15-72440 # 12 | Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion to Stay

8/20/2019 15-72440 # 12 | Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion to Stay

1/133

No. 15-72440

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his official capacity as Sherof Maricopa County, Arizona

Defendant/Petitioner

and GERARD A. SHERIDAN Specially appearing non-party/Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Respondent Court

and MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, et aPlaintiffs/Real Parties in Interest.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

2:07-CV-02513-GMS

The Honorable G. Murray Snow, United States District Ju

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-

PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DCOURT PROCEEDINGS

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Justin M. Ackerman, Bar #030726

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of


2/133

Michele M. Iafrate, Bar #015115IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

649 North Second AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003

Telephone: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants/Petitioners Joseph M. Arpaio in his officiaas Sheriff of Maricopa County and Gerard A. Sheridan

A. Melvin McDonald, Bar #002298JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) [email protected]

Specially appearing counsel forPetitioner Joseph M. Arpaio in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona



3/133

CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE

In order to avoid irreparable harm, Petitioners request this Court r

Motion to Stay prior to the resumption of contempt proceedings befo

District Court Judge G. Murray Snow on September 22, 2015. In the

Petitioners request that this Court grant a temporary stay of the Sep

2015 contempt proceedings until it can rule on Petitioners’ Motion to St

(i) The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addre

attorneys for the parties:

Stanley Young, Esq.Michelle Morin, Esq.Hyun S. Byun, Esq.COVINGTON & BURLING LLP333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418650- 632-4700

[email protected]@[email protected] for Plaintiffs

Tammy Albarran, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING LLPOne Front StreetSan Francisco, CA [email protected] for Plaintiffs


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/133

[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Jorge Martin Castillo, Esq.MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL FUND634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90014

213-629-2512 [email protected] for Plaintiffs

Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.ACLU FOUNDATIONIMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, CA [email protected] for Plaintiffs

Anne Lai, Esq.

401 E. Peltason Dr.Law 4800-PIrvine, CA [email protected] for Plaintiffs

Andre Segura, Esq.ACLU FOUNDATIONIMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT125 Broad Street, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10004


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


5/133

Mark KappelhoffDeputy Assistant Attorney General

Judy Preston (MD Bar, no numbers assigned)Timothy D. Mygatt (DC Bar No. 1021564)Edward G. Caspar (MA Bar No. 650566)Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar No. 4141636)Paul Killebrew (LA Bar No. 32176)Puneet Cheema (CA Bar No. 268677)

Matthew J. Donnelly (IL No. 6281308)U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSpecial Litigation Section601 D St. NW, Suite 5200Washington, D.C. [email protected]

Attorneys for the United States

Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES649 North Second AvenuePhoenix, AZ [email protected]

602-234-9775Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Richard K. Walker, Esq.WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ [email protected] for Maricopa County, Arizona

(ii) Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed emerge



6/133

The same six discrete arguments made in that Motion and in Petitioner

pending Motion to Stay in this Court demonstrate that Judge Snow’

participation in these proceedings violates 28 U.S.C. § 455 and r

recusal.1 Thus, Judge Snow’s continued presence over these proceedin

both a substantial risk to the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and en

public’s perception of an impartial judiciary.

Petitioners request emergency relief now because the distr

contempt proceedings will resume on September 22, 2015, thus inc

exigency of this matter. Judge Snow is set to make evidentiary rulin

credibility determinations, and issue further orders on or before Sep

2015, which will cause Petitioners irreparable harm. When Petitione

their Motion to Stay on August 20, 2015, Petitioners hoped this Court

accepted mandamus review and granted relief before resumption of the

22 contempt proceedings, given the expedited nature of writs of

Because, this has not occurred, Petitioners now request this Court to,

1 These grounds are: (1) the Motion for Recusal was timely, (2) Jand his spouse are material witnesses in this action, (3) The injection internal investigations and expansion of the Monitor’s powers was a


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


7/133

least, grant a temporary stay of the district court proceedings, set to

September 22, while the Court considers Petitioners’ Motion to Stay a

for Writ of Mandamus.

(iii) When and how counsel for the other parties were notified and

they have been served with the Motion.

Petitioners contacted opposing counsel on September 14, 2015

them that they have requested emergency review. Petitioners also p

parties an electronic PDF copy of this Motion contemporaneously with

of this Motion with this Court. In addition, prior to filing this Motion

notified the Clerk of Court that they will be requesting emergency reli

to Circuit Rule 27-3(a).



8/133

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

I.

INTRODUCTION

The ACLU’s2 Response to Petitioners’ Motion for Stay rea

improperly authorized Answering Brief, attempting to inject entirely

facts and issues that have absolutely no bearing on whether this Court s

a temporary stay of the district court’s contempt proceedings to decide

Writ of Mandamus. For the foregoing reasons, a stay is warranted.

II. A STAY IS WARRANTED UNDER THE FOUR NKEN FAC

The ACLU’s Response fails to acknowledge the proper standar

on appeal. In order to justify a stay “petitioners need not demonstra

more likely than not that they will win on the merits.” Leiva-Perez v. H

F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2011). The court in Leiva-Perez, while add

Nken factors, recognized that “[t]here are many ways to articulate th

quantum of likely success necessary to justify a stay—be it a

probability or fair prospect, . . . a substantial case on the merits, . . .

serious legal questions are raised.” (quotations omitted). Leiva-Perez,

967-68. “Regardless of how one expresses the requirement, the ide


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_966https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_966https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_966https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_967https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_966https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_966


9/133

demonstrate that they have a “substantial case for relief on the merits”

be entitled to a stay.

A. Petitioners have a substantial case for relief on the meri

For the foregoing reasons, none of the arguments in the ACLU

has diminished the fact that Petitioners have a “substantial case for r

merits” demonstrating that Judge Snow’s failure to recuse himself

erroneous for six discrete reasons. Id.

1. Petitioners’ Motion for Recusal was Timely.

The ACLU’s Response commits the same error that the Court

ruled that Petitioners’ Motion for Recusal was untimely – the basis for

not arise in 2012, 2013, or even 2014 – it arose on April 23, 2015 w

Snow injected irrelevant and unrelated issues into the contempt proceed

Petitioners never argued that the grounds for recusal arose o

Grissom/Montgomery investigations themselves. It was the Court

inquiry into these matters during the April 2015 contempt hearings th

these irrelevant investigations into the proceedings and ripened their g

recusal. See, Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 199


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iece4fc2d8f4711d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_733https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iece4fc2d8f4711d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_733https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iece4fc2d8f4711d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_733https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iece4fc2d8f4711d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_733https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibc6681a95c6d11e097a4a9f0a6e10efc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


10/133

unfettered access to investigate these and other irrelevant matters di

until May 14, 2015. The recusal motion was filed within a week of th

22, 2015. Therefore, the recusal motion was timely.

2. Judge Snow and his spouse are material witnesaction.

The ACLU incorrectly claims that Judge Snow and his spou

material witnesses because Petitioners: (1) failed to explain how th

statements would make either the Court or his spouse a “material witn

contempt proceedings, (2) chose to disregard the Grissom statemen

allegedly argued that the facts underlying the Grissom investigation di

to the contempt proceedings. [ACLU Response at 12]. First, Petitio

asserted that under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iv), uncontradicted evidence

Judge Snow’s spouse told the Grissom family that he was biased aga

Arpaio and that he would do everything in his power to ensure he w

elected. [See Doc. 1117 (Exs. 5-8), Ex. 8]. Furthermore, the Court’s

orders directing the Monitor to investigate into these matters only furth

the Court’s material witness status. Second, Petitioners did not “dis

comments made by the Grissoms rather out of respect for the Court

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 10 o

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


11/133

injected the Grissom investigation into the April 2015 contempt proce

not only violated Petitioners due process rights, see infra § 3, but also

issues relevant and ripened Judge Snow and his wife as material witn

proceeding.3

Accordingly, through no fault other than his own, Judge Snow m

and his spouse material witnesses in this action. See United States v. Al

F.2d 1532, 1545 (11th Cir. 1987) (disqualification required when judg

make factual findings about events in which he was an active participan

3. The expansion of the Monitor’s powers was imp

violated Petitioners’ Due Process Rights.

The ACLU claims that the Court “also possesses broad equitable

modify the monitoring and compliance tasks it delegates to the Monito

absolutely no authority to support that proposition.4 [ACLU Response

3

Moreover, when directly questioned whether the Court felt tinvestigation was relevant to the contempt proceedings, the Court faithat the Grissom investigation was not relevant to the contempt procee8/21/15 RT at 59:8-60:14]. Even if it did, however, it cannot now un-ri

4 The ACLU’s citation to Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 50


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia099a22a9c9a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_380https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia099a22a9c9a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_380https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia099a22a9c9a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_380https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia099a22a9c9a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_380https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I177b7c6c953e11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1545


12/133

Regardless, the ACLU conflates Petitioners’ violations of prior C

(the topics of the contempt proceedings) with the sufficiency of

investigations, neither of which are interrelated. Again, the Order to S

only states three distinct areas of inquiry for the contempt proceedin

which involve inquiry into MCSO internal investigations. To date, th

never modified or issued a new order to show cause identifying th

internal investigations are one of the grounds for the contempt p

Moreover, Petitioners’ opportunity to be heard during future contempt p

is not a sufficient corrective measure to the Court’s surprise, improper

these matters because it does not permit defense counsel adequate time

defense to the Court’s ever expanding scope of ad hoc issues it deems re

contempt proceedings.5 Finally, even the Court has retreated from fi

matters relevant to the contempt proceedings (despite continuing to

them as part of the contempt proceedings). [See 7/24/15 Tr. at 21:6-

7/31/15 RT at 44:16-21, Ex. 13]. Thus, the Court was not “well within

to inquire into these areas via its Monitor. See Little v. Kern Cnty. Supe

5 Indeed, this Court set contempt hearings to resume on Septemb


C 15 72440 09/14/2015 ID 9682117 Dk E 12 P 13

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081


13/133

294 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2002) (“notice of the contempt charges

contempt hearing must be explicit in order to conform to the requirem

process.”).6 Accordingly, the Court’s continued insistence to inve

MCSO’s internal investigations (with the assistance of its Monitor) as

finding Petitioners in contempt is a violation of Petitioners’ due proces

patently demonstrates the Court’s bias, requiring its recusal under §455(

4. Judge Snow improperly engaged (and continues in an extrajudicial investigation of disputed facts.

No argument contained in Petitioners’ Motion to Stay (or

Mandamus for that matter) asserts that the Court could not speak with i

Rather, Petitioners argued that certain ex parte communications betwee

6 While the ACLU is correct that a judge may question a witwitness does not have a right to advance notice of every question, the Cinquire into matters entirely unrelated to the current proceeding,

directly implicates the Court’s impartiality. See United States v. Wils1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1994).

7 The ACLU’s reference to Petitioners’ failure to produce ema

existence of additional identification documents recently discoveredemonstrate the Court has authority to expand the Monitor’s autMCSO’s internal investigations because this information has come outhe Court began improperly probing into MCSO’s internal invMoreover, Petitioners have complied with the Court’s request to pro


C 15 72440 09/14/2015 ID 9682117 DktE t 12 P 14

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2110d5970011d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1031https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbc787679db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1081


14/133

and its Monitor are impermissible.8 These include those communica

give the Court personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts con

8 Contrary to the ACLU’s arguments, there are limitations communications between the Court and its Monitor. In the Court’sorder setting forth the Monitor’s powers and duties, pursuant t53(b)(2)(B), it was required to state “the circumstances, if any, in[Monitor] may communicate ex parte with the court or a party.” Cclearly applied Rule 53 to a Court appointed Monitor. See e.g., Unit

Apple Inc., 787 F.3d 131, 139 (2d Cir. 2015); Howe v. City of Akron, 3d 690, 692 (N.D. Ohio 2014). Moreover, Courts have traditionally

parte communications between a Court and its monitor to regard lo

nature of his activities, and other appropriate procedural matters. See eComputer Servs., Ltd. v. Venture Global Eng'g, LLC, No. 06-CV-5035WL 1806198, at *6 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2007); In re Oral SodiumSolution-Based Products Liab. Action, No. 1:09-SP-80000, 2009 WL 2*2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2009). This limitation complies with the comRule 53. See Rule 53, 2003 amendment, cmt. b. (“Ex parte comm

between a master and the court present troubling questions. Ordinari

should prohibit such communications, assuring that the parties knauthority is lodged at each step of the proceedings.”) (Emphasis added).

As such, most Courts have strictly instructed their Monicommunicate with the Court on any substantive matter the Monitor leaan ex parte communication between the Monitor and any party. See Hof Akron, 17 F. Supp. 3d 690, 692 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (“The Monito

communicate to the Court any substantive matter the Monitor learned d parte communication between the Monitor and any party.”); see alFrench Quarter III LLC , No. 9:12-CV-02518-DCN, 2014 WL 6971(D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2014) (same); Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 298 F.R.D87 (D. Kan. 2014) (same).


Case: 15 72440 09/14/2015 ID: 9682117 DktEntry: 12 Page 15 o

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664f3d56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_344_686https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I020fe66e80fb11e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I63d340cc923311de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7b10e317231211dc9b239dfedc9bb45f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_6https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I058664ced56a11e390d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7903_692https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I68e9a043052811e5b86bd602cb8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_139


15/133

contempt proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Accordingly, the Cour

communications with its Monitor are limited under Rule 53 and §

Therefore, when Judge Snow proceeded to conduct an ex parte discuss

Monitor, outside of the contempt proceedings, that regarded the very i

heart of the contempt proceedings, the communication was not autho

Rule 53 and violated § 455(b)(1). See Price Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia

629 F.2d 444, 446-47 (6th Cir. 1980) (noting that gaining information

clerk’s independent investigation of disputed facts would be a violatio

3(c)(1)(a) and § 455).9 Given this communication, and that the Court c

communicate ex parte regarding the Monitor’s investigation into othe

factual issues,10 Judge Snow’s failure to recuse himself was clearly err

matter of law.

5.

Recusal was mandatory because Judge Snow’s

law is a partner in Covington & Burling.

The ACLU argues that “[t]he district court correctly conclud

authorities did not create a per se rule of recusal, but only reco

circumstances may require recusal when the partner’s interest in the pro

9


Case: 15-72440 09/14/2015 ID: 9682117 DktEntry: 12 Page 16 o

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a7b4c01922911d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_446https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


16/133

‘substantial,’ which is a ‘fact sensitive inquiry.’” [ACLU Respo

However, the ACLU ignores that after Judge Snow’s ruling, many of t

for his “fact sensitive inquiry” in 2012 have changed. In Judge Snow’

order, he noted that recusal was not required at the time because there

“remote possibility” that Plaintiffs would be awarded attorney’s fees

did it would “be very small”); thus it “was speculative” whether t

brother-in-law had a financial interest in the outcome of the case. [Do

23]. As of 2015, however, Covington & Burling has been awarded

million in fees and costs [Doc. 742, Ex. 20], and have requested ne

million dollars more in fees and costs for the appeal of the bench tria

hardly a “very small” amount, making it no longer “speculative” that C

Burling has a financial interest in this litigation. See Canon 3(C)(3)(

that ‘“financial interest’ means ownership of a legal or equitable intere

small …”) (emphasis added).12 Finally, Judge Snow never indicated

11 See Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-16285, 13-17238, Dkt. 89, Ex. E

12 In addition, the June 2012 Letter sent by Covington & BurCourt and counsel states that Judge Snow’s brother-in-law retired from& B li H f S t b 7 2015 h i till di l d


Case: 15-72440 09/14/2015 ID: 9682117 DktEntry: 12 Page 17 o


17/133

the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, as Judge Wake did in Fiore

2015 WL 1883980 (D. Ariz. Apr. 24, 2014). Importantly, in respon

Wake’s inquiry regarding Judicial Advisory Opinion No. 58, the

reiterated that a categorical rule of recusal exists when a relative with

degree of relationship is an equity partner in a law firm in

notwithstanding his residence in a different office and the lack of any i

or effect on his income.

Both of these developments constitute significant chang

circumstances that have occurred since the issuance of Judge Snow’s

Order on this issue, and should have been raised by the Court, at the

before instituting the contempt proceedings against new parties. Ho

Court failed to do so, despite previously recognizing that, as the ACLU

party” could have requested the Court to recuse himself. [ACLU Respo

6.

An objective independent observer would h

recusal necessary under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

In light of all of the foregoing arguments, an objective independe

would have found recusal necessary under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Th

arguments to the contrary which are largely based on assertions that

Case: 15 72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 17 o


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3daf7246ed4211e4a807ad48145ed9f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


18/133

manufactured their basis for judicial disqualification, are not grounded

and are rank speculation. It is a disguised attempt to distract this C

simple and undeniable truth – Judge Snow injected each and every

aforementioned issues into these proceedings. Defendants did not onc

of these issues as an affirmative defense (or at all) during the contempt p

– in fact, they admitted contempt. As such, an objective independent

light of all the issues raised above, would find that recusal was necess

455(a). See Fairley v. Andrews, 423 F. Supp. 2d 800, 821 (N.D. Ill. 20

this Court's statements and interactions with Defendants in this

together, may give pause to a non-legal observer, not versed in the w

courtroom and the risks of litigation.”).

B.

Petitioners will be irreparably injured absent a stay.

It is curious that the ACLU argues that the injured class’ right t

compensation outweighs Petitioners’ due process rights. It is axioma

Snow is precluded from sitting on this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

continued participation in the contempt proceedings and compliance p

action endangers not only the Petitioners’ rights, but also the appear

Case: 15 72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 18 o


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iec79ab21ba6911da8cccb4c14e983401/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_821https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iec79ab21ba6911da8cccb4c14e983401/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_821https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iec79ab21ba6911da8cccb4c14e983401/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_821https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iec79ab21ba6911da8cccb4c14e983401/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_821https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NCE516FD0A35911D88B25BBE406C5D950/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


19/133

Cement Antitrust Litig., (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1025 (9th

Moreover, given that this case is in the remedial stage of litigation,

court will not be issuing a “final order” that can be appealed. T

mandamus relief, Petitioners will be prejudiced in a way not correcta

appeal.

C. Issuance of the stay will not substantially injure the otinterested in the proceeding and will favor the public in

The ACLU argues that a “stay would substantially injury P

further delaying compensation to those who were detained in viola

December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction” because it will be unab

those victims. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping the A

locating the alleged victims of Petitioners’ violation of the Decembe

preliminary injunction. In fact, a stay will give the ACLU additional tim

As such, a stay will actually favor the ACLU.

The ACLU also presumes that Petitioners’ compliance efforts

continue with the existing permanent and supplemental injunctive ord

were granted. This is an incorrect assumption. Petitioners unequivo

that if this Court granted a stay MCSO will continue to implemen

, , , y , g


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibf509b758b9111d98aaaa007097b7893/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1025https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibf509b758b9111d98aaaa007097b7893/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1025https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibf509b758b9111d98aaaa007097b7893/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1025https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibf509b758b9111d98aaaa007097b7893/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1025https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibf509b758b9111d98aaaa007097b7893/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_350_1025


20/133

judge in any proceeding is an integral part of maintaining the public’s

in the judicial system. See Ward v. City of Monroeville, 409 U.S

(1972). Accordingly, the public interest greatly favors a stay.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Petitioners request this Court stay

court’s contempt proceedings pending resolution of their writ of mandam


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I23597f049c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_61


21/133

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of September, 201

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHU

By /s/ John T. MastersonJohn T. MastersonJoseph J. PopolizioJustin M. Ackerman2901 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, Arizona 85012Attorneys for Defendants/PetJoseph M. Arpaio in his officas Sheriff of Maricopa CountGerard A. Sheridan

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

By /s/ John T. Masterson (w/permiMichele M. Iafrate649 North Second AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003Attorneys for Defendants/PetJoseph M. Arpaio in his officas Sheriff of Maricopa CountGerard A. Sheridan

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHU

By /s/ John T. Masterson (w/permiA. Melvin McDonald2901 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012Specially appearing counsel f

Joseph M. Arpaio in his officas Sheriff of Maricopa Count



22/133

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limiFed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because:

[X] this brief contains 3383 words, excluding the parts oexempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or

[ ] this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains ___ liexcluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requireFed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) because:

[X] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typMicrosoft Office 2010 14pt Times New Roman, or

[ ] this brief has been prepared in a monospaced spaced typMicrosoft Office 2010 with ____ characters per inch (ins

font style here) __________________.

Signature /s/ John T. Masterson

Attorney forDefendants/Petitioners Joseph M. ArpaGerard A. Sheridan

Date September 14, 2015


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0


23/133

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Petition

in Support of Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings with the C

Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit b

appellate CM/ECF system on the 14th day of September, 2015.

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will b

the appellate CM/ECF system:

/s/Karen Gawel

Case: 15-72440, 09/14/2015, ID: 9682117, DktEntry: 12, Page 24 of 133


24/133

E XHIBIT

A



25/133

status Conference

8-28-15.txt

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

FOR

THE DISTRICT OF

ARIZONA

de

Jesus

Ortega

Melendres,

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11_

L2

1_3

t4

L5

L6

L7

18

19

20

21,

22

23

24

25

Manuel

et

al.

pl

ai

nti ffs

,

vs.

:oseph M. Arpaio,

et al.,

Defendants.

court

Reporter

NO.

CV

07-25L3-PHX-GMS

phoeni

x

August

9:

38 a.

Ari zona

8, 201_5

,

2

)

)

)

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT

OF

PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE

G.

MURRAY SNOW

(status

conference)

cary uo'ì1

401

t¡l.

washi

Phoeni

x,

Ari

(602)

322-72

63

s

ngton

Street,

SPC 38

zona

85003

proceedings

taken by stenographic

court

reporter

Transcript

prepared

by conputer-aided

transcriptìon

cv07-2

51-3

,

Me]

end

res v. Arpai o

,

8/28/L5 Status Confe

rence 2

1_

2

APPEARANCES

eage

1



26/133

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

1_0

1_ 1_

L2

1_3

1,4

1-5

16

L7

18

1_9

20

27

22

23

24

25

status Conference

8-28-15.txt

For

the

plaintiffs:

American

civil

liberties union Foundation

rmmìgrants' nìghts

eroject

By: cecillia o.

wang,

Esq.

39

orumm

Street

san

Francisco,

california

94IL]-

American civil

t-iberties union

Foundation

rmmi

grants'

Rì

ghts

eroject

By: And re segu ra,

Esq .

-

rel

ephon'i

ca1

1y

125 sroad street, l-8th Floor

New York, New York

10004

covi ngton

surl

ì

ng,

LLP

By:

Tammy

albarran, Esq.- feleph

By:

Lau ren

E . eed'l

ey, Esq

.

-

rel

e

1

Front street,

35th

rloor

san Francisco, california

941-11

oni cal I

phon'ica

v

llv

covì

ngton

surl

i

ng,

LLP

By:

Stanley

Young,

Esq.

By:

l,li chel I

e t-. Mori n

,

Esq .

-

rel ephoni cal'ly

333

rwin

oolphin

orive, suite 700

nedwood

shores,

california

94065

For the oefendant

:oseph

v.

arpaìo

and ltaricopa

county

sheri

ff's offi

ce:

rafrate Associates

¡¡i

chel e

tr¡. Iaf rate

,

EsÇ.

ru. 2nd

Avenue

eni x

,

Ari

zona

85003

Jones,

skelton

Hochuìi, PLc

By: n.

uelvin

l4cDonald, Jr., Esq.

-

relephon'ically

By:

:ohn

t.

Masterson,

EsQ.

By:

:oseph

r. eopo'lizio,

Esq.

2901-

N.

central

Avenue,

Suite 800

phoeni

x,

Ari

zona 8501-2

cvOT-2513,

Me]endres v.

Arpaio, 8/28/15 Status

Conference

3

APPEARANCES

By:

649

Pho

I

1-

2

3

4

5

6

7

For the oefendant tt4aricopa county:

walker eeskind, PLLC

By: nichard

K.

\^/alker,

Esq.

By: Charles

w.

Jjrauch,

EsQ.

sGA

Corporate

Center

l-61-00 N. 7th

streer, sui

te 140

phoenix,

Arizona

85254

ror the Movants christine

Stutz

and Thomas P

eage

2

t-i

ddy:



27/133

8

9

l_0

11

L2

13

1,4

15

1_6

17

1-8

1_9

20

21,

22

23

24

25

status

conference

8-28-l-5.txt

Broening,

oberg,

woods

trrlìlson, Pc

Byr Terrence

p.

Woods,

Esq.

P.o.

eox

20527

phoenix,

Arizona 85036

For

the

N4ovants

tvtarìcopa

county

Attorney's

office

and

varicopa

county

Attorney

t^/illiam Montgomery:

Ridenour

Hienton,

PLLC

By:

Ernest calderon,

ESQ.

chase

Tower

20L

N.

Central

Avenue,

suite 3300

phoenix,

Arizona

85004

For the rntervenor united

States

of

America:

united

states

Department

of Justice

-

c'ivi]

nights

By:

Edward G.

caspar,

Esq.-

felephoniç4lly

sy:

paul

rillebrew,

Esq.

-

-relephonically

950

eennsylvania

Avenue

NW,

5th Floor

washington,

D.c.

20530

For Deputy

Chief

Jack

Maclntyre:

oickinson

wrìght,

PLLC

By:

tt¡itesh

v. Patel

,

Esq.

1850 North

central

Avenue,

suite

l-400

phoenix,

Arizona 85004

For chì

ef

oeputy

Gerard

sheri

dan

:

uitchell

stein carey, Pc

By: Lee

D. Stei n,

Esq

.

1

Renai

ssance

Square

2 ruorth

central

Avenue, Suite

1900

Phoenix,

Arizona 85004

cvO7-2513,

Melendres

v. Arpaio,

8/28/L5 Status

conference

4

APPEARANCES

+

l_

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

For Executive

Chief

erian Sands:

Lewi

s

,

Bri sboi s

,

e'i sgaard

smi th

,

LLP

By: Greg

S.

Como,

Esq.

2929 tr¡.

central

Avenue,

Sui

te

l-700

phoenix,

Arizona

85012

For Lieutenant

:oseph

sousa:

oav'i d

rì

senbe

rg

,

PLc

By:

oavid

rì senberg,

Esq.

2702

N. 3rd

street,

suite

4003

phoenix,

Arizona 85004

A1

so

present:

'

chief

nobert

warshaw,

Monitor

-

relephonically

commander

:ohn

Gi rvi

n,

Deputy

Moni tor-

rel

ephoni ca1 1

y

chief

Raul

Martinez,

Deputy

Monitor

-

relephon'ically

chief

Deputy Gerard sheridan

wi chel

I e Mo

ri n

,

Esq

.

-

rel

ephoni cal

'ly

eage

3

1_0

1- 1_



28/133

72

l_3

L4

15

16

L7

18

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

Status

Conference 8-28-15.txt

Raphael

o.

Gomez,

Esq.

-

relephonìcaìly

cvOT-25L3,

Melendres

v.

Arpaio, 8/28/15

Status

Conference

5

PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT:

Please

be

seated.

THE CLERK:

This is cv

07-25L3,

Melendres

v.

Arpaio,

on

for

status

conference.

counsel,

please

announce

your

appearances.

MS.

WANG: Good

morn'ing,

Your

Honor. cec'i'lì'i

a wang

of

the

AcLU

for

the

plaintìffs.

THE

couRT:

Good

morning.

MR.

YOUNG:

Good

morning,

Your

Honor. stanley

Young,

covi ngton

su rl

'i

ng

,

fo

r

pl

a'i

nti

ffs .

THE

couRT:

Good

mo

rn'i

ng

.

MS.

TAFRATE:

Good

morning,

Your

Honor.

l¡ichele

rafrate on behalf

of sheriff

nrpaìo

and the

unnamed

alleged

contemnors.

MR.

MASTERSoN:

Good

morn'ing,

:udge.

John

Masterson

eage

4

?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

72

13

T4

15

16



29/133

+

L7

18

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

1_

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l_1

L2

1_3

1.4

15

1_6

t7

18

19

20

Status

Conference 8-28-l-5.txt

and

Joe eopo l

i zi

o

for sheri

ff

nrpa io.

THE

COURT:

You know,

Mr.

Masterson,

I

just

have

a

question:

Are

you

just

appearìng

for sheriff

nrpaìo?

MR.

MASTERSON:

No, :udge.

We re

the

same

as

Ms.

rafrate. r

just

shortened

it because

--

THE

coURT:

r know, t

appreciate that.

r

just

wanted

to

make clear.

MR.

I¡/ALKER:

Good

morning,

Your

Honor.

Richard

walker

and

charles

Jirauch

on

behalf

of uaricopa county

as defined in

cVO7-2513,

Meìendres

v.

Arpaio,

8/28/1,5

Status

conference

6

previous

appearances

and

fi lings

with the court.

THE COURT:

You

know,

Mr. Walker,

f

saw

that

you

filed

something

early this

mornìng;

r haven t

read

it

yet.

Just

for clarity s

sake,

it

does

seem to me

--

r read

maybe,

like,

the

first

paragraph

--

just

for clarìty s

sake for

any

party

that

may

wjsh to respond,

jt

does

seem

to

me

that

Marìcopa

county is

a

party

and has a

rìght to separate

representation.

But

you

are

a

party

to the

extent

that

you

are

the

jural

ent ity that

needs to be sued when the

sheriff s

office

is sued.

So

r m not

sure

that

you

have a status

here as

vtaricopa

county

only

representing certain aspects

of its

organization,

for

what that s

worth. That s

why it

troubles

me

when

you

take a

pos ition

that

is

substantively

different

than

the sheriff, sheriff s

pos ition.

nnd

r don t

know, because

r haven t

read

your

motion.

r

just

barely

got

it.

r, like,

gìanced

at the first

page.

r

don t know if

you

address

that

or not,

but

that s

really

what

concerns

me .

r

l-l

j

ust tel l

you

that and then

we l

I

move

on .

MR.

WALKER:

okay. rhank

you,

Your

Honor.

eage

5



30/133

2I

22

23

24

25

THE

MR.

representi

ng

MR.

t- iddy.

cv07-2513,

status

conference

8-28-1-5. txt

couRT:

Al

I ri

ght

. rhanks

.

coMo:

Good

morning,

Your

Honor.

Greg Como

Brian sands,

who

has waived

his

appearance

today.

wooDs:

Terry

woods

for

Lutz and

--

for

stutz and

¡¡elendres

v. Arpajo, 8/28/L5

Status

Conference

7

THE

coURT:

AlI

right.

thank

You.

MR. STEIN:

Good

morning,

Your Honor.

Lee ste in,

spec ial1y

appearing

for

chief oeputy

sheridan,

who ìs

present.

MR.

EISENBERG:

GoOd

morning, Your

Honor.

Oavid

eisenberg,

specially

appearìng

on

behalf

of

t-ieutenant

sousa.

r

would excuse

h-is

presence

for th is

day only.

THE

coURT:

AlI

right.

rhank

You.

MR.

CALDERON:

Good

morning,

Your

Honor Ernest

calderon

on behalf

of

county

Attorney

w illiam wontgomery

and

his office.

MR.

PATEL:

Good

mOrning,

Your

Honor.

¡¡itesh

Patel,

oickinson

tltright, specìal1y

appearing

for Deputy ch ief

Maclntyre.

THE

COURT:

Who do we

have on the

Phone?

CHIEF WARSHAW:

YeS.

GoOd morning,

Your

Honor.

chief

warshaw,

and

with me

are

two

deputy

monitors: chief

Raul

N4art i

nez and

Commander

:ohn

ci rvi

n.

THE

couRT:

Good morn ing.

MS. ALBARRAN:

Good

morn ing,

Your Honor. on behalf of

plaìntiffs,

from

Covington

you

have Tammy

nlbarran, Lauren

eed ley, and

vichelle uorin; and

from

the

ACLU, Andre segura.

THE

COURT:

Good

mornìng.

MR.

MCDONALD: Good

morning, Your

Honor.

¡¡el

wlcOonald

making

a special

appearance

on behalf

of sheriff

:oe Rrpa io.

THE

COURT:

Good mornìng.

eage

6

I

1_

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l-0

l_L

L2

13

L4

15

1-6

L7

1_8

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25



31/133

I

Status

conference

8-28-15.txt

cV07-2513,

Melendres v.

Arpaio,

8/28/75

Status

Conference

MR.

KILLEBREW:

Good

mornjng, Your

Honor.

paul

rillebrew

and rd caspar

for

plaintiff-intervenor

united

states.

MR. GOMEZ:

Good morning, Your

Honor. naphael Gomez

from

civil

oivision,

u.s.

Department of:ustice.

THE

COURT:

Is

that

everyone?

All right. cood

morning to

you

a1l.

Ms.

Wang, I

instructed

--

or

I

asked

you

last week if

you

would

please

--

we

went

through

last

week

the status

of

product'ion

of documents.

Ms.

rafrate

had

produced

many

things

to

you.

There were a few things that

were

outstanding.

r

handled the th'ings

that

they hadn't t'imely

produced

by denying

their

motion.

rhey

jndicated

they

understood, and

r

entered

that

in my

order.

r

al

so asked

you,

though,

to

confi

rm that Ms. rafrate

had

g'iven

you

everythìng

that

she had

gìven you.

can

you

confi rm that?

MS. WANG: I

do

have that

update,

Your

Honor.

rhere are

a couple

of

outstanding issues.

rhe first

is that

--

and

r

should

mention first

that

we noticed after

last week's status

conference that

there is

a

discrepancy

between documents

l-203 and 1208 on

the

docket.

1208 is Your

Honor's

order

setting

forth

the

dates for document

productìon

and

there

appears

to

be

a

typographical

error

in jt.

There

are

two categories

that are repeated.

rhe missing category

that

had been set forth

'in

cv07-2513,

uelendres

v.

Arpaìo, 8/28/LS

Status Conference 9

1 Ms. rafrate's

filìng,

which was document

L203,

related

to

2 documents

having

to

do with detentions

in violatjon of

the

eage

7

8

1_

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

1-0

l-1

L2

1_3

L4

1-5

16

7

18

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

I



32/133

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

LL

t2

1_3

t4

15

16

L7

1-8

1_9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

Status

Conference 8-28-15.txt

preììm inary

ìnjunctìon

order

--

THE

COURT:

YES.

MS. wANG:

--

by non-Human

smugglìng unit

units

of

MCSO.

we have continued to meet and

confer

with us. rafrate

on

this

issue.

Defendants position

--

and,

of

course,

I ll

let

pts.

rafrate

speak

for

herself

--

is that they are

unable

to

do that search.

rheir

posìt ion

is that

plaintiffs

should

look

at the

cAD database that

was

produced

and

identify

such detentions in

violation

of

the preliminary injunctìon

order

by

non-HSU

deputìes, identify

the stops

at

issue, and then they

will

search

for documents.

pla intiffs

position

is

that they should undertake a

reasonable search

for

documents. wê, for example, suggest

that

there may be documentation of

contacts

between

non-HSU

deputies

and federal

immigration

officials such as Border

patrol

or rcE.

rf

such

contacts

were

made,

that

could

indicate

that

there

was

such a

detention

by a

non-HSU

deputy,

but

we may be

at an

impasse on whether that search should

be conducted by the

defendants

.

r

believe

the only

other issue that

we need

to

raise

with

the court

right now is

that

last week

there

was

a

question

cv07-2513,

welendres v. Arpaio,

8/28/L5 Status Conference

l-0

I

l-

about whether

there was

a

comp lete

production

of

the

internal

2

investigation

files

relating

to

any

potential

discrimination

3 against

members

of

the

pìaìntiff

class

goìng

back to

2008.

rn

4 fact, Ms. rafrate, upon meeting and

conferrjng

with

us after

5 last week s

status conference,

djscovered

there

were

six files

6 that had

not

been

produced.

7

-rhose

were

produced

to

us

r

belìeve

yesterday?

eage

8



33/133

8

9

l-0

11

2

13

1,4

15

16

L7

18

l-9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

Status

Conference

8-28-1-5.txt

Yes,

yesterday.

THE couRT:

All right. what about

the

tr¡ackiewicz

hard

drive,

whìch

vts.

rafrate

was

goìng

to

do

a

prìvilege

review and

g'ive you

a

privilege

log, has

that

been

provided?

MS. WANG:

That

was

the

--

do

you

mean the

chief

rnìght

--

THE

COURT:

YES.

MS.

wANG:

--

hard drive?

THE

coURTr

Yes.

rhe chief

rnight

hard

drive

that

he

was

holdìng

that

was

my

understanding he

got

from Detective

¡¡acki

ewi

cz.

MS. wANG: r

don't think we've

gotten

that

priv'iìege

log.

THE coURT:

All rìght. But as far as

you

know, that's

the

status

of

everyth'ing

outstandìng?

MS. WANG:

Yes, Your

Honor.

You're already

aware

of

the

issue with the

psr

files. Those are being

produced

on

an

ongoing

basìs. And

we

are

meeting

and conferring

with

cv07-2513,

uelendres

v. Arpaio,

B/28/15 Status Conference

1-1

o

-t

1 Mr. walker and

tr¡r. Masterson about the SO-hard-drive issue.

2

THE

couRT: All right.

we'll raise

that

probably

3 later to see

where we're at on that.

4

t'4S.

WANG:

Al

I ri

ght

.

5

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor,

just to

supp'lement,

there

is

6

one

document

product'ion

issue which relates

to

defendants as

7 well

as

to their

former

attorneys,

Mr. casey

and the attorneys

8 at

the

McAo, and

it

relates

to

the scope

of

Your Honor's May

I

L4,

2015

order

finding a waiver

of

privìlege

and

work

product

10

as

to communications

relating to the

prelim'inary

ìnjunct'ion

11 violation.

we

are

conferring

about

that

now.

we've had some

eage

9



34/133

L2

13

L4

15

1_6

L7

l_8

1_9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

Status Conference

8-28-l-5.txt

useful discussions

this

morning.

r do

want

to let

Your

Honor know that

if we

can t

reach agreement

on that,

we may

be

bringìng

certain

prìviìege

logs

to

you

next

week

to

resolve those

issues

prior

to the

depositions that

we want to take.

THE

COURT:

That

makes

sense.

Ms. rafrate,

did

you

want

to

be heard on

this?

MS.

IAFRATE

: Yes

,

p l

ease.

Your Honor, regardìng the

non-HSU

deputies, this

was

a

conversation

that

r had

w ith

plaintiffs

counsel

many, many

months

ago

regarding

how

best

to

capture

this

jnformation.

rt

was

plaintjffs

suggestjon

that

we

do a

cAD

data dump so

that

they could

review

the

cAD to determine

what stops they

want

to

look

at. r was attempting

to make

certajn

that

they

get

what

cv07-25L3,

Melendres

v. Arpaìo, 8/28/15 Status Conference

t2

they

need.

rhe

jdea

of

doing

some

sort

of

search,

one

of

the

reasons

that we re here,

Your

Honor,

is

because

MCSO

did not

track these types of

stops, and, therefore,

there

is

no

documentation

that

would adequately

satisfy

plaintiffs

request.

therefore, the

cAD

areas that they

were

interested

in

looking

at have

been

provìded

to

p1aìntiffs

counsel so

that

when

they

determine

which stops they

want

to

look

at, we

can

provide

those documents to

them.

there s

no way

for

us

to

do a search regardìng non-HSU

individuals that

may have had contact

with the

plaintìffs

class.

rt

just

wasn t

tracked

that

way back then.

rt

js

now.

Regarding

the chief

rn ight hard

drive

--

THE

COURT:

Before

we

move

on to the

Chief

--

MS.

TAFRATE:

Okay.

THE

couRT:

--

rnìght hard

drive,

are there

any

eage

10

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

L4

15

16



35/133

L7

1-8

1_9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

Status Conference

8-28-15.txt

records kept

of

contacts

between

Mcso deputies and

Border

patrol

or

rcE

operatives

or agents?

MS. TAFRATE:

r

don t

know

the

answer

to

that

question,

Your Honor.

THE

couRT:

All

right.

could

you

determine

the answer

to that

quest ion?

MS. TAFRATE:

t

could.

THE

COURT:

Please to

so,

and

if

there

are,

provide

such

records to the

plaintiffs.

cv07-25L3,

Melendres

v.

Arpaio, 8/28/L5 Status

Conference 13

MS. TAFRATE:

very well.

THE

couRT: Similarly,

because, as I

recall,

there

was

something

that

operated

--

we referred

to

--

what was the

pol

i cy, LEAR

po1

i cy? r

thi

Documents

15-72440 # 12 | Arpaio Reply in Support of Motion to Stay