Melendres # 1017 | 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01

8/9/2019 Melendres # 1017 | 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01

1/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus OrtegaMelendres, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

)))

)))

)

)

)))

CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Phoenix, Arizona

April 21, 2015

9 o'clock a.m.

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

(Evidentiary Hearing)

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


2/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 2

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Plaintiffs: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATIONImmigrants' Rights Project39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111(415) 343-0775

Stanley Young, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, California 94065(650) 632-4700

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.Joshua D. Bendor, Esq.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESFOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235Phoenix, Arizona 85014

(602) 650-1854

Andre I. Segura, Esq.AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION

Immigrants' Rights Project125 Broad Street, 17th Floor

New York, New York 10004(212) 549-2676

For the Defendant Arpaio: Thomas P. LiddySenior Litigation Counsel

Douglas A. SchwabMARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Civil Services Division

222 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100Phoenix, Arizona 85004

(602) 506-8066

A. Melvin McDonald, Esq.

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 263-1700


3/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



For the Defendants: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

649 N. 2nd AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 234-9775

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Richard K. Walker, Esq.

WALKER & PESKIND, P.L.L.C.

16100 N. 71st StreetSuite 140Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

(480) 483-6336

For Chief Deputy Sheridan: Lee D. Stein, Esq.

MITCHELL STEIN CAREYOne Renaissance Square

2 North Central AvenueSuite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

(602) 358-0290

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Greg S. Como, Esq.LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD

& SMITH, L.L.P.Phoenix Plaza Tower II

2929 N. Central Avenue

Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761

(602) 385-1040

For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.

DICKINSON WRIGHT, P.L.L.C.Attorneys at Law

1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400Phoenix, Arizona 85004

(602) 285-5000


4/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.2702 N. 3rd Street

Suite 4003Phoenix, Arizona 85004(602) 237-5076

For Sergeant Brett Palmer: Christopher T. Rapp, Esq.

RYAN, RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.3200 N. Central AvenueSuite 1600

Phoenix, Arizona 85012(602) 280-1000

ALSO PRESENT: Chief Robert WarshawDeputy Chief John Girvin

Deputy Chief Raul Martinez


5/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


I N D E X

Witness: Page

DAVID TROMBI

Direct Examination by Mr. Pochoda 47Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate 93Cross-Examination by Mr. Como 130

Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda 137Examination by the Court 140Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda 149

Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate 152

BRETT PALMER

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang 155

Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate 216Cross-Examination by Mr. Como 232Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang 245

Examination by the Court 251Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate 253

BRIAN SANDS

Direct Examination by Mr. Young 254

E X H I B I T S

No. Description Admitted

38 E-mail to 27 recipients from Chief Trombi re 59

"Past Video Recordings" dated 5/14/2014

67 Dkt 494 Preliminary Injunction Order dated 260

12/23/2011

100 Dkt 881, Order dated 2/12/2015 198

103 The Briefing Board, Number 13-40 dated 182

5/28/2013 (Melendres Compliance 000070)


6/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


E X H I B I T S

No. Description Admitted

118 MCSO Memorandum to Trombi from Jakowinicz re 67

"Deputy Armendariz #1764" re complaints dated2/21/2013 (MELC003737)

119 MCSO Memorandum to Jakowinicz from Trombi re 85meeting with Armendariz dated 3/5/2013(MELC003736)

136 Structural chart of the MCSO divisions (2007) 97

(MEL049519 - MEL049524)

151 Emails re "Video Collection" dated 2/19/2014 49

(MELC134397 - MELC134406)

154 MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings 110

155 Letter to Mr. Warshaw from Gerard Sheridan re 113

meeting that occurred 5/14/2014 dated5/14/2014 (MELC134487 - MELC134488)

156 Redacted E-mail chain re "Scenarios for review 133based on judge's order" (MELCl14918 -MELCl14922; MELCl14949 - MELCl14954)

176 MCSO Memorandum from Palmer re "Video/Audio" 192Dated 5/19/2014 (MELC098107 - MELC098109)

185 E-mail Chain from J. Sousa to T. Casey et al. 131

Re "Scenarios for Review Based on Judge's

Order" dated 1/24/2012 (MELCl14950-MELCl14954)

187 E-mail from T. Casey to B. Sands et al. Re 256"Melendres Order on Summary Judgment" dated

12/23/2011 (MELC165670 - MELC165672)

189 E-mail Chain from T. Casey to L. Thomas et al. 189

Re "Scenarios For Review Based on Judge'sOrder" dated 1/24/2012 (MELC165690 - MELC165695)


7/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 civil case 07-2513, Manuel de

Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., versus Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

This is the time set for an evidentiary hearing.

Counsel, please announce your appearance for the

record.

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

the ACLU for the plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Wang.

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

Covington & Burling, for the plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Mr. Young.

MR. SEGURA: Good morning. Andre Segura of the ACLU

for the plaintiffs.

MR. BENDOR: Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona, for

plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for

plaintiffs.


MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio. With me at the table is

Carrie Seahorn. Also representing Sheriff Arpaio is Tom Liddy


8/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


and Douglas Schwab with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.


MR. BIRNBAUM: Good morning, Your Honor. Gary

Birnbaum appearing specially for Deputy Chief John MacIntyre.

Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I have

another engagement this afternoon. An associate named Mitesh

Patel will be sitting in this chair for me.

THE COURT: You have that permission, Mr. Birnbaum.

MR. McDONALD: Mel McDonald, special counsel for Joe

Arpaio.

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

appearing on behalf of Maricopa County, or more precisely that

portion of the Maricopa County Government embodied by the Board

of Supervisors, the County Manager, and the appointed officials

serving under it.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning.

MR. STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Lee Stein

appearing specially for Chief Deputy Sheridan.


MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como

appearing on behalf of Brian Sands.


MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. David

Eisenberg, special appearance on behalf of Lieutenant Joseph

Sousa.


9/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0



And -- oh.

MR. RAPP: Sorry, Judge. Good morning. Christopher

Rapp on behalf of Sergeant Brett Palmer.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning.

Anyone else?

I don't know whether Sergeant Palmer is here. I do

see Lieutenant Sousa. I don't see Chief MacIntyre, and I

presume that is pursuant to my authorization for him to waive

his presence had he chose to do so.

MR. BIRNBAUM: That is correct, Your Honor. He will

be here Thursday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BIRNBAUM: Thursday and Friday.

THE COURT: All right. We have a few matters to take

care of that we discussed yesterday, and when we discussed them

yesterday telephonically I indicated I would put them on the

record today and resolve them.

Preliminarily, they relate to the Court of Appeals'

opinion that came down last week, and it involves some

preliminary questions that I think we arrived at least at some

resolution of yesterday and wish to resolve, and then there was

a discovery dispute raised yesterday that needs to be resolved

on the record before we begin.

Mr. Walker, as you know, the Court of Appeals directed


10/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


that Maricopa County should be added as a party, added as a

party to replace the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which

they deemed to be not a jural entity. Without prejudicing

Maricopa County's right to seek reconsideration for or from the

Ninth Circuit to appeal it to an en banc panel or to the United

States Supreme Court, it is my understanding that you do not

object to Maricopa County at this point being named as a party

in this lawsuit.

Is that correct?

MR. WALKER: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And so I'm going to order that

Maricopa County is now a party to this lawsuit and is a named

party.

Mr. Walker, when I refer to "Maricopa County," I'm

referring to you. All right? And your clients.

There may be some confusion, Mr. Liddy, Ms. Iafrate,

between MCSO and Maricopa County, but I do recognize that, even

though the mandate has not yet issued from the Ninth Circuit

that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office per se is not a jural

entity, according to their current ruling. And while it still

is some sort of entity, I won't be -- if I talk about MCSO, I

won't be intending to refer to it as a party.

MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, may I be heard on a related

point?

THE COURT: Yes.


11/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


MR. LIDDY: Your Honor, I am the practice group leader

for civil litigation, the civil division for --

THE COURT: Can you slow down a little bit?

MR. LIDDY: Yes, sir.

I'm the practice group leader for civil litigation in

Maricopa County.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIDDY: And as such I provide legal advice for

Maricopa County on a wide swath of issues. The Ninth Circuit

action here has put me in a precarious position, and I am in

the process right now of analyzing whether or not there's a

substantial risk that either of my clients will be materially

affected by my representing the sheriff in this order to show

cause proceeding or in the litigation in general.

And I would beg the Court's indulgence to give me a

little more time to seek counsel from ethics counsel and go

through these issues, but I may be at a point in the future

applying to this Court to withdraw as counsel of record for

Sheriff Arpaio in this proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that clarification.

Let me ask you, do you want to leave counsel table now so that

there isn't any imputation of impropriety against you or any

harm to your clients if, in fact, you determine that you need

to withdraw from this action?

MR. LIDDY: I think that's the $64,000 question, Your


12/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


Honor, and I can only speak for myself and not for the County

Attorney, but as the ethical canons go directly to the attorney

and not my superiors, my answer is yes, Your Honor, I would

feel more comfortable if I left the table now.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow you to do

that while you work out your -- your ethical questions. And

I'll advise you, Mr. Liddy, that if you want to return to

counsel table during the course of this or other proceedings

you can let me know.

But I would appreciate, of course, and I don't want to

rush it because I realize it requires some thought, I would

appreciate, to the extent you can come to a resolution of

whether or not you need to withdraw, that you do so, but I will

ask you until you come to that conclusion that you not

participate in this matter. Is that all right?

MR. LIDDY: That's all right. Understood, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

That does raise another point with the Ninth Circuit's

opinion. It said because there is a functional -- in many

cases there is a functional equivalence between a suit brought

against Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity and a suit

against Maricopa County as the jural entity, I could consider

dismissing Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity. And while

I will still consider doing that, I'm not going to do it today

because I want to give the parties an opportunity to address it


13/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


and I want to also consider the ramifications as it may relate

to this and other proceedings. But I'm not preventing any

party from raising any consideration about it. Sheriff Arpaio

was also sued in his individual capacity, and that does not --

that is not being changed.

Further, the Ninth Circuit, while it sustained, I

think, the great majority of everything that was appealed, it

did indicate that as it pertained to that part of my

supplementary injunctive relief that related to the monitor's

oversight of internal investigations, I had to indicate in that

supplemental injunction that the authority extends only to

matters that are related to this lawsuit.

Again, I will do that. I'll follow the Ninth

Circuit's direction, but I do want to allow the parties to be

heard on the scope, if any, of necessary changes to the

supplementary injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's order.

But I also want to make a record now so that all

parties understand that the Ninth Circuit is bound by the facts

that existed at the time that the notice of appeal was filed,

and so other facts were not considered by the Ninth Circuit in

its appeal.

This case has been far from static. There have been a

great number of developments since the notice of appeal in this

case was filed. Among them was the disclosure last May by the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the defendants in this


14/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


matter relating to what was discovered in Deputy Armendariz's

home, a cache of different items -- identifications, drugs,

other things -- that touched off investigations in this matter

and demonstrated the existence of evidence that was requested

by the plaintiffs prior to the underlying lawsuit but were

never provided, or at least the possibility that there existed

such evidence. That included audio recordings,

video recordings, a great number and variety of items seized

during traffic stops of members of the plaintiff class. It

also revealed -- further investigation has revealed complaints

about MCSO deputies, including Deputy Armendariz, that may or

may not have been adequately resolved.

It also revealed poor and perhaps illegal supervision

of those deputies in their functions.

May 14th we had a hearing here, part of which was

under seal. It was subsequently taken out from under seal in

which I advised -- and this is only going to be a rough

characterization. Chief Deputy, if you disagree, if you

disagree, Ms. Iafrate -- I know you weren't there yet -- if you

disagree with my characterization, I invite you to seek to

correct me.

I advised Chief Deputy Sheridan at the time, who

brought forth these allegations and their concerning nature,

that it might be wise for Maricopa County to turn over the

investigation of these matters to another law enforcement


15/285


16/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


discovery sanctions for material that was never provided by the

defendants to the plaintiffs in this matter.

And so I will be interested in the extent and nature

of that material and how it may have affected the underlying

case or plaintiffs' presentation of the underlying case and

issues related to the underlying case. And, of course, since

the MCSO is doing that investigation, the adequacy of their

investigation is very much at issue and I will so rule on any

evidentiary objection that comes up, and you can preserve, I

understand, Ms. Iafrate, any objections you have to that to the

Ninth Circuit. But we will proceed under the understanding

that the adequacy of MCSO's investigation is pertinent and

fundamental to this matter.

To that end, when I scheduled this hearing some months

ago I got an estimate from you, Ms. Iafrate, I got a

commitment, I think, from you as to when those investigations

would end. You will recall that I empowered my monitor to do

some independent investigations, which he did, and then stopped

in deference to the MCSO's self-investigation. There are a

number of those. I think you've identified in court 20 of them

that are completed but there are approximately 31 more that my

monitor has never been informed were completed, and there are

two very important ones that relate to the MCSO's

self-investigation of some of its command staff, including the

individual persons here that have been noticed for contempt,


17/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


and those investigations, while -- well, let me just say this:

While I believe Detective Vogel, who is an outside source that

MCSO contracted with to conduct those investigations, has

completed his investigation, the MCSO directed Detective Vogel

that his ability to find policy violations and impose -- and

recommend and impose discipline was not within his purview.

So while his reports have been completed and I have

been provided with them, it is my understanding that there has

been no completion of that investigation.

That's correct, isn't it, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE: That is correct, Your Honor. The two of

the four investigations that were assigned to Mr. Vogel are now

with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to finish and to

impose discipline.


What about the other approximately 31 open

investigations that have not been completed on this matter that

relate to the initial Armendariz and/or Cisco Perez matters and

that sprang from that or from the monitor's initial

investigations?

MS. IAFRATE: The Internal Affairs group continues to

work with monitor Kiyler to push those through as quickly as

possible, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that, but I will tell

you that I've been consulting with the monitor and with monitor


18/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


Kiyler and they have not been informed as to the status of

those investigations despite repeated requests. I'll also say

that during the pendency of this hearing the monitor team is in

town. They're doing their normal audit. Yesterday, in trying

to prepare for us -- well, let me get to the bottom line.

I scheduled some time ago with you, based on the

possibility that I hoped would not be necessary, the

continuation of this contempt hearing on June 16, 17, 18, 19.

Because the monitor has had no chance to evaluate your internal

investigations and because we know not where they stand, a

large number of them, and because I need to know what his view

is of those investigations, and I think, in fairness, you have

an opportunity to respond to that adequacy, we're going to hold

the hearings on June 16, 17, 18, 19 as it relates to the

adequacy of the investigations and as it relates to the

discovery that you haven't yet provided even though there were

months -- you had months-long notice, and any -- and we're

going to proceed today, but anybody -- I'm going to make it

clear. Anybody who's called and testifies in these hearings,

and Ms. Wang has informed me that she can go forward and has

plenty to fill these four days, is subject to recall, because

these matters have not yet been provided, subject to recall in

that June hearing, and if we still don't have documents in that

June hearing, or if we still don't have matters that I think

are relevant, then I'm going to take appropriate action at that


19/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


time.

What that comes back to is, I've asked the monitors to

be prompt about evaluating the investigation when it is

complete, not just the 542 and 543 investigations, but the 31

other investigations, both as to their adequacy as to things

that were and were not investigated and other matters.

They tried yesterday to request documents to help them

prepare for the adequacy of that investigation. They were

informed by MCSO, even though there was an attorney there when

they made the request who could have reviewed the documents,

and I think one of the things they were asking for was a menu

of internal investigations that have been done, they were

informed by MCSO that no one, including the attorney, could

authorize the release of those documents until you approved.

I understand that you're very busy personally, but

I -- as I think we've discussed very early on when you came

into this matter, while I want the attorneys to be able to

review the documents so that there aren't inadvertent

disclosures, I don't want to delay my monitor or anybody else,

any other party in this investigation.

So I would request you to consider if there are not

people in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, even if not

Mr. Liddy or others, that can be authorized to review those

documents and to provide them to the monitors or list an

objection while they are here in their audit performance so


20/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


that we can proceed if we have to and be ready to go in the

June matter, even if we have -- I just don't want to let this

go on any further.

Is there any problem with that?

MS. IAFRATE: No, Your Honor. I believed that what --

and I received this information secondhand. I believed that

what they wanted to do was Bates stamp the documents before

they were delivered, because there have been some inadvertent

disclosures. That was my request.

THE COURT: All that makes sense, and again, I'm not

trying to deprive an attorney from the opportunity to review

that to protect those things, but I don't -- you're very busy

and you're going to be here for the next four days. I don't

want to delay the monitor's document production, but without

depriving you of the opportunity to do appropriate review, so

it sounds like we can proceed on that basis.

MS. IAFRATE: Yes.

THE COURT: Now, the other reason that we are going to

potentially have to continue this hearing -- again, we'll have

it this week, but we're going to have it again in June -- is

because yesterday Ms. Wang raised to me, and if you want me to

go through the whole chronology that we went through yesterday,

I will, but she raised with me the issue that when I -- I

entered an order in February for the MCSO to provide certain

documents. Mr. Young, earlier this month, indicated that some


21/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


of those documents had not yet been provided, and you and he

had a telephonic conference with me when I ordered the

production, the clear and methodical production of certain

documents that had not yet been provided, and I ordered a

process for you to go through.

At that time, approximately, as I understand it, you

made a request to the, I don't know, the data storage section

of the MCSO to give you a database search, and what you got

back was not responsive to the request that you had made.

Is that -- I see you shaking your head. Am I stating

it wrong?

MS. IAFRATE: You are, Your Honor. This is where it

gets confusing between Maricopa County and Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office.

THE COURT: Okay. Did you make the request to MCSO?

Did I say Maricopa County?

MS. IAFRATE: Well, I made the request to MCSO and

Maricopa County.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. IAFRATE: So they're two separate requests that

were made.

THE COURT: Okay. And that was right after that

initial telephonic conference that you and I had with Mr. Young

earlier this month?

MS. IAFRATE: Yes.


22/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


THE COURT: Okay. And as we had learned earlier in

this matter, MCSO -- Maricopa County apparently has a separate

database of documents that contains all of MCSO's electronic

documents.

MS. IAFRATE: Certain -- certain documents, yes, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Anyway, your response, either from Maricopa County or

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was not responsive to what

you had requested. And then you took it upon yourself to do an

individual computer review with the named contemnors and

certain other relevant parties, and you did that on April 10th,

and you made that avowal to the plaintiffs, and I think, as I

recall, didn't have a whole lot of other documents to turn

over. Didn't have any.

Then certain other discovery disputes were resolved

and certain depositions were reopened, and when they were

reopened there was the mention of other documents that were

clearly related that had not yet been produced. You went back

and produced one of those documents that was authored by

Lieutenant Sousa, and one of the persons whose deposition was

reopened was Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

So Lieutenant Jakowinicz's deposition had to be opened

for a -- reopened for a second time because he had been a

recipient of the Sousa document.


23/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


And then after the second reopening of detective --

Lieutenant Jakowinicz's documents, he provided you with 15 more

documents. You reviewed those. As to seven, you've asserted a

privilege, the plaintiffs assert some sort of inadequacy of

privilege as to some but not all of those documents. And you

did produce one document.

Plaintiffs have informed me that that one document

indicates that there are yet other documents in the same e-mail

string that have never been provided and about which they are

curious, and at this point, in light of the pendency of this

hearing, they've requested that the monitor oversee document

production in this case.

You entered the objection, reasonable, I think, that

you don't want the document -- you don't want the monitor

reviewing attorney-client-privileged documents.

So what I indicated I was inclined to do was require

the monitor to come up with a systematic measure -- oh, I'm

sorry. Before I get to that, Mr. Walker indicated in the

conference yesterday that while you did make a follow-up

request to him after the problem with the Jakowinicz documents

came clear, he only received that for the first time on Sunday,

and Maricopa County is glad to do a database search but they

can't give you everything by this week.

You're shaking your head again.

MS. IAFRATE: Well, Your Honor, I made the request to


24/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


Maricopa County before Mr. Walker was even a thought in this

case.

THE COURT: I got that. Mr. Walker didn't become

aware of it until Sunday.

MS. IAFRATE: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. And he's glad to make sure that

that happens but he can't guarantee that it will happen by the

end of this week.

Is that correct, Mr. Walker?

MR. WALKER: Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.


So my inclination is to have the monitor review any

plan for a database search, to have the monitor take account of

the documents that that database search reveals but without

reviewing those documents allow you to review them so that you

can make assertions as to attorney-client privilege that may

apply to any of those documents, and then he can spot check the

other documents to make sure -- the other documents, for

example, the ones that you deem nonresponsive, he can just spot

check them if he wants to to make sure they're nonresponsive.

The other documents will be turned over to plaintiff and then

we will resolve any privilege disputes as it pertains to the

privilege log.

That is what I indicated my inclination was. Do you

have any objection to proceeding in that fashion?


25/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


MS. IAFRATE: No, Your Honor. Will the magistrate be

the one determining the disputes regarding privilege, or will

it be you?

THE COURT: Well, it will be me unless it requires

somebody to look at the content of the document, and if it

does, I think even though it's not required for reasons of

prudence, as we've said before, we've got Judge Boyle here, and

I really didn't have to use Judge Boyle in the first place but

I think he graciously volunteered, and I can understand why the

defendants wouldn't want me to look at documents that may be

subject to the attorney-client privilege. So unless Ms. Wang

has some objection, my inclination would be to refer all such

documents back to Magistrate Judge Boyle.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, we would not have any objection

to that referral to Judge Boyle. We would like to have input

as the monitor team comes up with a plan for the review of the

documents. We have some ideas for how that might be expedited.

THE COURT: Yeah.

Actually, I did express it that way, but I don't mean

to suggest that you shouldn't try to resolve this yourself.

But when you do resolve it I'm going to ask you, or get as

close to resolution as can, I'm going to ask you to submit it

to the monitor, make sure that he can approve that method for

document production and database searching, both the Maricopa

County database and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office


26/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


database.

MS. WANG: To be clear, Your Honor, I think we've come

to the end of the road in terms of attempting to work this out

with the defendants. We do request that the monitor impose a

plan for review of the documents.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I will allow you, as I

will allow Chief Sands and the other defendants, to have access

to the monitor to make whatever recommendations you want.

MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.


Yes?

MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I just wanted to advise the

Court after our conference call yesterday I asked paralegals at

my office to check to see what we have in electronic form that

would be readily available for search. And we do have, as I

recall, PST files, e-mail files, for all the individuals for

whom a request has been made by the plaintiffs but only for

part of the period that they requested.

Having gone through this before in another action, I

know that if we want to have access to e-mails for a portion of

the period for which we do not already have PST files, we will

have to restore PST files from the disaster recovery tapes, and

that is both an expensive and time-consuming process.

THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that. As you say, we

have been through this before in this very action, and while I


27/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:3

09:3

09:3


don't intend to impose costs that plaintiffs agree are not

necessary and that I don't think are necessary, even if

plaintiffs don't agree, I may well require such costs to be

incurred to the extent that we can't cull those documents from

the MCSO database.

But again, I will leave the details of that for the

moment up to the monitor, and I would direct both parties --

all parties to have access to the monitor if you want sooner

rather than later, because we're not going to wait until June

before we start raising issues about discovery disputes.

I'm just going to remind everybody, if you've got a

cell phone in here, you should turn it off, and if the marshals

see you using your cell phone you'll be escorted out of the

building. I have granted to the monitors who are here the

ability to use a cell phone but that's simply because, as I've

indicated, their whole team is here doing one of their periodic

audit reviews and they have to have some contact with them.

All right. Have we resolved everything related to the

discovery dispute yesterday?

MS. IAFRATE: I believe so.

MS. WANG: I believe so, Your Honor.

We do have some other logistical issues that we wanted

to raise with the Court.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get them taken care of.

MS. WANG: Okay.


28/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


First, Your Honor, is that plaintiffs request that

witnesses be excluded during the testimony of others.

Second, Your Honor, we do have a question about the

time keeping. We have only four days and a number of witnesses

with both parties and Chief Sands engaging in questioning. So

we just wanted to ask logistically how to handle the issue of

keeping track of time so that we conclude everything by Friday.

THE COURT: Well, do you want me to give you an

assignment of time? Because I didn't -- I did not really do

that.

MS. WANG: No, I don't think we would like an

assignment of time.

THE COURT: All right. You can -- I believe that we

discussed yesterday the idea that, in order to be efficient, if

a witness is going to be called in your case and Ms. Iafrate

intends to call her in her case or Chief Sands intends to call

that witness in his case, I'm just going to allow, if you all

agree, and I think it makes great sense, to do that witness

once.

I'll allow you, for example, if it's your witness, to

do direct. Then I'll allow the other parties to do cross.

Then I'll allow you to do -- and in their cross I will allow

them a great deal of liberality to raise new matters. Then

your redirect I'll also allow you a great deal of liberality to

cross as to the matters that they raised for the first time.


29/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


And then on their redirect I will hold them to issues really

that were -- that are implicated by your redirect.

MS. WANG: Understood, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any other suggestions for

being efficient as we move through these witnesses and

evidence?

MS. WANG: No, Your Honor. I think we can play it by

ear. If it looks like we're running behind schedule we'll

consult and try to keep us on track as we go along.

THE COURT: I really don't think we need to spend a

whole lot of time on a lot of matters. I believe that some

matters have been stipulated to, and if they haven't been I

would suggest that you take a minute at lunch or after the end

of the hearing today to see if you can arrive at stipulations

that will clear out a bunch of unnecessary testimony, because I

don't need it.

That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen to

the facts and circumstances that surround the contempt, and I

think the contempt has been admitted to by some but not all of

the parties.

It doesn't mean either that I'm not interested in the

discovery aspect of this case, even to the extent it goes

beyond contempt, as to what you weren't provided and what

difference that would have made to your case in chief is going

to be a matter of some interest to me in terms of coming up


30/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


with appropriate remedies in this case.

But it does seem to me that even though, you know, the

public might be interested, and I certainly don't want to

deprive the public of an opportunity to be informed,

stipulations can serve that purpose if there is no reason other

than the facts to be set forth.

So I encourage you to explore that with the parties to

see if we can arrive at stipulations.

MS. WANG: We have made some efforts so far, Your

Honor, which have not been successful.

THE COURT: Well, if they haven't been successful then

I'll point out that fortunately, in addition to the four days

this week, we've now got four days that have opened up in June.

And as I said yesterday, I'm not going to go through

and spend all the time that I spent last time and find out that

evidence was not provided. And so if we have to call witnesses

back five, six, seven or eight times, we will get all the

evidence and we will hear the testimony and we're going to

finish with this case. That is my intent.

It seems to me that we are better off -- again, I

don't want to be inefficient, but it seems to me we're better

off finishing this case now than dragging it off -- dragging it

out forever and finding new evidence and other matters that are

going to require the reopening again of these things.

Ms. Iafrate, did you want to be heard on that?


31/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor.

I would request that you do submit an allocation of

time for each party. We do have witnesses also. My fear is

that by the time we get to Friday we will be out of time. With

at least some guidance of how much time each party would have,

it concerns me that we won't get to Sheriff Arpaio's witnesses.

THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you what, Ms. Iafrate.

What we will do, then -- because I'll -- you see if you have

other dates between now and June that you can hold open. If

you're concerned, we'll give you the time you need and I'll

find another date even between now and June when we can have

more testimony. But you will have the opportunity to present

your witnesses. I will just -- even if it isn't immediately in

this section, there's going to be supplemental hearings.

You'll have the time to present your witnesses and I will hear

them, but I do want to do that efficiently.

I'm not in any position right at the moment to give

time allocations but I would be glad to discuss that with the

parties. If you want to discuss it we can talk about it. But

especially it is difficult when I'm allowing what I think is an

efficient procedure -- well, I guess I could do that. I'll

just charge you the time that you're up and asking questions.

So I will keep track of it beginning right now. I

will give you your running totals, and then if I decide I'm

going to assert a total, your running total will go against


32/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


your total time.

All right?

MS. IAFRATE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Como, anything on that?

MR. COMO: Your Honor, the only --

THE COURT: What we're going to need to do, we're

going to need to have you speak into a microphone always,

Mr. Como. So maybe we need to, after you come back after the

break, realign yourself so that you're in front of a

microphone, but as it is now, would you please come over to the

podium?

MR. COMO: Sure.

Your Honor, I understand about having Mr. Sands, for

example, testify on direct following the cross by the

plaintiffs, and I have no problem with that for efficiency

purposes. However, I simply want to be clear that we would

want to reserve our right to recall him in the event that other

evidence comes out from other witnesses after he testifies.

THE COURT: All right. You can make that appropriate

motion at that time. I'm not going to require anyone who I

have individually noticed as being a party to contempt to leave

the courtroom, but every other person who has been called as a

witness will need to leave the courtroom because we are

invoking the rule of exclusion and you'll have to wait outside

subject to call.


33/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


So if you have been notified that you are a witness in

this matter and you have not been individually noticed as

somebody who is subject to contempt, you must leave the

courtroom at this time and wait in the waiting area. There are

waiting rooms right behind the courtroom.

(Witnesses are excused from the courtroom.)

MR. WALKER: Your Honor, may I be heard on the

County's participation in this matter?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WALKER: Would you like me to come to the podium?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WALKER: First of all, Your Honor, as I indicated

in the conference call we had yesterday, the Maricopa County

Board of Supervisors is not at all interested in causing

unnecessary disruption or unnecessarily prolonging this matter.

To the contrary, they'd very much like to see it brought to a

just and expeditious conclusion without the imposition of undue

financial burdens on the Maricopa County taxpayers.

That said, as we discussed yesterday, I was retained

to become involved in this case last Friday, and neither I, nor

anyone from my firm, participated in any of the discovery that

was run up to this proceeding.

And for that reason, and also because I think that the

outcome of the issues that we are probably going to raise with

the Court of Appeals with regard to ordering the County to


34/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:4

09:4


participate as a party, could actually affect the course of

these proceedings in some ways that at this point are difficult

to fathom.

We'd respectfully request a brief delay in the

proceedings, one, to permit us to get those issues before the

Court of Appeals; and two, to give me and my firm a reasonable

opportunity to prepare.

You've already indicated both in the telephone

conference yesterday and here today what your inclination is in

that regard and I respect that, but for the record, I'd still

request the delay.

THE COURT: All right. I do think -- I can't fathom,

as I thought through it, I mean, Ms. Iafrate is representing

the defendants in this action. The question really related to

jural entity that was briefed before the Court of Appeals, and

they indicated that they're only moving in Maricopa County

because Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a jural entity.

Unless you can tell me why you believe that

Ms. Iafrate is incapable of representing any liability

interests that may arise from the defendants that she is

representing, we're going to proceed.

MR. WALKER: Well, Your Honor, I have nothing but the

greatest respect for Ms. Iafrate and in her capabilities, but

the interests of the sheriff and the Maricopa County Sheriff's

Office and the portion of the county government that I


35/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


represent are not necessarily entirely coincident.

My understanding --

THE COURT: I do realize that, Mr. Walker, and I think

I've been very careful to try and keep Maricopa County

government well aware of what's happening here. They have had

representatives here at virtually every proceeding or I've

invited them to be here.

Further, as I told you on the phone yesterday,

Maricopa County was a party to this action. After Judge

Murguia made her determination that Maricopa County Sheriff's

Office was a jural entity, Maricopa County asked to be

dismissed from this action. I agreed -- and by then I was in

charge of this case and I agreed, based on the stipulation of

the parties, to dismiss Maricopa County from this action only

on the stipulation that if we ever needed them, they would be

reintroduced into this action and the action could proceed.

As I indicated yesterday on the phone, and you may

have told Ms. Gilbride, but, Ms. Gilbride, if we didn't tell

you I'm telling you now what I stated on the phone yesterday,

that at a previous proceeding when Ms. Gilbride -- I questioned

Ms. Gilbride about the nature of her appeal about Maricopa

County Sheriff's Office not being a jural entity and if there

was any reason why, as far as she was concerned, we needed to

insert Maricopa County as a party at that point, and I believe

other representatives of the County were here, and my


36/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


recollection is they are on the record saying we could proceed

and they didn't need to be a party because they were just

trying to make a resolution of the issue once and for all at

the Ninth Circuit as well as at the Court of Appeals whether or

not Maricopa County, or Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was

an entity capable of being sued.

Now, have I mischaracterized that, Ms. Gilbride?

MS. GILBRIDE: No, that's correct, Your Honor.


So as I indicated to you yesterday, I believe we had

County folks here said we could proceed. There has been a

tremendous amount of expense and effort. I can't really see

that the County's interests aren't being fully and completely

represented by Ms. Iafrate in a representation of the

defendants here. I think that is the effect of what the Court

of Appeals opinion has said.

I do recognize your right and your concern about

representing the separate interests of your client, but I don't

think that any of the facts here are going to change, and you

can certainly represent them as vigorously as you can, and as

is apparent at this point, we are going to have further

proceedings in this matter and I will consider any interests

that you have to be heard on points related to the County that

you couldn't have previously raised before these hearings come

to a close.


37/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


MR. WALKER: I understand, Your Honor, and I respect

your position. I'd just like to state for the record that the

County has been brought back in as a party. It was unexpected.

It was not sought by the County or any of the parties. And

I've been in the case just long enough to be able to begin to

recognize what questions need to be asked, not to be in a

position, really, to provide definitive answers.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. WALKER: Quite frankly, I think the Ninth Circuit

has thrown us all a bit of a curve ball here, and I just think

that it -- it would make sense in terms of efficiency and

orderliness for us to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to

reconsider its position before we move forward with anything

substantive.

And in that regard, I'd say, although it's not

entirely clear what the Court intended, at this point I think I

have to operate on the assumption, and I believe the Court has

to operate on the assumption, that the Ninth Circuit intended

for Maricopa County to become a party for all purposes and with

all the rights of a full-fledged party.

And if we had been a party while this discovery was

going on and it somehow had been scheduled behind our backs and

conducted without our knowing about it and participating in it,

I'm sure Your Honor would be receptive to the notion that that

wasn't fair and it put my client at an unfair disadvantage.


38/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard on this, Mr. Como?

MR. COMO: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor.

This wasn't quite how I envisioned today going.

Someone from my team has left the table, which is news to me

today. I hear the concerns of Maricopa County. I'm concerned

that there could be some conflict that somehow affects me. I'm

prepared to defend the clients that I'm here to defend.

However, based on what I hear from Mr. Liddy and Mr. Walker, I

am concerned regarding these issues that the Ninth Circuit has

thrust upon us.

THE COURT: And so?

MS. IAFRATE: And so I've made my record.

THE COURT: You haven't made any motion at all. What

is your motion? What is your position with respect to it?

MS. IAFRATE: Well, I would support Mr. Walker's

request that we have ethics counsel figure out whether we are

in synced with Maricopa County or there is some potential for

conflict so that the attorneys that are here representing the

individual clients are not walking into an ethical quagmire

without assistance from ethics counsel.

THE COURT: Have you -- you've not considered your

ethical responsibilities prior to today in light of the Ninth

Circuit's decision?


39/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


MS. IAFRATE: Yes, I did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And have you sought ethics counsel?

MS. IAFRATE: No, I have not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

MS. IAFRATE: I have been discussing it with Maricopa

County.

THE COURT: On what basis do you believe that you may

be ethically constrained?

MS. IAFRATE: Because I represent Maricopa County in

issues and I represent Sheriff Arpaio in issues, and what I'm

hearing today is that potentially their issues in this

courtroom may not align.

THE COURT: Do you have any reason to believe that

their issues don't align -- that the factual issues don't

align?

MS. IAFRATE: Yes.

THE COURT: And what is that basis?

MS. IAFRATE: Based on Mr. Liddy asking to be removed

from the table and conversations that I've had with Maricopa

County, including Bill Montgomery and Mr. Fall.

THE COURT: Ms. Wang?

MS. WANG: Your Honor, plaintiffs oppose the County's

motion to stay these proceedings. Essentially, under the Ninth

Circuit's opinion, the County has now stepped into the shoes of

MCSO as a party. MCSO has been represented throughout these


40/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


proceedings and the County is simply stepping in. The County

has chosen to retain new counsel.

But for all purposes of this contempt hearing where

the fact issues have to do with what the individual contemnors

did and with what the agency did, we don't believe that there

are any issues that require a stay.

In effect, the entity that's responsible has changed

from MCSO to the County, but the issues are the same, and

plaintiffs are ready to proceed and believe that a stay would

prejudice our interests in seeing the civil contempt proceeding

go forward, particularly, Your Honor, since we know that we are

going to be continuing witness examinations in June. There

will be plenty of time, to the extent Mr. Walker wants to get

up to speed and raise issues, particularly having to do with

remedies, at a later point before the Court makes any decision.

THE COURT: All right. I am going to say that I have

read, I think, carefully, a couple of times, the Ninth

Circuit's opinion, which I believe is based essentially on the

opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and I think it makes

clear that all it is talking about is the nominally appropriate

party, and that all it is dealing with here is putting in place

the nominally appropriate party, that it makes no factual

difference.

Ms. Iafrate, if you could tell me some basis on which

I thought that you were really compromising yourself ethically


41/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


from what you have always been doing, I would not compel you to

proceed with this hearing. But it does seem to me that because

of matters that I have just reviewed, we are going to have to

have multiple supplement -- multiple, several different

schedulings of this hearing.

Mr. Walker, I'm going to, as I said, allow you to do

any makeup you need to do, but it seems to me, based on the

positions taken in this court when I heard from Maricopa County

as opposed to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, they may be

trying to make some argument that Maricopa County as an entity

is not financially liable for the contempt of Sheriff Arpaio

and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

But that seems to me to be a legal argument, not a

factual argument. It doesn't seem to me that it -- because you

are separately represented here now, to the extent you want to

establish such a thing, I'll allow you to take depositions or

do whatever you feel like you need to do prior to the end of

this hearing, which will be continued for several months.

Ms. Iafrate, I'm sympathetic to you. If you can come

up with some sort of reason why you really think, in light of

the Ninth Circuit's opinion, that you really have some sort of

conflict, then I'll -- then I'll vacate the hearing. But this

has gone on for too long and I do believe it would be quite

prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff -- plaintiff

class in light of the extensive time I have given and in light


42/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


of, in fairness, my reading of the Ninth Circuit's opinion,

which is that this only has to do with naming the correct party

and doesn't have to do with a difference of rights as it

relates to that party at all. We're going to proceed with this

hearing.

So I appreciate your position, Mr. Walker. As I've

indicated, the hearing is only beginning today and I'll let you

make up whatever you have to make up to make sure that the

County's interests are represented.

MR. WALKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

In light of your ruling, may I have a continuing

objection so that --

THE COURT: You may have a continuing objection.

MR. WALKER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Iafrate, you may also have a

continuing objection.

MS. IAFRATE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else that we need to

raise?

MR. McDONALD: Your Honor, just one question, if I

could. I'm trying to define what role the special limited

counsel have in this case, whether we participate, whether we

cross-examine, or whether our issues don't come until the end

of the case when the other issues come up.

THE COURT: Well, let me just say this, Mr. McDonald.


43/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


I'm not going to allow you generally to participate, but it

does seem to me that you do have a role that may go during the

course of this hearing. Again, you will have an appropriate

role at the end.

But it also seems to me that if, for example, and I'm

not trying to forecast anything, if you have Fifth Amendment

concerns, I'm going to allow you to be heard on those in this

hearing. To the extent that you are representing your client

in this hearing as it may relate to any later hearing for

criminal contempt or other criminal liability, I'm certainly

going to allow you to represent his interests in that limited

respect.

Does that help clarify your question?

MR. McDONALD: I'm sorry. It would not -- for

example, hypothetically, if the sheriff were on the witness

stand and I felt there were areas that I wanted to bring out,

this would not be the time to do that?

THE COURT: That's correct. Unless and until it

relates to your concern about, for example, I offer as an

example a Fifth Amendment assertion or anything else that --

and I'm not saying that the sheriff will make that, but it

seems to me in light of the fact that I have raised the

possibility that the appropriate remedy might be criminal, he

certainly -- you certainly have an interest in representing him

in that respect and I will allow you to be heard --


44/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


MR. McDONALD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- as it relates to those matters.

And the same goes, Mr. Birnbaum, all the rest of you

who entered special appearances. Mr. Stein, the same goes to

you. I'm not going to generally allow you to participate in

this hearing, but to the extent that it relates to any

invocation of Fifth Amendment or other rights that you believe

your client -- that relate to criminal proceedings or

criminal -- or criminal matters, or -- and I don't mean to be

pejorative in that -- matters in which you believe their rights

need to be protected as against any sort of a future criminal

contempt hearing, I will allow you to be heard.

Anything else that needs to be clarified?

MR. COMO: Your Honor, I would like to have some

guidance from the Court as to the scope of the next four days

in terms of whether we're really just looking at whether these

individuals should be held in contempt or whether we're also

looking at potential civil remedies.

THE COURT: We're definitely looking at potential

civil remedies.

MR. COMO: Within these four days.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COMO: Okay. That's all.

THE COURT: Within the next four days and within

anything else that we schedule in the interim or thereafter.


45/285


46/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


culture that we are attempting to fix with the monitor's

assistance so that we can remedy these deficiencies that were

not on purpose. They were not willful. They were -- they were

negligent areas that need to be fixed. And Sheriff Arpaio and

Chief Deputy Sheridan as well as the others at Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office are committed to fix these deficiencies and

move forward.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Como?

MR. COMO: Your Honor, on behalf of former

Chief Sands, I'd just like to say that we're ready to proceed,

that he's volunteered -- that he's cooperated completely, and

that we will put on evidence to show that he took reasonable

steps to comply with your December 23, 2011, order.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Ms. Wang, first witness.

MS. WANG: Your Honor, plaintiffs call David Trombi.

THE CLERK: State your whole name for the record and

spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: David Trombi. T-r-o-m-b-i.

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand.


47/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 47

DAVID TROMBI,

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Trombi. What is your present position at

the MCSO?

A. I am the chief of enforcement.

Q. Is that called "chief deputy" for my --

A. No, sir. There's only one chief deputy.

Q. Is it deputy chief?

A. It isn't, it's chief. So you have deputy chiefs, then you

have what they term executive chiefs, and then you have the one

and only chief deputy.

Q. And your domain is operations command, is that correct?

A. Sworn operations, yes.

Q. And that's basically the patrol function within MCSO, is

that fair to say?

A. Patrol, all of the investigations, everything on the sworn

side of the house, if you will.

Q. Pretty much everything in MCSO other than custody and

detention, is that right?

A. And administration, yes.

Q. I'm going to start by talking about your role beginning in

early 2014 in gathering of video cameras and the resulting


48/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


tapes at the MCSO beginning of February of 2014.

What position were you in in February of 2014?

A. I believe then I was chief of Patrol.

Q. That's not the position you are in now.

A. Correct. I'm sorry. It is not.

Q. And then the Human Smuggling Unit was one of those that

reported to you in that position as chief of Patrol?

A. During that time I'm not sure that that unit was still

together.

Q. Prior, before it was disbanded, did the Human Smuggling

Unit report to you when you were Chief of Patrol?

A. I was one of the supervisors, yes.

Q. Well, you were the direct supervisor in line from the Human

Smuggling Unit. I will use the term "HSU" for that in the

future. The lieutenants and the commanders of HSU reported

directly to you, is that correct?

A. They could report to me directly, yes.

Q. Sometimes they could skip you and report directly to

Mr. Sands, is that -- is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But you were their immediate supervisory level over the

HSU.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let me show you -- I'd like to put up Exhibit 151.

This has been admitted and stipulated to, so --


49/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


THE COURT: Guess what? Nothing is admitted till I

admit it, and I haven't admitted anything.

MR. POCHODA: That's why I quickly changed, Your

Honor. It has been stipulated by the parties for admission.

Do we publish it first, then to you and the witness,

Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.

Do you have any objections to the admission of

Exhibit 151, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Como?

MR. COMO: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you want to put together a list of

stipulated exhibits at the break, I'll admit them. All right?

Exhibit 151 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 151 is admitted into evidence.)

MR. POCHODA: Could we publish to everybody, Your

Honor?

THE COURT: It can be published.

BY MR. POCHODA.

Q. Can you see that, Chief Trombi?

A. Yes, sir, I can.

Q. And this exhibit has a number of pages. At the bottom of

each of the page is an e-mail from yourself, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, that's correct.


50/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


Q. And that was sent to various others at the MCSO, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were seeking a count of, as it states here, how

many deputies are presently using recording devices, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were not seeking the number of deputies that at any

time in the past had used a recording device, were you?

A. I didn't specify so.

Q. And you were asked to send out this request for information

by Chief Sheridan, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were informed by Chief Sheridan that it was needed

by Chief Freeman in order to fulfill the information for a

grant that he was seeking, is that right?

MS. IAFRATE: Objection, Your Honor, leading.

MR. POCHODA: Your Honor, it is my understanding that

as we did at trial, that for adverse witnesses we could ask

leading questions.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow some leeway

when it's an MCSO witness.

You are currently with MCSO, as I understand your

testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, that's correct.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow some leading. You


51/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


may -- you may do so.

MR. POCHODA: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: And I apologize, sir. If you could

repeat the question.

MR. POCHODA: Yes.

BY MR. POCHODA.

Q. You were informed at that time when requested by

Chief Sheridan that the information in the e-mail in

Exhibit 151 was needed by Chief Freeman, is that right?

A. No, sir.

Q. What were you told that information was required for?

A. There had been a conversation in a common area on the 5th

floor of the Sheriff's Office headquarters where a governor's

Office of Highway Safety grant for body cameras, specifically

for our Lake Patrol deputies who were the ones that typically

enforce DUI enforcement, was going to be given to us, and there

was a realization at that point that we didn't have a policy to

address the usage and distributions of those items. So for

that reason, Chief Deputy Sheridan asked me to begin inquiring

as to what we currently had out there is the reason he asked.

Q. So at that point in time, in February of 2014, there was

no one place where one could look to see the total number of

video cams that deputies at MCSO were using, is that fair to

say?

A. Yes, sir, that's fair to say.


52/285

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

Documents

Melendres # 1017 | 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01