Melendres # 1333 - P Statement of Facts

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

cwang@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
6
7
8
9
10
Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

for Plaintiffs listed on next page)
13
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
15
16
17
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
18
19
20
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
PLAINTIFFS RULE 56.1(B)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND RULE 56(D) STATEMENT
OF UNAVAILABLE FACTS IN
OPPOSITION TO SANDS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
asegura@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

pdodson@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-5996
Facsimile: (202) 778-5996
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

alai@law.uci.edu
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

jcastillo@maldef.org
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

syoung@cov.com
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
mmorin@cov.com
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
hbyun@cov.com
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

talbarran@cov.com
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
lpedley@cov.com
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
Pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(b), Plaintiffs submit the following statements of facts in
opposition to Retired Executive Chief Brian Sands (Sands) Motion for Summary
Judgment and in response to Sands Statement of Facts in support of his motion.
Plaintiffs also submit the following declaration of unavailable facts necessary to their
opposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
I.
A.
LRCiv 56.1(b) Controverting Statement of Facts

Disputed Facts in Sands Statement of Facts
1.
Disputed. The Court has stated that contempt proceedings are
9
necessary to determine the circumstances and scope of the violation of the Dec. 23,
10
11
2011 preliminary injunction, including violations by MCSO as well as by individual
12
named contemnors including Sands, and the full scope of the violations at issue cannot
13
be known until all the documents relevant to the contempt proceedings are produced
14
by Defendants. Dkt. 880 at 9-15;1 Dkt. 1007 at 1-2; Dkt. 1208; Aug. 21, 2015 Tr.
15
16
15:20-16:11 (ordering rolling production of .pst files); see Rule 56(d) statement, infra.
2.
17
18
19
Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,
Plaintiffs identify that the Courts December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction was
violated by MCSOs continuing application of its LEAR policy.
20
3.
21
Not Disputed. The LEAR policy called for MCSO deputies to
22
detain persons believed to be in the country without authorization but whom they
23
could not arrest on state charges, and to either deliver those persons to ICE or detain
24
25
26
27
Page citations for cited docket entries refer to the docket-stamped pagination in the
ECF file header.
28
1
them until MCSO received a response from ICE. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law at 2:12-15, May 24, 2013. Dkt. 579.
3
4
4.
Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,
Plaintiffs identified four particular incidents where MCSOs LEAR policy was
5
6
7
8
9
followed.
5.
Not Disputed. On July 24, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio testified that the
LEAR policy remained in effect.

6.
Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 21,
10
11
12
13
14
2012, the substance of which is set forth on pages A3-A5 of Exhibit A to the January
8, 2015 Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.
7.
Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 27,
2012, the substance of which is set forth on pages A6-A7 of Exhibit A to the January
15
16
17
18
19
8, 2015 Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.

8.
Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on October 9, 2012,
the substance of which is set forth on page A8 of Exhibit A to the January 8, 2015
Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.
20
21
9.
Not Disputed. The MCSO press releases on September 21, 2012,
22
September 27, 2012, and October 9, 2012, showed that the MCSO continued to follow
23
the LEAR policy after the December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction.
24
10.
Not Disputed. The September 21 press release states that the
25
26
policy of turning over to ICE individuals for which there was insufficient evidence to
27
bring state charges (commonly termed the LEAR policy was MCSOs practice during
28
the last six years.

2
11.
1
2
on October 11, 2012.
3
4
Not Disputed. Plaintiffs counsel knew about these press releases
12.
Not Disputed. Plaintiffs counsel sent a letter to Tim Casey on
October 11, 2012, stating, It has come to our attention that the [MCSO] appears to be
5
6
detaining and transporting individuals in violation of the Courts injunction . . . .

13.
7
8
9
Disputed. Plaintiffs did raise issues relating to violation of the
Courts orders (and implicitly, of contempt) when they first became aware of the press
releases, by writing a letter to Defendants about the press releases and seeking
10
11
assurances that violations of the injunction were not occurring. Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5.
14.
12
13
Not Disputed. On May 24, 2013, the Court issued its post-trial
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
14
15.
Not Disputed. The Courts May 24, 2013 Order found, as a
15
16
matter of law, that the MCSO has violated the explicit terms of this Courts
17
preliminary injunction set forth in its December 23, 2011 order because the MCSO
18
continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the preliminary
19
injunction.
20
21
22
23
24
16.
Disputed. Plaintiffs did request a filing of contempt after the
Courts May 24, 2013 order, though not immediately after that order was issued.
17.
Not Disputed. On January 8, 2015, Plaintiffs requested an order to
show cause why the defendants and certain individuals should not be held in contempt.
25
26
18.
Not Disputed. Two years, five months, and fifteen days elapsed
27
between the time Sheriff Arpaio offered the testimony set forth in paragraph 5 and the
28
date on which Plaintiffs filed their request for an order to show cause.
3
19.
1
2
February 12, 2015.
3
4
Not Disputed. The Court issued its Order to Show Cause on
20.
Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny this
21.
Not Disputed. Chief Sands testified that, shortly after the
statement.
5
6
7
Preliminary Injunction was issued, there was a meeting about the injunction at Sheriff
Arpaios office at which both Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio were present.
Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 260:9-16.
10
22.
11
Disputed because materially incomplete. Sergeant Trowbridge
12
testified that shortly after the preliminary injunction issued, there was a meeting about
13
the injunction at Sheriff Arpaios office at which Chief Deputy Sheridan, Sheriff
14
Arpaio, and Chief Sands were present, along with Lisa Allen and anybody that
15
16
worked for Lisa Allen, as well as counsel for MCSO. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 437:1-438:4.
23.
17
18
19
Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the
evidence cited in support as dispositive of Chief Deputy Sheridans actual recollection.

Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that he could not recall being at a meeting about the
20
21
Preliminary Injunction at which both he and Sheriff Arpaio were present, 897:21-
22
898:17, and additional documents may further refresh the witnesss memory. Further,
23
both Sands and Plaintiffs are without knowledge regarding Chief Deputy Sheridans
24
actual ability to recall whether he attended a meeting regarding the Preliminary
25
26
27
28
Injunction.
24.
Disputed because the statement is incomprehensible as written,
because the statement mischaracterizes the cited testimony, and because additional
4
documents may further refresh the witnesss memory. Further, both Sands and
Plaintiffs are without knowledge regarding Sheriff Arpaios actual ability to recall a
meeting about the Preliminary Injunction.
25.
5
6
evidence cited in support as dispositive of Sheriff Arpaios and Chief Deputy
Sheridans actual ability to recall facts about the distribution of the Courts Preliminary
Injunction Order or the meetings and discussions they had about it, additional
documents may further refresh the witnesses memories, and Sheriff Arpaios and
10
11
Chief Deputy Sheridans self-serving testimony in a contempt proceeding provides
12
both Sands and Plaintiffs with insufficient basis upon which to evaluate these
13
contemnors actual recall of the events in question.
14
26.
Disputed. Sands testified that Lieutenant Sousa was assigned the
15
16
task of preparing the training materials, and that Sands believed Sousa would carry out
17
that task without any need for follow-up from SandsSands did not testify that he
18
(Sands) assigned this task to Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 334:11-18.
19
27.
Disputed. The emails that surfaced about the development of
20
21
training scenarios are equivocal with respect to the identity of the individual who
22
ordered the training to be developed, in that they indicate that Lieutenant Sousa asked
23
that training be developed but do not suggest that Sands ordered Sousa to develop the
24
training scenarios. See, e.g., CaseySub 000003 (Exhibit 1) (Sousa orders Brett Palmer
25
26
27
28
to develop training scenarios); CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit 2) (same).

28.
Not Disputed. The emails show Lieutenant Sousas efforts to try
to develop training.
5
29.
evidence cited in support as dispositive of the witnesses actual frame of mind or
ability to recall facts regarding the training, as compared to their willingness to testify
about their recollections at a contempt hearing. Furthermore, the final state of any
5
6
7
8
9
witnesss memory remains unclear because additional documents may further refresh
the witnesses memories.
30.
evidence cited in support as dispositive of the actual state of Lieutenant Sousas
10
11
memory, and additional documents may further refresh the witnesss memory. The
12
cited testimony provides both Sands and Plaintiffs with insufficient basis upon which
13
to evaluate the witnesss actual recall of the events in question.
14
31.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
32.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

33.
evidence cited in support as dispositive of the actual state of Sergeant Palmers

6
34.
Not Disputed. The Courts Preliminary Injunction was issued on
5
6
December 23, 2011. Order, Dec. 23, 2011. Dkt. 494.

35.
7
8
9
Not Disputed. More than three years elapsed between the date the
Courts Preliminary Injunction was filed and Plaintiffs Request for an Order to Show
Cause was filed.
10
36.
11
Not Disputed. The MCSO has a record in this case of inadequate
12
document retention. See Order Denying Motion for Recusal or Disqualification at
13
21:11-14, Jul. 10, 2015. Dkt. 1164.
14
37.
15
16
17
18
19
statement, including knowledge of the avenues available to Sands to seek documents

from MCSO.
38.
Disputed. MCSO has thus far only identified eight documents on
its initial privilege log in response to Sands document requests, but more documents
20
21
may arise and be logged, as MCSO continues to produce, review, and log documents.
22
See, e.g., Transcript, Sept. 4, 2014 Status Conference (forthcoming) at 11:6-13:9; 15:9-
23
32:6 (discussing status of production and disputes relating to documents not yet
24
produced by Defendants).
25
26
27
39.
Not Disputed. After being directed to by the Court, Defendants
located and identified additional, relevant emails. March 27, 2015 Tr. 32:16-21.
28
7
40.
Not Disputed. After witnesses testified about undisclosed emails,
the Court directed individuals computers searched, and depositions had to be
reopened, additional relevant emails were discovered.
41.
Disputed. Sands testified that Lieutenant Sousa was assigned the
5
6
task of preparing the training materials, and that Sands believed Sousa would carry out
that task without any need for follow-up from SandsSands did not testify that he
(Sands) assigned this task to Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 334:11-18. The
emails that surfaced about the development of training scenarios are equivocal with
10
11
respect to the identity of the individual who ordered the training to be developed, in
12
that they indicate that Lieutenant Sousa asked that training be developed but do not
13
suggest that Sands ordered Sousa to develop the training scenarios. See, e.g., CaseySub
14
000003 (Exhibit 1) (Sousa orders Brett Palmer to develop training scenarios);
15
16
CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit 2) (same).

42.
17
18
19
Disputed. Tim Casey has produced emails, including at least some
of the emails sent to him by Lieutenant Sousa. See, e.g., CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit
2).
20
43.
21
22
statement, as the cited testimony states that Sands retired in July of 2013, which may
23
or may not indicate a July 31, 2013 retirement date.
24
44.
25
26
statement.
27
28
8
45.
Not Disputed. One of Plaintiffs original causes of action in this
case was that MCSOs officers detention of persons based on knowledge that such
persons were in the country illegally, without more, violated the Fourth Amendment.
46.
Not Disputed. The detention of persons based on knowledge that
5
6
7
such persons were in the country illegally, without more, violates both the Fourth
Amendment and the Preliminary Injunction.
8
9
47.
Not Disputed. Plaintiffs seek compensatory relief for violations of
the Preliminary Injunction that occurred when MCSO officers detained members of
10
11
12
the Plaintiff class based on knowledge that such persons were in the country illegally,
without more.
13
14
48.
Not Disputed. The Courts October 2, 2013 Order was a final
judgment on the merits. See Order at 58:23-24, Oct. 2, 2013. Dkt. 606.
15
49.
16
Disputed. This fact is not complete. Violations of the Preliminary
17
Injunction arose out of MCSOs continued application of the LEAR policy as well as
18
out of other grounds, not all of which are presently known, given the ongoing
19
discovery, document production, and contempt proceedings. See, e.g., Dkt. 880 at 9-
20
21
22
23
24
18.
50.
Not Disputed. After the Preliminary Injunction was issued, the
legality of the LEAR policy was actually litigated.

51.
Not Disputed. The Court found that the LEAR policy violated
25
26
27
both the Fourth Amendment and its Preliminary Injunction.

52.
Not Disputed. The Court granted Plaintiffs relief.
28
9
53.
Disputed. Plaintiffs were impeded in their pursuit of contempt
findings against Sands and others because of Defendants material misstatements,
including those made by their counsel Tim Caseys denial of any violation in October
2012. A finding of contempt and the scope of sanctions commensurate with the still-
5
6
unknown scope of the contempt could not have been raised before the clarity gained
through Defendants statements (through counsel) at the November 2014 status
hearing, which led to Plaintiffs January 2015 motion for an OSC. See, e.g., Dkt. 804,
Nov. 20, 2014 Tr. at 67-68; Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5, 13-16.
10
11
B.
12
Additional Facts Establishing a Genuine Issue of Material Fact or

Otherwise Precluding Judgment in Favor of the Moving Party
1.
Sands testified that he retired in July of 2013 after approximately
13
14
15
16
17
30 years working at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 255:3-14;
320:17-19.
2.
Prior to retirement, as Executive Chief of MCSO, Sands took
direction from Sheriff Arpaio, including direction relating to saturation patrols. Dkt.
18
19
20
21
22
579 at 52 (citing Trial Tr. at 707:16-18, 809:20-810:3, 814:21-815:1, 824:24-825:6);

id. at 53 n.46 (citing Tr. 797:15-20, 797:24-798:15); Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 346:9-13.
3.
In 2011, while he was Chief of Enforcement, three bureau
commanders reported to Sands: one relating to patrol operations, one relating to
23
24
investigative operations, and one relating to training, records and ID, and civil and
25
criminal warrants. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 255:3-10, 321:13-20. Though Chief David
26
Trombi reported to Sands, Sands and Trombi both supervised the Human Smuggling
27
Unit (HSU). Dkt. 579 at 8; Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 345:4-23, 356:8-9. See also Apr. 21,
28
10
2015 Tr. 48:13-20, 98:2-6, 99:1-20, 134:6-7 (Trombi testimony); 178:16-18 (Palmer
testimony).
3
4
4.
While at MCSO, Sands was involved in MCSOs decision-
making process surrounding how to put the preliminary injunction into effect. For
5
6
instance, Sands testified that shortly after the Court issued its preliminary injunction,
he discussed implementation of the preliminary injunction with at least Sheriff Arpaio,
Chief Deputy Sheridan, Tim Casey (counsel for MCSO, see Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 107:11-
14), Deputy Chief MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 256:16-257:12,
10
11
258:23-261:24, 262:13-264:11. A November 6, 2014 email from Tim Casey states that
12
Sands was our (i.e., litigation counsels) point of primary contact in this case at that
13
time and that Sands was handling this Order. CaseySub 000050-53 (Exhibit 3) at
14
CaseySub 000050. Other documents suggest that Sands was the final authority to
15
16
approve communications regarding implementation of the preliminary injunction
17
order. MELC834972-73 (Exhibit 4) (June 7, 2012 email from Lisa Allen to Brian
18
Sands and his assistant Jenise Moreno, bearing subject line Janice make sure [Chief]
19
Sands sees and reviews this and returns his approval or corrections to Chris Hegstrom
20
21
by Friday (tomorrow), and containing draft answers to questions regarding MCSO
22
immigration enforcement practices); see also MELC837097-98 (Exhibit 5) (email
23
from Allen to Sousa, containing the list of questions and stating that Chief Sands has
24
asked me to forward these questions to you for a brief response), MELC837095-96
25
26
27
(Exhibit 6) (Sousas email providing his draft answers to Allen). Still other documents
suggest Sands also had chain of command authority over training relating to the
28
11
preliminary injunction, by virtue of his authority over Lieutenant Sousa. CaseySub
000046-49 (Exhibit 2).
3
4
5.
Trial on the merits of MCSOs violations of the constitutional
rights of the plaintiffs class took place from July 19 through August 2, 2012. Dkt. 529
5
6
(Order Setting Trial) at 1; see also 2012 trial transcripts. The Court issued Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law on May 24, 2013. Dkt. 579. The Courts findings
included findings that MCSO had violated the preliminary injunction because MCSO
continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the injunction. Id.
10
11
12
13
14
at 114:19-23.
6.
MCSO issued press releases on September 21, 2012, September
27, 2012, and October 9, 2012. SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 44-49). The MCSO press
releases on September 21, 2012, September 27, 2012, and October 9, 2012 appear to
15
16
17
18
19
show that MCSO continued to follow the LEAR policy after the December 23, 2011
Preliminary Injunction. Id.
7.
On October 11, 2012, Plaintiffs timely raised their concerns about
MCSOs September and October 2012 press releases, SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 44-
20
21
22
23
24
49), in a letter to Defendants counsel, Tim Casey. SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 42-43).
8.
Casey responded by letter dated October 18, 2012, assuring
Plaintiffs that violations of the preliminary injunction were not occurring. Dkt. 843-2
at 13-16. However, Plaintiffs were concerned about the reliability of the information,
25
26
27
and raised the violation of the LEAR policy to Defendants counsel on October 11,
2012. Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5 (A1-A2).
28
12
9.
The Court held a status conference on November 20, 2014. Dkt.
804 (unsealed transcript of Nov. 20, 2014 proceedings). At that hearing, Defendants
admitted to the Court and the parties, for the first time, that MCSO had failed to
comply with the preliminary injunction order by conducting a traffic stop (the Korean
5
6
stop) on November 1, 2012, as part of an interdiction patrol of the type prohibited by
the preliminary injunction. Id. at 67-68. Defendants also revealed that no one at MCSO
had disseminated information about the December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction
order to the rank-and-file. Id. at 67:20-22 (MCSO has concluded, that this Courts
10
11
order was not communicated to the line troops in the HSU.).

10.
12
13
14
Plaintiffs filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on January 8,
2015, less than two months after the November status conference. That motion was
granted on February 12, 2015. Dkts. 843, 880. Plaintiffs do not dispute the fact recited
15
16
in 4 of Sands Statement of Facts. However, Plaintiffs also cited other violations
17
relating to the LEAR policy and noted that there are likely other incidents of
18
violations not known to Plaintiffs. Dkt. 843 at 6-8, 12.
19
11.
The district court commenced contempt hearings in April 2015,
20
21
acknowledging during the hearing that when it noted the existence of preliminary
22
injunction violations in its May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
23
was not aware of the vast scope of those violations. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 303:7-16; see
24
Dkt. 579 at 5:25-6:3; see also Dkt. 880 at 9-25. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
25
26
Sheridan admitted to civil contempt as a result of MCSOs failure to implement the
27
preliminary injunction. Dkt. 948 at 1; Apr. 23, 2015 Tr. 625:18-627:10; Apr. 24, 2015
28
Tr. 971:9-19.
13
12.
Documents produced by Defendants include an HSU Master
Log of traffic stops prior to July 31, 2013, including stops of people with Hispanic
last names (i.e., apparent members of the Plaintiffs class). HSU 2013 Master
Log.xlsx, DR# 13-104270 (May 25, 2013 incident involving three suspects); DR# 13-
5
6
098000 (May 22, 2013 incident in which eight individuals were logged as Turned
Over to ICE); DR# 13-094361 (May 17, 2013 incident in which four individuals were
logged as Turned Over to ICE) (Exhibit 7).
9
10
11
II.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) Declaration of Unavailable Facts

The following unavailable facts are essential to the opposition to Sands motion
for summary judgment.
12
13
1.
Contempt proceedings relating to Sands and other contemnors
14
began on April 21, 2015 and are scheduled to continue on September 22, 2015. Dkt.
15
1025 (civil minutes); Dkt. 1208 at 2 (setting hearing dates in September-November
16
2015 for resumed contempt hearing). Evidence, including documents and videos not
17
18
produced to Plaintiffs prior to the 2012 trial or the 2013 rulings and witness testimony
19
obtained with reference to those documents, was available for consideration at the
20
April 2015 hearing dates and yet more evidence unavailable at trial and produced or
21
obtained since the April 2015 hearing dates, will be available to the parties at the
22
23
24
25
26
resumed hearing dates. See, e.g., Dkts. 1203, 1208 at 2-3; Aug. 28, 2015 Tr. at 22:1523, 33:11-34:13 (regarding ongoing productions by Defendants).
2.
Numerous documents bearing on the scope of violation of the
preliminary injunction order have been produced by Defendants since the May 24,
27
28
2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered, including documents
14
predating Sands retirement, and still more documents predating Sands retirement
may yet be produced, since Defendants have not completed their obligations to
produce all documents the Court has deemed relevant to the contempt proceedings.
See, e.g., Dkt. 1203, Dkt. 1208; Aug. 21, 2015 Tr. 12:6-16:19 (regarding Defendants
5
6
ongoing document productions; and extending deadline to produce, on a rolling basis,
nonprivileged .pst files); see also Dkts. 1255, 1258 (Defendants Aug. 20, 2015 and
Aug. 21, 2015 notices of document production).
3.
The documents and evidence produced by Defendants since the
10
11
2013 final judgment may be relevant to grounds for a finding of contempt by Sands.
12
See, e.g., Aug. 21, 2015 Tr. 13:5-16:19. For example, documents relating to MCSOs
13
internal affairs investigation relating to the violation of the preliminary injunction
14
order (IA 14-0543) were ordered produced. Dkt. 1208 at 3, 6. The documents
15
16
produced thus far encompass events in which Sands participated prior to his
17
retirement. See, e.g., internal affairs investigation file IA 14-0543 (MELC-IA013767-
18
20744) (Attorneys Eyes Only) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 8, lodged under seal:
19
MELC-IA013767-71, MELC-IA013830-915). The IA 14-0543 investigation included
20
21
an interview of Sands, and interviews of other individuals regarding Sands role in
22
implementing the preliminary injunction. Id., e.g. at MELC-IA013832-33 (summary of
23
investigative tasks), MELC-IA013843-47 (summary of interview with Sands). And
24
other documents produced in August 2015 include .pst files reflecting the content of
25
26
email sent to, from, or about Sands. See, e.g., MELC678450 (Exhibit 9), produced on
27
August 24, 2015 (8/28/12 ICE inquiry to MCSO re: Border Enforcement Security Task
28
Force, which leads to MCSO response that I believe, if anyone knows, it would be
15
Chief Sands.); MELC834972 (Exhibit 4), MELC837095 (Exhibit 6), produced on
August 28, 2015 (Sands is sent email containing draft answers to questions regarding
traffic stops of suspected illegal aliens, has the questions forwarded to Sousa, and is
copied on Sousas answers to the inquiry); MELC678044 (Exhibit 10) (email
5
6
regarding an MCSO employees upcoming student interview on immigration issues: I
wanted to talk to Chief Sands to make sure I dont answer contrary to the bosses
wishes.); MELC678707-08 (Exhibit 11) (email from undergraduate student doing a
project on immigration, to MCSO, requesting interview with Arpaio; she is directed to
10
11
12
13
14
Sands).
4.
Discovery responses provided by Defendants on April 14, 2015
revealed that on December 26, 2011 Tim Casey conferred with Sands for
approximately 15-20 minutes, and again conferred with Sands and Lieutenant Joseph
15
16
Sousa on December 30, 2011 for approximately one hour and five minutes.
17
Defendants Apr. 14, 2015 Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs Amended First Set of
18
Interrogatories Regarding Contempt at 8, Response No. 10. Privilege as to that
19
meeting has been waived but Casey has not yet been deposed about this meeting. See,
20
21
22
23
24
e.g., Dkt. 1094 at 4-8; Dkt. 1045 at 1-8.

5.
Plaintiffs have not completed their depositions of Sands and other
MCSO witnesses in relation to the newly-produced evidence. See, e.g., Dkt. 1296
(Notice of Deposition of Brian Sands); see also, e.g., Dkts. 1278, 1279, 1281, 1283,
25
26
1284, 1287-1298, 1303 (notices of deposition of other witnesses). These depositions
27
are likely to encompass Sands role in the preliminary injunction violation. See, e.g.,
28
Dkt. 1208 at 3 (ordering production of documents relating to internal affairs

16
investigations from 2008 forward, relating to allegations of discrimination against or
illegal detentions of members of the Plaintiffs class); Transcript of Aug. 6, 2015
Monitor interview of Chief Sheridan at 174-76 (Exhibit 13) (describing Sands role in
the Melendres matter and disputing Sands account of meetings with Tim Casey
5
6
regarding the preliminary injunction); Transcript of Dec. 14, 2014 Monitor interview
of Lieutenant Brian Jakowinicz at 29-30, 34, 41-42 (Exhibit 14) (describing Sands
role in managing Armendariz assignment and putting Armendariz back on the road
despite concerns with Armendariz performance, and Sands role in implementing the
10
11
preliminary injunction order); Transcript of Dec. 16, 2014 Monitor interview of
12
Sergeant Mike Trowbridge at 8-10 (Exhibit 15) (stating that Sands was a lot more
13
involved in the unit than Chief Trombi was and that Sands was closer to the
14
Sheriff); Transcript of Dec. 17, 2014 Monitor interview of Sergeant Brett Palmer at
15
16
28-29 (Exhibit 16) (stating that his experience, including from meetings with Sands,
17
was that the company line . . . is to make the Sheriff look good and get the Sheriff
18
elected).
19
20
21
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of September, 2015.
22
By: /s/ Tammy Albarrn
23
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
24
25
26
Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
27
28
17
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP
3
4
5
6
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 11, 2015 I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
caused the attached document to be served via the CM/ECF System on all counsel of
record.
6
7
/s/ Tammy Albarrn
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 45
EXHIBIT 1

Tim J. Casey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX <J_Sousa@MCSO.maricopa.gov>

Wednesday, January 11,201211:16 AM
Brett Palmer- SHERIFFX
Tim J. Casey; Rollie Seabert- SHERIFFX; Brian Sands- SHERIFFX; David Trombi SHERIFFX; Eileen Henry; Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX
Putting out training reference the court order
Order re MSJ 122311.pdf
Bret,
Per our phone conversation write up a couple of scenarios (right way and wrong way) based
on Judge Snows order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey. I will have Tim review what
you write up and have Chief Sands sign off on it. Once all that is done we will get with training
reference putting something out in E-Learning.
Judge Snows order:
The Court is enjoining the MCSO "from detaining any person based solely on knowledge,
without more, that the person is in the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the Court is not
enjoing MCSO from enforcing valid state laws, or detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable
suspicion that individuals are violating a state criminal law. Instead, it is enjoing MCSO from violating
federal, rights protected by the United States Constitution in the process of enforcing valid state law
based on an incorrect understanding of the law.: p. 37-38.
(See attached for full ruling).
Thanks,
Joe
CaseySub 000003
EXHIBIT 2
From: Joseph Sousa - SHERIFFX [mailto:J Sousa@MCSO.maricopa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:20 AM

To: Tim J. casey
Cc: Brian Sands - SHERIFFX; David Trombi - SHERIFFX; Rollie Seebert - SHERIFFX; Brian Jakowinicz - SHERIFFX; John
Madntyre - SHERIFFX
Subject: Scenarios for review based on judge's order
Hi Tim,
Give me a call once you have reviewed the scenarios listed below. I am going to copy you on
all these emails so attorney client privilege applies until we get a final training product out to the
troops.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Brett Palmer - SHERIFFX
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:24 PM

To: Joseph Sousa - SHERIFFX
Cc: Tim casey; Michael Trowbridge - SHERIFFX
Subject: RE: Putting out training reference the court order
Lt. SousaBelow is my rough construction of an eLeaming segment based on Judge Snow's order. I constructed this in
accordance with the many conversations you & I have had, as well as taking into account the information
conveyed to us both from Tim Casey concerning Judge Snow's order. Also, in accordance with my own personal
experience in this matter, I think it is imperative that Tim Casey review this and any training material I arn asked
to create that could be used to instruct Deputies in this very sensitive area. Also note, I created these scenarios
with Patrol Deputies as the focus.
Training Directive
Maricopa County Deputies in a wide range of assignments could come across individuals through their lawful
contacts whom they suspect through reasonable suspicion of being illegal aliens in the United States. It is
important the Deputies and the Supervisors understand the scope to which they are empowered to act in these
scenarios, as limits have recently been set by Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court case. The order issued by
Judge Snow states that MCSO cannot detain any person based solely on the suspicion they are an illegal alien
present in the United States. What this means is that any Deputy who has contact with a person and during the
contact, the Deputy arrives at the reasonable suspicion through articulable indicators that the person may be an
illegal alien in the United States, cannot and will not detain or further the detainment of this person without having
more than just this singular suspicion.
The most common articulable indicators giving rise to the reasonable suspicion that a person may be an illegal
alien in the United States are:
1) The person speaks no English or difficult/broken English
2) The person has no form of ID or no form of ID issued by the United States.
2
CaseySub 000046
Scenario I
A Patrol Deputy working at 2AM is patrolling a residential area known to have been hit recently with car
burglaries. The Deputy comes across an adult male walking in the area and decides to make contact. The Deputy
quickly finds this person speaks no English and the only ID he has is a Mexico Driver License issued by
Mexico. After talking with this person for several minutes, the Deputy determines there is no crime being
committed under state law, but the Deputy reasonably believes based on the two indicators listed above that this
person may be an illegal alien in the United States. DO NOT DETAIN- The Deputy has no other articulable
indicators to show a crime ha's, is, or is about to be committed under state law. The Deputy cannot detain based
solely on the reasonable suspicion this person may be an illegal alien. In this scenario, the Deputy should end his
contact and allow the person to continue on their way.
Scenario 2
A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for speeding. The Deputy fmds the vehicle is occupied by
four adult male subjects. The driver speaks only Spanish and provides a valid Arizona driver license as his ID. As
a matter of good policing practice, the Deputy asks for lD from the three passengers. All three passengers provide
Mexico Consular Cards issued by the Mexican Consulate as lD (not a U.S. ID). All three passengers speak only
Spanish. Within about 15 minutes, the Deputy has determined no criminal offense has, is or is about to be
committed. The only violation is the civil speeding. However, the Deputy does reasonably believe based on the
two indicators listed above that the three passengers may be illegal aliens in the United States. DO NOT DETAIN
- The Deputy has no articulable indicators of a crime under state law. The Deputy cannot detain based solely on
the reasonable suspicion these passengers may be illegal aliens. In this scenario, the Deputy should use their
discretion to issue either a written citation or a verbal warning to the driver and release the vehicle with all of the
occupants.
Scenario 3
A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for expired registration. The Deputy fmds the vehicle is
occupied by an adult male driver and an adult male passenger. The driver speaks only Spanish and presents an
expired California Driver License as ID. The passenger speaks only Spanish and presents a Mexico Voter
Registration Card as ID (not a U.S. ID). The fact that the passenger does not speak English and has no form of
U.S. ID causes the Deputy to reasonably believe the passenger may be an illegal alien in the United States. During
the traffic stop investigation, the Deputy discovers the passenger is in possession of an open alcohol container
and has been consuming alcohol out of that container while riding in the vehicle. In this scenario, there are two
aspects to consider ... With respect to the driver, the Deputy should write the driver a civil citation for expired
registration and driving with an expired driver license. The driver should ultimately be released after being issued
the citation. While the driver speaks only Spanish, he did present a valid form ofU.S.lD. It does not matter that
the ID was expired. The expired California license is still a valid form of U.S. ID. There is no reasonable
suspicion the driver is an illegal alien. With respect to the passenger, the Deputy should write a criminal citation
to the passenger for the Title Four violation. While in the course of writing both citations, the Deputy can
simultaneously place a phone call to ICE to advise them of his suspicion that the passenger may be an illegal alien
in the U.S. IfiCE clearly instructs the Deputy to detain the passenger for subsequent tum over to an ICE facility
or officer, then the Deputy can make the physical detaimnent of the passenger based on the directive from
ICE. The difference in this scenario from the first two is that there was a criminal offense under state law
committed by the passenger. The passenger was not detained because of suspicion he was an illegal alien. The
passenger was detained for a state law violation and in the course of the ongoing investigation ICE was contacted.
Notes for Discussion- Scenario 3:
1) Per our many conversations LT, patrol needs very clear & direct instructions on how to handle
these situations.
3
CaseySub 00004 7

Is the Office going to require that criminal offenders in these instances be booked as a matter of
policy, having removed the Deputy's discretion? If yes, then this in my opinion removes any idea
of ever having patrol tum over a suspected illegal alien to ICE. They would all be booked.
3) There is the Florence ERO issue ... Unless the Deputy is working in District One or Six, any
turnover of an alien to ICE would conceivably take at a minimum 1 hour to as much as 3 hours or
more given that the Deputy would have to drive to Florence or wait for ICE Officers to come to
him from Florence. If the Deputy is going to be authorized to drive there, this is an out of county
travel assignment and the training would need to address the Deputy obtaining supervisory
permission for the out of county travel- just my opinion thinking about liability.
2)
Scenario 4
A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for speeding. The Deputy finds the vehicle is occupied by
I 0 Hispanic subjects - a driver and nine passengers. The passengers all appear to have either no ID or only ID
issued by another country other than the U.S. The passengers all appear to have a disheveled look, are dirty in
appearance, look as if one or more of them were very recently in a desert enviromnent, and all appear
nervous. There is a lack ofluggage in the vehicle. The nine passengers are taking up space in the vehicle meant
to comfortably seat six or less. The driver provides a story about their travel that cannot be corroborated in totality
by the passengers or there are conflicting stories of their travel between the driver and passengers. The driver
eventually admits he is being paid for driving these passengers to a specific destination (could be he is receiving
money for gas). In this scenario, the Deputy should contact the on-call HSU Sgt. through Radio as these
observations are good observations that human smuggling is taking place- a state felony crime.
Notes for Discussion- Scenario 4:
I) Not all of these observations need to be present to reasonably believe human smuggling is taking
place. Any two or more of these observations would be sufficient to justify a call to the on-call
HSU Sgt.
2) This would also apply to drop houses and stand-up loads, those caught traveling through the open
desert on foot with a coyote/guide.
SgL Brett Palmer

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Human Smuggling Unit
Mailing Address
I 02 W. Madison Street- Phoenix, AZ 85003

602-876-1895 Office
602-526-4433 Cell
b palmer@mcso.maricopa.gov
From: Joseph Sousa - SHERIFFX

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Brett Palmer - SHERIFFX
Cc: lim J. casey (tim@azbarristers.com); Rollie Seebert- SHERIFFX; Brian Sands - SHERIFFX; David Trombi SHERJFFX;
Eileen Henry (eileen@azbarristers.com); Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX
Subject: Putting out training reference the court order
Bret,
CaseySub 000048

Per our phone conversation write up a couple of scenarios (right way and wrong way) based
on Judge Snows order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey. I will have Tim review what
you write up and have Chief Sands sign off on it. Once all that is done we will get with training
reference putting something out in E-Learning.
Judge Snows order:

The Court is enjoining the MCSO "from detaining any person based solely on knowledge,
without more, that the person is in the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the Court is not
enjoing MCSO from enforcing valid state laws, or detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable
suspicion that individuals are violating a state criminal law. Instead, it is enjoing MCSO from violating
federal, rights protected by the United States Constitution in the process of enforcing valid state law
based on an incorrect understanding of the law.: p. 37-38.
(See attached for full ruling).
Thanks,
Joe
CaseySub 000049
EXHIBIT 3

Tim J. Casey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Tim J. Casey
Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:27 PM
's_fax@mcso.maricopa.gov'
Liddy Thomas; 'Stutz Christine'; James L. Williams; Eileen Henry; 'Jerry Sheridan SHERIFFX'; Bailey Steve; John Macintyre- SHERIFFX
FW: Melendres Order On Summary Judgment
Order re MSJ 122311.pdf
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE/NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC

RECORDS REQUEST
Steve,
Pursuant to your request today of James Williams, please find below a copy of my 12/23/11 email reporting the
12/23/11 decision/Order of the Court.
BACKGROUND
The below email was likely written in follow-up to a telephone conversation I had with Chief Brian Sands after
the decision/Order came out.
Brian was our (i.e., litigation counsels') point of primary contact in this case at that time. Because of the
holiday timing of the Order and whatever might take place in the field with HSU personnel until the end of the
year, Brian agreed to immediately address the Order with HSU and make necessary changes so there would be
no violations over the holidays. It is likely that Brian requested that I copy Lt. Joe Sousa on this follow-up
email. Joe was the Lt. in charge ofHSU at the time. Brian also was to briefthe Sheriff on the Order until a
joint meeting with counsel and the Sheriff could occur after the holidays.
At the time the email was sent, Chief Sheridan was still rather new to me and he was copied solely as a protocol
courtesy because I believe he was either the Interim Chief Deputy or the newly appointed replacement Chief
Deputy. Chief Macintyre was also copied solely as a courtesy so he was aware of the Order. It was neither my
expectation nor understanding that Chiefs Sheridan or Macintyre would take action on this Order because HSU
and saturation patrols were historically in the province of Brian's command authority, he was the one that
exclusively handled matters arising in this litigation that affected HSU/saturation patrols, and Brian was
handling this Order.
During the trial in July/August 2012, we learned that some members of the HSU were unfamiliar with the
12/23/11 Order, nothing had changed as a result of the Order, and that violations of the Order had occurred
between the date of its issuance and the trial. Privately, the defense team learned that Brian had not directed
any changes in HSU. This latter point is not of court record or publicly known.
The fact that the Order had been violated is not a surprise to the Court given the trial. See 5/24/14 Findings of
Fact and Conclusion of Law at page 114 (where the Court found, as a matter oflaw, that "MCSO has violated
the explicit terms of this Court's preliminary injunction set forth in its December 23, 2011 order because MCSO
continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the injunction.")
WARNING ON PRIVILEGE
Please remember the email below is attorney-client privileged. Its circulation to the Monitor would certainly
waive the privilege. Its circulation to non-MCSO control group personnel could potentially waive the
privilege. Only the Sheriff and/or the Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have the authority, in my judgment, to
1
CaseySub 000050

determine whether any privilege is to be waived. As such, you and Capt. Bailey will need to keep in mind this
legal privilege issue in mind as you prepare your investigatory efforts and strategy.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks
tim
Timothy J. Casey, Attorney at Law

SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014
Phone: 602.277.7000
Fax:
602.277.8663
Email: timcasey@azbarristers.com
www.azbarristers.com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any
aft(lchment) addresses any tax matter, it was not intended or written to be (and may not be} used or relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue- Code, or (il) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment).
The infonnation contained in this e~mall message is attorney privileged and confidential information, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of th(s communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone {602} 277-7000 or reply by email and delete or
discard the message. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into
which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Schmitt Schneck Smyth
Casey & Even, P.C. for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. Thank you.
From: Tim J. Casey

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:22 PM
To: Sands Brian; John Macintyre- SHERIFFX; Jerry Sheridan- SHERIFFX; Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX
Cc: Liddy Thomas; tomliddy@aol.com; Eileen Henry; James L. Williams
Subject: Melendres Order On Summary Judgement
Importance: High
Folks,
In follow-up to my recent telephone call, attached is the Court's Order on the dueling summary judgement
motions and class certification motion.
Here is a quick summary:
1. There is NO finding as a matter of law that the MCSO is racial profiling. The racial profiling claim must
be resolved at trial (Plaintiffs' motion is denied; Defendants' motion is denied);
2. The PlaintiffRodrignez Fom1h Amendment Claim is dismissed but there racial profiling claim appears to
exist;
3.
The Plaintiffs Melendres and Meraz and Nieto's Fom1h Amendt claims as to traffic stops will go to trial;
4. Melendres' Fom1h Amendment claim is granted on oral motion of the Plaintiffs as to his
DETENTION. The Court ruled that Deputy Louis DiPietro did not have reasonable suspicion that Melendres
may have violated the human smuggling statute Gn other words, he did not have reasonable suspicion that all
the elements of the crime may have been satisified).
2
CaseySub 000051

5. The Court is enjoining the MCSO "from detaining any person based solely on knowledge, without
more, that the person is in the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the Court is not enjoing
MCSO from enforcing valid state laws, or detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable suspicion
that individuals are violating a state criminal law. Instead, it is enjoing MCSO from violating federal,
rights protected by the United States Constitution in the process of enforcing valid state law based on an
incorrect understanding ofthe law.: p. 37-38.
6.
Class certification is granted.
Where do go from here:

1. Declare victory on plaintiffs' failure to prove (so far) racial profiling. They themselves said they would win
as a matter of law and did not want a trial;
2. Plaintiffs were granted only a very narrow victory on detention issues
3. Nothing stops the MCSO from conducting saturation patrols or crime suppression operatios ;
4. The MCSO will appeal the narrow area of victory given to PlaintiffMelendres.
Timothy J. Casey, Attorney at Law

1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014
Phone: 602.277. 7()00
Fax:
602.277.8663
Email: timcasey@azbarristers.com
attachment} addresses any tax maHer, it was not intended or wrttten to be (and may not be) used or relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment).
The infonnation contained in this ~mail message is attorney privileged and confidential infonnation, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (602) 277-7000 or reply by email and delete or
which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Schmitt Schneck Smyth
Casey & Even, P.C. for any loss or damage arising in anyway from its use. Thank you.
From: Chelsea Arancio
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45 PM

To: Tim J. casey
Subject: Melendres Order
Chelsea Arancio, Paralegal

1221 E. Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014

Phone: 602.277.7000
Fax:
602.277.8663
Email: chelsea@azbarristers.com
3
CaseySub 000052

attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not intended or written to be (and may not be) used or relied upon to (i} avoid tax~related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code, or {ii} promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment).
The infonnation contained in this e~mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dlstributioli or copy of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (602) 277 7000 or reply by email and delete or
which it is received and opened, it Is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Schmitt Schneck Smyth
Casey & Even, P.C. for any loss or damage arising in anyway from its use. Thank you.
R
CaseySub 000053
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7

DR#:
13-104270
Date:
5/25/2013
Type of Incident:
Off Duty/Other
Radio Code:
647
Location:
3325 W. Durango
Number of Search Warrants Served:
Search Warrant Numbers:
Number of Vehicles Towed:
License Plates:
Number of Vehicles Impounded:
License Plates:
Number of 3511 Vehicles:
License Plates:
Suspects Arrested (Last)

Avila
Cansino
Cansino
(First)
Dalilia
Marcos
Miguel
DOB
Total Felony Total Misd.

Arrest
Turned
Counts
Counts
Warrants Over to ICE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HSU 2013 Master Log.xlsx
Notes
13-104270

DR#:
13-098000
Date:
5/22/2013
Type of Incident:
Load Vehicle
Radio Code:
712S
Location:
I-17 MM 235
License Plates:
License Plates:
License Plates:

Morales - Villa
Morales - Perez
De La Rosa
Perez - Lopez
Barcenas - Martinez
Perez - Sanchez
Perez - Lopez
Hernandez - Hernandez
Ramos - Gonzalez
Perez - Vasquez
Vicente - Perez
Medina - Barcenas
Xocol - Mas
Ramirez - Sanchez
Guachiac - Suy
(First)
Rudi
Antelmo
Alberto
Mario
Angel
Francisco
Maritza
Juan
Ceferino
Mauricio
Carlos
Renato
Domingo
Sergio
Victor
DOB
2/25/1990
7/15/1989
6/28/1989
4/17/1985
11/1/1973
7/15/1979
4/13/1988
7/30/1961
3/11/1972
6/3/1985
3/3/1977
11/12/1961
11/20/1995
4/6/1998
5/17/1995
043C4 (AZ)

Arrest
Turned
Counts
Counts
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
7
Notes
(1) Count Human Smuggling
(1) Count Conspiracy to Commit Human Smuggling
JUVY
JUVY
13-098000

DR#:
13-094361
Date:
5/17/2013
Type of Incident:
Load Vehicle
Radio Code:
712S
Location:
I-17 & New River
License Plates:
License Plates:
License Plates:

Ramirez - Lopez
Astudillo - Sanchez
Bernal - De Mateo
Cardona - Lopez
Jimenez - Jimenez
Lopez - Gomez
Alfredo - Martinez
(First)
Ramiro
Cristian
Yeymy
Antonio
Raquel
Gerardo
Luis
DOB
4/22/1978
3/7/1992
9/18/1983
10/18/1994
2/14/1994
1/25/1984
2/4/1996
BA-8524 (AZ)

Arrest
Turned
Counts
Counts
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
Notes
(1) Count Conspiracy to commit Human Smuggling
JUVY
13-094361
EXHIBIT 8
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 9
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 10
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 11
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 12
EXHIBIT 13
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 14
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 15
FILED UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT 16
FILED UNDER SEAL

Melendres # 1333 - P Statement of Facts

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Melendres # 1333 - P Statement of Facts

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 21

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

PLAINTIFFS RULE 56.1(B)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 21

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 21

Pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(b), Plaintiffs submit the following statements of facts in

Judgment and in response to Sands Statement of Facts in support of his motion.

opposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

LRCiv 56.1(b) Controverting Statement of Facts

Disputed. The Court has stated that contempt proceedings are

2011 preliminary injunction, including violations by MCSO as well as by individual

Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,

Not Disputed. The LEAR policy called for MCSO deputies to

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 21

Law at 2:12-15, May 24, 2013. Dkt. 579.

Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,

LEAR policy remained in effect.

Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 21,

Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 27,

8, 2015 Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.

Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on October 9, 2012,

Not Disputed. The MCSO press releases on September 21, 2012,

Not Disputed. The September 21 press release states that the

the last six years.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 21

on October 11, 2012.

Not Disputed. Plaintiffs counsel knew about these press releases

Not Disputed. Plaintiffs counsel sent a letter to Tim Casey on

detaining and transporting individuals in violation of the Courts injunction . . . .

Disputed. Plaintiffs did raise issues relating to violation of the

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Not Disputed. The Courts May 24, 2013 Order found, as a

Disputed. Plaintiffs did request a filing of contempt after the

Not Disputed. On January 8, 2015, Plaintiffs requested an order to

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 21

February 12, 2015.

Not Disputed. The Court issued its Order to Show Cause on

Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny this

Not Disputed. Chief Sands testified that, shortly after the

Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 260:9-16.

Disputed because materially incomplete. Sergeant Trowbridge

Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the

evidence cited in support as dispositive of Chief Deputy Sheridans actual recollection.

actual ability to recall whether he attended a meeting regarding the Preliminary

Disputed because the statement is incomprehensible as written,

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 21

meeting about the Preliminary Injunction.

Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the

evidence cited in support as dispositive of Sheriff Arpaios and Chief Deputy

Chief Deputy Sheridans self-serving testimony in a contempt proceeding provides

contemnors actual recall of the events in question.

Disputed. Sands testified that Lieutenant Sousa was assigned the

Disputed. The emails that surfaced about the development of

to develop training scenarios); CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit 2) (same).