melendres # 1462 | combined proposed statement of issues w exhibit

8/20/2019 Melendres # 1462 | Combined Proposed Statement of Issues w Exhibit

1/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0775

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

Daniel J. Pochoda

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation of Arizona

P.O. Box 17148

Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148

Telephone: (602) 650-1854

Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,

)

)

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

)

Plaintiff(s), )

) COMBINED PROPOSED

v. ) STATEMENT OF ISSUES

) FOR CONTINUED CONTEMPT

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., ) HEARING

)

Defendants(s). )

)

)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 19


2/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project125 Broad Street, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 549-2676

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLP

One CityCenter850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001-4956

Telephone: (202) 662-5996

Facsimile: (202) 778-5996

Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

Telephone: (949) 824-9894

Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund

634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLP

333 Twin Dolphin DriveSuite 700

Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418

Telephone: (650) 632-4700

Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLPOne Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 591-7066

Facsimile: (415) 955-6566



3/29

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to this Court’s oral order regarding a pretrial statement of issues and

documents, Plaintiffs submit the following statements of all parties and alleged non-

party contemnors, as received as of the time of this submission:

I. Statement of Issues for Continued Contempt Hearing

A. Plaintiffs’ Issues.

Plaintiffs intend to present evidence regarding the following topics during the

continued contempt hearing:

1. The three grounds of charged civil contempt in the February 12, 2015 Order to

Show Cause;

2. Any defenses to be raised by Defendants or individuals charged with contempt,

including any claim that violations of the preliminary injunction were based on

advice of counsel;

3. As bearing on the remedies for any contempt, the extent to which Sheriff

Arpaio’s or Chief Deputy Sheridan’s admitted contempt or any other MCSO

employees’ contempt of this court’s orders was knowing and willful;

4. As bearing on injunctive remedies for any contempt and the state of mind issues

described in Paragraph 3 above, the following issues:

a. the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, or any other

MCSO employee instigated, allowed, or encouraged an investigation of

the Court in order to improperly resist the Court’s orders and/or this

contempt proceeding;

b. the extent to which MCSO failed to retain adequate documentation of its

activities to presently identify all those who were detained in violation ofthe Court’s preliminary injunction, including outside of the Human

Smuggling Unit, and to ensure proper tracking and disposition of

property of members of the Plaintiff class;

c. Defendants’ continued non-compliance with orders to produce required

documents to both the Court-appointed Monitor team and to Plaintiffs,



4/29

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

including seized identification documents that may belong to Plaintiffs’

class members and documents relevant to the issues in this hearing;

5. Deficiencies in MCSO’s internal affairs investigation processes and

accountability systems;

6. The method and scope of adequate compensation for all victims of MCSO’s

violation of the preliminary injunction, see e.g., Int’l Union, United Mine

Workers v. Bagwell , 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (citing United States v. Mine

Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)), including a process for providing

notice to and determining claims for compensation by victims.

B. Defendants’ Issues.1. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated a

specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated December

23, 2011.

2. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Chief Deputy Gerald

Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

dated December 23, 2011.

3. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that former Executive Chief

Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

4. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Deputy Chief John

“Jack” MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary


5. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Lieutenant Joe Sousa

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

December 23, 2011.

6. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

December 23, 2011.



5/29

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

7. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy

Gerald Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary


8. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that former Executive

Chief Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary


9. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John

“Jack” MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary


10. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe

Sousa violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

dated December 23, 2011.

11. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated

any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of this matter in

2012.


Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the

trial of this matter in 2012.


“Jack” MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior

to the trial of this matter in 2012.


violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of thismatter in 2012.

15. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sheriff

Arpaio violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial

of this matter in 2012.

16. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Chief



6/29

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Deputy Gerald Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations

prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

17. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Deputy

Chief John “Jack” MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery

obligations prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

18. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lieutenant

Joe Sousa violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the

trial of this matter in 2012.

19. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio acted in

derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Court’s May 14, 2014

Orders.


Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Court’s

May 14, 2014 Orders.


“Jack” MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

Court’s May 14, 2014 Orders.


acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Court’s May 14,

2014 Orders.

23. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio

acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Court’s May 14,

2014 Orders.24. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy

Gerald Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this


25. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John

“Jack” MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this



7/29

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


26. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe

Sousa acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Court’s

May 14, 2014 Orders.

27. Whether any violations of a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011, were intentional.

28. Whether any violations of specific and definite discovery obligations prior to

the trial of this matter in 2012 were intentional.

29. Whether any actions in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

Court’s May 14, 2014 Orders were intentional.

30. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any violation of

this Court’s specific and definite Orders occurred after May 28, 2013.

31. Defendants contend that any evidence on remedies for any contempt to be

determined by the Court is premature and should not be permitted by the Court

at this stage in the proceedings.

32. Defendants contend that the “Seattle investigation” is irrelevant to any finding

of contempt and that the inquiry into the “Seattle investigation” impinges on

Defendant Arpaio’s constitutional rights. Further, nothing alleged by Plaintiffs

with respect to the “Seattle investigation,” even if taken as true, is unlawful.

Plaintiffs cannot show the violation of any specific and definite Order of the

Court caused by any aspect of the allegations they set forth related to the

“Seattle investigation.”

33. As to “state of mind issues,” the following:34. The monumental efforts made by Defendants and MCSO to comply with this

Court’s Orders including, but not limited to, massive policy updates, changes,

and the training required to bring MCSO personnel current on all such new and

revised policies.

35. The extraordinary efforts made by MCSO personnel to investigate the



8/29

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

“Armendariz” matter in a reasonable, timely, and appropriate fashion and to

keep the Court-appointed monitors apprised at each stage of the investigation.

36. The extensive and continued efforts to comply with this Court’s Orders and to

provide information to the monitors, both voluntarily and by request, through

the date of this proceeding.

37. Compliance with the appropriate standard of care with respect to internal affairs

investigations.

38. The defense of advice of counsel.

39. Whether, under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McMillian v.

Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), and applicable Arizona law, any liability

can be imputed to Defendant Maricopa County based on the matters at issue in

this proceeding.

40. Whether, if the Court finds that there was no substantial basis for Plaintiffs’

refusal to stipulate to dismissal of any of individual alleged contemnors, such

individual(s) are entitled to recover from Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees.

C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnor Sands’ Issues.

1. Whether Plaintiffs have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chief

Sands failed to take reasonable steps to ensure distribution of the Court’s

December 23, 2011, Preliminary Injunction ruling to MCSO personnel.

2. Whether Chief Sands substantially complied with his obligation to disseminate

the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order.

3. Whether other factors, such as Chief Sands’ retirement and his cooperation with

the Monitor’s investigation preclude or mitigate a finding of contempt againsthim.

4. Whether a finding of civil contempt against retired Chief Sands represents the

least possible power necessary to enforce the Court’s interest in adherence to its

orders.



9/29


10/29

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

2. Admission of other exhibits designated by Plaintiffs. A revised proposed list of

stipulated exhibits as of Oct. 12, 2015 is attached. The County and Retired

Chief Executive Sands have agreed to stipulate to certain exhibits, but Sheriff

Arpaio has not agreed to stipulate to any exhibits at this time.

The Parties are further engaged in ongoing discussions about a proposed

process for compensating victims of MCSO’s violation of the preliminary injunction to

determine if there are aspects of the process on which they can agree. To the extent the

Parties cannot reach agreement on any issues, they anticipate providing briefing to the

Court setting forth their respective positions with supporting affidavits, if any.

Plaintiffs have also been in discussions with the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) in regards to the subpoena served on DHS on February 26, 2015 for

documents related to the identification of victims. They expect DHS will provide

responsive documents very soon.

B. Defendants’ Proposed Stipulations.

As noted by Plaintiffs, the parties have reached an agreement to introduce

deposition testimony of witness Rollie Seebert.

Defendants proposed the following stipulation, which was not agreed to by

Plaintiffs:

1. “The information provided by Mr. [Dennis] Montgomery is not credible and the

entire ‘Montgomery investigation’ is not relevant to any of the issues in dispute

in the contempt proceeding.” Defendants further offered to stipulate that they

would not “seek to introduce any evidence concerning the ‘Montgomery

investigation’ at the contempt hearings.”

IV. Proposed Limits and Deadlines for Presentation of Evidence.

A. Plaintiffs’ Proposals.

1. Plaintiffs expect the witness order to proceed as follows, following

completion of testimony by Sgt. Tennyson: Capt. Bailey, Mr. Vogel,



11/29

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Chief Olson, Det. Mackiewicz, Mr. Zullo, Ruben Garcia, Lt. Jakowinicz,

and PI victim(s) including Mr. David Soto Gonzalez.

2. If permitted by the Court, the United States intends to call an expert

witness to testify about possible remedies to address deficiencies in

MCSO’s internal accountability systems, following the completion of fact

witness testimony. Plaintiffs join the DOJ’s request to submit expert

testimony.

3. Lt. Joseph Sousa. Direct examination will encompass the following

subjects: Scope and causes of violations of preliminary injunction order;

witness’s understanding of preliminary injunction order’s requirements;

documentation of violations of preliminary injunction order; adequacy of

MCSO’s internal investigations into “Armendariz spin-off” matters.

Plaintiffs anticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with

additional time as needed for redirect.

4. Sgt. Tennyson. Direct examination will encompass the following

subjects: MCSO’s general training, policies, and practices relating to

internal investigations; adequacy of MCSO’s internal accountability

systems to address issues relevant to this litigation and the Plaintiff class;

conflicts of interest in internal investigations; adequacy of MCSO’s

internal investigations into “Armendariz spin-off” and HSU matters;

MCSO’s investigations and responses to discovery of identification

documents; and adequacy of MCSO’s internal investigations on matters

relating to individuals involved in the “Seattle investigation.” Plaintiffsanticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with additional time

as needed for redirect.

5. Capt. Steve Bailey. Direct examination will encompass the following

subjects: MCSO’s general policies and practices relating to internal

investigations; adequacy of MCSO’s internal accountability systems to



12/29

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

address complaints of race discrimination or illegal detentions relevant to

this litigation; conflicts of interest in assignment of Capt. Bailey to

command of Professional Standards Bureau (“PSB”); adequacy of any

MCSO efforts to locate victims of violations of the preliminary injunction

order; adequacy of MCSO’s internal investigations into “Armendariz

spin-off” matters; MCSO PSB’s investigations and responses to discovery

of identification documents belonging to apparent members of the

Plaintiff Class, and related communications with the Court-appointed

Monitor Team; communications with individuals charged with civil

contempt relating to the “Seattle investigation” and propriety/legality of

funding sources for that investigation. Plaintiffs anticipate using 6 hours

for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

6. Mr. Vogel. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:

MCSO's internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over

Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011

preliminary injunction, and the MCSO's process for performing such

investigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO

policy have occurred. Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

7. Chief Olson. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:

MCSO’s internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over

Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011

preliminary injunction; the MCSO’s process for performing suchinvestigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO

policy have occurred; and conflicts of interest in internal investigations.

Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with




13/29

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

8. Plaintiffs expect to submit updated estimates for the direct examinations

of Mr. Mike Zullo and Det. Brian Mackiewicz upon review of discovery

received pursuant to their subpoenas of Mr. Zullo and the depositions of

Mr. Zullo and Det. Mackiewicz. The direct examinations of Sgt. Anglin,

Mr. Zullo, and Det. Mackiewicz will encompass the so-called “Seattle

investigation,” including the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy

Sheridan, or any other MCSO employee instigated, allowed or

encouraged an investigation, through the actions of Posseman Mike Zullo

and MCSO confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, into Judge Snow

in order to resist Judge Snow’s orders and/or this contempt proceeding.

At this time, Plaintiffs estimate using 90 minutes for the direct

examination of Sgt. Anglin, 2 hours for the direct examination of Det.

Mackiewicz, and 2-2.5 hours for the direct examination of Mr. Zullo, with


9. Plaintiffs expect to present testimony of up to 2 class members harmed by

MCSO’s violations of the preliminary injunction, including Mr. David

Soto Gonzalez. Due to the challenges of locating class members affected

by MCSO’s violations based on incomplete information, identification of

class members who can testify is ongoing. Plaintiffs estimate using 30

minutes to 1 hour for the direct examination of class members.

10. Ruben Garcia. Direct examination will encompass the following

subjects: IA case 11-22 and underlying events. Plaintiffs anticipate using

45 minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed forredirect.

11. Lt. Jakowinicz. Plaintiffs expect to call Lt. Jakowinicz for the purpose of

authenticating documents for admission. Plaintiffs anticipate using 15

minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for

redirect.



14/29

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

B. Defendants’ Proposals.

Defendants identify the following witnesses tentatively to be called:

1. Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan: Direct examination may encompass some or all

of the following subjects: Ethical and legal standards to which MCSO deputies

are held and the consequences of their failure to comply with those standards;

MCSO’s commitment and extensive efforts to achieve compliance with this

Court’s orders; training provided by the United States for MCSO deputies

engaged in law enforcement activities under the 287(g) program, and its effects

on the practices of MCSO; MCSO procedures and practices related to

investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau;

investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts

that came to light in the wake of his death; parameters of the “Seattle

investigation” and efforts to ensure no investigation of Judge Snow was

conducted; handling of the 1400+ identification documents surfaced by Sgt.

Jonathan Knapp; efforts to identify and gather video recordings of traffic stops

conducted by MCSO deputies, and the results of those efforts; and interactions

with the Monitor Team and assessment of the Monitor Team’s involvement in

the internal affairs of MCSO. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct


2. Tom Liddy. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following

subjects: Events occurring prior to May 14, 2014 relating to the identification

and gathering of video recordings of traffic stops conducted by MCSO deputies,

plans for what was to be done with said video recordings once they had beengathered, and further steps taken after direction with regard to same from the

Court in the May 14, 2014 hearing. Defendants anticipate using one hour for

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

3. Captain Steve Bailey. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to investigations



15/29

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; investigations

into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts that came to

light in the wake of his death; handling of the 1400+ identification documents

surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp and communications with legal counsel and

the Monitor Team regarding same. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for the

direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

4. Chief Mike Olson. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the


conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in

dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations

where high-level command staff are named as principals. Defendants anticipate

using one hour for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for

redirect.

5. Sgt. Stephen Fax. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the


conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in

dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations,

including investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out

of facts that came to light in the wake of his death, and other investigations

made the subject of Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief in which he was involved; his

participation in a meeting in July of 2015 regarding the 1400+ identification

documents surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp. Defendants anticipate using 4

hours for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.6. Mike Zullo. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following

subjects: Parameters of the “Seattle investigation;” his receipt and

understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any

investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and

assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by



16/29

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

him during the “Seattle investigation.” Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

7. Captain Stephanie Molina. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

the following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to

investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; her

knowledge of and participation in specific PSB investigations during her tenure

as the head of PSB. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct


8. Cpt. Russ Skinner. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with

this Court’s orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct


9. Cpt. Larry Farnsworth. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with

this Court’s orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct


10. Detective Brian Mackiewicz. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

the following subjects: Parameters of the “Seattle investigation;” his receipt and

understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any

investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and

assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by

him during the “Seattle investigation.” Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.11. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

the following subjects: MCSO’s commitment and extensive efforts to achieve

compliance with this Court’s orders; interactions with the Monitor Team and

assessment of the Monitor Team’s involvement in the internal affairs of MCSO.

Defendants anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with



17/29

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28


Since this proceeding is ongoing, and Plaintiffs continue to modify their list of

witnesses and exhibits, Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this list of

witnesses as deemed necessary through the close of Plaintiffs’ case. Defendants

reserve the right to offer all exhibits listed by Plaintiffs regardless of whether

withdrawn. Defendants will supplement this list of exhibits as this matter progresses

toward Defendants’ case-in-chief.

Defendants intend to retain and call all necessary expert witnesses to testify as

to all issues relevant to this Court’s determinations and to any possible remedies that

may be considered by the Court and to any additional injunctive relief to be considered

by the Court.

C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnors Sands’ Proposals.

1. Chief Sands requests that the Court set a deadline of October 9, 2015, for

Plaintiffs to complete their liability case on the alleged failure to disseminate

the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order.

2. Chief Sands requests that the Court impose time limits for the examination of

each witness. If the parties cannot agree to a time limit for a particular witness,

each party shall submit a proposed time limit and the Court shall choose which

limit applies.

3. Chief Sands does not presently intend to call any additional witnesses.

However, he may testify if new testimony is elicited on issues relevant to the

charge against him. His testimony may address his understanding of the

preliminary injunction order, communications he had with others concerningthe order, and the steps he took to ensure compliance with the order.



18/29

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October, 2015.

By: /s/ Stanley Young

Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

Daniel Pochoda

ACLU Foundation of Arizona

Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)

Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)

Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)

Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)

Covington & Burling, LLP

Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



19/29

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 12, 2015 I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

caused the attached document to be served via the CM/ECF System on all counsel of

record

/s/ Stanley Young



20/29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PLAINTIFFS’ OCT. 12, 2015 PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXHIBITS

____ Preliminary Injunction ______ TRO Non-Jury Trial _____ Jury Trial

X Evidentiary Hearing

Case Number CV-07-2513- PHX Judge Code GMS Date September 24, 2015

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al. vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

X Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent

** This proposed stipulation does not list exhibits that have already been admitted into evidence.

Exh.

No.

Description

69 MCSO Memorandum to Bailey re determining if any HSU Members

removed property/evident for training purposes (MELC006122-123)

152 MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings

1000 Court’s exhibit, MELC028130-MELC028159

2001 MCSO Memorandum from Commander Shaw to

Captain Skinner dated 8/5/2015 re July 21, 2015

Site Visit Request and MCSO Policy GC-17dated 9/5/2014 Employee Disciplinary Procedure (MELC416241-

MELC416261)

2010 MCSO PSB Background Packet IA 2015-0021 (MELC288144-

MELC288558)

2011 MCSO IA #2015-0357 (MELC209485-MELC209686)

2017 MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation IA 2014-0570(MELC161088-MELC161171)

2019 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re WeeklyStatus Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/3/2014

(MELC005297-MELC005300)

2020 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain

Bailey re Weekly Status Reports on IA's 2014-

0221/0295 dated 8/15/2014 (MELC010833 -MELC010837)

2022 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Kratzer to CaptainBailey re Weekly Status Report for IA 2014-0221

dated 12/23/2014 (MELC034352 -

MELC034355)

2031 MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 295, Transcribed Interview Dep.C. Lopez dated 6/17/2014 (MELC227064-ELC227070)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 10


21/29

2

Exh.

No.

Description

2050 MCSO Memorandum from Deputy Cosme to Captain Bailey re

Video/Audio re Melendres Court Order dated 5/21/2014

(MELC098062-MELC098110)

2051 MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Seagraves (on behalf of CaptainBailey) to Chief Lopez re Video/Audio re Melendres Court Orderdated 5/21/2014 (MELC004088)

2052 Email chain: From Steve Bailey re "Fwd: Video/Audio RecordingsResponse CV-07_2513-PHX-GMS" dated 5/19/2014

(MELC829381-MELC829383)

2053 Email from Steve Bailey to Monitor Team re "Status Update of

DVDs and Investigation" dated 6/9/2014 (MELC004999-MELC005000)

2054 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly

Status Reports on IA's 2014-0253/0221/0295 dated 6/27/2014

(MELC005304-MELC005313)2055 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly

Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/25/2014

(MELC005918-MELC005921)


Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/18/2014

(MELC005599-MELC005598)

2057 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re WeeklyStatus Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/11/2014

(MELC005335-MELC005340)


Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/3/2014(MELC005297-MELC005300)

2059 MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 2014-0541 (MELC224936-MELC224940)

2060 Email from Mike Hall to Linda Walters and Steve Bailey re"Arriago, Luciano" dated 7/15/2014 (MELC005924-MELC005926)

2063 Documents from IA 2014-0544 (MELC160117-MELC160171)

2064 MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation, Documents from IA

2014-0570 (MELC161088-MELC161114)2068 Documents from IA 14-0564 (MELC160986-MELC161056)

2069 MCSO Memorandum from Lt Munley to Captain Bailey re Weekly

Status Report for IA 2014-0221/0295 dated 9/5/2014(MELC011654-MELC011656)



22/29

3

Exh.

No.

Description

2071 Email from Tim Casey, forwarding his 12/23/2011 email, re

Melendres Order on Summary Judgment dated 11/6/2014

(CaseySub 000050-CaseySub 000053)

2073 MCSO Seattle Investigation (Exemplars of documents produced tothe Monitor on April 27, 2014 and contained on one external harddrive)

2075 Meeting request from CD Sheridan to Anglin re Conference Call--Lt. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey dated

4/28/2014 (MELC198504)

2076 MCSO PSB Inappropriate Conduct, Employee: Brian Mackiewicz,

CIA 2015-0055 (MELC258950-54, MELC258960)

2080 Case 2:07-0513-GMS Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al Exhibit F-

Joe Arpaio Brief, Timeline/Charts re Montgomery Investigation

(Dkt. No. 1166, filed on 7/10/15) (MELC199917-35)2081 Confidential Informant File dated 12/6/2013 (MELC198428-30)

2084 Memorandum from Lee AnnBohn to Captain Russ Skinner re

Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 59 (records

associated with expenses related to the Seattle and GrissomInvestigations) dated 6/12/2015 (MELC233532-34)

2085 Document created to keep track of various expenditures

(MELC199632-33)

2088 Email from Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo attaching rejectionletters dated 4/13/2014 (MELC202291-302)

2089 Outlook invite from Sheridan Gerard to Anglin Travis re ConferenceCall - Lit. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey

scheduled for April 28, 2014 at 4PM (MELC199340)

2090 Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a

subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 (MELC202222-24)

2092 Collection of memos, e.g. 1) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from

Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Investigative Trip

to Seattle WA; 2) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from Travis

Anglin to Captain Steven Bailey re Investigative Trip to Seattle, WAscheduled for 1/23-1/26/14; 3) January 21, 2014 Memorandum from

Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information

Payment; 4) January 24, 2014 Memorandum from BrianMackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information Payment

(MELC198474-94)

2094 Case summary (MELC199506-12)

2104 Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0547

(MELC160761-985)



23/29

4

Exh.

No.

Description


(MELC158915-37)


(MELC208295-370)2115 Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0576

(MELC208221-66)

2218 MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0542 (MELC-IA011161-11303)

2219 MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0543 (MELC209720-

209970)

2220 MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA #2014-0543

(MELC211517-211586)

2221 MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report A 14-0543 Attachments

dated 4/6/2015 (MELC210440-210607)2223 Letter from Lee Ann Bohn to Don Vogel re assistance in conductionadministrative investigations for MCSO dated 12/18/2014

(DV000280-281)

2224 Letter from Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre to Don Vogel re Privilege

Log on Production Request for IA Investigation dated 1/20/2015(DV000515)

2225 Email from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel cc: Liddy Thomas, Newton Brandon, Cari Shehorn, Jill Lafornara re final report content

dated 2/4/2015 (MELC1397163-165)

2226 Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re investigation

completion date dated 2/27/2015 (DV000139-141)

2227 Letter from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel RE: Arpaio, et al. adv.

Melendres, et al. U.S. District Court Case No: CV07-02513-PHX·GMS dated 3/2/2015 (DV000381-82)

2228 Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re Palmer emails ontraining scenarios dated 3/2/2015 (DV000142)

2232 Email from Don Vogel to Lee Stein re Palmer emails dated3/16/2015 (DV000155)

2233 Email from Don Vogel to Sharon Kiyler FW: Melendres v. Arpaio:Sousa-Palmer E-mail and Privilege Log. Attachments: Sousa-Palmer

email 1.19.12; Privilege Log-2 2015-2-27 dated 3/23/2015(DV000209)

2234 Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 report dated

3/20/2015; attachments included (DV000172)

2235 Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 dated

3/31/2015 (DV000171)



24/29


25/29

6

Exh.

No.

Description

2267 Email from Mike to [email protected] - Re: Oz dated 12/9/2014

(MELC202048)

2268 Email from Mike to David Webb RE: CIA Names dated 1/20/2015

(MELC202170)2269 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Lawsuit dated 1/22/2015

(MELC200001-03)

2270 Email from David Webb to Mike RE: Klayman dated 1/28/2015

(MELC202233)

2271 Email from David Webb to Mike re: Work dated 2/2/2015

(MELC202285-89)

2272 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Blue Cross dated

2/5/2015 (MELC202159-62)

2273 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: No Work dated 2/11/2015

(MELC201828)2274 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Arpaio dated 2/27/2015

(MELC202148)

2275 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/3/2015(MELC202131)

2276 Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/4/2015

(MELC202254-55

2277 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015

(MELC202055-56)

2278 Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015

(MELC202249-50)

2279 Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Zullo copying David Webb and

Dennis Re: 2nd Request dated 4/20/2015 (MELC202142-45)

2527 Email from Carmen Hernandez to Travis Anglin re Investigativetravel dated 2/3/2014 (MELC198515)

2559D Employee Grievance Response to Sousa on 14-542 and WrittenReprimand on 14-542 dated 6/1/2015 (MELC-IA13635)

2559F Pre-Determination Hearing Worksheet on Sousa in 14-542 dated

5/15/2015 (MELC-IA013680-MELC-IA013683)

2707 MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report by Don Vogel,

containing information used during Sheridan's name-clearing

hearing dated 4/6/2012 (MELC-IA020592-IA020733)

2719 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Timelinedated 8/24/2014 (MELC1287446)

2720 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Summarydated 8/27/2014(MELC1287419 - MELC1287444)



26/29

7

Exh.

No.

Description

2726 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to [email protected] Re: Elmer’s

case summary dated 9/4/2014 (MELC1292689 - MELC1292714)

2753 Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Dave Munley Re:

Weekly Status Report dated 7/31/2014 (MELC006421-MELC006423)

2754 Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:

Weekly Status Report dated 8/8/2014 (MELC010335-MELC010337)

2757 Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax

Re: Documenting all personnel in HSU by year

and identifying the chain of command dated6/21/2014 (MELC010882-MELC010883)

2758 Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt re:

Weekly Status Report dated 8/22/2014 (MELC010898-

MELC010900)2759 Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:

Weekly Status Report dated 8/29/2014 (MELC011158-

MELC011160)

2760 Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax

Re: Timeline for Ramon Charley Armendarizdated 8/1/2014 (MELC011630-MELC011647)

2767 MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #14-0451

(MELC158124-MELC158541)

2770 Email from Peter Metzler to James Alger, Gerard

Funk, Jerry Scott, Chris Quattrini, Mark Parks,

Anthony Cruz, Sterling Bridges, Rudy Acosta,

Cesar Brodman, Walter Duncanson, Jeremy Blain dated 3/19/2014(MELC158540-MELC158541)

2772 MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA # 2014-0546 dated

11/12/2014 (MELC158578-MELC158624)

2780 Email from Kim Seagraves to James Sparman Re:

Mac dated 7/29/2015 (MELC417466)

2781 Email from Kim Seagraves to Steve Bailey re

Brian Mackiewicz dated 5/11/2015(MELC417533)

2782 MCSO Administrative Investigation IA#14-0580 dated 11/26/2014(MELC676786-MELC676814)

2784 Letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Hickley

Leonisio Abreu Re: Complaint

#070002391430501 dated 11/14/2014(MELC680167-MELC680377)



27/29

8

Exh.

No.

Description

2790 MCSO Operational Manual dated 2/18/2015

(MELC1396796-MELC1396813)

2794 MCSO Investigative Report IA# 2015-0022 dated

5/23/2015 (MELC288559-MELC288574)2799 Memorandum to S. Bailey from K. Seagraves Re:

Action Plan - Reference to allegation of AnabolicSteroids purchase(s) made by Deputies Brian

Mackiewicz and James Kempher dated 3/26/2015

(MELC186297-MELC186300)

2820 Revised Call Signs dated 11/22/2013

(MELC112957)

2823 Freedom Friday YouTube page print - "Mike Zullo Does LIVE

Q&A on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups" dated June 14, 2015

2843 Email from David Tennyson to Dave Zebro Re: Report Requestdated 4/27/2015 (MELC1397053)

2851 Spreadsheet of traffic stops (1 of 2) (MELC413860)

2852 Spreadsheet of traffic stops (2 of 2) (MELC413861)

2853 HSU 2011 Master Log



2860

Partial video of IA 14-547 stop dated 3/7/2012

2893 Interview of Mary Ann McKessey with David Tennyson re Case #

2015-0034 dated 3/27/2015 (MELC186200-MELC186266)

2895 Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph

Sousa dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013638)

2897 Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph

Sousa (Crossed Out) dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013679)

2900 Departmental Report: Occurance Location: Multiple / Maricopa

County Victim: Multiple Occurance Type: Computer Tampering /

Identity Theft (MELC185195-MELC185370)

2901 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Updated Rev 3A dated

9/21/2014 (MELC202277)2902 MCSO Memo to Clint Doyle from Brian Mackiewicz Re:

Investigative Trip dated 11/30/2013 (MELC199821)

2903 Record of Informant and MCSO Memo from Clint Doyle to BrianMackiewicz re: Confidential informant payment dated 12/6/2013

(MELC198431-MELC198432)



28/29

9

Exh.

No.

Description

2904 Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Jenise Moreno Re: Confidential

dated 1/9/2014 (MELC1386579)

2905 MCSO Property and Evidence Report dated 11/19/2014

(MELC266600)2906 MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:

Confidential Informant Payment dated 8/12/2014 (MELC198465-MELC198466)

2907 MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:

Confidential Informant Payment dated 8/27/2014 (MELC198467-

MELC198468)



MELC198464)

2909 MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:Confidential Informant Payment dated 7/24/2014 (MELC198461-

MELC198462)


MELC198458)


Confidential Informant Payment dated 6/9/2014 (MELC198455-MELC198446)


MELC198454)



MELC198452)


MELC198450)


Confidential Informant Payment dated 3/29/2014 (MELC198448)

2917 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 1: "Joe Arpaio

Brief" Timeline dated 1/1/2014

2918 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 2: "ArpaioBrief" Schematic dated 1/1/2014

2919 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 3:"Whisleblower Chronicles" (CIA Chronicles)

2920 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 4: "Names ofPeople Involved" dated 2/17/2014



29/29

10

Exh.

No.

Description

2921 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 5: "Check List

for Elmer" (Check List for Dennis) dated

3/27/2014

2922 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 6: "List 2" dated3/27/2014

2923 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 7: "DOJ / Arpaio

Timeline" dated 12/4/2013

2924 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 8: "Project

Courier" Hispanic Businesses in AZ (1 examplar

photo of a 113 page document)

2925 Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 9: "Cover" dated

7/27/2014

2926 MCSO Special Investigation Division Interview with Confidential

Informant #1437 dated 9/6/2013 (MELC184916 - MELC185029)2927 MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #13-0000, Interview

Confidential Informant dated 12/14/2013 (MELC185036 -MELC185144)
