View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
1/21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00649-CMA-MJW
DANIEL JOYCE andROBERT LOPEZ,
Plaintiffs,vs.
NORTH METRO TASK FORCE,THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO,THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO,
JAMES NURSEY, CHIEF, THORNTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,RUSSELL VAN HOUTEN, CHIEF, NORTHGLENN POLICE DEPARTMENTJACK BELL,DANTE CARBONE,TIMOTHY HERSEE, andRICHARD REIGENBORN.
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY______________________________________________________________________
Defendants, CITY OF THORNTON, JAMES NURSEY and DANTE CARBONE,
by their attorneys, SENTER GOLDFARB & RICE, L.L.C., and pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C), hereby respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Order Compelling
Production of Subpoenaed Documents and Testimony (Dkt. #37) as follows:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The underlying premise of Plaintiffs Motion is the oft-repeated charge that
Defendant Carbone was the primary suspect or target of the DEA investigation into
the source of the leak that occurred in connection with the Tang investigation. As will
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
2/21
2
be shown below, the primary reason why Carbone gained this dubious status was by
virtue of the unsubstantiated allegations, suspicions, and charges that were lodged by
Plaintiffs Joyce and Lopez. When these suspicions were put to the test of investigation,
all objective facts pointed against Plaintiffs charges. Indeed, the entire exercise boils
down to an example of nothing more than ipse dixit the Plaintiffs say that Carbone is
the primary suspect in the leak and, as a result, it must therefore be so. Herein, they
continue to press their charge with no facts to support same other than rank speculation
and slanderous rhetoric.
2. As will also be demonstrated below, Plaintiffs have failed to follow proper
procedure in seeking the documentation they request, they are untimely and have been
dilatory in seeking that documentation, and the materials sought are not even relevant
to the controversies presented by this case. For these collective reasons, the motion
should be denied.
B. THE SUMMARY REPORT OF THE DEA INVESTIGATION
3. The Amended Affidavit submitted in support the Motion is rife with errors
and also omits material facts included in the DEA Summary Report which, when
considered, lead to far different conclusions than those suggested by Plaintiffs. In
considering the present motion, it must be remembered that the DEA Summary Report
is not in and of itself evidence of anything, but instead merely reports information and
statements gathered from the various persons who were interviewed in the underlying
investigation. The reports are inadmissible hearsay. It is the documentation referenced
and the witnesses identified therein that might constitute potential evidence. None of
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
3/21
3
the investigators, including the person sought to be deposed (Special Agent Roach)
have any direct knowledge of facts bearing on this case. Instead, they merely
investigated and reported upon what they were told by others. Finally, it must be
considered that while the Summary Report contained various impressions and surmise
of investigators (as all such reports are want to do), such matters constitute nothing
more than inadmissible opinions. Thus, neither the Summary Report, nor the complete
report, nor any testimony concerning those documents is likely to be admissible in any
event.
4. The undersigned counsel for Defendants reviewed the Summary Report
on November 10, 2010. As discussed below, several facts recited within the Amended
Affidavit submitted with Plaintiffs Motion are inaccurate and/or omit material facts. By
signature hereunder, counsel verifies that the following disparities of facts or omissions
of facts are born out by the Summary Report:
a. Claim is made that the Summary Report indicates that then-Sergeant
Carbone fought against having investigators move in and arrest the
members [on February 14, 2008]. [Amended Affidavit at 3.b.] This
statement is inaccurate. What the Summary Report actually reflects is
that both [Special Agent] Reid [of the DEA] and Carbone forcefully argued
to wait until more time passed before taking action. [Summary Report at
p. 104.] The report further indicates that Assistant Special Agent in
Charge Palestino (also of the DEA) thought that immediate action should
be taken and that Plaintiff Joyce also wanted to act immediately.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
4/21
4
[Summary Report at pp. 104 105.] The report also indicates that
[Special Agent] Marshall [of the DEA] was ambivalent, but somewhat
supportive of the need to take immediate action. [Summary Report at p.
105.] The Summary Report goes on to indicate that despite intercepted
phone calls showing that the subject of the investigation were aware of
police involvement, Carbone and Reid still recommended no action be
taken. [Summary Report at p. 106.] Moreover, in discovery taken in
connection with this case, Plaintiff Joyce claimed that Defendant Bell also
argued in favor of waiting before an enforcement action was taken.
[Deposition of Daniel Joyce at p. 206, ll. 18-22.] Thus, while the Amended
Affidavit attempts to suggest that Carbone stood alone in opposing
immediate action, both the Summary Report and other facts clearly
demonstrate that he was but one voice taking this position. Far from
being suspicious, such honest disagreements between investigators are a
routine part of drug investigations.
b. The Amended Affidavit also offers parenthetical commentary about the
fact that Carbone was promoted to the rank of commander following the
events that form the basis of this lawsuit. [Amended Affidavit at p. 2.] The
obvious innuendo suggested by this comment is that the promotion was in
someway linked to Plaintiffs claims or that he did not otherwise deserve
the promotion. Carbone has had an exemplary 30+ year career in law
enforcement. For many years, he has been sought by other law
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
5/21
5
enforcement agencies to assist in the most difficult and complex of
investigations. He received the City of Thorntons Distinguished Service
Award in 2005, and the City has received dozens of letters of appreciation
for Carbones service to include one from then Colorado Attorney General
Salazar offering thanks for his service in helping extradite criminals who
committed acts in Colorado and then fled to Mexico as a safe haven.
There is a letter from a chief deputy district attorney remarking that
Carbone is simply the best police interrogator I have ever encountered.
For over a decade, Carbones annual performance evaluations score
amongst the highest in the department, rating outstanding and highly
proficient. To suggest that his promotion had to do with anything other
than merit is simply reckless slander.
c. Through innuendo, the Amended Affidavit attempts to suggest that the cell
phone mentioned in the tip-off letter is in some way associated with
Carbones daughter. [Amended Affidavit at 3.c., d., and r.] What is
omitted from this discussion is that substantial efforts were undertaken by
the DEA to determine whether or not Carbones daughter was in any way
linked to the purchase of the subject cell phone. All of those efforts
proved entirely fruitless and in fact demonstrated that she was not
involved. Not a single witness was identified who placed Ms. Carbone in
the location where the phone was purchased on the day in question. In
fact, the clerk who sold the phone to the purchaser was shown a
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
6/21
6
photograph of Ms. Carbone and was unable to identify her as the
purchaser of the phone. [Summary Report at p. 116.] Bank records were
reviewed which also showed no correlation to the purchase of the cell
phone. [Summary Report at pp. 116 and 120.] Investigators even went to
the lengths of having a CBI criminalist inspect Ms. Carbones handwriting
to determine whether or not she had any part in filling out the application
for the cell phone. The criminalist concluded that the evidence suggests
that [Ms. Carbone] did not write [the name of cell phone applicant].
[Summary Report at p. 128.] They also had fingerprint analysis done by a
detective from the Denver Police Department who analyzed the evidence
and determined that Ms. Carbones fingerprints were not on the cell
phone application. [Summary Report at p. 129.] In short, thorough
investigation was undertaken and multiple forensic analyses were
performed and none of that yielded any results indicating that Carbones
daughter had any link whatsoever to the purchase of the subject cell
phone. Thus, while the Amended Affidavit suggests that investigators
found such a connection, the omitted material facts demonstrate just the
opposite.
d. The Amended Affidavit lays claim that the Summary Report indicates that
but (sic) of the 29 DEA and NMTF employees interviewed, approximately
half questioned Sergeant Carbones integrity and/or suspected that he
may have been involved in compromise the Tang investigation.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
7/21
7
[Amended Affidavit at 3.h.] What the Summary Report actually states is
that approximately half of the NMTF employees that were interviewed,
including two of the members of the NMTF management, questioned
Carbones integrity and/or suspected his involvement. [Summary Report
at p. 90.] Indeed, if one reviews the transcribed handwritten notes that are
submitted with Plaintiffs motion, this exact quote is reflected showing that
the quotation set forth in the Amended Affidavit is an error. [See, Excerpts
from Handwritten Notes from Review of Summary Report at p. 3.] The
correct quotation thus suggests that roughly half of the NMTF employees
interviewed either questioned Carbones integrity and/or suspected him
with regard to the leak. It is known from the discovery in this case that
each of the Plaintiffs fit both of these categories. [Deposition of Daniel
Joyce at p. 335, ll. 3-12, p. 345, l. 24 p. 347, l. 1, p. 351, ll. 12-24;
Deposition of Robert Lopez at p. 62, l. 15 p. 66, l. 11, p. 71, l. 19 p. 72,
l.14.] Moreover, while Plaintiff Joyce denies that he told others at the
NMTF of suspicions that Carbone was the author of the tip-off letter
[Deposition of Daniel Joyce at . 332, l. 18 p. 333, l. 5.],1 Plaintiff Lopez
candidly admits that he announced his suspicions to at least 10 other
persons at the NMTF. [Deposition of Robert Lopez at p. 97, l. 19 p. 9, l.
6, p. 119, l. 7 p. 126, 11.] Also, since the DEA investigators had, with the
1Although Joyce denies telling other NMTF detectives and employees of his suspicions about
Carbone, the vast majority of persons deposed or interviewed say just the opposite Joycespoke long and loud about his suspicions. In fact, his harangue became so distracting that atleast one detective asked to be moved away from him.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
8/21
8
assistance of Plaintiffs, identified Carbone as a lead suspect, it is
doubtless the case that virtually everyone who was questioned regarding
the matter was asked about Carbone. With all of this suspicion already
cast upon Carbone, one has to ask whether or not the suspicions existed
before or only after Plaintiffs implicated Carbone. Once Carbone was
made a suspect by Plaintiffs, all that he did became suspicious in the
minds of others
e. The Amended Affidavit also claims that the Summary Report indicates that
Carbone was found to be deceptive in answering questions in his
polygraph examination. [Amended Affidavit at 3.i.]2 What is omitted
from the affidavit is that Carbones polygraph examination was conducted
by a different special agent than the others who were given such a test.
[Summary Report at p. 46.] Moreover, polygraph examinations are
generally held inadmissible both in the Colorado Courts and in the Tenth
Circuit. 14 Colo. Prac., Criminal Practice & Procedure, 1.5(3) 2nd Ed.;
United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402 (1997). The vast majority of courts
who have considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence hold it to be
inadmissible for a variety of reasons, most notably lack of scientific
reliability. 22 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., 51, 69, 1st Ed.
2 The Amended Affidavit also states that Detective Garcias examination showed deception.[Amended Affidavit at p. 4.] In reality, the Summary Report states that the examination ofGarcia[shows]...no deception. [Summary Report at p. 46.] This is but another example of thelack of precision and accuracy in the Amended Affidavit.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
9/21
9
f. The Amended Affidavit further contends that the Summary Report
suggests a close relationship between Carbone and Dan Tang, even
going so far as to claim that when Tang was interviewed on February 18,
2008, he said that he was disappointed because he looked bad in front of
his friend, Dante. [Amended Affidavit at 3.l.] What is omitted from the
Amended Affidavit is the fact that when interviewed, Tang denied ever
having made such a statement. [Summary Report at p. 100.] Moreover,
the Summary Report reflects that no other person claims to have ever
heard this statement besides one officer. [Id.] The officer who claims that
the statement was made is none other than Plaintiff Joyce. [Deposition of
Daniel Joyce at p. 352, ll. 3-10.] Moreover, when interviewed, both
Carbone and Tang indicated that they only knew each other by virtue of
Carbone having come into the restaurant for lunch. [Summary Report at
p. 99.] No facts were developed which contradicted this assertion. In
addition, although claim is laid that there was a close relationship between
Carbone and Tang, it was found that Tang when interviewed stated that
he only knew Carbone by the name Dante. [Summary Report at p. 99.]
Thus, through misstatement and omission, it is made to appear that Tang
acknowledged making a statement which in fact he denied ever having
made and the critical fact is omitted that the only person who even alleges
such a statement was made is one the Plaintiffs in this case. It is also
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
10/21
10
suggested that a close relationship existed between Carbone and Tang
when the Summary Report itself indicates no such thing.
g. The Amended Affidavit also charges questionable ethics on Sergeant
Carbones part. [Amended Affidavit at 3.o.] What follows this statement
is a series of disconnected and random notes regarding matters having
not the slightest thing to do with the Tang investigation from unattributed
sources on unknown dates. In supporting this sort of innuendo, the
Summary Report indicates that one NMTF employee said that several
credible people both within and outside of NMTF told him to be aware of
Carbone because he was dirty. [Summary Report at p. 96.] No basis is
given for this charge, nor is the source identified. Given the history of the
investigation, it is not at all unlikely that the unattributed source was one of
the Plaintiffs in this case.
h. The Amended Affidavit also charges that Carbone was a close friend of
Noel Busck, former mayor of the City of Thornton, and suggests that
Carbone somehow arranged leniency in prosecution with regard to Busck.
[Amended Affidavit at 3.v., w., x., and y.] In fact what the Summary
Report indicates is that Busck was a close friend of Tang. [Summary
Report at p. 122.] Busck describes his relationship with Carbone as a
friendly one and goes on to describe that Carbone rode with him on
National Night Out while Busck was mayor, a fact which Carbone readily
conceded in his own interview. [Summary Report at p. 122.] With respect
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
11/21
11
to the decision not to involve Busck in the prosecution of Tang, Carbone
reported that Assistant U.S. Attorney Campbell had determined to use
Busck as a witness, as opposed to filing charges against him. Carbone
was also asked by Campbell to convey this information to Busck. [Id.]
When interviewed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Campbell confirmed Carbones
version of these events. [Summary Report at p. 126.] Thus, contrary to
the assertions in the Amended Affidavit, the Summary Report does not
bear out a close friendship between Carbone and Busck, nor does it
demonstrate any impropriety on Carbones part with regard to decisions
made concerning the prosecution of Busck, nor in the conveying of that
information to him.
5. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs labeled Carbone as a suspect and this
apparently led to a vigorous investigation of him by the DEA, the end result of a detailed
and lengthy investigation was that insufficient evidence was developed to pursue any
type of charge against Carbone. In fact, as demonstrated above, a large measure of
the evidence developed in the DEA report was completely exculpatory of Carbone.
Even now, Plaintiff Joyce admits that he never had either probable cause or even
reasonable suspicion to implicate Carbone in the alleged leak. [Deposition of Daniel
Joyce at p. 19, l. 20 p. 20, l. 16.] As well, Lopez admits that he never possessed any
probable cause that Carbone was involved in the leak. [Deposition of Robert Lopez at
p. 153, l. 25 p. 153, l. 6.] Despite this dearth of evidence and despite not having any
reasonable grounds to make their charge, Plaintiffs continue to label Carbone as a
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
12/21
12
suspect. Professional law enforcement investigators should know that such conduct is
unbecoming of their office.
C. PROCEDURE
6. The motion is completely devoid of any reference to the rule or procedure
that is being relied upon seeking an order compelling document production and
deposition testimony. It is unclear whether Plaintiffs rely on Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (which
does not include any provisions for compelling document production or testimony
pursuant to a Rule 45 subpoena) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (which has a contempt provision,
but no other explicit provisions regarding orders compelling production or attendance).
It is impossible for Defendants to respond to uncited procedure. Indeed, this lack of
procedure alone should be sufficient to result in a denial of the motion.
7. It is also pointed out that Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to the
Court that the parties sought to be compelled (i.e. the United States Attorney and a DEA
agent) have even been served with the Motion. The Court will be deprived of any
response from these non-parties if they are not served with the Motion. They have the
right to be noticed and heard.
8. It is also clear that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Touhy
regulations, 28 C.R.F. 16.21 et seq., that are a condition precedent to any legal action
seeking the subject documentation or testimony. [Seecorrespondence from Mark S.
Pestal dated December 6, 2010 and February 3, 2011, Exhibits 3 and 10 to the Motion.]
Failure to adhere to these procedures as well is sufficient in and of itself to result in a
denial of the motion.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
13/21
13
D. TIMELINESS
9. Plaintiffs have not raised this discovery dispute in a timely manner. In
fact, as the record demonstrates, they have been dilatory in both pursuing this discovery
and in bringing the matter to the Courts attention.
10. Plaintiffs first raised the issue of undertaking discovery regarding the DEA
investigation in August of 2010. [Email from Patricia S. Bangert and Notice of Issuance
of Subpoena Duces Tecum dated August 17, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit A.]
Defendants were not informed as to whether or not the subject subpoena was ever
served, nor was any notice given of cancellation of the subpoena. One of the defense
attorneys appeared on the assigned return date for the subpoena, on August 27, 2010,
only to find that Plaintiffs counsel had apparently unilaterally cancelled the production
but given no notice of same.
11. It was not until some three and one-half months later in December of 2010
that the issue of the DEA report was once again raised by Plaintiffs. [Email from
Patricia S. Bangert and Notice of Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecumdated December
2, 2010, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.]
12. Just four days following service of the second Notice of Issuance, the
United States Attorneys Office responded to Plaintiffs counsel and advised of the need
to conform to the Touhy regulations. [Letter from Mark S. Pestal dated December 6,
2010, Exhibit 3 to the Motion.] In his correspondence, the Assistant United States
Attorney also offered to make the Summary Report available for inspection by Plaintiffs.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
14/21
14
13. Although the United States Attorney had agreed to make the Summary
Report available as of early December of 2010, Plaintiffs counsel did not convey her
intent to review those materials until December 20, 2010. [E-mail from Patricia S.
Bangert dated December 20, 2010, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.] In
her communication, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that she would be set[ting] up a time to
review the letter in early January. [Id.] No reason is given for delaying inspection of
the Summary Report until a month following the offer of inspection.
14. The issue was not raised again until yet another month later on January
21, 2011, when Plaintiffs counsel announced her intention to take the deposition of
Special Agent Roach. [E-mail from Patricia S. Bangert dated January 21, 2011, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.] In this communication, Plaintiffs counsel
unilaterally announced her intention to set Roachs deposition for next Thursday
(January 27, 2011). This notification is some six weeks after Plaintiffs were given the
opportunity to review the Summary Report. It is also served only eight days before the
lapsing of the discovery cut-off in the case. It is further in violation of D.C.Colo.LCivR
30.1(A) which requires that reasonable notice for the taking of a deposition is not less
than 14 days and also requires that a party engage in good faith efforts to schedule the
deposition by agreement at a time that is reasonably convenient and economically
efficient to the proposed deponent and all counsel of record. Plaintiffs counsel neither
conferred nor gave 14 days notice.
15. It was not until January 26, 2011, that Plaintiffs counsel indicated that the
U.S. Attorney needs more time to consider Plaintiffs request to depose S.A. Paul
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
15/21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
16/21
16
E. RELEVANCE
19. The Motion, as well as the Amended Affidavit, contains a hodgepodge of
assertions of relevance in the requested discovery. In order to determine relevance, it
is fundamental to understand the nature of the legal theory of the case. Here, Plaintiffs
plead but one claim for relief, that being premised upon a theory of First Amendment
retaliation. In such a case, the legal issues are straightforward. Within the Tenth Circuit,
the basic formula for recovery on a First Amendment retaliation claim requires that a
plaintiff be able to show the following elements: (1) that the plaintiffs speech was made
a private citizen, as opposed to as a part of his official duties; (2) that the speech was
on a matter of public concern; (3) that the governments interests as an employer in
promoting efficiency of public service do not outweigh the plaintiffs free speech
interests; (4) that the protected speech was a motivating factor in the alleged adverse
employment action; and (5) that the government employer would not have reached the
same employment decision in the absence of the protected speech. Rohrbough v.
Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 596 F.3d 741, 745 (10th Cir. 2010); Brammer Hoelter v.
Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F3d 1192, 1202 (10th Cir. 2007).
20. Despite Plaintiffs assertion to the contrary, the DEA investigative reports
and testimony associated therewith do not bear on any of these legal or factual issues.
This is seen by responding, in order, to the assertions of relevance contained in the
Motion:
a. First it is asserted that the DEA report will detail the specific speech which
Plaintiffs claim to have participated in. [Motion at p. 7.] Whether or not
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 16 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
17/21
17
the report contains reference to the Plaintiffs claimed speech will make
none of the issues presented by this case more or less likely. In fact,
Plaintiffs have already offered sworn testimony in their depositions as to
the specific nature of the speech they claim to have engaged in. The fact
that such may have been reported in DEA reports, either in detail or in
summary form, does nothing to advance Plaintiffs cause.
b. Second, it is claimed that the DEA report may show a motive for
Defendants retaliation against Plaintiffs. [Motion at p. 8.] Plaintiffs
assertion that the report may show such a motive is speculative at best.
But more to the point, Plaintiffs have already announced and conducted
extensive discovery with regard to their claimed theory of motive in the
case (i.e. to silence Plaintiffs criticism of the NMTFs perceived lack of
response to the leak and/or their announced belief that Defendant
Carbone was the source thereof). Whether or not the DEA report
speculates on such matters does nothing to make the truth of that claimed
motive more or less likely.
c. Third, Plaintiffs assert that the DEA report may show the exertion of
substantial political influence in connection with the underlying criminal
investigation. [Motion at p. 9.] Once again, the suggestion that the report
may show such matters is speculative at best and is not consistent with
anything contained within the Summary Report that has been reviewed by
all of the parties. Such speculation either by Plaintiffs or by the DEA
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 17 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
18/21
18
investigators is not in any way probative of the salient issues in this case
and, for that matter, is in all likelihood completely inadmissible testimony.
The hyperbolic references to political influence contained within the
Motion constitute nothing more than a fishing expedition which should not
be allowed, particularly at this late date in the proceedings.
d. Fourth, Plaintiffs also assert that the DEA report may show that other
members of the NMTF were in fear of retribution. [Motion at p. 10.] Here
again, the speculative claim that the report may show such matters is
insufficient grounds to reopen discovery in this case. The real evidence
concerning any such claimed fear of retribution would be through the
testimony of the NMTF employees who are claimed to have suffered from
such. Virtually, every such person associated with the NMTF during the
subject time frame has already been deposed or given a statement in
connection with this case. Thus, as with the other matters discussed
above, relevance here is tenuous at best.
e. Fifth, Plaintiffs make the curious assertion that the report may show that
the Plaintiffs themselves believed their lives to be in jeopardy as they
continue to work under a corrupt police sergeant. [Motion at p. 11.] If
any witnesses are competent to testify to this proposition, it would be
Plaintiffs themselves. Why Plaintiffs would need to discover their own
feelings and emotions from a report is indiscernible. There is simply no
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 18 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
19/21
19
reason to conduct discovery from third parties to determine what the
Plaintiffs thought and felt.
f. Sixth, Plaintiffs make the broad assertion that the DEA report might shed
light on the credibility of the defendants. This claim of relevance is by far
the most speculative of any offered by Plaintiffs. It is simply not good
cause or viable grounds to reopen discovery because Plaintiffs believe
that a document that they could have discovered months ago might allow
Plaintiffs to obtain facts that would allow them to question the credibility of
the Defendants collectively. This appears to be simply make-weight
substantiation for a weak argument of relevance.
21. In sum, the relevance of the requested discovery is tangential and weakly
linked, if at all, to the issues in this case. Given the fact that correct procedure has not
been adhered to, timeliness has been ignored, and Defendants have a substantial
interest in moving forward with the consummation of this litigation, such weak relevance
should be outweighed by all competing factors.
F. CONCLUSION
22. The facts concerning the Summary Report upon which Plaintiffs premise
their motion are either incorrect or incomplete due to material omissions of fact.
Plaintiffs have wholly failed to comply with applicable procedure. Plaintiffs Motion is
untimely and their acts have been dilatory in every respect. Relevance, if any, is
tenuous. Under these circumstances, the motion should be denied.
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 19 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
20/21
20
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Thomas S. RiceThomas S. Rice
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C.1700 Broadway, Suite 1700Denver, CO 80290Telephone: (303) 320-0509FAX: (303) 320-0210E-mail: trice@sgrllc.comAttorneys for City of Thornton, JamesNursey, and Dante Carbone
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 20 of21
8/7/2019 Daniel Joyce and Robert Lopez v. North Metro Task Force, et. al.: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
21/21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of March, 2011, I electronically filed a
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAEDDOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF systemwhich will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Patricia S. BangertAttorney at Law, LLC3773 Cherry Creek North DriveSuite 575Denver, Colorado 80209pbangertlaw@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs Joyce and Lopez
Steven J. DawesLight, Kelly & Dawes, P.C.1512 Larimer StreetWriter Square Office Tower, #300Denver, CO 80202sdawes@lkdpc.comAttorney for Defendant Timothy Hersee
Josh A. Marks
Melanie B. LewisBerg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP1712 Pearl StreetBoulder, Colorado 80302jam@bhgrlaw.comMBL@bhgrlaw.comAttorneys for Jack Bell
J. Andrew NathanMarni Nathan KlosterNathan Bremer Dumm & Myers, PC3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 1000Denver, Colorado 80210
anathan@nbdmlaw.commkloster@nbdmlaw.comAttorneys for North Metro Task Forceand Richard Reigenborn
Cathy Havener GreerWilliam T. OConnell, IIIWells, Anderson & Race, LLC1700 Broadway, Suite 1020Denver, Colorado 80290cgreer@warllc.com
woconnell@warllc.comAttorneys for the City of Northglennand Russell Van Houten
s/ Barbara A. Ortell
Barbara A. Ortell, Legal Secretary
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 52 Filed 03/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 21 of21
Recommended