?

A. Approximately.

Q. And at the time you assigned Captain Bailey to command PSB,

you knew that PSB was going to handle many issues relating to

Charley Armendariz, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. You were aware at the time you assigned Captain Bailey to

command PSB that he had been in Charley Armendariz's chain of

command, correct?

A. I knew that Charley Armendariz, while Lieutenant Bailey

worked at Special Investigations, HSU worked for Lieutenant



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1


Jakowinicz for a period of time, and when Lieutenant Bailey was

promoted to Captain Bailey, it was a very short time, if

Charley Armendariz was still assigned to SID.

I think it was a very short time, a matter of weeks,

before Charley Armendariz was transferred to District 3 Patrol,

I believe.

Q. So your answer is yes, at the time Captain Bailey was

assigned to command PSB, you were aware that Charley Armendariz

had been in his chain of command, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And in fact, didn't there come a point where

you actually took Captain Bailey out of the loop on some IA

cases because of conflict of interest problems?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, beyond the course -- or

beyond the scope of my examination of this witness.



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, you testified that after it was discovered that MCSO

had a large volume of recordings of traffic stops, lieutenants

were assigned to do a secondary review of videos that were

flagged as potentially problematic, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Lieutenants who did that review of the videos were not

given any written protocol for their review, is that right?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1


A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Sir, you testified about IAPro.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. That was in response to Mr. Masterson's questions, correct?

A. Yes, I remember talking about IAPro.

Q. Okay. IAPro is a software tool to help track the behavior

of deputies, is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. It's a technology that PSB uses, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You testified that the green lights, yellow lights, and red

lights in IAPro will help to prevent a future Charley

Armendariz from happening, is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. But, sir, would you agree with me that an agency's IA

system is not run by colored lights or a computer program; it's

run by the human beings who work in the agency, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And because human beings run the IA system, the culture of

the agency is critical to how IA functions, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's true at MCSO, right?

A. In any organization, including MCSO.

MS. WANG: All right. Thank you, sir. That's all I



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

Sheridan - Examination, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1543

have for you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Chief, I think I'm going to have a few

questions for you; I just want to get some things straight.

EXAMINATION

BY THE COURT:

Q. Are there written policies that govern IA or PSB for the

MCSO?

A. Which matter, Your Honor?

Q. I'm not talking about a specific matter; I'm talking about

written policies that govern the operation of PSB.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they have anything in them relating to conflicts of

interest, and how they're to be handled?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, let me you an example. We've heard testimony, I

think -- and if I'm misstating it, please correct me -- that

Sheriff Arpaio designated Chief Olson to be the officer who

considered your discipline, and we also heard testimony that

Chief Olson reports to you.

Do you understand how that could be considered a

conflict of interest, arguably?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have anything that you can recall in your written

policies that would govern a situation like that?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:2

10:2

10:2


A. No.

Q. Now, we did talk last April, you and I -- we were kind of

hurried, because I wanted to get through some things, and I

said we might talk about some things later.

In addition to talking about what Ms. Wang just

raised, which I don't think we need to re-raise, about

Captain Bailey supervising Sergeant Armendariz for a time, and

you've already the testified on that, I raised to you my

concern when I showed you Exhibit 1000 about a memorandum being

sent to Captain Bailey while he was head of SID that says:

Gosh, look at all these documents. What do you want me to do

with them? And I believe you indicated at that time that if

Captain Bailey had actually received that document and was

conducting investigations on IDs, that would not be

appropriate.

Do you remember that testimony?

A. I'm sorry, I don't.

Q. Well, I don't think I need to remind you of it, but if you

want to see it, I can look it up. But my question really goes

to sort of a collateral point.

My question is: Are you aware that -- whether PSB

would have any policies regarding a situation like that, where

a captain is investigating an issue that he may have been

involved in, even collaterally?

A. I do, Your Honor. I believe I also testified that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2


Captain Bailey, while he was a lieutenant --

Q. You know, Chief, I don't mean to be rude, but my question

is --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- are you aware whether there are any policies governing

the operation of PSB to govern a situation like that where --

where at least there's some evidence that Captain Bailey had

received an inquiry about a situation when he wasn't in PSB

that he's now assigned to investigate the larger issue?

Are you aware of any written policies that deal with

that.

A. No, Your Honor.

Q. Now, I did raise for you last time that concern, and you

remember -- you may remember; you may not remember -- did you

do anything to investigate whether or not Captain Bailey had

received the memorandum?

A. I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the memorandum you're

talking about.

Q. It's Exhibit 1000. Do you have it there? I don't know

whether you do or not.

A. I do.

Q. And you may remember it's an incident report, which is on

top of a memorandum to Steve Bailey from Detective D. Frei,

that has attached to it a number of identifications and

requests what to do with these identifications.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2


Do you remember discussing that last April?

A. I do.

Q. And do you remember, for example, that we discussed a lot

of the identifications in there were Mexican-issued

identifications, and it wouldn't make sense for somebody to

assume that they were forged if they were trying to establish

American residency.

Do you remember that discussion?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you remember a discussion about Captain Bailey,

and whether or not the memorandum -- my concerns about the

memorandum being sent to Captain Bailey by Detective Frei?

You remember that?

A. I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't.

Q. That's all right.

Did you do anything to investigate whether or not

Captain Bailey ever received this memorandum, or Detective Frei

ever forwarded it to Captain Bailey?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Now, you may remember that we had some discussion

about whether the seized cards were used as training aids.

Is it MCSO's position that all of the cards that have

been seized were used as training aids? I'm not under the

impression you're still taking that position, but if you are,

I'd like to know it.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2


A. No, sir. Some of those cards were used on an informal

basis. When a new deputy was assigned to the unit, deputies

that were in the unit would show them: This is what they look

like; this is what you should look for; this is what the

matricula card looks like; and those types of things, but it

was an informal basis done for new people assigned to the unit.

Q. Okay. So there's no evidence of, like, formal training,

and you're not claiming that there was.

A. No, sir.

Q. And you're not claiming that all of the cards that were

seized were used in that informal training.

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it fair to say -- and if it isn't, I'm not trying to

oblige you to say anything. Is it fair to say that these -- it

appears that there was a habit among some officers of taking

identifications and drivers' licenses and other things kind of

as souvenirs or trophies?


BY THE COURT:

Q. You can answer if you know.

A. It appears that might have been the case.

Q. Now, in addition to the drugs, there was also found in

Armendariz's home currency, bank cards, debit cards, things

like that.

Was any investigation ever done into those bank cards,



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2


debit cards, credit cards? Was there ever an IA investigation

done into that?

A. Some of those items that you mentioned would be included in

the overall Armendariz case.

Q. When you say "the overall Armendariz case," are we talking

about what Ms. Wang just referred to as 2 --

Was it 221?

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: If that's the case that I'm thinking of,

because, I'm sorry, I don't remember the individual IA numbers,

I didn't --

BY THE COURT:

Q. All right.

A. -- pay attention to those, then yes, if we were able to get

a -- let's take, for example, a bank card with someone's name

on it.

Q. You know, I want to hear this, so remember it, but I want

to follow up on two questions I have so I can get them out, get

answers, and then I'll let you clarify for me.

A. Okay.

Q. 221 is not yet complete. Did I hear you say you've not yet

signed off on it?

A. That's correct.

Q. So it hasn't been turned over to plaintiffs?

A. I assume not.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2


Q. And it hasn't been turned over to the monitor?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is the subject of that in -- is the only subject of that

investigation Detective Armendariz? Or, I'm sorry, Deputy

Armendariz.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. So that investigation does not involve any

other possible subjects.

A. That's correct.

Q. But you were aware that other deputies provided materials

that were found in the Armendariz house.

A. We were.

Q. All right. Now give me your explanation.

A. Okay. The trouble with some of the items in Charley's

house -- and if I recall correctly, there was a purse. There

were no items in it -- or there were some items in it, but

nothing where we could link another deputy sheriff that it was

in their possession at any time. That purse would be

attributed to Charley Armendariz.

There were drugs. There was heroin, cocaine,

methamphetamine, whatever, in evidence bags with no identifiers

on them; some just in boxes, if I recall correctly. Again, we

were not able to identify those things with anyone in

particular.

The items that we had, for example, where you would



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:2

10:3


have a bank card that had somebody's name on it, and we were

able to backtrack that name through our CAD or Records

Management System that another deputy had possession of that or

had contact with that individual however long ago, we would

initiate an IA number on that. But items that we could not

attribute to anyone were contained in the main Armendariz

investigation.

Q. Okay. And I assume the main Armendariz investigation then

details which of these credit cards you could identify folks

for and which you couldn't.

A. That's correct. Every deputy sheriff that worked with

Charley Armendariz in the Human Smuggling Unit was

interviewed --

Q. Well, let me ask --

A. -- during this investigation.

Q. Okay. I interrupted. Did you complete your answer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I assume, though, if you found a credit card, you'd have

the name of somebody that lost the credit card.

A. That's correct.

Q. And you could go back in your CAD system and find if that

person had ever had an encounter with police, or with Maricopa

County Sheriff's Office.

A. Yes, sir, if it was in the system.

Q. And I assume that you did that and put it in the Armendariz



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3


investigation.

A. Well, it would be inventoried that we confiscated that

through the search warrant, so it would be documented, yes.

However, if it wasn't Deputy Armendariz that had contact with

it, say it was Deputy Sheridan, then a new IA number would be

pulled, and that would be a separate spin-off Armendariz

investigation.

Q. I understand. Are there --

A. Okay.

Q. -- any such investigations?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know how many?

A. Again, I'm afraid to guess because --

Q. That's all right. Have they all been turned over to the

monitor, or are they still incomplete, some of them?

A. I believe as of today, the monitor has all of them except

the main Armendariz investigation, it's my understanding.

Q. Now, in addition to the identifications found in Charley

Armendariz's home, and in addition to the 1459, which include

some percentage that involve members of the plaintiff class, a

number of other identifications and other items, including

cell phones and other things, have been found during the course

of this ongoing proceeding; fair to say?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has any investigation ever been started on those



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3


identifications in Exhibit 1000?

A. I don't recall what we did with the IDs in Exhibit 1000,

Your Honor.

Q. At the same time that we got the IDs in Exhibit 1000,

defendants turned over -- and I think there were 111 of

those -- defendants turned over 51 from Deputy Gandara and 44

from Sergeant Powe.

Was anything ever done with respect to those

identifications?

A. I know we initiated internal investigations, but there were

so many, I don't recall what we did with them.

Q. Okay. So you don't know in fact even if there

are identifi- -- are investigations?

A. Oh, I believe that we did pull IA numbers, but I don't

think I'm the best person to ask that question.

Q. All right. So you don't know whether the IAs -- if you

pull -- assuming you pulled IA numbers, and I'm not assuming

that, but I understand you're telling me you think you did, but

you're not sure, assuming you pulled IA numbers, you can't tell

me whether the IAs are complete as to those identifications.

A. I believe they would be complete, because I believe the

only one that is not complete is the Armendariz one that I

mentioned earlier.

And the problem -- the reason I'm having a hard time

answering your question, Your Honor, there was so many IAs



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3


pulled. There were four sheets, a spreadsheet with four

sheets' worth of information on them, and I can't recall those

specifically, you know, I'm afraid to guess.

Q. That's all right. Let me just ask you if you know, and if

don't know, that's fine.

In addition to the Powe, Gandara, the Frei, there have

been since then a number of IDs that keep being found and

turned in, including IDs after the 1459, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. As far as you are aware, are all of those identifications

being investigated?

A. Now, when you say "investigated," are you --

Q. I mean trying to find out who took the IDs.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All of them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I take it that your investigation on those aren't

complete, since some of them were found as late as September

9th?

A. Well, can we back up one second? When you say as far as

who took them, let -- give me an example, because I don't want

to give you any wrong information, okay?

When let's say with Sergeant Powe, he had 44 -- 44 IDs

in his go bag in his truck for a year that were confiscated --

or not "confiscated" -- that were obtained through the property



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:3


room in the destruction box. I don't think that we

investigated to see how they were obtained.

Q. Okay. So fair to say you think you've been diligent, but

you can't speak about individual investigations.

A. Correct.

Q. Now, you talked with Mr. Masterson about what I think he's

referred to, and I've occasionally referred to as unicorn bins,

which are these bins where identifications are cut up, and I

think your testimony was they exist all over the Valley in all

kinds of police departments.

A. Except MCSO.

Q. Now.

A. Now.

Q. Unicorn bins did exist at MCSO.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Fair to say that a number of identifications have been

destroyed over the past five years?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Over the past eight years?

A. Your Honor, I don't know when that practice began at the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Q. Can you tell me when the practice ended?

A. When you ordered it.

Q. I'm not recalling an exact order I ever said that

stopped -- stopped the unicorn boxes, but it's clear that I've



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:3

10:3

10:3

10:5

10:5


been very interested in this issue, I grant you.

MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Judge. I must have missed

the question, because I thought the question was IDs being

destroyed, and you did issue an order on that.

THE COURT: I did?

MR. MASTERSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You're right. You're correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

BY THE COURT:

Q. When was that? Do you have that date?

A. I believe it was in April, yes.

Q. Whatever. You can provide me with the date. But whenever

I ordered it, you did it.

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You know, I still have a few more

questions, but it is time for morning break. Can we take 15

minutes and then I'll finish my questions up?

(Recess taken.)

THE COURT: Thanks. Please be seated.

If I can, I'm going to resume.

Anybody need to raise anything?

THE COURT: Chief, a question.

(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the

clerk.)

BY THE COURT:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:5

10:5

10:5

10:5

10:5


Q. When you sign off -- you sign off on all PSB

investigations, normally?

A. Yes, sir, all PSB investigations.

Q. Okay. As opposed to an investigation that might happen in

a division.

A. Correct.

Q. When you sign off on a PSB investigation, does

Captain Bailey, now Captain Molina, also sign off on that

investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want to be clear; I'm going to change gears now. I want

to be clear about the chronology of some of the things I think

I heard you testify to.

When is the first time you heard about Dennis

Montgomery?

A. Oh, gosh. I would only be guessing, Your Honor.

Q. I appreciate that. Can you give me a rough time frame?

A. Sometime in 2013.

Q. Okay. And what did you hear when you heard about him?

A. That he worked for -- he was a contractor for the CIA, NSA,

and he had information that 150,000 Maricopa County residents'

personal bank accounts had been hacked into by the -- either

the CIA or the NSA, and that he was looking to give us that

information.

Q. Do you remember whether it was early 2013? Late 2013?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:5

10:5

10:5

10:5

11:0


A. I can only -- I can't even speculate. Things are -- things

are kind of a blur.

Q. When you heard about him, you only heard about these -- the

NSA or CIA infiltration into Maricopa County residents'

personal information.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You heard nothing else.

A. That's correct.

Q. And did you understand that this was information that

Mr. Montgomery claims to have gleaned from his employ with the

federal government?

A. He was a contractor that worked for a company. His story

was that he helped build the hammer, which is the high-powered

software program supercomputer that is housed somewhere in

Maryland, I believe, that the CIA/NSA uses to get this

information on U.S. citizens.

Q. Okay. And I'm just going to try and speed it up, but by

doing that, I do not mean to mischaracterize your testimony of

yesterday and previously, so if I do, correct me. All right?

I thought I understood, and I think it was in response

to Ms. Wang, that when you heard this, you were a little bit

concerned about the legality of everything.

A. I was concerned about the legality of it; I was concerned

about his credibility.

Q. Did you do anything to protect yourself legally?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0


A. Well, that's when we contacted the Attorney General's

Office.

Q. All right. And you did that right as soon as you heard

Mr. Montgomery's story.

A. As soon as we heard Mr. Montgomery's story, he provided

some of those documents to us that had spreadsheet with

people's names and numbers on it, and the bank account numbers,

and that's when we contacted the Arizona Attorney General.

Q. All right. When you say spreadsheet on it, you don't mean

the spreadsheet that you've referred to as -- or that's been

shown you that's the DOJ/Arpaio timeline; you mean a

spreadsheet that relates to information that he claims he had

regarding the CIA's infiltration into Maricopa County folks'

bank accounts.

A. That's correct. And I just want to make it quite clear

that I never saw that spreadsheet document; that was coming

from Detective Mackiewicz and Detective Zullo.

Q. When you say "spreadsheet document," again you're talking

about a personal records document.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So Mackiewicz -- you never saw the spreadsheet; Mackiewicz

described it to you.

A. Correct.

Q. And then you went to the attorney general. 3?

Did you go with Mr. Montgomery?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0


A. No, sir.

Q. Who went to the attorney general?

A. Sheriff; myself; Detective Mackiewicz; Posseman Zullo. I'm

not sure if someone else went with us.

Q. Who did you meet with at the Arizona Attorney General?

A. We met with the Arizona Attorney General himself, the

assistant attorney general, I -- sorry, I don't recall his

name, and we discussed this case with them.

One of the issues that Mr. Montgomery was hesitant to

give us any further information was he was seeking immunity,

and that's why he came to a law enforcement agency with this

information.

And out of that meeting there was further discussions

with the Attorney General's Office -- at the detective level

now -- to have a free talk with Mr. Montgomery. And I did not

attend that free talk, but Mr. Montgomery came to Arizona for a

free talk with the attorney general.

Q. Was that pretty quickly after your initial meeting?

A. I think it was a few months later.

Q. Few months later?

Was it paid for by the MCSO, Montgomery's trip to

Arizona?

A. I don't recall exactly, but I -- I believe so.

Q. You said that the attorney general himself was there, Tom

Horne. You said there was an assistant attorney general.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0


Do you remember who that was?

A. Sorry, I don't remember his name, but if somebody told me

it, I'd probably remember.

Q. Okay. You said later there was sort of detective

coordination about immunity and other things before Montgomery

came down, if I understood the chronology correct, is that

right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who were those detectives?

A. Well, it would be Detective Mackiewicz was the case agent,

and I don't know who from the -- who he was working with from

the Attorney General's Office.

Q. All right. So you hold an initial meeting with the

sheriff, with the attorney general, about these bank matters;

within a month or two, Montgomery comes down and has his free

talk with the attorney general.

Do you know who went to the free talk?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do I have the chronology right so far?

A. I believe so.

Q. You know that Montgomery himself -- and when I say

"Montgomery" I mean "Dennis Montgomery" -- went to the free

talk.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of anybody else that accompanied him to the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0


free talk?

A. I don't recall who went to the free talk.

Q. Did somebody --

A. But there were others; I don't remember who.

Q. Did somebody from the MCSO go with him to the free talk?

A. Yes, Detective Mackiewicz.

Q. And you don't know if there may have been others or not.

A. That's correct.

Q. And you don't know who they met with at the attorney

general.

A. No, sir.

Q. When did you first start hearing about the Department of

Justice in relation to Dennis Montgomery?

A. I think the first time that I heard about the Department of

Justice with Montgomery was on that timeline that Ms. Wang

showed me the other day.

Q. That was Exhibit 2074A?

A. I'm not which exhibit number it was.

Q. Can you see if you happen to have it there? I think she

did discuss it with you the other day.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, I think you said it was just you and the sheriff

when you discussed the timeline?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how did that strike you, the timeline?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0

11:0


A. By this time, I had read the -- excuse me -- the online

information about Dennis Montgomery constantly questioned his

credibility, but yet, if he did have information about the

federal government hacking into American citizens', 150,000 of

them that lived in Maricopa County's personal information, that

was something that was of interest to law enforcement. So

there was always that in the back of our mind to maybe continue

to do business with him; I don't know what other word to use.

But when I saw this document, which a lot of the

information looks accurate, but again, like I testified the

other day, it's something that it's out there in the public

domain, it wouldn't be difficult, except for those two DOJ

wiretaps. You know, I tried to think why the Department of

Justice would be interested in Jerry Sheridan. Back in 2009 I

ran the jail system, and I couldn't think of anything.

Q. And again, I don't mean to mischaracterize your words,

you're only dealing with memory, I think you said that kind of

shook you up a little bit to see your phone number on it?

A. Well, yeah, it did. That's why I am saying, you know, when

you see your name at the Department of Justice, the federal

government is looking -- maybe listening or has listened to

your phone calls. You know, this is my personal cell phone

number.

Q. What did the sheriff say to you about this document?

A. He was concerned about the wiretap also, but the other



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:0

11:0

11:1

11:1

11:1


issue, you know, we were quite concerned at about -- you know,

at this time about the Department of Justice lawsuit against

us. So I remember him homing in on that line, I think it's the

fourth line down. I don't know if that's the sheriff's

handwriting there, but it looks like he wrote crim, c-r-i-m,

question mark. Criminal, does that mean criminal? I know, I

remember he was quite concerned about that.

Q. Do you remember anything else he said?

A. No, sir.

Q. So you decided to continue to do business with

Mr. Montgomery. And you were interested in, as well as the

banking stuff, now you were interested in whether the

Department of Justice might be investigating you?

A. No. No, sir. I was concerned that this was on here, but

the sheriff and I didn't give it much credibility.

Q. Neither one of you.

A. No, sir.

Q. And so you did pursue matters with Mr. Montgomery, but you

didn't pursue anything, as far as you're concerned, that

related to the Department of Justice.

A. That's correct. And my thought was -- to understand what

my thought was, you have to -- I have to go back for a second.

Dennis Montgomery was very difficult to deal with.

That's why we had to send the detectives up there to deal with

him. He is a lot of things, but one of the things that I



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1


understand and I believe, he is -- he is a computer genius. He

is probably a very good con man also. I mean, he conned the

President of the United States and --

Q. It appears now that he conned you, too.

A. Oh, there's no doubt about it. No doubt about that. But

we were in very good company with the federal government and

the President of the United States, and, you know, the DOJ and

the NSA, and Homeland Security shutting down the airports, and,

you know, so we were in very good company. So while I am

embarrassed about that, okay, I'll stand next to the President

and be embarrassed with him.

Q. All right.

A. So we -- we didn't really follow up on it because he was

trying to get us to pay him, because it was a constant thing:

Get us information. Oh, I can't do it. My computer's not big

enough. It's not fast enough. Those kinds of things. I can't

put all this information together. I have way too much.

And I'm not a technical person as far as computers are

concerned, and so at times Posseman Zullo, Detective

Mackiewicz, someone would get along with him, one wouldn't, one

would threaten not to pay him, one -- you know, and so that's

when he came up with this.

Q. Okay.

A. And --

Q. When was the next time that you recall hearing anything



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1


about a Department of Justice investigation that involved

Montgomery?

A. I recall being at a meeting with Joe Popolizio, John

Masterson, Tom Liddy, Tim Casey, the sheriff, myself, where we

talked on the phone with Mike Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz. We

were in the old building, the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo

building, I don't remember when it was, when Dennis Montgomery

had given them information that the DOJ had hacked into the

Jones, Skelton, Hochuli server and the Maricopa County

Attorney's Office server, and that's what that meeting was

about.

Q. Were there any documents distributed during that meeting?

A. No, sir.

Q. What was said at that meeting?

A. Just that. That Montgomery had come up with an e-mail

fragment, and we learned a lot about -- and this was from

Mackiewicz and Zullo -- about how e-mails were -- were sent.

You type an e-mail on your computer. Your computer sends it

out in bits and pieces. It could go around the world and come

back in seconds, or if you know sometimes by practical nature,

sometimes it takes minutes for it to come back; sometimes they

get lost for some time. And that's how e-mails get sent out.

But the problem that Montgomery has is that he has

these e-mails from the DOJ or whoever, the NSA, the CIA, the

ones that he collected while he was a contractor, and his --



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1


Q. Allegedly, at least.

A. Allegedly. And I should say everything. Maybe can we

stipulate everything's allegedly?

Q. With Montgomery? Sure.

A. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

And so he had an e-mail fragment that he believed was

about Mr. Popolizio's daughter playing a soccer game, but it

was just a fragment. And the reason that he couldn't put the

whole e-mail together -- and never did put any e-mails together

for us -- is because he needed this supercomputer like the

hammer that was able to take those fragments from the -- and

I'm just going to make this number up, but from the hundred

million terabytes of information that he had on his servers

that was able to blend those back together. And so, therefore,

we never got any other information from him about the e-mails

or any of that stuff.

However, the meeting was called because there was

concern that there was a lot of attorney-client privilege

information on the Jones, Skelton and the Maricopa County

Attorney's Office, and I learned that day how important

attorney-client privilege is to lawyers.

Q. So are you saying that Mr. Masterson or Mr. Popolizio

called the meeting?

A. No. I --

Q. Who did call the meeting?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:1


A. It may have been me, because -- and again, Your Honor, I'm

trying to put these memories together. I hate to create

memories, but it probably was me. Thinking that Mackiewicz,

Detective Mackiewicz would have called me, I would have

thought, Hmm, this is something I should let my counsel know

about and get everybody together.

Q. All right. And was that a January 2nd, 2014 meeting?

A. No, sir. I don't think -- I don't think so, because I've

heard testimony about that meeting and I was not at that

meeting.

Q. Okay.

A. That was not the meeting I attended.

Q. So somebody -- you've heard from somebody -- and don't

discuss things that your attorneys have talked to you over with

because you've just talked about how important the

attorney-client is.

A. Right.

Q. But you have some notion that there's been testimony about

a January 2nd, 2014 meeting, and you don't have any

recollection of being there.

A. That's correct. I think people are confusing two different

meetings, because I recall --

Q. I appreciate that, but let me just ask you about the

meeting you do know about.

A. Um-hum.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:1

11:1

11:1

11:2

11:2


Q. When would that meeting have been?

A. That's what I don't remember.

Q. Well, in relation to the November meeting when you met with

Sheriff Arpaio and discussed the DOJ/Arpaio document, which is

2074, how much later would it have been? To your best

recollection.

A. I can't even speculate a guess, Your Honor.

Q. A month?

A. You're asking me to guess.

Q. Six months?

A. Within six months.

Q. You think more likely closer to a month or closer to six

months?

I used to be a lawyer, too.

A. I know. I've just been through a couple of depositions

with Ms. Wang, and she's very good.

Again, I don't want to speculate. I'd say within six

months.

Q. All right. When's the next time you remember any

communication regarding Montgomery and the Department of

Justice?

Before we -- I'm sorry. I am going to ask that

question, so keep it in mind. But before we get away from the

meeting you remember, who said anything, that you recall?

A. Well, I know all the lawyers did, because that's -- I think



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2


famous father is. And his father told him what that building

was and what they did there. And that Mr. Liddy at that

meeting knew all about the hammer. I'd never heard of it

before.

And he gave, in my opinion, he gave Mr. Montgomery a

lot of credibility that day for knowing about all these issues.

And that's what I remember specifically that Mr. Liddy had

said. So in my mind, it gave us some credibility to what

Mr. Montgomery had to say.

Q. All right. Do you remember anything else about that

meeting?

A. No, sir. It was in the evening. It was late -- later in

the day.

Q. Do you remember where it occurred?

A. Yes, sir. It was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo

building, the sheriff's old headquarters.

Q. All right. When did you move from there, do you recall?

A. We moved there --

Q. From there.

A. Sorry. Thank you.

We moved from there January -- excuse me, December of

2014.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Next time that you remember any communication

involving the DOJ in connection with the Montgomery



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2


investigation.

A. I believe it was the phone call that I got from

Detective Mackiewicz advising me that Mr. Montgomery had some

information that the DOJ had phone conversations. He had

information about phone calls that went into your office.

Q. And what did he say about that that you recall?

A. It was a pretty quick conversation, because, you know, I

was not excited to hear that. And I don't really recall a lot

other than what I just told you and my response, which I've

said several times. I can repeat it if you want me to.

Q. Sure.

A. Okay.

Q. Well, let me just make clear: This is on a phone call, and

you and Mr. Mackiewicz are the only people on the phone call.

A. Correct.

Q. All right. Go ahead.

A. So I told -- I told Detective Mackiewicz that this

Montgomery investigation is not to go anywhere near Judge Snow

or the Court. I don't want to hear anything about Montgomery

investigating Judge Snow. I am giving you a direct order to

contact Montgomery and tell him that we will walk away, we'll

stop doing business with him if he even attempts to do this in

the future.

Q. All right. Anything else you remember about this

conversation at all?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2


A. No, sir. It was a pretty short conversation. I was pretty

excited about -- and not in a good way -- excited about hearing

that information.

Q. And did Mackiewicz call from Seattle?

A. I believe he was.

Q. And it was after the meeting in which Mr. Liddy discussed

the hammer.

A. Oh, it was way, way after that, yes, sir.

Q. So when Mr. Liddy discussed the hammer, you indicated that

that gave some credibility to what Montgomery was saying.

Did you continue to get reports about the DOJ?

A. It gave me credibility that day that we sat there on the

19th floor, before we really knew who Montgomery was and what

he was all about.

Q. And so this conversation about me occurred did you say way

after?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall where you were when you had this phone call?

A. I was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building; I was

at work.

Q. Okay. When do you next recall hearing anything about the

Department of Justice in connection with the Dennis Montgomery

investigation?

A. I don't believe I did.

Q. Ever did?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:2

11:3


A. I don't recall ever hearing Mackiewicz or Sergeant Anglin

or Posseman Zullo talk about the DOJ after that, because I did

give Sergeant Anglin a direct order also not to investigate

this or not to --

Q. Let's discuss that. When did you have a discussion with

Sergeant Anglin?

A. When I assigned Sergeant Mackiewicz -- Sergeant Anglin

to -- as this thing, as this investigation seemed to get bigger

with the IDs -- excuse me, with the bank account IDs, and there

were some issues about Zullo and Mackiewicz and Montgomery

getting along and all those issues like I explained earlier, I

thought Sergeant Anglin would be a good person to go up there

because of his experience as a detective, to go up there and

give the sheriff and I, because we didn't have the luxury of

talking to these people or going up there and evaluating it

ourselves, to go up there and manage this investigation.

Q. All right. So when you initially assigned Sergeant Anglin

to this investigation you discussed something with him.

What was that?

A. I'm not sure if -- I wish I would have wrote this stuff

down; I didn't. I'm not sure that I talked with Sergeant

Anglin about Mr. Montgomery and you when I sent him up there.

I don't think we knew about it at that time. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, when did you discuss -- if you think that that's not

right, upon reflection, when did you discuss me with Sergeant



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3


Anglin, if you did at all?

A. I know I had that conversation with him in person, so when

he was back from Seattle, I believe when that information came

to light, it was shortly after he came back into town and I had

that conversation with him in person.

Q. How did that come -- how did that information come to

light?

A. Which information, Your Honor?

Q. Well, I assumed, and maybe I'm assuming wrongfully, that

when you had the discussion with Sergeant Anglin, you were

saying that it was a discussion about me.

A. It was a discussion about Montgomery trying to look into or

doing whatever he wanted to or thinking that we were interested

in hearing any information about the Court. And I told Anglin,

I said, We are not interested in this at all.

Q. And how did you find out -- what triggered that

conversation? How did you find out that Montgomery might be

doing something with respect to me?

A. It's from the phone call that I had with Brian Mackiewicz.

Q. So you believe that you had the conversation with Sergeant

Anglin after the phone conversation with Mackiewicz.

A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. When is the next time that you remember having a discussion

about the Department of Justice in connection -- or a

discussion or communication of any kind, being aware of one --



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3


Zullo went to Washington and --

Q. When did they go to Washington, do you recall?

A. I don't recall, but it -- it's all a matter of -- we have

the records, the travel records and that kind of thing.

Q. Did Dennis Montgomery go with them?

A. I believe he did the second time.

Q. So they went one time and then Montgomery went with them a

second time?

A. If I'm recalling things correctly, yes, I believe they did.

Q. How was it that Mr. Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo were able to

get an interview with a FISA Court judge?

A. I believe it was through someone that Mr. Zullo knew.

Q. Is that Mr. Klayman?

A. It's possible. I'm not sure exactly who that was.

Q. Let me ask, in your previous testimony you indicated that

the FISA Court judge verified that the wiretap numbers used for

you and Sheriff Arpaio were typical wiretap exchanges, or

something like that.


A. Yes, sir.

Q. So what were you told about the conversation?

A. Just that: that those numbers looked like typical numbers

associated with a wiretap.

Q. Who did you -- who told you that?

A. That would have been Detective Mackiewicz.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3


Q. Possibly the sheriff was there.

And what do you recall?

A. Specifically about that meeting, the judge -- and I'm

sorry, I don't recall his name -- seemed to think that those

were typical numbers associated with a wiretap. But again,

he -- the judge was very sketchy on try -- he wanted some more

information, I believe, and he wanted some more information and

didn't want to commit to whether or not Montgomery was

reliable, unreliable, whatever.

Q. Who told you that?

A. That would be Detective Mackiewicz and/or Zullo during our

briefing.

Q. You don't remember who between the two of them?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did you say?


Q. What did the sheriff say?

A. I don't remember, Your Honor.

Q. Do you remember any other awareness on your part of

Mr. Montgomery doing an investigation into the DOJ?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Let me ask you: Were you concerned about the wiretap at

this time when you had the FISA judge tell you that it was --

it looked like it might be legitimate?

A. No, sir.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:3

11:4


Q. You thought it was garbage, nonetheless?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you tell Sheriff Arpaio that?

A. Yes, sir. We had many conversations about that wiretap

being garbage and those numbers used as a ruse to try and get

us to continue to do business with him.

Q. Do you remember your previous testimony when you told me

you thought that gave credibility to Mr. Montgomery?

A. No, sir.

Q. You wouldn't dispute that, though, if that was your

testimony?

A. No.

Q. There's been some discussion that you're in charge of

finance, and there's been some suggestion in your direct that

HIDTA funds were initially used to pay Mr. Montgomery.

Do you know whether that's correct or not?

A. Yes, I'm a -- I'm aware that there were some HIDTA funds

used.

Q. And were those the initial funds used, and then you found

out they were not appropriate and paid them back?

A. That's correct. Chief Freeman, who was our -- who was over

finance, noticed that some HIDTA funds were used, and that was

immediately corrected by our own volition.

Q. And then you started paying out of, what was it, forfeiture

funds? Asset forfeiture funds?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4


A. Well, most of the -- the funds, well, they were paid from

RICO --

Q. Ah, RICO. I apologize.

A. Our RICO funds.

Q. RICO's different than asset forfeiture?

A. Yes and no; that's where we get the RICO funds.

Q. All right. So if I have the chronology down, the first

thing you paid him from was HIDTA funds. You found out that

was inappropriate, then you paid RICO funds.

A. No. No, Your Honor. I think there was a small -- and I

don't remember exactly; I know the document's here -- but there

was a small amount of money, relatively speaking, paid from

HIDTA for some reason, and that was quickly caught and

rectified.

Q. And do you recall whether those were the first funds paid

to Mr. Montgomery?

A. I do not.

Q. But you do recall that HIDTA funds were paid and RICO funds

were paid?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Any other kinds of funds used?

A. Well, we used general funds to pay for the travel expenses;

salary, overtime; some equipment purchases from general funds.

Q. Did the Cold Case Posse use some of its funds?

A. Yes, sir.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4


A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q. Sure. Montgomery was investigating, as far as you were

concerned, the infiltration of private information of Maricopa

County residents like bank accounts, correct?

A. Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way. What Montgomery

was attempting to do was through his computer -- now, I was

told that he had a computer that filled his garage -- that

through his computer system he was attempting to put back

together the information that he had gleaned from when he was a

contractor with the NSA. That was, quote-unquote, the

investigation.

Q. I see. And no doc -- he didn't generate any documents

about his attempts to put back together this information?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. And did he refer to these categories of information that he

was trying to put together as "packets"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And so in your weekly briefings or biweekly briefings, you

didn't get any papers that would discuss these efforts at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. Let's then switch to -- I believe you testified yesterday

that -- well, before we get there, do you remember when I

think -- and I'm sorry, because there's a lot to remember for

me, too. There was documents showed you that was authored by

Thomas Drake and a Wieby where Maricopa County -- it was an



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4


e-mail from Mackiewicz to you that attached this report from

Drake that said that Montgomery was a fraud?

Do you remember that?

A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. Did you get that e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you read it?

A. I don't recall reading it.

Q. Do you recall reading the report that was attached to it?

A. I do.

Q. And what did it say?

A. I recall reading it; I don't recall right now what it said.

Q. Do you recall when you read it? When you first read it.

A. It would have been right around the time that I got the

e-mail, and I also had a conversation with Detective Mackiewicz

about his meeting with those two gentlemen.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said that they confirmed that Montgomery was a fraud,

and that the vast majority of the information that he gave us

on those 50 hard drives was nothing but junk, and Al Jazeera

broadcasts, that kind of thing.

Q. What did you tell him?

A. I said, Oh, great. But, you know, by this time, this was

towards the very end of us doing -- or using Mr. Montgomery as

an informant, and we were just, again, verifying this



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4


information. It was towards the end of our relationship with

him.

Q. Did you say anything to the sheriff?

A. Yes. I believe the sheriff was -- was briefed on that and

knew about this.

Q. Did you do that?

A. I don't recall if I did.

Q. Do you recall any conversation or communication with the

sheriff about that e-mail, other than your general sense that

the sheriff was briefed about it?

A. I know we talked about those two former NSA employees and

Mr. Montgomery, and their opinion of him.

Q. Whose opinion of him?

A. The former NSA employees.

Q. And what did you say?

A. I don't remember the exact details, Your Honor, but I

remember the sheriff agreeing that, you know -- again, the

sheriff and I all along had always questioned Mr. Montgomery's

reliability. But we continued to do business with him in the

event that he did have something credible, because at times he

did give us a little information here and there.

Q. Like with the FISA Court judge.

A. Like with the FISA Court judge; like with the -- we did

send detectives out with information on the bank accounts to

contact people that were still available, because his



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:4

11:5


information was old. I think the latest information he had was

from 2010. And so we sent detectives out to follow up on

approximately -- please don't hold me to this number -- but

approximately 50 or so county residents to check up on their

bank accounts: Is this your name? Is this your address? Is

this your number? And about half of them came back valid. So

he did provide us with some valid information.

Q. Name/address/bank account number?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think your testimony was that he got the amount in the

accounts wrong, right?

A. Well, it was difficult on the amounts, because amounts

vary, and people don't remember how much they had in their bank

account in 2008 and 2009. Some did, some -- but the bank

account number and the name, people might remember --

Q. There were a few of them that --

A. -- or have record of that.

Q. -- few of them that were verified.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Let me ask, you indicated that there were two visits to the

FISA Court judge. Do you remember that testimony?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was the second visit to the FISA Court judge?

A. I'm sorry, I don't recall.

Q. Who told you about the visit to the -- the second visit to



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5


the FISA Court judge?

A. Detective Mackiewicz; he kept me abreast of that.

Q. And what did he say about that visit?

A. I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't recall.

Q. Let me just ask: Did you ever take notes of things that he

told you?

A. No, sir.

Q. In your previous testimony -- I didn't ask you to do this,

but you told me that you had the name of the FISA Court judge

written on your pad, and if I'd let you, you could go look at

it. Where did you get that name from?

A. Well, Detective Mackiewicz.

Q. Would have told you who the FISA Court judge was?

A. Yes, sir. And if I heard his name I'd be able to tell you

what it is. I just don't recall it right at the moment.

Q. What I'm really asking you is: You apparently wrote his

name on your pad before your testimony. Where did you get the

name from that you wrote on your pad? Did you look at some

record, some notes you'd made of your conversations with

Detective Mackiewicz?

A. I never took any notes, Your Honor, from

Detective Mackiewicz. Probably just from conversation, you

know, I might have jotted the judge's name down just --

Q. What pad was it? Did you keep conversations on the same

topics on the same pad?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5


A. No, sir.

Q. So where would you have gotten that name from, to the best

of your recollection?

A. Well, I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but

sometimes I can remember things and, you know, a minute later I

can't, you know, so with this judge's name -- and it begins

with an L -- I can't think of it right now. It might be Judge

Lambert. Again, I don't want to -- I don't want to guess.

You know, it's -- sometimes, you know, I'd be talking

to Detective Mackiewicz on the phone. If he told me the

judge's name, I'd write his name down on a -- on a yellow

sticky. I have a bunch of them on my desk right now as we

talk. I don't really keep a ledger.

Q. Was there anybody else present at the conversation when you

were briefed about this second conference with the judge?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Where did that conversation occur?

A. I'm sure on the fifth floor of the Wells Fargo building.

Q. Was it in person or on the telephone?

A. I believe it was both. I believe he called me from

Washington to brief me after the meeting, and then when he came

back from Washington he came to see me.

MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Judge, just a

clarification. The witness just testified the fifth floor of

the Wells Fargo building. It's either the wrong building or



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5


the wrong floor.


THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. That would be the fifth

floor of our headquarters building.

BY THE COURT:

Q. And I think you testified that he told you that Dennis

Montgomery actually attended that meeting.

A. Yes, I believe he did.

Q. And I think you said that MCSO would have paid for that

and --

A. We did -- we did not pay for the transportation for his

appearance to Washington, D.C. We did -- I believe we did pay

for his transportation to meet with the Arizona Attorney

General.

Q. Okay. You would have paid for Detective Mackiewicz and

Mr. Zullo to go to Washington, D.C., presumably.

A. Yes, sir, we did.

Q. Do you recall now any other communications that you had

with anyone regarding Montgomery's investigations with the DOJ,

or that might involve the DOJ?

A. No, sir.

Q. You testified that -- I think there was some confusion --

maybe at your deposition and maybe in this court -- when

Ms. Wang first discussed with you Exhibit 2074A, which is that

DOJ/Arpaio timeline. And I think you testified yesterday that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5


you didn't -- even though you may have said in the deposition

you saw some things later on, that you didn't see anything

called the, I don't know, Arpaio timeline or something, until

April 23rd or 24th in Captain Knight's office, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. This was in response to your order to myself and

Ms. Iafrate to produce Montgomery documents.

Q. Yeah. Now, to be clear, I did give that order to the

sheriff, right? It came during the sheriff's testimony.

A. Okay. So that would be on the 23rd, and I don't know --

Q. Did the sheriff delegate that job to you?

A. I assume so.

Q. All right.

A. But that was ultimately delegated to Chief Knight by me.

Q. All right. What did you -- you heard me issue the order on

the 23rd.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do next?

A. I asked Chief Knight to collect all that information from

Detective Mackiewicz concerning the Montgomery investigation,

because he had all the records --

Q. All right.

A. -- on that case.

Q. Let me just say: Where did you do that? Where were you



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5


when you did that?

A. I don't recall, Your Honor.

Q. When did you do it?

A. Shortly after you advised us to get it done.

Q. Okay. So that would have been on April 23rd.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What happened next?

A. Chief Knight contacted Detective Mackiewicz.

Detective Mackiewicz turned over what he did to Chief Knight.

Chief Knight was putting this information together, and we must

have been on a break, because I remember being over there at

his office, and because he called me in and he said: You

got -- you gotta see this.

And he showed me a phone tree. It's a one-sheet piece

of paper. It had "Arpaio briefing" on top. It had Eric

Holder's name in an oval. And then it had many, I don't know,

probably 20 other ovals in it with people's names in it, and

your name happened to be in one of those. And that was the

first time I had -- I had ever seen that document.

Q. All right. Let's go back. When did he call you?

Or he didn't call you; you were there, you said.

A. I think I was in my office when he called me and he said:

You gotta come over and see this. Or he may have come over and

gotten me and -- I don't --

Q. This I think you said was when we were on a break here?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:5

11:5

11:5

11:5

12:0


A. I think I -- I went over to make sure this was being done.

I know I was over there.

Q. I do remember that on the 24th, when you were testifying,

you went over there at noon because we had some issues about

production. Do you remember that?

A. That's probably what I'm remembering.

Q. All right. So you were over there at noon on the 24th.

Is that your best recollection? I don't want to --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. So you're over there at noon on the 24th and

Captain Knight calls you in your office.

A. Chief Knight, yes, sir.

Q. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Chief Knight calls you in your office, and you do

what?

A. I look at that document, and I probably said a bad word.

And I said -- I told Bill, I said: I've never seen this

document before. This is not good.

Q. Did he show you any other documents?

A. I don't remember seeing or looking at any other documents

other than that one.

Q. And what did Chief Knight say?

A. He agreed with me that it's -- it's not good.

Q. And what did you say? Tell me everything that you said

that you can remember.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0


A. That's correct.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not

you were showed any of these documents?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you recognize any documents in that pile that you were

shown?

A. Well, I guess the best way to answer that, Your Honor, is

the closest thing that I recall seeing that day are the last

three pages that say "Arpaio brief." But I recall seeing them

in ovals, not a round structure in the middle with squares and

lines to that. I remember all of them being ovals.

Q. Did you see several different copies?

A. No, sir. I remember it was so graphic to me that this

document had "Arpaio brief" on it, with Eric Holder's name and

your name on it, that's what I focused on. And I really don't

recall if Chief Knight showed me these other documents, if he

even had them up on his computer or a hard copy. I don't even

remember -- I think it was a hard copy he showed me.

Q. Okay. Now, there are on these -- several times my name

appears on any of the documents.

Did you recall my name appearing several times?

A. No, sir, just on that one -- just on that one oval.

Q. And was the one oval the one that indicates -- falsely, by

the way -- that I authorized a wiretap on you?

A. No, I didn't even know that, no.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0


Q. All right. Did the document that you looked at say that

this page is still under construction?

A. No.

Q. It was a completed version?

A. I don't recall it saying that it was under construction.

Q. All right. It might have been -- it might have said it or

it didn't say it?

A. I don't think it did.

Q. Okay. Did Chief Knight provide us with the document he

showed you?

A. Oh, I'm sure he did, because that's what he was getting

ready to do was get it to counsel.

Q. That afternoon you came back and I asked you about the

Montgomery investigation. You didn't mention seeing this

document, did you?

I did ask you -- you did testify that you hadn't seen

anything in the Montgomery investigation that would suggest

that I was involved, didn't you?

A. I don't recall, Your Honor.

Q. Did you ever find out who Thomas Drake was from

Mr. Mackiewicz?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is Mr. Drake?

A. He was a former employee of the NSA, I believe.

Q. And was he familiar with Mr. Montgomery?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0


A. I don't believe so.

Q. Was Mr. Montgomery familiar with him?

A. I don't know.

Q. You'll be happy to know, Chief, I'm almost through, and so

I'm just going to ask you a few more questions; then we'll

break for lunch.

When did you become aware that the 50 hard drives

weren't provided in response to my order?

A. I believe when the Monitor Team brought it up.

Q. You knew that I'd asked for them; you knew that I'd ordered

their production.

A. I knew that you asked for the -- all the Montgomery

documentation.

Q. Did you ever talk to anybody about that?

A. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Mackiewicz?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever talk to Chief Knight?

A. I did talk to Chief Knight.

Q. And what did you say to him?

A. "Did you get all the information from Mackiewicz?"

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said "Yes."

Q. Anything else?

A. No, sir.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:0

12:1


Q. Did you ask him what he asked Mackiewicz to provide you?

A. I don't think we got into detail.

Q. Did you ever talk to anybody about the documents that

Chief Knight showed you?


Q. You have no recollection at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever have any recollection of anybody showing you

any other documents that would involve the DOJ in the -- that

resulted from the Montgomery investigation?

A. Just in my deposition with --

Q. That was the only other time you've seen such documents?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the only recollection you have is that Chief Knight

showed you one document that looks something like, but you

don't think is, the same as the last three pages of

Exhibit 2080?

A. That's what I believe, yes, your --

Q. Do you remember in your testimony last April telling me

that no PS -- that you weren't aware of any PSB investigations

arising from the Seattle operation?

A. That's correct.

Q. Have there been any PSB investigations or any complaints

ever made to PSB concerning the Seattle operation?

A. Yes, sir.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:1

12:1

12:1

12:1

12:1


Q. And do they involve Detective Mackiewicz?

A. They do.

Q. And I think that you've indicated that there is a criminal

investigation. Is that still ongoing?

A. There's criminal and an administrative investigation

pending also.

Q. Is Sergeant Tennyson investigating, or has he been involved

in investigating either one of those?

A. Sergeant Tennyson is not now involved in either one of

those investigations; I don't know if he was in the beginning.

Q. When was the complaint made, do you know? Originally.

A. A complaint was made approximately a year ago.

Q. Are you overseeing those investigations?

A. I am.

Q. Taking an active role?

A. I don't know what you mean by an active role, Your Honor.

Q. Well, has it ever concerned you or ever -- have you ever

considered whether or not you should have assigned this

investigation, since Detective Mackiewicz will be a witness in

this action that personally concerns you?

A. Well, as of last week I was notified that

Detective Mackiewicz made some comments that involved me, and I

don't mean that in a bad way, but involved me where I'm going

to need to have a notice of investigation served on me and give

a statement. So what I have done since that has occurred is



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12:1

12:1

12:1

12:1


assigned that responsibility that I normally would do over a

PSB investigation to Executive Chief Trombi.

Q. Did you generate any paperwork in connection with that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever have, or any members of your family ever have

any business dealings with Detective Mackiewicz?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what are those?

A. My wife's a real estate agent and sold him a couple of

houses.

Q. And so she got a commission.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You ever have any social interaction with

Detective Mackiewicz?

A. I have.

Q. Consider yourself to be a friend?

A. I consider myself to be an acquaintance, yes.

THE COURT: Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your

answers. I'm through with my questions. I think it's time for

lunch break.

We'll reconvene at 1:30.

(Lunch recess taken.)


Mr. Masterson.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3

Sheridan - Recross, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1599

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. I just have one question for you, Chief:

When did you move offices?

A. I was mistaken earlier. It was December of 2013.

MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.


Ms. Wang.


MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, excuse me.

I'm sorry, Ms. Wang.

Just to make clear, I mentioned earlier today, but we

are reserving the right to call Chief Sheridan during our case

in chief.

THE COURT: You did make that clear.


FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Good afternoon, Chief.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Sir, the Court asked you questions about current policies

relating to PSB activities. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Could you please take a look at Exhibit 2881. That should

be in front of you now. This was produced by defendants to the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3


plaintiffs. If you skip to the third page, this appears to be

MCSO Policy Manual on Internal Investigations, Policy GH-2.

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And I will tell you that upon review, it appears to us that

the first two pages of Exhibit 2881 are attachments to the GH-2

policy. Does it look that way to you?

They come the beginning of the exhibit, but they're

attachments to the policy.

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And is this familiar to you as the current policy

governing internal investigations at MCSO?

A. Yes, ma'am.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move Exhibit 2881 into

evidence.

MR. MASTERSON: No objection.

MR. WALKER: No objection.

MR. COMO: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Exhibit 2881 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 2881 is admitted into evidence.)


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Chief, the Court asked you some questions following up on

where within IA files any investigation of the drugs found in

Deputy Armendariz's house would appear.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3

13:3


Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that they would appear in what you refer

to as the main Armendariz investigation, is that correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right. And that was something that you described in

answer to my questions back on Thursday as the death

investigation, is that right?

A. Yes. Some people have referred to it as that, and I

believe I did also.

Q. But that investigation ultimately developed into being --

into far more than just the death investigation, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you also testified in response to the Court's questions

before lunch today that in that investigation there were some

items found in Armendariz's house that could be linked through

investigation to deputies other than Armendariz, is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And if that were the case, a new IA number would be pulled

and a new IA case would be started against those deputies, is

that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But as to other items that could not be linked to another

deputy other than Armendariz, those investigations stayed

within what you call the main Armendariz investigation, is that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4


Q. And you testified that you were the one who assigned

Detective Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation, correct?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. All right. Did you testify in response to questions from

me -- well, I beg your pardon.

Did you and the sheriff jointly decide to assign

Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. So you had a part in assigning Mackiewicz to this

investigation?

A. I did.

Q. And the judge asked you whether you had a personal

relationship to Brian Mackiewicz.

Do you recall that?

A. I did.

Q. And the Court asked you whether there was any business

relationship between Brian Mackiewicz and you or any member of

your family. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that Brian Mackiewicz and his girlfriend

were clients of your wife's real estate business, is that

right?

A. No.

Q. You did not testify to that?

A. No.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4


Q. Did your wife act as a real estate agent to Brian

Mackiewicz?

A. Yes.

Q. Did she act as a real estate agent to Brian Mackiewicz's

girlfriend?

A. The judge didn't ask me that question.

Q. Oh, I apologize. I'll ask you now: Is that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Sir, is it the case that earlier this year, 2015,

your wife still was acting as a real estate agent to Brian

Mackiewicz --

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.

A. -- and his girlfriend?


THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And is it true that your wife stood to make a $100,000

commission on two real estate transactions on behalf of Brian

Mackiewicz's girlfriend?

MR. MASTERSON: Same objection.


THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And that was in -- earlier this year, 2015, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4


Q. Sir, at the time that you and Sheriff Arpaio assigned Brian

Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation were you aware that he

had been the subject over the years of several IA

investigations?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection. This goes beyond the scope

of the Court's inquiry with this witness.

THE COURT: I think that's sustained.

MS. WANG: All right. I'll move on, then.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Now, in response to questions from the Court, sir, you

detailed a meeting -- or you testified that you were present at

a meeting about the Seattle investigation at which

Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy, and Mr. Casey were

present, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, do you recall that during your two depositions in

September, earlier this month, you testified that you were not

present at a meeting with those counsel on January 2nd of 2014?


A. That's correct.

Q. And is your testimony now that you were present at a

meeting on a different date with those counsel?

A. That's correct.

Q. Concerning the Seattle investigation?

A. Yes, ma'am.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4


Q. All right. Was Sheriff Arpaio present at the meeting with

counsel that you attended?

A. He was.

Q. He was not?

A. He was.

Q. All right. Sir, you have in front of you Exhibit 2273.

This is not in evidence.

First of all, sir, let me ask you: Are you aware that

in e-mail correspondence, Dennis Montgomery used the alias or

the e-mail address "David Webb"?

A. No.

Q. You're not aware of that?

A. No.

Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to the first line

of this e-mail on Exhibit 2273.

Do you know what this reference "Judge Snow Info" is

to?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Do you see the date on this e-mail, February 11th, 2015?

A. I do.

Q. All right. And you're not familiar with the reference to

"Judge Snow Info"?

A. No, ma'am.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I have a moment?

THE COURT: You may.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:4



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, were you speaking with Detective Mackiewicz about the

Seattle investigation in February of 2015?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. I may have misspoken earlier. Let me just ask you

another question. Looking again at Exhibit 2273, did you ever

understand that Detective Mackiewicz was using the alias or

e-mail address "David Webb" in connection with the Seattle

investigation?

A. No, I've never heard of that name before.

Q. Okay. And you don't recall whether you spoke to Brian

Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation in February of 2015?

A. I don't recall anything like that, no.

Q. Do you recall ever speaking to Posseman Zullo about the

Seattle investigation in February of 2015?

A. No.

MS. WANG: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Chief, I think you can step down. Thank

you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Next witness.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, before we hear testimony from

the next witness, plaintiffs did want to submit to the Court

some discovery responses and deposition transcripts connected



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:4

13:4

13:4

13:5

13:5


review those as we go along.

THE COURT: Where are you going to sit, Ms. Clark?

MS. CLARK: Well, that's what I was approaching --

good afternoon, Your Honor. Karen Clark, ethics counsel for

Tim Casey. I was approaching to address that very issue,

because we do need a place, both myself and my law partner, to

be.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, we can probably move

around here somewhere and get Ms. Clark stuffed in here at some

point.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Masterson.

MS. CLARK: Judge, I have paper copies from the

deposition, but my copies were not marked with exhibit numbers,

so it would be difficult for me to follow along.

THE COURT: All right. Are the exhibit numbers the

same as they were in the deposition?

MS. WANG: They are, Your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Mine aren't marked with numbers, most of

them.

THE COURT: That's all right. We're going to take

care of it by letting you see the screen as Mr. Masterson and

Mr. Popolizio are moving around.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, Judge.


MR. MASTERSON: Judge, we've got a spot. Is there



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5


Deputy Sheridan's testimony, he referenced a meeting he doesn't

think is a January 2nd meeting.

THE COURT REPORTER: Judge, I couldn't quite hear

that, I apologize.

THE COURT: I'm really directing this to

Mr. Masterson, so maybe you could come in and another folks can

hear.

In Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony he referenced a

meeting at which you and Mr. Casey, other counsel, were

present, that he did not believe was a January 2nd meeting.

You didn't invoke any objection to his discussion of that

meeting, so I'm going to presume that you are not going to

assert the privilege as to that meeting if it comes up in the

questioning of Mr. Casey.

MR. MASTERSON: I am not. And also because the chief

deputy also testified that he was not seeking legal advice from

me or Mr. Popolizio at that time, I believe, during his

testimony.

THE COURT: He did say that, or at least that's my

recollection of what he said.

MR. MASTERSON: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.


(Bench conference concluded.)

MS. WANG: May I proceed, Your Honor?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5

Casey - Direct, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1612

THE COURT: Please.

TIMOTHY J. CASEY,

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Casey.

A. Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Judge, could we have a moment? We're

having some logistical issues. We need one more seat facing

the witness.


THE COURT: Thank you for your courtesy,

Mr. Masterson.

MR. MASTERSON: Pardon me?

THE COURT: I just said thank you for your courtesy.

MR. MASTERSON: You're welcome, Judge.


MS. CLARK: If I could have a moment.


MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. WANG: You're welcome.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, can you tell me during the course of your

representation of the defendants in this matter who your



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5


attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, as well as

client confidentiality.

Mr. Casey's coun- -- excuse me. Mr. Casey's clients

are the holders of the privilege. Mr. Casey is not.

Furthermore, he has not been authorized by his former clients,

in writing or in any other way, to waive attorney-client, work

product, or client confidentiality. Accordingly, Mr. Casey

intends to and will honor his ethical obligations to his former

clients as set forth in the ethics rules and relevant law.

Because of Mr. Casey's obligations to his former

clients, and as Your Honor has generously allowed me, I intend

to be advising him independently as appropriate regarding the

scope of his obligations as they may arise during his

testimony.

At this time I am objecting to the question based on

attorney-client confidentiality under Ethical Rule 1.6.

THE COURT: All right. And as I've previously

indicated to you both at deposition and here, while I

understand your position and you're allowed to make whatever

objections you wish, I have already ruled that as it pertains

to any advice about the preliminary injunction, the

attorney-client privilege and the work-product immunity have

been waived.

To the extent that you assert confidentiality

obligations on those matters, I'm going to overrule those



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5

13:5


objections to the same extent I did at the deposition.

I've also ruled that any content of the January 2nd,

2014 meeting has been waived, and I am similarly going to treat

any questions about the January 2nd, 2014 meeting.

As we've just confirmed at sidebar, Chief Deputy

Sheridan just testified to another meeting at which Mr. -- he

testified Mr. Casey was present. He did not seek attorney --

he testified that he was not seeking nor was attorney-client

privilege -- or legal advice sought during that meeting, and

Mr. Masterson has indicated he's not going to seek to assert

the privilege at that meeting.

And so to the extent that questions revolve around

that meeting it has been waived, and even though you assert a

confidentiality objection, it will be overruled, just to sort

of get the blanket down.


At the depositions, we made objections and Your Honor

entertained them. However, at the depositions it was on a

question-by-question basis, as Your Honor indicated and

instructed at the deposition.

So I've advised Mr. Casey that it will be the same

today during his trial testimony. The deposition was the

deposition; this is his trial testimony. So I will be making

objections on a question-by-question basis on all three of

those bases.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13:5

13:5

13:5

14:0

14:0


In addition, because his former client --

THE COURT: Let's just be clear. You've already said

that you do not have the attorney-client privilege or the

work-product immunity to assert.

MS. CLARK: That's right, Judge, and I was just about

to make a record about that. I've instructed Mr. Casey that it

is incumbent on current defense counsel, current civil defense

counsel, to raise objections based on attorney-client privilege

and/or work product. And he's been instructed that if current

civil defense counsel does not make such an objection, then

attorney-client privilege and/or work-product privilege have

been waived by the defendants, and I have so instructed him.


Mr. Masterson.

MR. MASTERSON: All that said, similar to the

statement I made at Mr. Casey's deposition, there may well be,

and I expect there to be, questions asked of this witness where

I will not know whether a privileged communication is being

asked for because I was not present at the meeting, and my

clients may or may not have been present at the meeting, so --

at least the ones sitting here today.

So I will need assistance from Mr. Casey and his

counsel in certain instances as to whether it was, in fact, an

attorney-client privileged question.

In addition, I'm going to object to the first



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


question. I think -- it's been a bit now, but I think it was

beyond the scope of the Court's ruling on preliminary

injunction and waiver. I think she asked a question about all

communications Mr. Casey may have had with his clients at some

certain date or occasion, I don't recall.

THE COURT: I will tell you the question I recall was

who his principal client contact was, and then who he had

contact -- whether he had contact with the sheriff even when he

had other client contacts. That's what I recall the question

to be. That was allowed -- I allowed that at the deposition.

I can't remember whether there was an objection made.

MR. MASTERSON: I don't have an objection if that's

the question. I thought there was a subsequent question.


Now, let me just say in response to your speech -- and

we're going to quit speechifying, Ms. Clark -- we -- I

recognize, as occurred at the deposition, sometimes questions

have to be parsed. And so if they have to be parsed, we want

to accommodate whatever needs to be accommodated, but please be

alert and make whatever objections need to be made so that we

can parse it or otherwise deal with it on a

question-by-question basis.

MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.


THE COURT: Ms. Wang.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I am going to overrule the objection and

direct you to answer the question.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the question.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. You might have answered it, sir. I think the question was:

During the periods in which you had various primary

client contacts did you also frequently speak with Sheriff

Arpaio about this case?

A. I did.

Q. Is it also true that at the time of the Court's preliminary

injunction order you also were in regular contact with

Lieutenant Sousa about this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, during this litigation, while you were representing

the defendants, who was your official contact for purposes of

document preservation and production issues?

A. It -- it was twofold. Primarily, early on in the case

under your predecessor counsel there was a letter of

preservation sent by your predecessor counsel. I received

that, sent that over to then my contact, Jack MacIntyre. There

was an issue in the case that came up about that. After that,

he was not involved. It became MCSO legal liaison, and I

believe the person who headed that was a lieutenant, and I

think it's Dot Colhane, Dorothy Colhane.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


Q. And did there come a time where you went directly to

Lieutenant Sousa for document production issues relating to

this case?

A. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the answer is no. What

I did is tried to follow what I understood was the chain of

command. So there was a time that I believed the MCSO legal

liaison was not operating timely, based on some demands that we

had. And I tried to circumvent that process and I went to

Chief Brian Sands, explained my concerns, and then he went to

Lieutenant Sousa. And, unfortunately, we did that a lot, and I

believe I made Mr. Sousa's life, Lieutenant Sousa's life

miserable.

Q. So there were periods of this litigation where you were

directed by Chief Sands to go directly to Lieutenant Sousa for

document issues?

A. No. What it was is I would go to lieutenant -- excuse me.

I'd go to Chief Sands and tell him: This is what I think we

need, and I don't think we can do it through MCSO legal liaison

for these reasons. Can I go to Joe? And he would approve that

or not.

Q. All right. And he generally did approve that, is that

right?

A. He was very cooperative all times.

Q. Was it consistent with MCSO protocol for you to bypass the

legal liaison office and go directly to the chain of command in



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


that way?

A. My understanding was that you were supposed to go through

MCSO legal liaison. But then, for the reasons I've shared with

you, it wasn't operating in a timely basis for what I deemed we

needed to do to respond to the plaintiffs and to our court

obligations, so we went that different route.

Q. Sir, during the pretrial discovery period in this case did

you understand that plaintiffs' document requests included

video recordings of traffic stops?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge. Mental impressions.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes. The short answer is yes. Your

document definitions were like they always were: were very

broad, and certainly covered any video or audio.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And did you convey that request to anyone at MCSO?

A. I conveyed -- I forwarded your discovery request directly

to MCSO legal liaison.

Q. And did they produce anything in response?

A. There were no videos available.

Q. All right. Did there come a time where you learned that

MCSO did have video recordings?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge. Client confidentiality,

ER 1.6.




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


MS. CLARK: Judge, when you say "overruled," I just

want it clear on the record under ER 1.6, Mr. Casey is only

authorized to answer the questions --

THE COURT: When I say "overruled," that means that

I'm directing Mr. Casey to answer.

MS. CLARK: And it's an order under ER 1.6.

THE COURT: It is.


THE WITNESS: In fall of 2009, as I shared with you

during the deposition, there was a series of MCSO HSU member

depositions. It came up at that time that there were new video

equipment that were just being introduced to HSU, is my memory.

After that, because of that potential, Brian Sands and

I -- Brian went to every deposition with me, is my memory. At

that time, we needed to find out: Are there videos? How do we

keep them? Let's get them.

And the response that we got back was: They're not

out of the box yet. And that's pretty similar to what the

testimony was.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right.

A. So --

Q. I'm sorry. And did there come a time after that where you

found out there actually were video recordings of traffic

stops?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. May 12th, 2014.

Q. Did you do anything to find out about those

video recordings and to produce them?

MS. CLARK: Just a continuing objection on 1.6, Judge.


THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. What did you do?

A. My counsel and I, my co-counsel, and I don't remember if my

colleague at my firm was with me that day, but there was a

meeting in which we were introduced to the fact that there were

videotapes. We were shown some exemplar videotapes.

And immediately, I guess to put it bluntly, Mr. Liddy

is the co-counsel, and he and I were not happy. This was news.

And so we immediately wanted to find out when were the dates --

when did these things take place? Where were they stored? Can

we match documents with the videos?

And there were problems with this videos. The date

stamp was obviously incorrect on some of them. So we needed to

do that.

Q. And who at MCSO did you speak to on this issue?

A. The meeting -- I can't tell you for sure, because it was a

very large room with a whole host of people. I believe that it



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0


was the head of PSB, the Internal Affairs, the new Professional

Standards Bureau. I think it was Steve Bailey. But, I mean,

everyone was there. I mean, the sheriff I don't recall being

there. But that's what we were most interested in because of

obligations that our client had to the Court.

Q. Do you recall that Chief Sheridan was at that meeting as

well?

A. I believe he was. I can't tell you --

Q. And Chief Trombi?

A. -- I can't tell you for certain, but I believe he was.

Q. All right. Well, you testified during your deposition on

September 16th that Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sheridan, and

Chief Trombi were present at that meeting, is that correct?

A. If that's what I said, then I -- you know, that's what I

said. I don't -- as I sit here today, I don't remember the

sheriff being there.

Q. Okay. And what did you find out during that meeting on the

questions that you just described?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge. Calls for

attorney-client privilege and confidentiality under 1.6.


THE WITNESS: We learned for the first time that the

MCSO had been aware that those videos had been in existence

since February, and we had not been, as counsel, told.

BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:0

14:1


Q. Did you look into why that was the case?

A. We did.

Q. Did you get any response?

A. We did not get -- my memory's both Mr. Liddy and I were not

satisfied with the response, but it was essentially we needed

to find out what we had before we wanted to alert you.

Q. Did you ever find out why your client had known about the

videos since February of 2014 but did not disclose it to you

until May 2014?

A. No.



THE WITNESS: No, other than what I shared with you is

that -- I think the explanation was we needed to get our handle

around these things before we alerted the defense lawyers.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right, Mr. Casey. I'm going to turn to the issue of

the preliminary injunction order.

A. Yes.

Q. The preliminary injunction order came about as a response

to the summary motions filed by the parties, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And do you recall when the argument in this courtroom was

on those summary judgment motions?

A. It was the day before it was issued.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


Q. Was that December 22nd of 2011?

A. It was.

Q. And prior to the argument on the summary judgment motions

did you meet with MCSO personnel?

A. You know, we went over this in the depo. I did, but I can

tell you we did not meet to prepare for the hearing, because

that was lawyer work and did not need input from clients.

Q. Well, did you meet with your clients earlier in December of

2011?

A. I'm sure we did. I remember you asking me about a date.

Q. All right. Do you have Exhibit 2533 in front of you?

A. I have -- I found these up here, but --


BY MS. WANG:

Q. There we go.

A. There we go. What is it? 25 what?

Q. 33.

A. I do.

MS. CLARK: Is that going to be produced on the

screen, Judge?

MS. WANG: Oh. Could we have -- Mr. Klein, could we

have each exhibit produced just on the screens for counsel

table?

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I have the exhibit.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Okay. Sir, we went over this in your deposition.

MS. CLARK: I don't have it yet. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Do you have it now?

MS. CLARK: I do. I guess I have a cover page. Okay.

MS. WANG: Okay.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey, we went over this in my deposition.

Exhibit 2533 is a redacted copy of your -- what was represented

to us and produced to us by defendants as a reacted copy of

your billing records for a certain period of time.

Take a look at it and let me know whether that appears

to be the case to you.

A. Yeah, this is the same one that I looked at my

deposition --

Q. It is.

A. I don't know how you all got it, but it is a copy of my

time sheets for various periods that are redacted.

Q. All right. And appears to you to be an accurate, if

reacted, copy of your time sheets for certain periods of time?

A. I remember looking at it at my depo. It does appear

accurate, yes.

MS. WANG: All right. Your Honor, I'd move the

admission of Exhibit 2533 into evidence.




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.

MR. COMO: No objection.




THE COURT: You may publish.

MS. WANG: Can we highlight the time entry for

December 1st of 2011 on this page, MELC210536.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, do you see that in your time entry for December 1st,

2011, there is a notation that you conferred with MCSO

Lieutenant J. Sousa?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you also see that you again conferred with J. Sousa

for three-tenths of an hour?

A. It looks like I talked to him several different occasions

that day.

Q. Okay. And let's turn to the next page. The time entry for

12-6-11, let's take a look at that one.

Sir, do you see that your time entry there indicated

that you prepared for a meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, Chiefs

Sheridan, Sands, and MacIntyre, and HSU Sergeant B. Palmer?

A. I see that's what it says.

Q. And do you see that the next time entry that's not redacted

indicates you conferred with clients except for absent Sheriff



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


Arpaio?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, do you read that billing record to indicate that you,

in fact, met on December 6th, 2011, with Chief Sheridan,

Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre, and Sergeant Palmer about the

Melendres case?

A. That's what I wrote, so that's what would have happened.

Q. All right. That would be an accurate time record, sir?

A. I try to be accurate so my bills get paid, yes.

Q. And your typical practice is to make your time entries

after the fact, correct?

A. Yeah. I think I explained to you what I do is I take notes

as I go during the day. I either record them before I go home

in the evening. If it's a late evening, first thing what I do

I come in in the morning is enter the time from the previous

day so it's not lost, but --

Q. Thank you.

All right. Let's turn to your entry for December

15th, lower on that page. Do you see an indication there that

you conferred separately with Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre, and

Sheriff Arpaio about this case on that date?

A. I do.

Q. And then turning to the next page, your time entry for

December 21st, 2011. That would have been the day before the

summary judgment argument, correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


A. Yes.

Q. And on December 21st, 2011, do your time entries indicate

that you conferred at length with Sheriff Arpaio, and then

separately with Chief MacIntyre, and on multiple occasions

separately with Chief Sands on that date?

A. Yes.

Q. And let's turn now to the next page, the continuation of

your time entries for December 22nd, 2011.

A. What date is this?

Q. December 22nd.

A. Okay.

Q. It's the continuation from the previous page.

A. Okay. Thank you.

Q. Okay. Do you see that you had extended conferences with

Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, and Lieutenant Sousa?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. That would have been -- would that have been

after the summary judgment argument, do you recall?

A. That was the -- you know what? I cannot tell with the

redactions, but my guess is it probably was, but I can't be

certain.

Q. Do you recall debriefing with any of your clients about the

summary judgment argument afterwards?

A. Yeah. Typically, Brian would try -- Chief Brian Sands

would come to the hearings and report back, but I also would



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


try to report back myself, or at least be available for

questions if additional questions came up.

Q. And do you recall debriefings specifically about the

summary judgment argument in this case on the 22nd of December,

2011?

A. I mean, you're almost talking four years ago. I don't. I

would tell you it would be the normal practice to do that, but

this was so close to the Christmas holidays that I couldn't

tell you if the normal practice was followed.

Q. All right. During your deposition on September 16th you

actually recalled that -- you recalled debriefing them that you

thought we would probably have a jury trial, based on how the

argument went. Do you recall that testimony?

A. I do recall.

Q. Does that ring a bell now?

A. Yeah. Yeah, my memory after the hearing is reporting -- is

all lawyers try to size up where they think the Court may or

may not be going; most of the time we're wrong. But my

reaction was we're going to have a trial, and what I said there

was I thought there was a Fourth Amendment concern in the

Court's mind, which turned out to be accurate.

Q. So, sir, the preliminary injunction order did issue on

December 23rd, 2011, correct?

A. It did.

Q. What immediate steps did you take in response to the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1

14:1


Court's order?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, work product.

THE COURT: What steps he took? Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I remember it coming out late. I

remember the motions pending for some period of time. And

parties have no control over when a court issues an order but I

remember it coming out late on the 23rd. I remember reading

it, but not studying it, because the key thing is that because

you're representing, obviously, a defendant who's also a public

official, so it was important to give them notice as soon as

possible because the media would pick up on it.

So reading it, I am confident that I talked to

Chief Brian Sands and gave him an oral report about the main,

you know, the highlights, but the main issue was the

injunction. And then I know that I prepared that note, the

e-mail summary to the various people.

I saw -- since I had a subpoena from you folks, I did

records requests. I saw a note that indicated that I may

have -- it looks to me that I spoke with Joe Arpaio that day

and with Jack MacIntyre that day, but I can't tell you for

sure, but that's what it looks like. I do not remember that.

Q. You said a moment ago that when you read the preliminary

injunction order you thought the main issue was the injunction.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

A. You know, as lawyers, you get summary judgment rulings all



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:1

14:1

14:2

14:2

14:2


the time. You win/you lose; none of us like to lose but it

happens. That's why there is a court or a jury.

But you don't get injunctions all the time; in my 25

years of practice, probably a handful. So when a court enjoins

you from doing something, that's an official order. That's

very serious. And you have to make sure you disseminate it

immediately to your client, because it's not issued to the

lawyers, it's issued to the client. And that's why I wanted to

get out something in writing right away.

Q. Take a look at Exhibit 187, which is already in evidence.

That should be in front of you.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, may we publish this one?

THE COURT: You may.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, do you have it in front of you?

A. I've got it in front of me; I've got it on the screen, yes,

ma'am.

Q. Okay. And is that the e-mail that you sent to your clients

conveying that the Court had issued this injunction?

A. It is.

Q. All right. Who did you send it to?

A. I sent it to Brian Sands -- the recipients up there: Brian

Sands, Jack MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, and Joe Sousa.

Q. And why did you send it to each of them?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


A. Brian Sands --

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, mental impressions.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow the question.

The witness is directed to answer.

THE WITNESS: Brian Sands because he was the chief

head of law enforcement, and HSU was really his direct report

under the sheriff. The sheriff doesn't take e-mails.

Jack MacIntyre for the sole reason as a courtesy copy.

He had no chain of command authority, had no responsibility,

but the sheriff had at various time -- at least one time after

Hendershott left asked me to copy him on key developments, so I

did.

Jerry Sheridan as a sheer courtesy to him because he

was the new deputy chief.

And then Joe Sousa, and I think I shared this with you

during my deposition, I normally would not have copied him on

it as lieutenant of HSU. I believe Brian suggested during a

telephone conference that I copy him so he gets it, because HSU

at the time was the proverbial tip of the spear. They were the

ones that were most likely to be in a position to either comply

or violate this, so we wanted to make sure that he got it right

away.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. Now, you said that you sent this e-mail to

Chief MacIntyre as a courtesy? Is that what you just



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


testified?

A. That was my view, because he had no chain of command

authority.

Q. Okay. Did you have any other reasons why you thought it

was important to share the news of the injunction with Chief

MacIntyre, other than as a courtesy?

A. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Continuing objection on mental

impressions, Judge.

THE COURT: To the extent it involves what he was

told, I'm going to allow him to answer, direct him to answer.

THE WITNESS: I'm not able to answer that. I was told

by the sheriff to copy him on it, but I formed an impression,

based on my work during client confidentiality about why that

was important that he be copied on it. And that would --

that's at least client -- my mental impression's based on

client confidentiality.


MS. WANG: Well, sir --

THE COURT: You've already answered the question.

MS. WANG: I'm sorry.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did you have any particular reason you thought Chief

MacIntyre should get the preliminary injunction order?

MS. CLARK: Same objections, Judge.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


THE COURT: To the extent that it's limited to the

preliminary injunction order I'm going to direct the witness to

answer.

THE WITNESS: Jack MacIntyre was a trusted member of

the executive staff, in my judgment, for the sheriff. He

happened to be a lawyer by training. He was not practicing

law, but it was my impression that very often the sheriff liked

to get second opinions, at least bounce it by Jack MacIntyre

because he had a lot of outside counsel on various cases. So

it's not uncommon, in my experience, that he might ask Jack

MacIntyre what's his -- what's his thought on this.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And you also testified that you sent this to Chief Sheridan

as a courtesy because he was the chief deputy, is that right?

A. Yeah, that's right.

Q. Did you think that the fact that an injunction had issued

against MCSO was important to convey to the chief deputy of

MCSO?

A. Yes and no. You know, we went over this in my depo and I

will say honestly that Jerry Sheridan at the time was a new

face to me, was an unknown commodity that I did not get to know

until the time of our trial and our trial prep. My

relationship really was with Brian Sands and Sheriff Arpaio.

My thought process was to copy him on it because he is

the number two in the chain of command, but I didn't have any



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


expectations of him because I hadn't dealt with him on this.

Q. But you did think it was important to copy the chief deputy

on this e-mail.

A. Obviously I did, because I included it. But I have to, in

fairness, tell you that we didn't have any dealings with him.

Q. Well, you had met with him, according to your billing

records --

A. Yes.

Q. -- earlier this month, correct?

A. About the case --

Q. All right.

A. -- yes.

Q. You did not send the December 23rd, 2011 e-mail to Sheriff

Arpaio, right?

A. He doesn't do e-mail.

Q. Did you convey the preliminary injunction order to him in a

different format?

A. I did.

Q. How was that?

A. Telephonically.

Q. And I think you testified a few minutes ago that you

believed that in addition to Chief Sands, you spoke by

telephone with Sheriff Arpaio and also with Chief MacIntyre

about the preliminary injunction order that day, correct?

A. I have no memory of that. But I did find an e-mail to my



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


colleague in my office summarizing their impressions after my

report, so it tells me that I must have spoken, albeit briefly,

with them that day.

Q. All right. Take a look at Exhibit 2534.

A. 34?

Q. Correct. 2534.

A. Yes, I have it.

Q. Okay. Is that the e-mail you were referring to just now?

A. Yes, that's the one from me to my colleague at 9:30 that

night.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I would move the admission of

Exhibit 2534 into evidence.







BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey, just to recap, you spoke by telephone on

December 23rd, 2011, with Chief Sands, correct?

A. I'm positive I did.

Q. All right. And you have seen documents indicating you also

spoke by telephone with Sheriff Arpaio and with Chief MacIntyre

the same day, correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


A. 2534 indicates, but I have no memory.

Q. Okay. And you also sent the e-mail that's in Exhibit 187,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Did you do anything else on December 23rd, 2011, to

convey the preliminary injunction order to your clients?

A. As I sit here, I don't remember. I believe -- I don't know

when 187 went out, but I think -- I think I got my report out

within an hour of receiving Judge Snow's injunction. And I can

see here that I'm writing an e-mail to my colleague at 9:30, so

I obviously was there certainly from 4:30 -- I see it to be a

Blackberry, so -- but obviously I was doing stuff until 9:30

that night five hours later.

Q. All right. And do you believe that your billing records

for December 23rd, 2011, don't reflect all the work you did on

this case?

A. I have no billing record. I did not bill any time on

December 23rd, which I -- I'm surprised at, but I -- there's no

entry.

Q. But you obviously did work on that date, correct?

A. I -- yes, I did. I did all the things I described, but I

didn't charge -- I'm sure it was an oversight. I would have

charged for it, but I'm sure it got lost over the holidays.

Q. All right. Sir, what did you convey to Chief Sands when

you spoke to him by telephone about the preliminary injunction



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2

14:2


order on December 23rd, 2011?

A. The focus -- the focus was on the injunction. And I can't

tell you now, this many years, the precise words; I could tell

you the gist of it. But the focus was: We have an injunction.

We can no longer turn people over. We no longer can turn

people over to the federal authorities. There has got to be

something more. We had some issues about the judge's analysis

under the human smuggling statute. But we've got to make sure

that HSU understands this right away. And that's the gist of

it.

Q. Okay. Over the period of the days after the preliminary

injunction order issued, did you speak to anybody else about

the preliminary injunction order?

A. Yeah, I've seen my time sheets, and there -- there was

another date after Christmas, the 26th or 27th, I don't

remember, that I do have a conference with Joe Arpaio. On the

28th there was a conference with Brian Sands, is my memory.

And then on the 30th there was a very long -- I think

it was all telephonic -- meeting, over an hour, with Brian

Sands and Joe Sousa about what HSU could and could not do under

the human smuggling statute, given the injunction.

Q. Okay. Going back to the 23rd when you spoke to

Chief Sands, did you discuss with him whether it was urgent to

get word of the preliminary injunction order out to HSU

immediately?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


A. He knew that. We talked about that. That's why -- and I

can't tell you specifically, I'm just sharing with you that

that is why I believe he suggested to me to copy Joe Sousa on

it, because he recognized the urgency on it, and it was

important that his people under Enforcement Support comply.

Q. Was there any concern that HSU might be conducting any

operations over the holidays where they would need to know

about the order?

A. I don't know if they had any planned. Historically, they

were very active over the holidays in one way or another, and

that was one reason why it was important that HSU get that.

But I don't -- they certainly did not have -- at that time,

they were not doing saturation patrols.

Q. Okay. When you spoke with Brian Sands, what do you recall

specifically telling him the injunction required?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Is it being offered for the truth of the

matter?

MS. WANG: Not really, Your Honor. Let me back up a

question and maybe we can avoid the objection.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Was it important to convey the preliminary injunction order

to the client in order for them to follow it?

A. If they don't know about it, they cannot follow it. So it

was important to talk to them and it was important to send that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


letter e-mail off.

Q. Okay. So how did you describe the preliminary injunction

order to Chief Sands?

A. That we --


MS. WANG: Your Honor, it's not offered for the truth;

it's offered to show the sequence of events and what MCSO were

told about the preliminary injunction order.

MR. MASTERSON: Well, that sense that it was offered

for what was told is the truth.

MS. WANG: I also think it's non-hearsay as the

statement of a party opponent.

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: I cannot, Cecillia, tell you the details

of it, other than to focus on that. Also, the big issue was

whether we were going to take an appeal, but that was mostly an

issue with the sheriff. But I just remember there was relief

expressed by Chief Sands.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And tell me more about that. Why was he relieved?

A. No one wanted to turn over people to the federal government

at HSU. Not Brian; not Lieutenant Sousa; not the sergeants;

not the troops. They didn't like that. They told me that.

And when this first came in, it was relief, because

they didn't have to do it any more. They were being told they



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


weren't doing it, that they couldn't do it, and so there was

relief expressed.

Q. And when you conveyed the substance of the preliminary

injunction order to the sheriff, how did you describe it to

him?

A. I --



THE WITNESS: I don't remember when we spoke. I do

remember we spoke, and I believe -- I do remember, one, we had

a substantive discussion. The sheriff was very concerned about

whether we were going to appeal, how quickly we were going to

appeal. We talked about it.

Also told him: You can't turn anyone over to the

federal government and that was not a problem. There was no

resistance from Sheriff Arpaio. And I was very -- I remember

it because I was very pleased to hear that.

His comments were: Nothing changes anything because

we're not doing it any more. And what he meant by -- and he

said, We're not doing the saturation patrols, and we're not

turning anyone over to ICE because Obama won't take them.

And what that was a reference to, as I understood it,

was that under the President's policy that he made a decision

that they were not going to be simply taking over

non-criminal -- violent criminal people who were in the country



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


unlawfully. So that was his expression that nothing changes

because we're not doing that.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, take a look at Exhibit 2534 again.

A. Which one is that?

Q. That's the e-mail that you sent at 9:26 p.m. to James

Williams.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you see the indication where you said -- well, first you

said, "rankly, I am relatively pleased. So are Chief Sands and

MacIntyre."

A. Yes.

Q. "Arpaio is conflicted on how he feels"?

A. Right.

Q. So Arpaio expressed conflicted feelings about the

preliminary injunction order to you?

A. No. He had no reservations about that; he had no

resistance. I can't tell you specifically, but no one likes to

lose. Parties don't like to lose. And I remember him being

concerned about some appeal grounds that we thought we had

because we had -- at least I had some issues as counsel about

my understanding of what Judge Snow ordered. I turned out to

be wrong and he turned out to be right by the Ninth Circuit,

but I remember him -- that's what I understand him being

conflicted on it.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


Q. Okay. Well, is the point that Sheriff Arpaio expressed to

you during this specific conversation that he hated to lose but

he did not resist. He did not express any resistance --

A. There was no resistance --

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, leading.


MS. WANG: Your Honor, I believe that under the

hearsay rules, Mr. Casey is affiliated with the adverse party,

and therefore I can lead him.

THE COURT: Well, it may be that you can establish

adverseness, but you haven't done it yet.

MS. WANG: All right. Respectfully, Your Honor, I

think that the fact that he is former counsel for defendants

establishes that, but I will --

THE COURT: Well, let me just say I think I have a

fair amount of discretion on that. I have sustained the

objection because even though what you say is true, I haven't

detected anything that is argumentative on behalf of Mr. Casey

or that suggests that he is other than answering your questions

when I direct him to do so.

If in fact that changes, then I might let you lead

him, but I'm sustaining the leading objection.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, did you -- can you explain to me what you meant



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


when you wrote in your e-mail to James Williams that Arpaio was

conflicted on how he feels?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, mental impression.


THE WITNESS: I think I shared with you I don't know,

but I can tell you it was not anything earth-shattering any

more than any other private client would have when they get an

adverse result.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right.

A. It means nothing about resistance to the order.

Q. When you spoke with Chief MacIntyre about the preliminary

injunction order in the days after it issued, how did you

describe the preliminary injunction order to him?

A. I don't remember, but it would have been along the same

lines and there -- you know, with him it would have been just

making sure that we were on the same wavelength about the

interpretation of the judge's order. And I don't remember

anything specifically, but that's what it would have been

about.

Q. And was he in agreement with your reading of the

preliminary injunction order?

A. I'm sure he was, but I couldn't sit here today and tell you

one way or the other what was said.

Q. Okay. You've just testified that you described the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3


preliminary injunction order as prohibiting turning over people

to ICE --

A. Yes.

Q. -- is that your testimony?

A. Yeah, the federal government.

Q. Did you give any -- did you also describe the preliminary

injunction order as prohibiting detention of individuals solely

because of suspected immigration violations?


MS. WANG: The question is what he conveyed to the

client.

MS. CLARK: Based on --

THE COURT: Well, what he conveyed to the client, he

conveyed to the client.

Objection's overruled. I'm going to direct the

witness to answer.



THE WITNESS: The letter -- the e-mail letter that you

showed me quoted right out of Judge Snow's order that used that

language about detentions. And what I'm doing is four years

later trying to paraphrase for you what -- you know, what was

the message that was conveyed, and that's -- that's what it

was.

BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:3

14:4


Q. When you spoke with Sheriff Arpaio about the preliminary

injunction order, did you come up with a simple way of

conveying the preliminary injunction order to him?



THE WITNESS: I don't remember when I came up with

arrest or release. I think it was certainly after December

23rd. But to me -- the order was 40 pages long. You can't

expect everyone to know and read it, but -- the order was

detailed, but it wasn't complicated in its injunction. It was

pretty straightforward, in my judgment. And it was either the

MCSO either could arrest -- if someone was in the country

illegally and you came across them, you could either arrest

them on state charges, and there was a footnote there about

whether or not certain federal charges, but I kept it state, or

you released them. AOR, arrest or release; those are your two

options. So there's no more saying: We found this person. If

we can't charge him state-wise, we hold him for the feds. You

cannot do that.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. And you conveyed that to your clients?

A. Yes, multiple times.

Q. Okay. To whom did you convey that?

A. Certainly Brian Sands understood. I conveyed it to Brian;

he understood. I understand he also conveyed the same message



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


to the sheriff. Jack MacIntyre understood that. And I

understand from a conversation with him that he conveyed the

same thing to the sheriff. I conveyed that to the sheriff.

Sands, Sousa, Palmer. Those are -- that's what I remember

right now.

Q. Okay. And did you, through your conversations with those

individuals, believe that they understood what you were telling

them about the preliminary injunction order?


MS. CLARK: Also objecting on mental impressions,

Judge.

MS. WANG: Withdrawn, Your Honor. I'll ask a

different question.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. When you conveyed that description of the preliminary

injunction order, which I think the shorthand was "arrest or

release," is that right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. When you conveyed that to those individuals you just

listed -- Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre,

Lieutenant Sousa, and Sergeant Palmer -- did you discuss that

with them?

A. AOR?

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


Q. Did you make sure that they understood it?

A. There was no indication of not understanding. It was

pretty clear. In fact, the -- from Sands on down there was

relief, because they didn't want to ever do it in the first

place.

Q. Right. And so you had no reason to believe, based on your

conversations with those individuals, that they did not

understand arrest or release?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. You said a moment ago that when you initially

spoke with Chief Sands you discussed the fact that HSU was the

tip of the spear in terms of getting the word out to the rank

and file, is that right?

A. They were the ones that were most active in which they

would come across -- at that time on that date, since there

were no saturation patrols being conducted by MCSO -- would

come in contact with people that were in the country

unlawfully.

Q. And did you have an understanding about when HSU would be

informed of the preliminary injunction order?

A. My understanding from the conversation with Brian is that

he was going to call, when he hung up with me, was going to

call chief -- excuse me, Sheriff Arpaio right away and brief

him. Then he was going to call Joe Sousa, or one order or the

other, and tell him, This is on the way on the e-mail, and get



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


it to the troops. That's what I was told on the night of the

23rd, because we wanted to make sure it got to HSU over the

holidays.

Q. So your understanding was that the preliminary injunction

order would be conveyed immediately to HSU?

A. The night --


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Was that your understanding, based on the conversations you

had?

A. That was my understanding.

Q. All right. And did you also discuss with anyone at MCSO

whether the preliminary injunction order needed to get out

beyond HSU, office-wide?

A. Yes, Brian Sands and I discussed that.

Q. When did you discuss that?

A. It was either our first conversation or it was -- or it was

right after the Christmas holiday that HSU was tip of the

spear, but we need to make sure that anyone in patrol also gets

it. And I forget the methodology -- I used to know the case

better than I remember it now -- but there was the

Briefing Board, the bulletin board, and that Brian said that he

was going to have it issued through that, so all -- anyone who

does patrol, vehicle patrol, would have it -- know the same

injunction applied to them as it would to HSU.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


Q. And did you discuss why Patrol Division deputies needed to

know about the preliminary injunction order, in addition to

HSU?

A. I don't remember that level of detail.

Q. All right. And did you say that -- did you say that you

spoke directly with Lieutenant Sousa and Sergeant Palmer about


A. Eventually I did, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I have a time sheet that shows I talked with Chief Sands

and Sousa I think on December 30th for over an hour, and then I

know that I later talked with Sergeant Brett Palmer about the

order. I forget the whole genesis of that, but that was before

he sent over some proposed training scenarios.

Q. Did you speak to anyone else at MCSO about the preliminary

injunction order other than the individuals you've just

mentioned: Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre,

Lieutenant Sousa, and Sergeant Palmer?

A. If I did, I don't remember.

Q. Did you ever brief anyone else in HSU about the preliminary

injunction order?

A. I did not, and I wasn't asked to.

Q. And as you described the preliminary injunction order to

Lieutenant Sousa and Sergeant Palmer, did you also describe it

as arrest or release?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


A. I did.

Q. Mr. Casey, did you think that MCSO needed to take any steps

to implement the preliminary injunction order?



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did you convey to anyone at MCSO whether steps needed to be

taken to implement the preliminary injunction order?

A. At some point -- again, it's either the night of the 23rd

of December or it was afterwards -- Chief Brian Sands, who was

my contact, we discussed and I recommended that it would be a

good measure, a prophylactic measure, to have some training on

this.

And he was very supportive of it. That was good.

It's always nice to have a client tell you, Hey, we like that

recommendation, and that was going to happen. And in fact, at

some point it did happen.

Q. All right. Let me go back, actually. Was it your

understanding, based on your conversation with Chief Sands,

that he would say cause a Briefing Board to go out

office-wide --

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impression.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. -- conveying the preliminary injunction order?




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


THE COURT: Can you rephrase the question, please,

Ms. Wang?

MS. WANG: Sure.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. You testified a moment ago that Chief Sands mentioned

sending out a Briefing Board office-wide to convey the

preliminary injunction order, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Did he convey to you whether that was going to

be done?

A. My understanding is that's what he was telling me is he's

going to have it done, was going to send it out, because we

have to send it out office-wide.

Q. All right. And I think you've already covered this, but

you recall that you, based on your billing records, you

conferred with Chief Sands about the preliminary injunction

order on December 28th, is that right?

Feel free to refer to Exhibit 2533 if you need.

Well, let's back up, actually. And if you need to

refer, again, to Exhibit 2533, please feel free.

Did you meet with Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief

MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Sousa about the preliminary

injunction order on December 26th, 2011?

A. I'm going to have to go -- let me go back --

Q. Sure.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:4


A. -- real quick to find this, please.


THE WITNESS: I see that I have a time entry with Joe

Arpaio going up to 24 minutes; I conferred with Brian Sands up

to 18 minutes; I conferred with Jack MacIntyre up to six

minutes; with Joe Sousa up to a half hour.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, could we please have the

witness give us some date references there? I'm not seeing

where he's talking about right now.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: December 26, 2011, on the time sheet in

Exhibit 2533.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right, sir. And did you confer with anyone on December

28th, 2011, about the preliminary injunction order?

A. It's redacted here but I mentioned it to you in my depo.

I did talk to Brian Sands, because over the holiday

somebody made an accusation that the MCSO had already violated.

It wasn't you; it wasn't the ACLU; it wasn't any of your

clients. And we -- we talked about that.

Q. And did you also confer -- let's turn to December 30th. I

think you might have already mentioned this. Did you confer at

length with Lieutenant Sousa and Chief Sands about the


A. Yes. And that was where we discussed about what we could



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:4

14:4

14:4

14:5

14:5


and couldn't do under the order and the human smuggling law.

Q. And again, during that meeting did you describe the

preliminary injunction order consistently with how you've

described it today in your testimony?

A. I believe so.

Q. All right. And on December 30th of 2011 did you meet again

with Lieutenant Sousa and Chief Sands?

A. What was your previous date that you asked me about?

Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I just repeated myself.

A. Yeah.

Q. I beg your pardon. I withdraw the question.

All right. You mentioned a moment ago that you had a

discussion with the sheriff about whether to take an appeal

from the judge's preliminary injunction order.

Was that correct?

A. No, I think -- I don't remember what exactly I said, but we

discussed options that you have if you get an adverse result,

and I think we talked afterwards about what options that he

had.

Q. Okay. Why don't you take a look at Exhibit 2535. This is

an e-mail chain dated January 3rd and 4th of 2012.

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. Was this an e-mail exchange you had with your

client and co-counsel about the preliminary injunction order?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


A. It was.

MS. WANG: All right. Your Honor, I'd like to move

the admission of Exhibit 2535.



MR. COMO: I have no objection.



THE COURT: You may publish.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. Let's turn to the second page. This is a

continuation of your e-mail to Tom Liddy, John MacIntyre, and

Brian Sands on January 4th, 2012.

In this e-mail you were discussing whether to file a

notice of appeal from the preliminary injunction order,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Do you see here on -- what's on the screen that

you wrote -- you're referring to the sheriff, and then you

wrote: During the call he indicated that he wanted the notice

of appeal on file, even though the injunctive relief is, in

actual practice, relatively harmless to MCSO field operations?

A. I see that.

Q. Okay. Did you have any understanding -- well, what did you



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


mean by that?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge. I believe that your

orders waiving privilege and client confidentiality go to

compliance --

THE COURT: You know what? I want single-word

objections.

MS. CLARK: Privilege; work product.


THE WITNESS: This was my -- Cecillia, this was my

characterization of the conversation that I had with the

sheriff. And I think I described to you earlier that -- or in

the deposition that we used this -- when he said, We're not

doing this any more, I said: You're telling me no saturation

patrols, you're not doing any turning over to the feds, and if

you're telling me that's true, it's the equivalent of being

ordered not to wear a dress. If you don't wear a dress, it

doesn't change anything. So if you're telling me that's what

you're doing or not doing, then it's relatively harmless.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And at that time did you have an understanding that the

sheriff was well aware of what HSU practices were?


I'm going to look at the question one moment.

MS. WANG: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. I



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


think that the question will indicate whether he had -- it was

just the question asked if he had an understanding.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do have an understanding.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And what was your understanding on that question?

A. My understanding is that Sheriff Arpaio knew exactly what

was going on at all times in HSU.

Q. Did you discuss with your clients whether to file an

application for a stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit?

A. We did discuss that.

Q. And what did you decide to do?

A. I think the record shows that we did not file an

application to stay or a motion to stay.

Q. Who did you discuss that with? The question of whether to

file an application for a stay.

A. It would have been with the sheriff. It would -- I don't

remember who else, but it would have been with the sheriff and

whoever else he wanted to be part of it.

Q. All right. During your deposition on September 16th, 2015,

you indicated that you had that discussion with the sheriff and

with Chief MacIntyre. Is that your recollection?

A. That -- yes.

Q. Okay. All right. I'm going to -- you mentioned that you

and Chief Sands discussed a voluntary training --

A. Right.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


Q. -- to implement the preliminary injunction order, is that

right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Let's turn to Exhibit 2537.

Exhibit 37 is not in evidence yet. It appears to be

an e-mail string where the earlier e-mail is from Joe Sousa to

Brett Palmer dated January 11th, 2012, copying you, Rollie

Seebert, Brian Sands, David Trombi, Eileen Henry, and Joseph

Sousa.

Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. And then you forwarded this e-mail to Tom Liddy the same

day, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. And was this an e-mail to follow up on the

discussion you and Chief Sands had about a voluntary training

on the preliminary injunction order?

A. That was my understanding it was.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of

Exhibit 2537.



MR. COMO: None.

THE COURT: 2537 is admitted.




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


MS. WANG: All right. Let's publish that, if we may.

THE COURT: You may.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey, do you see that Joe Sousa is directing Brett

Palmer: "Per our phone conversation, write up a couple of

scenarios, right way and wrong way, based on Judge Snow's order

to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey."

Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. All right. Now, as of the time that Lieutenant Sousa sent

this e-mail, it appears that you had already spoken to Brett

Palmer about the preliminary injunction order, is that right?

A. I don't remember specifically, but that's -- that makes

sense, generally, because that's what I remember.

Q. All right. And do you remember during that conversation,

did you convey the preliminary injunction order, the substance

of it, to Sergeant Palmer?

A. I did.

Q. And was that consistent with the arrest or release

formulation that you've described earlier?

A. It was.

Q. And you had no reason to think that Sergeant Palmer did not

understand that, correct?

A. Not at that time.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5


Q. All right. Did there come a time later when you did have

reason to doubt that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. What do you recall about your conversation with

Sergeant Palmer before January 11th, 2012, when Joe Sousa sent

this e-mail?

A. Again --


THE COURT: I think you're going to have to lay

foundation before you overcome the hearsay objection.

MS. WANG: All right, Your Honor.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey --

THE COURT: So I'm sustaining the objection.

MS. WANG: Sure.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey, you said that you did speak with

Sergeant Palmer before Joe Sousa sent -- Joe Sousa sent this

e-mail on January 11th, 2012, correct?

A. Yes, that's my general memory.

Q. Okay. And did you convey to him the substance of the


A. I did.

Q. What else do you recall about that conversation?

A. I remember --



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5



MS. CLARK: Objection, privilege, if it's not about

the preliminary injunction order.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to the extent

that it requires you to discuss matters that are not related to

the preliminary injunction. To the extent that it relates to

the preliminary injunction, I'm going to direct you to answer.

THE WITNESS: I remember communicating to Brett Palmer

the AOR, no more turning over. He had already heard that from

Joe Sousa.

He had also conveyed, I think it was at this meeting,

that he had already briefed his troops. And as I explained to

you, in HSU you had one sergeant with people underneath him;

another sergeant with people underneath him. So I didn't know

if he was talking about the universe of HSU or the troops

underneath him, but he had already conveyed it by the time we

spoke in the first week or so of January.

I also remember him asking me: Are you sure the

sheriff is on board? That's my paraphrase; it's not to say

those are his words. But: Are you sure the sheriff's on

board? And it was: Absolutely. I spoke with him. It's

clear. He doesn't have a problem. There's no resistance.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did he express to you any doubt that the -- did he express

to you that he doubted the sheriff would be on board with the



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5

14:5



A. I interpreted what he said as: Are you sure the sheriff is

on board? And I said: Yes, absolutely.

Q. All right. And did you interpret that as Brett Palmer

doubting -- expressing some doubt that the sheriff was on board

with the preliminary injunction order?

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation; asked and

answered.

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impression.

MS. WANG: All right. I'll move on.

THE COURT: Ms. Wang --

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you know, Mr. Casey, why Brett Palmer was tasked with

drafting the training?

A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat it?

Q. Do you know why Brett Palmer was tasked with writing the

training curriculum?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you express any concerns to anyone about the fact that

Palmer had been tasked with that job?

A. I did.

Q. To whom did you express that concern?

A. It would have either been Brian or Lieutenant Sousa; either

Brian -- Chief Brian Sands or Lieutenant Joe Sousa.

Q. And did they respond in any way to that concern?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:0

15:0

15:0

15:1

15:1


A. You know, Joe did a remarkable job, but under very

difficult circumstances. He had limited ability, limited --

you know, I mean limited ability in HSU. And I think Brett

Palmer at that time was sort of like a senior sergeant; the

other one I think had just rotated out or something. So Brett

Palmer was the man.


THE COURT: Ms. Wang.

MS. WANG: Yes.

THE COURT: I'll just tell you it's 3 o'clock, and I'm

kind of looking for a good time to break.

MS. WANG: Why don't we break now?


MS. WANG: As you like.

THE COURT: 15 minutes. Thank you.

(Recess taken.)


MS. WANG: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, right before the break you testified that you

expressed concerns about the fact that Brett Palmer was the one

who was assigned to write up training scenarios to implement

the preliminary injunction.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:1

15:1

15:1

15:1

15:1


How did you convey that concern? What did you say?

A. My concern was we had an issue with him in the case where

he had done some research for some reason, and it was a

problem, and I was concerned that maybe there ought to be

someone else that can do this.

Q. And what was -- I think you might have testified already on

the response, but essentially they said he's going to be the

one, is that what happened?

A. He's the one that's going to do it, so....

Q. All right. Now, I think right before the break you were

telling me about your conversation with Brett Palmer initially,

before Joe Sousa sent his e-mail to Brett Palmer directing him

to write the scenarios, so I'm not sure we finished that

testimony.

A. I think we did.

Q. Oh, we did? Okay.

A. I think we did.

Q. All right.

A. I don't remember anything else.

Q. All right. So in Exhibit 2537, Lieutenant Sousa directed

Sergeant Palmer to write up the training, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. And then turn to Exhibit 2538.

This was an e-mail chain that contains Brett Palmer's

draft dated January 19, 2012, correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


A. It is.

Q. And then there are some e-mails that follow where you were

forwarding this on, correct?

A. There -- that's true.


admission of Exhibit 2538.






BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right, sir. Why don't we look at Brett Palmer's draft.

Do you see that Brett Palmer wrote to

Lieutenant Sousa, copying you and Sergeant Trowbridge: "Below

is a rough construction of an E Learning segment based on Judge

Snow's order. I constructed this in accordance with the many

conversations you and I have had, as well as taking into

account the information conveyed to us both from Tim Casey

concerning Judge Snow's order."

Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. And did you take this to refer to your conversation with

Brett Palmer about the preliminary injunction order?

A. Yes, and Joe Sousa.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


Q. Okay. Now, you testified a few minutes ago before the

break that there came a time when you were concerned that Brett

Palmer did not understand correctly what you were conveying

about the substance of the preliminary injunction order.

Do you recall that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. Is this the e-mail that gave rise to that

concern?

A. It is.

Q. All right. Did you express to Brett Palmer what your

concerns were?

A. I called him directly.

Q. Okay. Tell me what you said to him.



THE WITNESS: This is going back years, so I can't

tell you precisely, but I can tell you when I looked at this

again, responding to your subpoena, it was clear. It was clear

when I read the scenarios. There were four scenarios in there,

and 50 percent of them had problems.

Problem number -- scenario number 3 was a problem

because it talked about turning them over to ICE. Holding them

because they're simply here unlawfully and turning them over to

the federal government. That was completely contrary to AOR,

it was completely contrary to our discussion, and we discussed



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


that. It was -- discussed that.

Then scenario number 4, I remember that I thought

there was not enough meat in there for a probable cause

discussion.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And you mentioned just now AOR. Was that your

characterization of the preliminary injunction order, as arrest

or release?

A. That's how I tried to keep it simple to remember. It's

either/or, no other options.

Q. All right. And did you tell -- was there any content in

Brett Palmer's draft about transporting individuals to federal

authorities?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you tell him anything in response to that?

A. You can't do it. You cannot -- it's either arrest or

release. You cannot transport because that's a detention;

that's an arrest under Fourth Amendment. So you either release

them or you arrest them. Those are the two options, to make it

very clear.

Q. All right. And what was Brett Palmer's response when you

told him all that?

A. I don't remember specifically, but it's -- it was

essentially: Yes, I get it. I understand. This is what we

used to do. Okay, I'm going to make the changes. And it was,



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


as I phrased to you in the deposition, it was a done deal after

that.

Q. And what did you mean by -- what do you mean when you say

you thought it was a done deal?

A. We made corrections, I made corrections, he said he was

going to correct scenario number 3, he was going to add some

facts to number 4, and it was going to be used for training.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding about who was going to

receive this training?

A. My understanding, yes, going back to the original

discussions with Chief Sheridan -- not Sheridan, because he had

nothing to do with it, it was Sands, is that first it was going

to be HSU, and then it was going to roll out to Patrol.

Q. Do you recall when you gave Brett Palmer this feedback?

A. No. I think I told you originally I tried to be quick, but

there were some records showing that I did not operate on this

quickly. So I know it was done in the first quarter of 2012,

but I can't tell you when it was done.

Q. All right.

A. I do know I got one follow-up from Joe Sousa.

Q. All right. Let's move on.

Take a look at Exhibit 2541. This is not in evidence.

It's an e-mail from you dated January 30th, 2012, to John

MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Joseph Sousa.

Do you see that?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


A. I do.

Q. Okay. I want you to focus on a sentence in -- it's the

second sentence of the third paragraph.

Do you see that sentence? It starts "I reminded him."

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, is that a reference to the Court's preliminary

injunction order?

A. I'm not sure it is. I think -- for some reason, I think it

re -- I'm going to call it DiPietro was the officer. DiPietro,

Louis DiPietro that made the stop.

And I think that's what I was referring to on the

narrow Fourth Amendment. I mean, the injunction was a

Fourth-Amendment-related issue, but that's what I remember that

referring to.

Q. Okay. But you do -- you do think that that sentence is a

reference to the summary judgment order, correct?

A. Definitely to the summary judgment order; I'm not sure it

relates to the injunction.

Q. All right. And you sent this e-mail to, again, John

MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Joseph Sousa?

A. Yes.


Exhibit 2541.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I'm going to object on the

basis of privilege. The witness has said he's not certain it



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


applies to the injunction.

MS. WANG: It does refer to the same order, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Well --

MS. CLARK: Judge, if you rule with Mr. Masterson, it

would also invoke confidentiality, 1.6.

THE COURT: Before I admit this I'm going to need more

clarification from Mr. Casey --


THE COURT: -- about what that refers to.

MS. WANG: Okay.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, is it true that the Court's order of December

23rd, 2011, ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary

judgment?

A. Yes.

Q. I think it also ruled on plaintiffs' motion for class

certification, correct?

A. That's my memory.

Q. And in that same order of December 23rd, 2011, there was a

preliminary injunction issued, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And the preliminary injunction in this case

related to plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, is that right?

A. That's -- yes.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:2


Q. And the preliminary injunction, in summary -- well, you

summarized it as arrest or release, correct?

A. That's my summary.

Q. It also, in a lengthier way, said: Do not detain someone

based solely on suspected illegal presence in the United

States, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the sentence that you wrote here in Exhibit 2541 is

referring to relief on Fourth Amendment claim as to detentions,

correct?

A. Yes, but you're taking it out of context, Cecillia, because

this was about a conversation I had with Stan Young about

settlement --

MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Your Honor. Object to the

witness and counsel reading from the exhibit that is not in

evidence. And also, I think we have a 408 problem here, based

on Mr. Casey's last statement.

THE COURT: Well, nobody's read from anything.

MS. WANG: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I didn't hear anybody read this.

MS. WANG: I don't think I did.

THE COURT: There was a sentence read earlier.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I also note that defendants

produced this document to us without redaction, and therefore

waived any privilege associated with it.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:2

15:2

15:2

15:3

15:3


MR. MASTERSON: Well, Your Honor, 408 still applies.

THE COURT: One moment, please.

All right. I'm going to overrule 408. This isn't

being offered, as I read it, for evidence of settlement

discussions.

And because I cannot recall, despite Mr. Casey's --

well, I'm not sure that I understand Mr. Casey's testimony, but

I don't recall granting anybody any relief on the Fourth

Amendment claim that wasn't related to the preliminary

injunction. Can you inform me where I did?

MR. MASTERSON: I cannot, Your Honor. I was just

basing it on Mr. Casey's testimony a couple minutes ago.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then the objection is

overruled. I'm going to admit the exhibit.



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, you said that -- well, we've seen evidence in

your billing records that you met with Chief Sheridan about

this case on December 6th, 2011, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said that -- well, did there come a time in this

case when you began to meet with him more often about it?

A. Met with him more often as we were getting close to the

trial in 2012, and then very frequently after Chief Sands



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


departed. He retired shortly after the May 13 order came out.

Q. So as you were preparing for trial you met with Chief

Sheridan more often?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Take a look again at your -- excuse me, your

billing records for -- in Exhibit 2533, and look at your time

entry for April 3rd, 2012.

Actually, first take a look at your billing entry for

March 23rd, 2012.

A. Could you give me those dates again, please?

Q. Sure. Let's start with March 23rd, 2012.

A. Okay. I'm there.

Q. Okay. Do you see an indication that you met with Chiefs

MacIntyre and Sheridan --

A. I see that.

Q. -- about this case on March 23rd, 2012?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall when the reply brief in the Ninth

Circuit appeal from the preliminary injunction order was filed?

A. I do not.

Q. All right. You don't recall it being around that time

period?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. And now let's turn to your entry for April 3rd,

2012.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


A. I'm there.

Q. Okay. Is there an indication here in your billing records

that on April 3rd, 2012, you met with Chiefs Sheridan,

MacIntyre, and Sands about this case?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. I think I actually asked you the wrong -- let

me ask you this: Do you recall whether there was any activity

in the Ninth Circuit appeal from the preliminary injunction

order around this time frame in April of 2012?

A. I don't remember. I remember going to the hearing on the

interlocutory appeal, but I do not remember the dates or

filings.

Q. Do you see any indications referring to the Ninth Circuit

case in your time entry for April 2nd, 2012?

A. It doesn't look like I had an entry; that was someone in my

office.

Q. Oh, I see. That was Eileen Henry?

I'm sorry. I didn't hear a response if there was one.

A. I'm sorry. You said --

Q. I said -- I was referring to the time entry for April 2nd,

and you said that was someone else in your office, and I asked

whether that was Eileen Henry's time entry.

A. I apologize. I didn't realize that was a question.

Yes, that's Eileen Henry, my paralegal.

Q. Okay.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


A. I apologize.

Q. That's all right. It's my fault.

Mr. Casey, did there come a time when you learned that

MCSO was in violation of the Court's preliminary injunction

order?

A. The best way to phrase it is there came a time that I was

very concerned, and that it was my private assessment, my

judgment, that it likely was a violation.

Q. Okay. And did that happen during the trial in this case?

A. Well, yeah. I mean, I think I was standing where you were.

I think it was a witness that I had. It came up that there was

a detention and a transporta- -- I don't remember. I just

remember thinking: That's a violation of the preliminary

injunction.

Q. And did you take any action to address that?

A. Yes, my co-counsel and I did.

Q. What did you do?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, work product.


THE WITNESS: You know, my guess is it was probably

during a break, but we went into -- we had in this courtroom

the east witness room, and went in there with Brian Sands, and

we said: We need to find out why this happened, how it

happened, who it happened with, see if we can get reports, that

sort of thing, but let's figure out why this has happened.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


BY MS. WANG:

Q. And did you find out anything as a result of that?

A. Not during the trial.

Q. Did there come a time when you did find out something about

it?

A. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, privilege.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. When was that?

Sorry. There was a pending objection.


THE WITNESS: We never did hear what happened

afterwards. When the trial ended, I know that I made phone

calls to HSU. Joe Sousa was no longer at HSU. I think he was

at SWAT, but I'm not certain about that. But we were trying to

find out what happened, and we were told what the story was.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did you take any steps to ensure that it would not happen

again at that point after the trial?

A. We talked with Brian Sands about -- about that, but he was

soon -- I forget exactly what we did, but we did talk to him

about that and there was some disagreement about how it

happened.

Q. Did you talk with -- well, do you -- do you know that

Lieutenant Sousa's successor at HSU is Lieutenant Jakowinicz?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


A. Yes.

Q. All right. Did you talk to Lieutenant Jakowinicz to follow

up about this testimony that came up at trial?

A. I cannot tell you if I did. I did not have as much contact

with Brian Jakowinicz as I did with Joe Sousa, but I do know

that I did have contact with him.

Q. All right. And -- well, did you follow up with HSU about

the testimony that concerned you, that the preliminary

injunction order had been violated?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you give them any direction about what action to

take going forward?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say?

A. Same thing as --



THE WITNESS: It was the same thing as before: It

needs to go out to the troops. I was told it went out to the

troops. I think that Brett Palmer was still there. He said he

did send it out -- he actually told me he briefed the troops on

that.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And did he say what they briefed -- what he briefed them

on?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3


A. Yeah -- well, it goes back to the scenarios that we went

over earlier in the year, the training scenarios. Wanted to

make sure, since the scenarios weren't correct, did he brief

the troops correctly?

And the impression that I got is yes, he did brief

them correctly, that he did understand that, and that correct

understanding was imparted to the troops in HSU.

Q. And what was that understanding that was imparted to --

A. That you don't -- you do not detain, and you don't take

people in and transport them; you either arrest or you release.

Q. And was that reinforced during or after the trial?

A. It eventually was later that year.

Q. Do you know when?

A. In the fall of 2012.

Q. Okay. Speaking of the fall of 2012, you mentioned earlier

that you do recall the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit

on the appeal from the preliminary injunction order, correct?

A. I do remember.

Q. Was that on September 13th of 2012?

A. I couldn't tell you the date; I do remember.

Q. All right.

A. I do remember it was before your partner's letter.

Q. Did you make any representations to the Ninth Circuit panel

about whether MCSO was detaining people based solely on

immigration status?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:3

15:4


A. I did.

Q. What did you say to the Ninth Circuit?

A. Told them the MCSO is no longer doing that.

Q. And what basis did you have for making that representation

to the Ninth Circuit?

A. My clients' assurances that that was not happening.

Q. Who individually did you speak to and get that

representation from?

A. From Brett Palmer; from Joe -- not Joe, because he was

gone. Brett Palmer; from Brian Sands; from Joe Arpaio.

Q. And take a look at your billing records again,

Exhibit 2533, and I'll refer you to the entry for September

25th, 2012.

A. What was the date?

Q. September 25th, 2012.

Do you recall that was the day that the Ninth Circuit

opinion on the preliminary injunction order came down?

A. No, I don't remember that.

Q. All right. Well, take a look at the --

A. You want me to look at the entry on the -- entry on the

25th?

Q. Yes.

A. Yeah, I'm reading my entry.

Q. Okay. Does that indicate that the Ninth Circuit opinion on

the PI appeal had come down?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


A. Yes, on the interlocutory appeal.

Q. And does it also indicate that you conferred with MCSO

client representatives that day?

A. It does.

Q. All right. Take a look at Exhibit 2511, please.

A. Okay.

Q. Okay. Exhibit 2511, not yet in evidence, is an e-mail from

you to John MacIntyre, Gerard Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Amy

Lake, dated September 25, 2012.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this an e-mail that you sent to those recipients

advising them of the Ninth Circuit opinion on the preliminary

injunction order?

A. Yes.


Exhibit 2511.






BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. Who is Amy Lake, Mr. Casey?

A. My memory is that she is Sheriff Arpaio's administrative



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


assistant.

Q. And why did you send this e-mail to her?

A. I wanted to make sure the sheriff got this directly.

Q. Now, in this e-mail you wrote: "This ruling does not

change the status quo, nor does it have any direct effect on

Judge Snow's ruling on the trial. We are still waiting for a

release/decision." Do you see that?

A. Yes, I think "release" is a typo.

Q. Okay. Well, I'm just going to ask you about the first part

of this. What did you mean when you said that the Ninth

Circuit's opinion does not change the status quo?

A. It doesn't change anything to do -- it does not change

anything about the preliminary injunction. It doesn't lift it;

it doesn't reverse it; it doesn't do anything.

The injunction was about an interpretation that we

had, or I had as counsel, about what Judge Snow had ordered

about certain things in the human smuggling statute, and I

wanted to make sure that it was clear that this doesn't have

anything to do with the preliminary injunction. Well, that's

my memory.

Q. And did you convey that the injunction was still in place?

A. I mean -- I mean, I didn't say that here, but that's --

that was sort of ceteris paribus, the Latin for "the one thing

that's held constant." That was always there so I don't think

I needed to say that again.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


Q. You did not have any reason to -- you didn't say anything

to suggest that the injunction had been lifted.

A. No. No.

Q. All right. You mentioned a moment ago that there came a

time in the fall of 2012 when the instruction about the

preliminary injunction order was reissued or reiterated, is

that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 2512.

A. Okay.

Q. Is Exhibit 2512 an e-mail string that is triggered by a

letter from plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Segura, on October 11th,

2012?

A. Yes.

Q. And were the plaintiffs alleging that MCSO had violated the


A. Yes.

Q. And did you forward that letter to Gerard Sheridan, John

MacIntyre, and Brian Sands?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And that's what this e-mail chain is about,

correct?

A. Correct.


Exhibit 2512.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4







BY MS. WANG:

Q. So, sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the MCSO

press release that is attached to Mr. Segura's letter and is

part of Exhibit 2512, page MCAO00033. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. And this is part of Mr. Segura's letter which you

were forwarding on to your clients, correct?

A. It was.

Q. All right. I'm going to call your atten- -- well, first

let me ask you this: Do you have an understanding as to

whether the sheriff is directly involved in the issuance of

MCSO news releases during the time period of September 21st,

2012?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge, client confidentiality,

1.6.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, let me direct your attention to the second page

of this news release, the paragraph that begins "Three members



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


of the group."

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Did you understand that the MCSO news release

was reporting that there were individuals who had been taken

into custody by MCSO where there were no state charges against

them, and then the sheriff's office attempted to turn the

suspects over to ICE?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And do you see where it indicates that that was

consistent with MCSO's practice over the last six years?

A. I see where that's reported.

Q. Okay. And then looking at the next paragraph, there is a

quotation attributed to Sheriff Arpaio.

Do you see that?

A. I see that quote.

Q. And the quote reads: "I expected that it would happen

eventually, so I had a back up plan in place, which was to take

these illegal immigrants not accepted by ICE to the Border

Patrol." Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. Sir, when you received Mr. Segura's letter, did

you read this press release?

A. I did.

Q. Did you have any -- did you have an understanding about

whether this backup plan, as described in the news release, was



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


consistent with the preliminary injunction order?


THE COURT: To the extent you're only asking for his

mental impression, I'm going to sustain the objection.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, did you convey to your clients a concern that the

activity described in this news release was inconsistent with


MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me. Could we have a

time frame, please?

THE COURT: Time frame on his --

MR. MASTERSON: She asked: Did you tell your clients

this was --


BY MS. WANG:

Q. And let's say on October 11th and the days following

October 11th, 2012.

A. I did.

Q. All right. What did you tell them?

A. That would be attorney-client privilege.

THE COURT: I'm going to direct you to answer.

MS. CLARK: Objection also on client confidentiality,

1.6, Judge.

THE COURT: I'm still directing him to answer.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


THE WITNESS: I immediately called that day Brian

Sands, told him about this. Our initial assessment is if this

is true, if you guys -- "you guys" being plaintiffs' counsel --

are accurate, this could be a potential problem. And we needed

to get our arms around the facts. How do I get a CAD report?

How do I get some sort of police report on this to figure out

whether there's any merit to this?

And I believe he referred me to the new head of HSU,

Brian J.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Brian Jakowinicz?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And you also sent this e-mail dated October 11,

2012, to Gerard Sheridan, John MacIntyre, and Brian Sands,

correct?

A. In bold I did.

Q. And you said you intentionally made this bold face?

A. I did.

Q. And you marked it "high importance," correct?

A. I did.

Q. You thought it was very important to convey that to these

folks?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Let's turn to the second page.

A. Of the press release?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:4


Q. Of the -- I'm sorry, your e-mail of October 11, 2012,

e-mail, page MCAO00029.

A. Yes.

Q. And let's highlight the paragraph that begins "While I

would not be surprised."

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I don't know if this is being

published. May I request that it be published?

THE COURT: It may be published.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. So, Mr. Casey, you wrote: "While I would not be surprised

if plaintiffs are using the attached letter as a springboard

for electoral-related negative press toward the sheriff, I

expect that they will move quickly to raise this issue with

Judge Snow sometime next week either for electoral or

legitimate reasons. We will need to get 'ahead of the curve'

on this issue."

A. Those are my words.

Q. What did you mean by that?

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impressions;

confidentiality.


THE WITNESS: We did not have any data by the time I

sent this out to know whether or not this was a legitimate good

faith -- well, I assumed everything you sent over was good



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:4

15:4

15:4

15:5

15:5


faith, but whether or not it was factually supported. So this

was to alert the client that either there's going to be some

sort of electoral news, political news, or you're going to have

a real factual problem.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And the sheriff was at this point in time, October 11,

2012, campaigning for reelection, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you informed the client -- reminded the client of that

fact when conveying the news of plaintiffs' allegations,

correct?


MS. CLARK: Continuing objection for the reasons

stated, Judge.

THE COURT: Sustain the leading objection.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Why did you convey this information about the election in

your e-mail reporting plaintiffs' allegations that the

preliminary injunction order had been violated?

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impressions.


THE WITNESS: Because that would catch the sheriff's

attention for certain.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And sir, did you have a concern, based on what you learned,



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


that the sheriff had issued the press release for reasons

related to the election?

A. That's what --

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impressions, Judge.

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, leading; foundation.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I do think that what Mr. Casey

had in mind goes to the issue of what he was informing his

clients and the advice that he was giving them.

THE COURT: I'm going to still sustain the objection.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did anyone convey to you, in connection with plaintiffs'

allegations in October of 2012, that the activities described

in the MCSO news release were related to the election campaign?

MS. CLARK: Objection, confidentiality.


THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Can you tell me about that.

A. I remember working cooperatively and quickly with Chief

Brian Sands to try to find out if we had a problem. At some

point he told me that somehow he learned that these were --

this was issued solely for political purposes for the election,

the press releases.

BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


Q. Did he convey to you that these facts actually didn't

happen?

A. We didn't know about facts yet, because that's what I was

working on. He was just telling me the press releases and the

underlying activity was done to generate publicity.

Q. I see. Did you convey to your clients that the underlying

activity described in the press release violated the

preliminary injunction?

A. Eventually, I got enough facts that there was a meeting,

and it was my preliminary view that it was likely, not

definitive, but it was likely a violation of the preliminary

injunction.

Q. And who did you have that meeting with?

A. Brian Sands and the sheriff.

Q. Were both of them present throughout that meeting?

A. No.

Q. Was there a point where you spoke just with the sheriff

one-on-one?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell the sheriff during that meeting that his,

quote, backup plan, violated the preliminary injunction?

A. I'd never heard of a backup plan until I read of this.

Q. Okay. But as described in the press release, once you saw

it, did you convey to him that that activity violated the

preliminary injunction?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


A. That it was my judgment that you cannot, you cannot turn

them over to ICE; you cannot turn them over to Border Patrol;

you can't turn them over to anyone. It is arrest or release.

Q. Did you raise with him any concern about the fact that the

news release indicated that had been the consistent practice of

MCSO over six years?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?


Q. All right. Did Sheriff Arpaio react to what you were

telling him?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he -- how did he react?

A. Initially, that he was the sheriff and he made the

decisions.

Q. And did you have a further discussion with Sheriff Arpaio

on the subject of the activities described in the press

release?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a heated discussion?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you take the position with the sheriff that the

activity should end because it was in violation of the


A. I took that position.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


Q. Did anyone else during the meeting take the position?

A. Brian Sands took it.

Q. And what was the outcome of that meeting at the end?

A. That's attorney-client privilege and client

confidentiality. I'm not able to answer that unless ordered.

THE COURT: You are so ordered.

THE WITNESS: It was not a pleasant conversation, and

Brian was not in when we had this, but it was relayed to him

that this is a problem. This cannot go on.

And the response was: The City of Phoenix is doing

it; some other metropolitans are doing it. But they're not

under a court order. We're under a court order, MCSO. It

cannot happen.

There was something like it only involved a handful of

people. It doesn't matter.

And I was assured before I left there that this was

the end of it. It was a, quote, mistake. Not whether we want

to argue over a mistake or not, that it would not happen again.

And I felt confident, even though this time Brian

Sands excused himself for the reasons we discussed at my depo,

that I had the full support of Chief Brian Sands, because he

didn't know about this before it happened. That's what I was

told.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. You said that this was a heated discussion with Sheriff



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


Arpaio?

A. It did. It was.

Q. Did you and Chief Sands threaten to resign during the

course of that heated discussion?

A. I remember Brian Sands telling me that if it doesn't go

right, he'll resign, and I told him that I would.

Q. So is it fair to say that the sheriff's initial reaction

during that meeting was to say, "I'm the sheriff, I make the

decisions here," but that you won him over by the end of the

conversation?

A. I would not say I won him over.

Q. All right. How would you describe the course of that

conversation?

A. I think the conversation harkened back -- this is in the

fall of '12 -- that you and I spoke after the injunction came

over and you said: We're not doing it any more. We're not

doing saturation patrols; we're not turning people over to the

federal government. Now we are. We can't. You said it's not

going to happen. And it's gotta stop. It must stop.

Q. And at the end of the conversation did -- was it your

understanding that the sheriff would stop that activity?

A. He assured me that it was a mistake, that it wasn't going

to happen again. And to his credit, to my knowledge, to the

point until I got off this case in the -- I think Judge Snow

released me in November of '14, I'm not aware of this happening



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5


again.

Q. Did you raise with him -- well, did he acknowledge during

that heated discussion that he had done this for political

purposes?

A. He did not.

Q. All right. But you heard that from someone else.

A. From Chief Sands.

Q. Okay. And take a look at the top e-mail in Exhibit 2512.

You forwarded this e-mail string about plaintiffs'

allegations that the preliminary injunction order had been

violated to Lisa Allen. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Who is Lisa Allen?

A. She was his main -- the sheriff's main public information

officer.

Q. And were you aware of whether the sheriff worked very

closely with Lisa Allen at that time?

A. He did.

Q. Did you raise with Sheriff Arpaio during the heated

discussion the fact that you had not seen the press releases

before they were sent to you by plaintiffs?

MS. CLARK: Objection, client confidentiality.


THE WITNESS: Yes. As we discussed in our deposition,

Mr. Liddy and I suggested after the trial in July and August of



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15:5

15:5

15:5

15:5

16:0


2012 that it would be advisable that we receive any press

releases that dealt with anything what I'm going to call "south

of the border" issues, and I thought that those would be

circulated, and I don't believe we ever see these until Andre

Segura sent those.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And you raised with the sheriff the fact that you had been

surprised by those press releases?

A. Yes, because the month earlier I had been in the Ninth

Circuit representing the contrary, based on what I had been

told.

Q. And during the course of that heated discussion, did the

sheriff agree that he would thereafter let you and Mr. Liddy

see press releases relating to detentions of suspected

undocumented immigrants before they went out?

A. I don't -- that was not the subject of our conversation

that day, about seeing press releases.

Q. All right. Did you discuss that with Lisa Allen

subsequently?

A. I don't remember, but this was in response to the -- this

was the blow back, if you will, of my meeting with the sheriff.

Q. What do you mean by that, blow back?

A. Well, whatever time we met, I assume that something got

trickled to Lisa Allen that was a problem and wanted to know

why it was a problem.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0


Q. And did you discuss that with Lisa Allen?

A. I tried not to.

Q. All right. Take a look at Exhibit 2514 now.

Exhibit 2514 is an e-mail from you to Brian Sands,

Gerard Sheridan, Brian Jakowinicz, and John MacIntyre dated

October 18, 2012. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Was this your e-mail forwarding them your response to

plaintiffs' letter alleging violations of the preliminary

injunction order?

A. It was.

Q. All right.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move 2514 into evidence.



MR. COMO: No objection, Your Honor.




BY MS. WANG:

Q. Sir, let's highlight the second paragraph here on your

e-mail. Do you see where you wrote in your e-mail to these

chiefs: "I still anticipate that they will 'cry foul' in a

very public court filing and issue a new release right before

the election"?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0


A. I do see that.

Q. Okay. What were you conveying here?

A. You know, I don't remember specifically, but I do remember

believing that you folks were going to file a, what, an OSC, an

order to show cause of some sort on that.

Q. And you thought that was something that would be of concern

to the recipients of this e-mail?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, the reelection campaign was ongoing at that

time, correct?

A. I just know that November was the general election.

Q. All right. Let's turn to Exhibit 2557.

2557 consists of two e-mail chains.

A. Yes.

Q. They're essentially two e-mails you sent to Joe Sousa

within a minute of each other at 11:51 a.m. on October 15,

2012. Do you see that?

A. I do.

MS. WANG: Okay. Your Honor, I'd move the admission

of Exhibit 2557.








F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0



BY MS. WANG:

Q. So Mr. Casey, on October 18, 2012, you had e-mail

correspondence with Lieutenant Sousa in connection with the

plaintiffs' allegations about violations of the preliminary

injunction order, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you describe why you did that?

A. This was -- my memory here -- and again, it's been a

while -- is that Brian Sands and I, we dealt with the chief

decision maker. Now we needed to make sure that the line

troops understood this doesn't happen. It cannot happen,

especially after the trial that we have.

So this was part of the response to getting it

resolved with the -- with Sheriff Arpaio, and making sure it

doesn't happen with HSU. But Joe Sousa's not in HSU any more,

so I'm not sure why he's involved.

Q. All right. Do you know whether Lieutenant Sousa was asked

to follow up on getting word out once again -- well, withdrawn.

Do you know whether at that time, around October 18,

2012, Lieutenant Sousa was tasked with getting word of the

preliminary injunction order out to MCSO troops?

A. I don't know why he was involved in this, other than he had

a great history.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0


Mr. Casey, did you ever advise your client, Sheriff

Arpaio, that his so-called backup plan violated the preliminary

injunction order?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he ever express to you the view that, in fact, his

backup plan did comply with the preliminary injunction order?

A. He told me, and I'm paraphrasing, that others had told him,

or other lawyers had told him, it was fine.

Q. Okay. But did he express to you a view that the backup

plan as described in that news release complied with the


A. That the judge's order said "without something more," and

that was the language that we used for advocacy purposes, to

argue that it was not clearly spelled out, but I gave him my

opinion on, well, that's an argument, but I gave him my opinion

on the likelihood of that argument being successful before this

Court or any court.

Q. Okay. But my question, I guess, is: Did Sheriff Arpaio

argue with you about the legal merits of whether the backup

plan complied with Judge Snow's preliminary injunction order?

A. Yeah, he -- yes, he was re -- I remember he was resistant.

The backup plan, he thought it was okay.

Q. But he ultimately, over the course of that heated

discussion, agreed that he would stop that activity, correct?

A. He did.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0


Q. All right. Did anyone ever ask you, in advance of the

activities described in those news releases, whether those

activities would comply with the preliminary injunction order?

A. No.

Q. Now, the trial ruling in this case came down on May 24th,

2013. Are you aware of that?

A. May of '13, I am.

Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 103, which is already in

evidence.

MS. WANG: And Your Honor, may I publish this one?

THE COURT: You may.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you see the first paragraph -- well, this is a

Briefing Board dated May 28, 2013, correct?

A. I'm sorry. I was --

Q. That's okay. Do you have Exhibit 103 in front of you?

A. I do.

Q. All right. This was a Briefing Board that issued on May

28th, 2013, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And this Briefing Board effectively summarizes the Court's

trial ruling of May 2013, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, are you aware -- well, let me ask you this first. The



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0


first paragraph here says: "By order of Sheriff Arpaio,

effective immediately, no MCSO personnel shall detain any

person for turn over to ICE unless probable cause to arrest or

detain exists under Arizona criminal law."

Do you see that?

A. I do read that.

Q. That comports with your description of the preliminary

injunction order to your clients, correct?

A. That does.

Q. That you had given since that order issued in December of

2011, right?

A. December 23rd.

Q. Okay. Sir, did you ever see a Briefing Board giving that

direction go out to MCSO prior to May 28th, 2013?

A. I did not see.

Q. Let's turn to Exhibit 2567.

A. 2567?

Q. Correct. Two five six seven.

All right. This is an e-mail chain between you and

Larry Farnsworth on March 28th, 2014. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. At that time -- well, who was Larry Farnsworth?

What was his position?

A. Like it says there in the letter, he was the -- he was

commander of the Court Compliance Implementation Division that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:0

16:1


was set up by MCSO.

Q. And Captain Farnsworth was asking for a copy of an order in

this e-mail chain, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you read this e-mail chain as indicating that Captain

Farnsworth was unaware of the preliminary injunction order at

this time?

A. That's what it looks like from his March 28th, 2014 e-mail.

Q. Okay.


Exhibit 2567.






BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. I'm going to have you turn now to Exhibit 2543.

A. I'm there.

Q. Yes. Thank you.

So this is an e-mail chain dated April 4th, 2014,

between you and Paul Chagolla and others?

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And starting with the earlier e-mail from Paul Chagolla to



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


Tom Liddy where he copies you, is it fair to say that Chief

Chagolla was informing counsel about an E Learning training

that would require mandatory review by deputy sheriff chiefs,

captains, and lieutenants of the Court's orders in this case,

including the preliminary injunction order?

A. That's what it looks like.

Q. And then turning to your e-mail in response, let's

highlight on the first page --

I'm sorry, this is not in evidence yet.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I move Exhibit 2543 into

evidence?






MS. WANG: May I publish it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Let's highlight that last paragraph on the first page of

2543. Do you see, Mr. Casey, where you wrote: "I also

strongly recommend that Sheriff Arpaio voluntarily review these

orders, but not under internal MCSO compulsion or

certification. It is voluntary for the sheriff as an elected

official. In my judgment, however, Sheriff Arpaio needs to be



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


able to testify under oath in the future in any contempt

proceedings against him that he has read all three of the

orders. The fact of reading them could or might mitigate to

some degree the nature and extent of the punishment issued

against the sheriff following a contempt finding, and

incidentally, prove less publicly embarrassing in the public's

eyes."

Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. You put this in bold face and underscore, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you say that in this e-mail?

A. It was my judgment that it was in my best interest -- in my

client's best interest for him to be advised by his lawyer that

it was prudent for him to read these things.

Q. Did you anticipate at this point, April 4th, 2014, that

there might be contempt proceedings against the sheriff?

MS. CLARK: Object -- I'm sorry. Objection, mental

impressions, Judge.



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Were you conveying to the recipients of this e-mail that

there might be contempt proceedings against the sheriff?

MS. CLARK: Same objection, Judge.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1



THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Why did you convey that?

A. I'm not able to answer that question without going into

attorney-client privileged information and client

confidentiality that would relate to the reasons I gave Sheriff

Arpaio for my withdrawal.

Q. Sir, did your withdrawal as counsel in this case relate in

any way to the preliminary injunction order?

A. Not directly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impressions; work

product; privilege; confidentiality.

THE COURT: The answer was "not directly"?

Did you have something to say, Mr. --

MR. MASTERSON: Well, I was going to join in the

objection, but only because sometimes when witnesses are asked

a question which they could answer yes or no they sometimes

blurt out an answer, anyway, so I wanted to stop that before it

happened, because I am going to assert a privilege on the next

question that I believe is on the way here.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Well, the next question is: Did your withdrawal as counsel

indirectly relate to the preliminary injunction order in this



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


case?

MS. CLARK: Same objections, Judge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Nevertheless -- well, the

answer is a yes or no answer.

THE WITNESS: Could you read the question back? I

apologize.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did your withdrawal from this case relate indirectly to the

preliminary injunction order in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. So, sir, I will ask you: To the extent that your decision

to withdraw as counsel in this case related in any way to the

preliminary injunction order, can you tell me what the reason

was?

MS. CLARK: Same objections, Judge, all four.

MR. MASTERSON: Join in the privilege objection, and

foundation as to the answer.


Let me just check one thing.

I'm going to overrule the objection as the -- to the

extent that the question was worded the way it was.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, request a couple of

things. One, if the Court could look at -- I don't know if you

have the deposition of Mr. Casey up there.

THE COURT: I don't.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


MR. MASTERSON: I could give you a copy. What I'd

like to refer you to is a page and line cite or ask for a

minute to voir dire the witness.

THE COURT: Sure, but I don't have it, so you're going

to --

MS. WANG: I have copies, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- need to bring it to me.

MS. WANG: May I hand them up?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. CLARK: Judge, I don't have a copy of the

deposition transcript.

MS. WANG: I have one you for you, too, Ms. Clark.

MS. CLARK: Well, thank you.

THE COURT: Are you going to give me the page and line

cite, please?

MR. MASTERSON: Yes, Judge. Page 143, lines 9 through

11, and my objection is as to the foundation for the answer I

believe Mr. Casey is about to give.

THE COURT: Okay. 143, 9 through 11.

And what's your objection?

MR. MASTERSON: Foundation.

THE COURT: I mean, are you saying he didn't observe

these things?

MR. MASTERSON: Well, he's observing subjective things

and then making an interpretation based on those very



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


subjective, highly subjective things.

And he goes further to say that -- well, on the same

page, line -- well, actually, I'm sorry, Judge. Let's start at

page 142, line 12, and move on to the section I cited to you on

through 143, lines 13 through 14.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, let me withdraw the question

for now. I think I can lay a better foundation.


MS. WANG: We may come back to this point, but let me

come to it at a later time.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, can you -- now looking again at Exhibit 2543,

your recommendation in that last paragraph of your e-mail that

the sheriff read the orders, was that based in part, in any

part, on discussions you had had with the sheriff in the past?

A. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Mental impressions, Judge. And

confidentiality also.

MS. WANG: Well, you --


MS. CLARK: I should have objected also on privilege,

Judge.


THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1

16:1


Q. Can you tell me what that was?

A. I think it goes back to the history from the first

conversation after the preliminary injunction all the way up to

what we had in the fall of '12, going back, you know, it's a

space of 18 months or more, but I think that's what it relates

to.

Q. And you're referring to the heated discussion you had with

the sheriff in October of 2012?

A. Yes.


THE COURT: I'll allow that one.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Do you know whether the sheriff read those orders, as you

recommended on April 4th of 2014?

A. I do not.

Q. All right. Let's turn to Exhibit 2566.

MS. WANG: May I have a moment, Your Honor? I --

THE COURT: You may.


MS. WANG: Thank you. I apologize.

THE WITNESS: I don't think I have that up here.

MS. WANG: I apologize.

Ms. Zoratti, would you mind giving the witness a copy

of 2566?




F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:1

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE CLERK: You're welcome.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right, sir. Is Exhibit 2566 a different chain that

starts with Chief Chagolla's April 4th, 2014 e-mail?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you see where in the top e-mail you wrote to

Mr. Liddy and Mr. Williams: "The troops need to have it and

read it"?

A. Yes.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't have this

exhibit.

MS. WANG: Can we put that on the screen for --


BY MS. WANG:

Q. Was this an e-mail string in which you were forwarding

Chief Chagolla's e-mail to your co-counsel?

A. Yes.


admission of Exhibit 2566.







F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2



MS. WANG: May we publish it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. Do you see we are you wrote to Mr. Liddy and

Mr. Williams: "The troops need to have it and read it"?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the next sentence reads: "It maybe overinclusive,

but the next round of problems will be over whether they ever

read the preliminary injunction"?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. That was a reference to -- well, when you say

"the troops need to have it and read it," you were referring to

the preliminary injunction order, correct?

A. I think it was that and everything, because we had some

issues earlier that year with some executives not having read

it.

Q. And when you said "the troops need to have it and read it,"

were you reacting to Chief Chagolla's original suggestion that

only certain commanders read the orders?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Why did you think that the troops needed to

read the preliminary injunction order as well?

MS. CLARK: Mental impressions.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2



BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. Did you convey to anyone that the rank and file

at MCSO below the lieutenant rank needed to read the


A. Yes.

Q. All right. Did you say why?

A. I believe I did. I think we saw one of the e-mails here I

recommended the sergeants.

Q. And why did you do that?

A. Because they're -- they're the first line of review for the

people underneath them.

Q. And did any of the history, including the October 2012

events, also go into your judgment as expressed to the troops

that they needed to read it?

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impressions.

THE COURT: Do you want to ask what was conveyed and

communicated and not --

MS. WANG: Sure.

THE COURT: -- what Mr. Casey thought?

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did you convey to anyone whether the history of your

discussions with your clients about the preliminary injunction

order also led you to believe that the sergeants needed to read

that order?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


A. I don't know if I conveyed that.

Q. All right. You said that at this time there was an effort

to make sure that various MCSO personnel read the order because

some executives had not read it? Was that your testimony?


Q. And are you referring to the instances when Chiefs Trombi

and Sheridan had clearly not read the court orders?

A. I don't know about clearly, but I could just tell you that

I just remember there was testimony that they -- I remember

Dave Trombi testifying he had not read it.

Q. All right. And you're aware that the Court had ordered a

corrective statement to go out to MCSO because of the ways that

Chiefs Trombi and Sheridan had characterized the Court's

orders, is that right?

A. I remember that.

Q. All right. Are you aware of any information that at the

time you withdrew from this case, there were still HSU

personnel who were unaware of the preliminary injunction order?

A. I have no information indicating that anyone was unaware of

it at that time.

Q. All right. Now, I think you've testified that at the time

the preliminary injunction order issued, the sheriff made --

assured you that MCSO was not detaining people based solely on

immigration status, is that right?

A. He said, We're not doing that any more, and the bottom line



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


is the federal government won't take it. Obama, ICE, will not

do it.

Q. Okay. And during the trial did you learn that, in fact,

MCSO was doing that?

A. I think we went over that maybe an hour ago, and I remember

testimony from a witness --

Q. Okay.

A. -- or two.

Q. And at that time did Sheriff Arpaio tell you anything about

whether he would continue to conduct those kinds of detentions?

A. I don't believe the sheriff understood the LEAR policy, but

he clearly understood what the preliminary injunction order

required.

Q. Well, when it came up during the trial, did Sheriff Arpaio

assure you that he would stop the detentions based solely on

immigration status?

A. I think we handled that through Chief Sheridan, and that

was the -- that was absolutely the message that was received,

that we're not sure what happened, but it was not supposed to.

Q. All right. And was that message conveyed to Sheriff

Arpaio?

A. My understanding is that's where it was from.

Q. All right. That Sheriff Arpaio was conveying that that

activity would stop.

A. That's correct.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


Q. Okay. And that was why you made the representation to the

Ninth Circuit that you did, right?

A. Yeah. Well, the whole host of times I've communicated with

my client it wasn't happening, it wasn't going to happen, ICE

wouldn't do it. Even if we wanted to do it, ICE won't take

them.

Q. And in October of 2012 we've heard your testimony that once

again you learned MCSO was detaining people based solely on

immigration status, correct?


MS. WANG: I'm trying to just sum up, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I know you're trying to sum up, but I do

think that we need to be very sensitive to that concern, so I'm

going to sustain the objection.

MS. WANG: Very well.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. In October of 2012, did you learn whether MCSO was

violating the preliminary injunction order?

A. Like I said some time ago, it was my view that it was

likely a violation; not definitively, likely.

Q. But that's the message you conveyed to the sheriff?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And what did the sheriff tell you in response?

A. Same thing that we went over some time ago.

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, asked and answered.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


THE COURT: I'll allow it this one additional time.

THE WITNESS: That gets into the whole heated argument

that we had in October of 2012 after Mr. Segura's letter.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. So Mr. Casey, since the Court issued its

December 23rd, 2011 order, how many times did Sheriff Arpaio

communicate to you that there would no longer be detentions

based solely on suspected illegal presence in the United

States?

A. Three.

Q. I want to get back now to the question about whether the

preliminary injunction order was -- gave rise to your decision

to withdraw as counsel.

Was your decision to withdraw as counsel for the

sheriff related in any way to what you've just discussed in the

last two minutes?

MS. CLARK: Objection, Judge. One moment.

Confidentiality, privilege, and work product, Judge.

MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I don't object to the yes or no

question, but I'll probably be up here again in a second.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to overrule the objection

and direct the witness to answer.

THE WITNESS: As I mentioned before --

THE COURT: Well, would you answer the question yes or

no, please.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2

16:2


THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. All right. And can you explain, to the extent that your

decision to withdraw as Sheriff Arpaio's lawyer in this case

was based on that history relating to the preliminary

injunction order, why did you withdraw?

MS. CLARK: Same three bases for the objection, Judge.

MR. MASTERSON: I'm going to object on the basis of

foundation, refer the Court again to the deposition page and

lines cited.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to instruct the

witness that he is to answer the question based only on the

extent to which it involves communications with his client.

THE WITNESS: Very indirectly, just resistance from my

client.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Who expressed that resistance?

A. That was the sheriff.

Q. And resistance to what?

A. Being told what to do.

Q. Including the preliminary injunction order?

A. Eventually.

Q. All right. Mr. Casey, I'm going to move on to a different

topic. You're familiar with the MCSO's investigation involving

the confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, correct?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:2

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


A. I remember attending a meeting.

Q. Okay. And what was discussed during that meeting?

Well, let me back up. Who was present at the meeting?

A. I'm going to start off with the lawyers: It was myself; my

co-counsel, Tom Liddy; at this meeting I do not believe my

partner, James Williams, was present; John Masterson was

present; Joe Popolizio was present; I believe Steve Bailey was

present. I believe that Jerry Sheridan was present, but as I

said at my deposition, I can't be certain about Jerry Sheridan.

And I believe that Jack MacIntyre was present, but I cannot be

certain about his presence. I believe that Lisa Allen was

present, but I'm not certain.

Q. Did you attend more than one meeting where the Dennis

Montgomery investigation was discussed?

A. I only remember one meeting.

Q. All right. And was anyone else present other than the

people you named?

A. Well, the sheriff was there.

Q. Anyone else?

A. Did I mention Bailey?

Q. Yes.

A. And there were two guys that were on a speakerphone.

Q. Did you have an understanding about who those people were

on the speakerphone?

A. My understanding is they were both employees of MCSO.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


Q. And you don't know who they were?

A. No. You mentioned in the deposition the names, but I don't

re -- I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Was it your impression that they were calling in

from the same location?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know whether that was in the Seattle, Washington

area?


Q. Okay. Tell me everything you remember about this meeting.

MS. CLARK: Objection, confidentiality; ER 1.6; work

product; as applicable, attorney-client privilege.

THE COURT: I've already ruled that there is a waiver

as to this meeting, and so the attorney-client privilege

objection is overruled; the 1.6 objection is overruled; and the

confidentiality objection is overruled without prejudice to its

renewal, or any of the above, depending upon the question.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I make a hearsay objection

to statements made by the two guys on the speakerphone.

THE COURT: Well, he testified that the two guys on

the speakerphone were MCSO employees in Seattle, right?

MR. MASTERSON: He did.


MR. MASTERSON: Is the Court's basis for this that

it's an admission?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


THE COURT: It's a statement, not an admission. It's

a statement. To the extent that it involves the Montgomery

investigation and they were sent up to work with Montgomery, I

believe it is a statement under -- well, it's called admission

in the title, but it says statement is offered against a party.

It's 801(d)(2).

THE WITNESS: Am I ordered to answer?

MR. MASTERSON: Just a brief record that I don't think

these two people have the -- or had the status in MCSO to make

an admission on behalf of the organization.

THE COURT: And I will -- I accept that, but I don't

read the rule to require an admission; it merely refers to

statements.


MS. WANG: And Your Honor, in response to

Mr. Masterson's argument, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), a statement

offered against an opposing party that is made by the party's

agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that

relationship and while it existed is not hearsay.

THE COURT: I believe I've already ruled in your

favor, Ms. Wang.

MS. WANG: Thank you, Judge.

THE WITNESS: Am I ordered to answer, Your Honor?

MS. WANG: Sorry.

THE COURT: You are.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


THE WITNESS: My memory of this is there was an offer

of proof, if you will, that the MCSO folks on the phone were

explaining what this CI, the confidential informant, could

offer MCSO if MCSO continued to seek his services, his

consultation, his informant status, whatever.

And I do remember there was a discussion about him --

the CI wanting to have some type of immunity. I don't remember

the details of that or what that's about. I'm not a criminal

lawyer; I don't practice in that area.

I remember that there were discussions about him

having access to a duplicate set of NSA or CIA data that he

could mine, m-i-n-e. And that his preliminary research

indicated from that data that he could mine that there was

either telephone or e-mail surveillance on, I think it was Joe

Popolizio at Jones, Skelton. Could be other people. There

also was discussion about a connection between the Court, DOJ,

and people in the federal administration.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. On the latter point, Mr. Casey, did you hear anyone purport

that the confidential informant had evidence of a conspiracy

among those parties: this Court, the Department of Justice, and

the law firm of Covington & Burling against Sheriff Arpaio?

A. That's what was being reported.

Q. Was that report -- who was that reported by?

A. One or both of the fellows on the phone were reporting that



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


there was this collusion involving the Court that had an

adverse effect on Joe Arpaio, and that it could be proven if

MCSO would go forward with using the CI's services.

Q. Did you hear any mention of a purported telephone call

between the Department of Justice and Judge Snow's chambers?

A. Yes.

Q. And was it purported that that information came out of data

that Dennis Montgomery had mined from the NSA or the CIA?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention that former U.S. Attorney Dennis

Burke was involved in that same conspiracy?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention of the then-Attorney General of

the United States, Eric Holder?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it alleged that he was involved in that purported

conspiracy?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention of then-Deputy Attorney General

Lanny Breuer being involved in that purported conspiracy?

A. I believe he was included in that, but I'm not certain.

Q. I'm going to have you turn to Exhibit 2072.

Take a look at Exhibit 2072 and let me know if you saw

a copy of those documents during this meeting.

A. I have it, and I did see it.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


Q. All right. There's something that is labeled a timeline,

and then there's also something labeled "Arpaio brief." Did

you see both of those documents during this meeting?

A. As I told you in my depo, I remember seeing a timeline, and

I do remember seeing a graphic that looked like this Arpaio

brief.

Q. All right. And do you recall that Judge Snow's name

appeared on those documents?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that discussed during the meeting?

A. I don't remember the judge specifically being addressed,

but he had either a law clerk or a former law clerk that was

supposedly a conduit for communications.

Q. In connection with this purported conspiracy against the

sheriff?

A. That was my impression.


Exhibit 2072 at this time.







BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3

16:3


Q. You mentioned that the MCSO personnel on the phone said

that the source of this information was data that the CI had

mined from the CIA or the NSA, is that right?


Q. Did anyone express a concern that that use of that data

might be illegal?

A. Yes.

Q. Who expressed that concern?

A. I did, and I know that -- I believe that a couple of the

other lawyers also did.

Q. Did anyone in the room react to that?

A. It was not said during the meeting; it was said as we're

breaking up.

Q. Okay. As you were leaving that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And who did you express that concern to?

A. I don't remem- -- I know I should remember it because it

was just -- I thought this was November of '13, by the way, but

I don't remember who it was, but it would have been one of the

executives. It would not have been the sheriff himself.

Q. All right. And did that, whoever you expressed it to --

One of the chiefs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did that chief respond to your expression of concern

about the use --



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor. I think we're

beyond the scope of the Court's ruling on the waiver in that

meeting. We're at some post meeting activity now.

THE COURT: Was your testimony that it was while the

meeting was breaking up?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.

THE WITNESS: I honestly don't remember, but whoever

it was I think had that concern and was going to -- my

expression -- run it to ground.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. I didn't hear you.

A. Run it to ground.

Q. Okay.

A. Make sure that the MCSO had looked into that.

Q. All right.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, if I could just get a

clarification that by allowing the testimony you were ordering

it from the witness?

THE COURT: I was ordering the witness to testify.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, during the course of this meeting, did anyone

express a view on the reliability of the information about the

purported conspiracy against Sheriff Arpaio?

A. Yes.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


Q. Who expressed that view?

A. The lawyers.

Q. What was expressed?

MS. CLARK: Objection, client confidentiality, Judge.


The witness will answer.

THE WITNESS: I'll tell you my conclusion, what I

mentioned in the deposition: It was hogwash. It was

unbelievable. And I believe that the other lawyers shared that

same sentiment, that same conclusion, and that was expressed.

This is someone to be avoided.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did anyone else in the room express a view as to the

reliability of the information about the purported conspiracy?

A. I remember MCSO people, except for the sheriff, being

silent during this.

Q. Did the sheriff speak?

A. He did.

Q. What did he say?

A. He said something that indicated that he was enthusiastic

and it needed to be looked into.

Q. The purported conspiracy involving the Court?

A. That was my impression.

Q. Did you have any further involvement in the Dennis

Montgomery investigation after this meeting?



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


A. None.

Q. Why not?

MS. CLARK: Objection, client confidentiality, Judge.

MR. MASTERSON: Join.



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, did Sheriff Arpaio express to you any emotions

about the evidence of the purported conspiracy?



MR. MASTERSON: I'm going to -- I'm not sure when

where talking about. If we're talking post-meeting, we're

out -- post-meeting, we're outside the Court's order.

THE COURT: I will agree. If it's post-meeting,

you're not to answer; if it's during the meeting or while the

meeting is breaking up, you are to answer.

THE WITNESS: It was not during the meeting, but it

was while we were breaking up walking out of the meeting.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. And what did he convey to you?

MS. CLARK: Continuing objection, Judge.

THE COURT: Overruled. The witness will answer.

THE WITNESS: He added an additional fact.

BY MS. WANG:



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


Q. What's that?

A. He had his finger out and he says: You know that Jon Kyle

is at Covington, and Kyle got the judge his job.

Q. During the meeting, or as it was breaking up, Mr. Casey,

did you -- did you hear anything indicating why the sheriff was

interested in following up on this information about a

purported conspiracy?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I cannot answer that

question without violating attorney-client privilege and client

confidentiality, because the information I have is outside that

meeting, outside the exiting of that meeting.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. When did you get that information?

A. I think it was a course of about 30 or 40 days. And I

thought this is November of '13, not January '14, but it would

have been in 30 to 40 days is when I gathered that.

Q. After the meeting or before?

A. It was after the meeting.

Q. During the meeting or as it was breaking up, did Sheriff

Arpaio express any attitude towards Judge Snow?

A. He did not express any attitude during that meeting or

while it was breaking up.

Q. Did he do so at some other time?





F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I have a moment?

THE COURT: You may.



BY MS. WANG:

Q. Mr. Casey, based on what you heard and saw during this

meeting, or as it was breaking up, did you have a sense that

the sheriff was being vindictive?

MS. CLARK: Objection, mental impression, Judge.


MS. WANG: I'm not sure this is a different question,

Judge, but I'll try.

BY MS. WANG:

Q. Did the sheriff say anything, or otherwise express verbally

or otherwise during that meeting or as it was breaking up, a

vindictive attitude?


THE COURT: I'll allow it.

THE WITNESS: The only thing I remember him saying was

that it needed to be followed up on.

MS. WANG: All right. Nothing further.


Do you want to start again tomorrow?

MR. MASTERSON: If it's not too presumptuous, I'd just

as soon take an early break tonight.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


THE COURT: I'll allow you to do that.

What I am going to require, though, is I just got

notice that you'd filed a motion to quash a subpoena sometime

today. Have you seen that, Ms. Wang?

MS. WANG: I know it was filed, but I have not looked

at the motion.

THE COURT: All right. Well, if we can deal with it

tomorrow. I did read the motion to quash. I gathered it has

some urgency to it. We need to deal with it tomorrow, so if

you can take a look at it tonight. And then if you can both be

here 15 minutes early tomorrow, since we're ending 15 minutes

early today we can start 8:45 tomorrow and we will deal with

the motion to quash, and then we will proceed with testimony.

Is there an issue?

MS. MORIN: Yes, Your Honor. I have looked briefly at

the motion to quash, and I just wanted to clarify because Your

Honor may have read this, and it looks like the defendants have

referred to -- excuse me -- the wrong date, the return date

that's on the motion, which might be relevant to your

consideration of that. And if the defendants are not looking

at the right subpoena date, they might have a misimpression of

what -- what their motion was about as well.

So the motion -- or the subpoena that we served, the

document subpoena, has a return date of October 5th, and that

was what I noticed in the motion.



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


THE COURT: Return date of October 5th?

MS. MORIN: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let me just say, here's

what interests me, and obviously I'm going to give you a chance

to respond. But it did seem to me like the nature of the

objection as it pertains to overbreadth might have some

purchase to it.

I do think that the material sought seems to me to be

relevant and appropriate. But it did seem to me that the date

pertains -- that tracks from the preliminary injunction date

might be a little early, and it also might be more targeted

than talking about every MCSO employee. I mean, it seems to me

that we could narrow it down and not make it so onerous on --

Who was it served on?

MR. MASTERSON: Mr. Zullo.

THE COURT: Yeah, Mr. Zullo.

Anyway, you haven't had a chance to read it. I'm just

telling you that I did read it over the break. Those were the

issues that interested me. You can take a look at, be prepared

to address it if you want tomorrow.

MS. MORIN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Clark.

MS. CLARK: It sounds like preliminary matters will be

handled tomorrow at 8:45. What time would you like --

THE COURT: The testimony's going to resume at



F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16:4

16:4

16:4

16:4


9 o'clock, hopefully.


THE COURT: Anything else by anybody?

MR. MASTERSON: Nothing from me, Judge.

THE COURT: What?

MR. MASTERSON: Nothing from me.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JIRAUCH: Your Honor, just one personal matter.

Your Honor has noted that I've walked in a few minutes

late on a couple of occasions. I have an appointment tomorrow

morning. Could I be relieved of being here at 8:45 and come at

9:00?

THE COURT: Well, it seems to me like you have

co-counsel here.

MR. JIRAUCH: I do.

THE COURT: And so, as welcome as you are, you're not

necessary as long as co-counsel's here.

MR. JIRAUCH: I've been told that many times during my

career. Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else?

All right. See you tomorrow at quarter to 9:00.

(Proceedings concluded at 4:49 p.m.)



W C

M1

2

3

4

5


C E R T I F I C A T E

Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

Documents

Transcript of Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing