Melendres # 1462 - Combined Proposed Statement of Issues W Exhibit

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 19
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
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
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
COMBINED PROPOSED
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
FOR CONTINUED CONTEMPT
HEARING
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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
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 this Courts oral order regarding a pretrial statement of issues and
documents, Plaintiffs submit the following statements of all parties and alleged non-
party contemnors, as received as of the time of this submission:
I.
Statement of Issues for Continued Contempt Hearing
A.
Plaintiffs intend to present evidence regarding the following topics during the
7
8
9
Plaintiffs Issues.
continued contempt hearing:

1. The three grounds of charged civil contempt in the February 12, 2015 Order to
Show Cause;
10
2. Any defenses to be raised by Defendants or individuals charged with contempt,
11
including any claim that violations of the preliminary injunction were based on
12
advice of counsel;
13
3. As bearing on the remedies for any contempt, the extent to which Sheriff
14
Arpaios or Chief Deputy Sheridans admitted contempt or any other MCSO
15
employees contempt of this courts orders was knowing and willful;
16
17
4. As bearing on injunctive remedies for any contempt and the state of mind issues
described in Paragraph 3 above, the following issues:
18
a. the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, or any other
19
MCSO employee instigated, allowed, or encouraged an investigation of
20
the Court in order to improperly resist the Courts orders and/or this
21
contempt proceeding;
22
b. the extent to which MCSO failed to retain adequate documentation of its
23
activities to presently identify all those who were detained in violation of
24
the Courts preliminary injunction, including outside of the Human
25
Smuggling Unit, and to ensure proper tracking and disposition of
26
property of members of the Plaintiff class;
27
28
c. Defendants continued non-compliance with orders to produce required

documents to both the Court-appointed Monitor team and to Plaintiffs,
1
including seized identification documents that may belong to Plaintiffs
class members and documents relevant to the issues in this hearing;
3
4
5. Deficiencies in MCSOs internal affairs investigation processes and

accountability systems;
6. The method and scope of adequate compensation for all victims of MCSOs
violation of the preliminary injunction, see e.g., Intl Union, United Mine
Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (citing United States v. Mine
Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)), including a process for providing
notice to and determining claims for compensation by victims.
10
B.
Defendants Issues.
11
1. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated a
12
specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated December
13
23, 2011.
14
2. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Chief Deputy Gerald
15
Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction
16
dated December 23, 2011.
17
3. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that former Executive Chief
18
Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
19
Injunction dated December 23, 2011.
20
4. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Deputy Chief John
21
Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
22
23
5. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Lieutenant Joe Sousa
24
violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated
25
December 23, 2011.
26
6. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio
27
violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated
28
December 23, 2011.

2
7. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy
Gerald Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
8. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that former Executive
Chief Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
9. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John
Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
10
10. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe
11
Sousa violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction
12
dated December 23, 2011.
13
11. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated
14
any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of this matter in
15
2012.
16
17
Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the
18
trial of this matter in 2012.
19
20
Jack MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior
21
to the trial of this matter in 2012.
22
23
violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of this
24
matter in 2012.
25
15. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sheriff
26
Arpaio violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial
27
of this matter in 2012.
28
16. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Chief
3
Deputy Gerald Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations
prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.
17. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Deputy
Chief John Jack MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery
obligations prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.
18. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lieutenant
Joe Sousa violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the
trial of this matter in 2012.
19. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio acted in
10
derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14, 2014
11
Orders.
12
13
Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts
14
May 14, 2014 Orders.
15
16
Jack MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this
17
Courts May 14, 2014 Orders.
18
19
acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14,
20
2014 Orders.
21
23. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio
22
acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14,
23
2014 Orders.
24
24. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy
25
Gerald Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this
26
27
25. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John
28
Jack MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

4
26. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe
Sousa acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts
May 14, 2014 Orders.
27. Whether any violations of a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary
Injunction dated December 23, 2011, were intentional.
28. Whether any violations of specific and definite discovery obligations prior to
the trial of this matter in 2012 were intentional.
29. Whether any actions in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this
10
Courts May 14, 2014 Orders were intentional.
11
30. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any violation of
12
this Courts specific and definite Orders occurred after May 28, 2013.
13
31. Defendants contend that any evidence on remedies for any contempt to be
14
determined by the Court is premature and should not be permitted by the Court
15
at this stage in the proceedings.
16
32. Defendants contend that the Seattle investigation is irrelevant to any finding
17
of contempt and that the inquiry into the Seattle investigation impinges on
18
Defendant Arpaios constitutional rights. Further, nothing alleged by Plaintiffs
19
with respect to the Seattle investigation, even if taken as true, is unlawful.
20
Plaintiffs cannot show the violation of any specific and definite Order of the
21
Court caused by any aspect of the allegations they set forth related to the
22
Seattle investigation.
23
33. As to state of mind issues, the following:
24
34. The monumental efforts made by Defendants and MCSO to comply with this
25
Courts Orders including, but not limited to, massive policy updates, changes,
26
and the training required to bring MCSO personnel current on all such new and
27
revised policies.
28
35. The extraordinary efforts made by MCSO personnel to investigate the

5
Armendariz matter in a reasonable, timely, and appropriate fashion and to
keep the Court-appointed monitors apprised at each stage of the investigation.
36. The extensive and continued efforts to comply with this Courts Orders and to
provide information to the monitors, both voluntarily and by request, through
the date of this proceeding.
37. Compliance with the appropriate standard of care with respect to internal affairs
investigations.
38. The defense of advice of counsel.
39. Whether, under the United States Supreme Courts decision in McMillian v.
10
Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), and applicable Arizona law, any liability
11
can be imputed to Defendant Maricopa County based on the matters at issue in
12
this proceeding.
13
40. Whether, if the Court finds that there was no substantial basis for Plaintiffs
14
refusal to stipulate to dismissal of any of individual alleged contemnors, such
15
individual(s) are entitled to recover from Plaintiffs their attorneys fees.
16
C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnor Sands Issues.
17
1. Whether Plaintiffs have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chief
18
Sands failed to take reasonable steps to ensure distribution of the Courts
19
December 23, 2011, Preliminary Injunction ruling to MCSO personnel.
20
21
2. Whether Chief Sands substantially complied with his obligation to disseminate

the Courts Preliminary Injunction Order.
22
3. Whether other factors, such as Chief Sands retirement and his cooperation with
23
the Monitors investigation preclude or mitigate a finding of contempt against
24
him.
25
4. Whether a finding of civil contempt against retired Chief Sands represents the
26
least possible power necessary to enforce the Courts interest in adherence to its
27
orders.
28
6
5. Whether any monetary award against Chief Sands would be a criminal sanction
requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully failed to comply
with the Courts order.
6. To the extent a monetary sanction is compensatory, whether Plaintiffs have
proven actual injuries and a causal connection between Chief Sands actions
and their damages.
7. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Chief Sands are barred by res judicata.
8. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Chief Sands are barred by laches.
II.
Plaintiffs Amendments to Proposed Exhibit List
10
Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with an amended exhibit list, omitting the
11
following previously listed exhibits which Plaintiffs do not expect to introduce during
12
the continued contempt hearing: PX 2, 3-13, 15, 18-27, 31, 73, 106, 108, 120-123, 129,
13
175, 183, 194, 2077, 2216, 2217, 2229-2231, 2253-2254, 2286, 2288, 2293, 2500,
14
2518, 2524, 2532, 2539, 2547, 2558, 2568, 2573, 2709-2713, 2768-2769, 2783, 2793,
15
2800, 2801, 2804, 2809-2814, 2824, 2845-2847.
16
III.
Proposed Stipulations
17
A.
18
The parties have reached agreement to introduce by deposition transcript certain
19
20
Plaintiffs Proposed Stipulations
testimony of Rollie Seebert.

The parties have been unable to agree on any other proposed stipulations at this
21
time. Plaintiffs have proposed the following stipulations, which have not been agreed
22
to by Defendants:
23
1. The parties to this Order to Show Cause proceeding stipulate that there is no
24
factual basis for the alleged communications and other events depicted in
25
Exhibit 2072 (MELC199917-199935), including communications alleged in
26
those documents to have occurred among Judge Snow, his former law clerk, the
27
United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, the United States Department
28
of Justice, and Covington & Burling.

7
2. Admission of other exhibits designated by Plaintiffs. A revised proposed list of
stipulated exhibits as of Oct. 12, 2015 is attached. The County and Retired
Chief Executive Sands have agreed to stipulate to certain exhibits, but Sheriff
Arpaio has not agreed to stipulate to any exhibits at this time.
The Parties are further engaged in ongoing discussions about a proposed
process for compensating victims of MCSOs violation of the preliminary injunction to
determine if there are aspects of the process on which they can agree. To the extent the
Parties cannot reach agreement on any issues, they anticipate providing briefing to the
Court setting forth their respective positions with supporting affidavits, if any.
10
Plaintiffs have also been in discussions with the U.S. Department of Homeland
11
Security (DHS) in regards to the subpoena served on DHS on February 26, 2015 for
12
documents related to the identification of victims. They expect DHS will provide
13
responsive documents very soon.
14
B.
15
As noted by Plaintiffs, the parties have reached an agreement to introduce
16
deposition testimony of witness Rollie Seebert.
17
18
Defendants Proposed Stipulations.
Defendants proposed the following stipulation, which was not agreed to by

Plaintiffs:
19
1. The information provided by Mr. [Dennis] Montgomery is not credible and the
20
entire Montgomery investigation is not relevant to any of the issues in dispute
21
in the contempt proceeding. Defendants further offered to stipulate that they
22
would not seek to introduce any evidence concerning the Montgomery
23
investigation at the contempt hearings.
24
25
26
27
IV.
Proposed Limits and Deadlines for Presentation of Evidence.

A. Plaintiffs Proposals.
1. Plaintiffs expect the witness order to proceed as follows, following
completion of testimony by Sgt. Tennyson: Capt. Bailey, Mr. Vogel,
28
8
Chief Olson, Det. Mackiewicz, Mr. Zullo, Ruben Garcia, Lt. Jakowinicz,
and PI victim(s) including Mr. David Soto Gonzalez.
2. If permitted by the Court, the United States intends to call an expert
witness to testify about possible remedies to address deficiencies in
MCSOs internal accountability systems, following the completion of fact
witness testimony. Plaintiffs join the DOJs request to submit expert
testimony.
3. Lt. Joseph Sousa. Direct examination will encompass the following
subjects: Scope and causes of violations of preliminary injunction order;
10
witnesss understanding of preliminary injunction orders requirements;
11
documentation of violations of preliminary injunction order; adequacy of
12
MCSOs internal investigations into Armendariz spin-off matters.
13
Plaintiffs anticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with
14
additional time as needed for redirect.
15
4. Sgt. Tennyson. Direct examination will encompass the following
16
subjects: MCSOs general training, policies, and practices relating to
17
internal investigations; adequacy of MCSOs internal accountability
18
systems to address issues relevant to this litigation and the Plaintiff class;
19
conflicts of interest in internal investigations; adequacy of MCSOs
20
internal investigations into Armendariz spin-off and HSU matters;
21
MCSOs investigations and responses to discovery of identification
22
documents; and adequacy of MCSOs internal investigations on matters
23
relating to individuals involved in the Seattle investigation. Plaintiffs
24
anticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with additional time
25
as needed for redirect.
26
5. Capt. Steve Bailey. Direct examination will encompass the following
27
subjects: MCSOs general policies and practices relating to internal
28
investigations; adequacy of MCSOs internal accountability systems to

9
address complaints of race discrimination or illegal detentions relevant to
this litigation; conflicts of interest in assignment of Capt. Bailey to
command of Professional Standards Bureau (PSB); adequacy of any
MCSO efforts to locate victims of violations of the preliminary injunction
order; adequacy of MCSOs internal investigations into Armendariz
spin-off matters; MCSO PSBs investigations and responses to discovery
of identification documents belonging to apparent members of the
Plaintiff Class, and related communications with the Court-appointed
Monitor Team; communications with individuals charged with civil
10
contempt relating to the Seattle investigation and propriety/legality of
11
funding sources for that investigation. Plaintiffs anticipate using 6 hours
12
for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.
13
6. Mr. Vogel. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:
14
MCSO's internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over
15
Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011
16
preliminary injunction, and the MCSO's process for performing such
17
investigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO
18
policy have occurred. Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct
19
examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.
20
7. Chief Olson. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:
21
MCSOs internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over
22
Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011
23
preliminary injunction; the MCSOs process for performing such
24
investigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO
25
policy have occurred; and conflicts of interest in internal investigations.
26
Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with
27
28
10
8. Plaintiffs expect to submit updated estimates for the direct examinations
of Mr. Mike Zullo and Det. Brian Mackiewicz upon review of discovery
received pursuant to their subpoenas of Mr. Zullo and the depositions of
Mr. Zullo and Det. Mackiewicz. The direct examinations of Sgt. Anglin,
Mr. Zullo, and Det. Mackiewicz will encompass the so-called Seattle
investigation, including the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy
Sheridan, or any other MCSO employee instigated, allowed or
encouraged an investigation, through the actions of Posseman Mike Zullo
and MCSO confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, into Judge Snow
10
in order to resist Judge Snows orders and/or this contempt proceeding.
11
At this time, Plaintiffs estimate using 90 minutes for the direct
12
examination of Sgt. Anglin, 2 hours for the direct examination of Det.
13
Mackiewicz, and 2-2.5 hours for the direct examination of Mr. Zullo, with
14
15
9. Plaintiffs expect to present testimony of up to 2 class members harmed by
16
MCSOs violations of the preliminary injunction, including Mr. David
17
Soto Gonzalez. Due to the challenges of locating class members affected
18
by MCSOs violations based on incomplete information, identification of
19
class members who can testify is ongoing. Plaintiffs estimate using 30
20
minutes to 1 hour for the direct examination of class members.
21
10. Ruben Garcia. Direct examination will encompass the following
22
subjects: IA case 11-22 and underlying events. Plaintiffs anticipate using
23
45 minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for
24
redirect.
25
11. Lt. Jakowinicz. Plaintiffs expect to call Lt. Jakowinicz for the purpose of
26
authenticating documents for admission. Plaintiffs anticipate using 15
27
minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for
28
redirect.
11
B. Defendants Proposals.
Defendants identify the following witnesses tentatively to be called:
1. Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan: Direct examination may encompass some or all
of the following subjects: Ethical and legal standards to which MCSO deputies
are held and the consequences of their failure to comply with those standards;
MCSOs commitment and extensive efforts to achieve compliance with this
Courts orders; training provided by the United States for MCSO deputies
engaged in law enforcement activities under the 287(g) program, and its effects
on the practices of MCSO; MCSO procedures and practices related to
10
investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau;
11
investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts
12
that came to light in the wake of his death; parameters of the Seattle
13
investigation and efforts to ensure no investigation of Judge Snow was
14
conducted; handling of the 1400+ identification documents surfaced by Sgt.
15
Jonathan Knapp; efforts to identify and gather video recordings of traffic stops
16
conducted by MCSO deputies, and the results of those efforts; and interactions
17
with the Monitor Team and assessment of the Monitor Teams involvement in
18
the internal affairs of MCSO. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct
19
20
2. Tom Liddy. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following
21
subjects: Events occurring prior to May 14, 2014 relating to the identification
22
and gathering of video recordings of traffic stops conducted by MCSO deputies,
23
plans for what was to be done with said video recordings once they had been
24
gathered, and further steps taken after direction with regard to same from the
25
Court in the May 14, 2014 hearing. Defendants anticipate using one hour for
26
the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.
27
3. Captain Steve Bailey. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the
28
following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to investigations

12
conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; investigations
into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts that came to
light in the wake of his death; handling of the 1400+ identification documents
surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp and communications with legal counsel and
the Monitor Team regarding same. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for the
direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.
4. Chief Mike Olson. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the
conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in
10
dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations
11
where high-level command staff are named as principals. Defendants anticipate
12
using one hour for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for
13
redirect.
14
5. Sgt. Stephen Fax. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the
15
16
conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in
17
dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations,
18
including investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out
19
of facts that came to light in the wake of his death, and other investigations
20
made the subject of Plaintiffs case-in-chief in which he was involved; his
21
participation in a meeting in July of 2015 regarding the 1400+ identification
22
documents surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp. Defendants anticipate using 4
23
hours for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.
24
6. Mike Zullo. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following
25
subjects: Parameters of the Seattle investigation; his receipt and
26
understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any
27
investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and
28
assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by

13
him during the Seattle investigation. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for
7. Captain Stephanie Molina. Direct examination may encompass some or all of
the following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to
investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; her
knowledge of and participation in specific PSB investigations during her tenure
as the head of PSB. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct
8. Cpt. Russ Skinner. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the
10
following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with
11
this Courts orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct
12
13
9. Cpt. Larry Farnsworth. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the
14
following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with
15
this Courts orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct
16
17
10. Detective Brian Mackiewicz. Direct examination may encompass some or all of
18
the following subjects: Parameters of the Seattle investigation; his receipt and
19
understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any
20
investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and
21
assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by
22
him during the Seattle investigation. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for
23
24
11. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. Direct examination may encompass some or all of
25
the following subjects: MCSOs commitment and extensive efforts to achieve
26
compliance with this Courts orders; interactions with the Monitor Team and
27
assessment of the Monitor Teams involvement in the internal affairs of MCSO.
28
Defendants anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with

14
1
2

Since this proceeding is ongoing, and Plaintiffs continue to modify their list of
witnesses and exhibits, Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this list of
witnesses as deemed necessary through the close of Plaintiffs case. Defendants
reserve the right to offer all exhibits listed by Plaintiffs regardless of whether
withdrawn. Defendants will supplement this list of exhibits as this matter progresses
toward Defendants case-in-chief.
Defendants intend to retain and call all necessary expert witnesses to testify as
to all issues relevant to this Courts determinations and to any possible remedies that
10
may be considered by the Court and to any additional injunctive relief to be considered
11
by the Court.
12
13
C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnors Sands Proposals.

1. Chief Sands requests that the Court set a deadline of October 9, 2015, for
14
Plaintiffs to complete their liability case on the alleged failure to disseminate
15
the Courts Preliminary Injunction Order.
16
2. Chief Sands requests that the Court impose time limits for the examination of
17
each witness. If the parties cannot agree to a time limit for a particular witness,
18
each party shall submit a proposed time limit and the Court shall choose which
19
limit applies.
20
3. Chief Sands does not presently intend to call any additional witnesses.
21
However, he may testify if new testimony is elicited on issues relevant to the
22
charge against him. His testimony may address his understanding of the
23
preliminary injunction order, communications he had with others concerning
24
the order, and the steps he took to ensure compliance with the order.
25
26
27
28
15
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October, 2015.
By: /s/ Stanley Young
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
4
5
6
Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
7
8
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
10
11
12
13
14
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 12, 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
/s/ Stanley Young
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
PLAINTIFFS OCT. 12, 2015 PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
____ Preliminary Injunction ______ TRO
Non-Jury Trial _____ Jury Trial
X Evidentiary Hearing
Case Number CV-07-2513- PHX
Judge Code GMS
Date September 24, 2015
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al. vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

X
Plaintiff/Petitioner
Defendant/Respondent
** This proposed stipulation does not list exhibits that have already been admitted into evidence.
Exh.
Description
No.
69
MCSO Memorandum to Bailey re determining if any HSU Members
removed property/evident for training purposes (MELC006122-123)
152
MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings
1000
Courts exhibit, MELC028130-MELC028159
2001
2010
MCSO Memorandum from Commander Shaw to

Captain Skinner dated 8/5/2015 re July 21, 2015
Site Visit Request and MCSO Policy GC-17
dated 9/5/2014 Employee Disciplinary Procedure (MELC416241MELC416261)
MCSO PSB Background Packet IA 2015-0021 (MELC288144MELC288558)
2011
2017
MCSO IA #2015-0357 (MELC209485-MELC209686)

MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation IA 2014-0570
(MELC161088-MELC161171)
2019
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly

Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/3/2014
(MELC005297-MELC005300)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain
Bailey re Weekly Status Reports on IA's 20140221/0295 dated 8/15/2014 (MELC010833 MELC010837)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Kratzer to Captain
Bailey re Weekly Status Report for IA 2014-0221
dated 12/23/2014 (MELC034352 MELC034355)
MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 295, Transcribed Interview Dep.
C. Lopez dated 6/17/2014 (MELC227064-ELC227070)
2020
2022
2031
Exh.
No.
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
Description
MCSO Memorandum from Deputy Cosme to Captain Bailey re
Video/Audio re Melendres Court Order dated 5/21/2014
(MELC098062-MELC098110)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Seagraves (on behalf of Captain
Bailey) to Chief Lopez re Video/Audio re Melendres Court Order
dated 5/21/2014 (MELC004088)
Email chain: From Steve Bailey re "Fwd: Video/Audio Recordings
Response CV-07_2513-PHX-GMS" dated 5/19/2014
(MELC829381-MELC829383)
Email from Steve Bailey to Monitor Team re "Status Update of
DVDs and Investigation" dated 6/9/2014 (MELC004999MELC005000)
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0253/0221/0295 dated 6/27/2014
(MELC005304-MELC005313)
(MELC005918-MELC005921)
(MELC005599-MELC005598)
(MELC005335-MELC005340)
(MELC005297-MELC005300)
MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 2014-0541 (MELC224936MELC224940)
2060
Email from Mike Hall to Linda Walters and Steve Bailey re

"Arriago, Luciano" dated 7/15/2014 (MELC005924-MELC005926)
2063
Documents from IA 2014-0544 (MELC160117-MELC160171)
2064
MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation, Documents from IA

2014-0570 (MELC161088-MELC161114)
2068
Documents from IA 14-0564 (MELC160986-MELC161056)
2069
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Munley to Captain Bailey re Weekly

Status Report for IA 2014-0221/0295 dated 9/5/2014
(MELC011654-MELC011656)
2
Exh.
No.
2071
2073
2075
2076
2080
2081
2084
2085
2088
2089
2090
2092
2094
2104
Description
Email from Tim Casey, forwarding his 12/23/2011 email, re
Melendres Order on Summary Judgment dated 11/6/2014
(CaseySub 000050-CaseySub 000053)
MCSO Seattle Investigation (Exemplars of documents produced to
the Monitor on April 27, 2014 and contained on one external hard
drive)
Meeting request from CD Sheridan to Anglin re Conference Call-Lt. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey dated
4/28/2014 (MELC198504)
MCSO PSB Inappropriate Conduct, Employee: Brian Mackiewicz,
CIA 2015-0055 (MELC258950-54, MELC258960)
Case 2:07-0513-GMS Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al Exhibit FJoe Arpaio Brief, Timeline/Charts re Montgomery Investigation
(Dkt. No. 1166, filed on 7/10/15) (MELC199917-35)
Confidential Informant File dated 12/6/2013 (MELC198428-30)
Memorandum from Lee AnnBohn to Captain Russ Skinner re
Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 59 (records
associated with expenses related to the Seattle and Grissom
Investigations) dated 6/12/2015 (MELC233532-34)
Document created to keep track of various expenditures
(MELC199632-33)
Email from Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo attaching rejection
letters dated 4/13/2014 (MELC202291-302)
Outlook invite from Sheridan Gerard to Anglin Travis re Conference
Call - Lit. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey
scheduled for April 28, 2014 at 4PM (MELC199340)
Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a
subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 (MELC202222-24)
Collection of memos, e.g. 1) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from
Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Investigative Trip
to Seattle WA; 2) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from Travis
Anglin to Captain Steven Bailey re Investigative Trip to Seattle, WA
scheduled for 1/23-1/26/14; 3) January 21, 2014 Memorandum from
Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information
Payment; 4) January 24, 2014 Memorandum from Brian
Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information Payment
(MELC198474-94)
Case summary (MELC199506-12)
Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0547
(MELC160761-985)
3
Exh.
No.
2106
2112
2115
2218
2219
2220
2221
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2232
2233
2234
2235
Description
(MELC158915-37)
(MELC208295-370)
(MELC208221-66)
MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0542 (MELC-IA01116111303)
MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0543 (MELC209720209970)
MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA #2014-0543
(MELC211517-211586)
MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report A 14-0543 Attachments
dated 4/6/2015 (MELC210440-210607)
Letter from Lee Ann Bohn to Don Vogel re assistance in conduction
administrative investigations for MCSO dated 12/18/2014
(DV000280-281)
Letter from Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre to Don Vogel re Privilege
Log on Production Request for IA Investigation dated 1/20/2015
(DV000515)
Email from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel cc: Liddy Thomas,
Newton Brandon, Cari Shehorn, Jill Lafornara re final report content
dated 2/4/2015 (MELC1397163-165)
Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re investigation
completion date dated 2/27/2015 (DV000139-141)
Letter from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel RE: Arpaio, et al. adv.
Melendres, et al. U.S. District Court Case No: CV07-02513PHXGMS dated 3/2/2015 (DV000381-82)
Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re Palmer emails on
training scenarios dated 3/2/2015 (DV000142)
Email from Don Vogel to Lee Stein re Palmer emails dated
3/16/2015 (DV000155)
Email from Don Vogel to Sharon Kiyler FW: Melendres v. Arpaio:
Sousa-Palmer E-mail and Privilege Log. Attachments: Sousa-Palmer
email 1.19.12; Privilege Log-2 2015-2-27 dated 3/23/2015
(DV000209)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 report dated
3/20/2015; attachments included (DV000172)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 dated
3/31/2015 (DV000171)
4
Exh.
No.
2237
2239
2240
2241
Description
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re final report 14-0543
dated 4/6/2015 (DV000167)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0543 with
Supplemental IA 14-0543 dated 4/8/2015 (DV000164)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re identification of policy
violations to be considered. Attachment includes Complaint form
dated 4/10/2015 (DV000162)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re copies of both 14-0542
and 14-0543 dated 4/10/2015 (DV000178)
2242
Email from Don Vogel to Mike Olson re admin paperwork dated

4/13/2015 (DV000157)
2247
Email from Don Vogel to Tiffani Shaw re Information Needed dated

4/29/2015 (DV000181)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate, Fred Petti re Items
disclosed to MCSO dated 7/26/2015 (DV000173-74)
Email from David Webb to 1tick@earthlin.net-PROJECT dated
6/29/2014 (MELC202132)
2248
2256
2257
2258
2259
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
Email from David Webb to 1tick@earthlink.net copying

detmack@gmail.com- Lanny Breuer dated 9/10/2014
(MELC199997)
Email from David Webb to "Mike" RE: Work dated 10/30/2014
(MELC202283)
Email from David Webb RE:DC dated 11/2/2014 (MELC198252)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to "Brian Deputy Dogg Mackiewicz"
Re: DC dated 11/3/2014 (MELC198251-59)
Email from David Welch to "Mike" re Judge dated 11/5/2014
(MELC199984-85)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Larry Klayman copying Michael
Zullo, David Webb, and Dina James Re: DC dated 11/7/2014
(MELC202173-75)
MCSO Memo from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Captain Russ
Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 56 dated
6/9/2015 (MELC233029-31)
Letter from J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas Drake dated 11/13/2014
(MELC198190-91)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Michael Zullo FW: Response
dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198226)
Exh.
No.
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2527
2559D
2559F
2707
2719
2720
Description
Email from Mike to detmack@gmail.com - Re: Oz dated 12/9/2014
(MELC202048)
Email from Mike to David Webb RE: CIA Names dated 1/20/2015
(MELC202170)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Lawsuit dated 1/22/2015
(MELC200001-03)
Email from David Webb to Mike RE: Klayman dated 1/28/2015
(MELC202233)
Email from David Webb to Mike re: Work dated 2/2/2015
(MELC202285-89)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Blue Cross dated
2/5/2015 (MELC202159-62)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: No Work dated 2/11/2015
(MELC201828)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Arpaio dated 2/27/2015
(MELC202148)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/3/2015
(MELC202131)
Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/4/2015
(MELC202254-55
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015
(MELC202055-56)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015
(MELC202249-50)
Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Zullo copying David Webb and
Dennis Re: 2nd Request dated 4/20/2015 (MELC202142-45)
Email from Carmen Hernandez to Travis Anglin re Investigative
travel dated 2/3/2014 (MELC198515)
Employee Grievance Response to Sousa on 14-542 and Written
Reprimand on 14-542 dated 6/1/2015 (MELC-IA13635)
Pre-Determination Hearing Worksheet on Sousa in 14-542 dated
5/15/2015 (MELC-IA013680-MELC-IA013683)
MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report by Don Vogel,
containing information used during Sheridan's name-clearing
hearing dated 4/6/2012 (MELC-IA020592-IA020733)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Timeline
dated 8/24/2014 (MELC1287446)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Summary
dated 8/27/2014(MELC1287419 - MELC1287444)
6
Exh.
No.
2726
2753
2754
2757
2758
2759
2760
2767
2770
2772
2780
2781
2782
2784
Description
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to 1tick@earthlink.net Re: Elmers
case summary dated 9/4/2014 (MELC1292689 - MELC1292714)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Dave Munley Re:
Weekly Status Report dated 7/31/2014 (MELC006421MELC006423)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:
Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax
Re: Documenting all personnel in HSU by year
and identifying the chain of command dated
6/21/2014 (MELC010882-MELC010883)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt re:
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:
Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax
Re: Timeline for Ramon Charley Armendariz
dated 8/1/2014 (MELC011630-MELC011647)
MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #14-0451
(MELC158124-MELC158541)
Email from Peter Metzler to James Alger, Gerard
Funk, Jerry Scott, Chris Quattrini, Mark Parks,
Anthony Cruz, Sterling Bridges, Rudy Acosta,
Cesar Brodman, Walter Duncanson, Jeremy Blain dated 3/19/2014
(MELC158540-MELC158541)
MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA # 2014-0546 dated
11/12/2014 (MELC158578-MELC158624)
Email from Kim Seagraves to James Sparman Re:
Mac dated 7/29/2015 (MELC417466)
Email from Kim Seagraves to Steve Bailey re
Brian Mackiewicz dated 5/11/2015
(MELC417533)
MCSO Administrative Investigation IA#14-0580 dated 11/26/2014
(MELC676786-MELC676814)
Letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Hickley
Leonisio Abreu Re: Complaint
#070002391430501 dated 11/14/2014
(MELC680167-MELC680377)
7
Exh.
No.
2790
Description
2851
MCSO Operational Manual dated 2/18/2015

(MELC1396796-MELC1396813)
MCSO Investigative Report IA# 2015-0022 dated
5/23/2015 (MELC288559-MELC288574)
Memorandum to S. Bailey from K. Seagraves Re:
Action Plan - Reference to allegation of Anabolic
Steroids purchase(s) made by Deputies Brian
Mackiewicz and James Kempher dated 3/26/2015
(MELC186297-MELC186300)
Revised Call Signs dated 11/22/2013
(MELC112957)
Freedom Friday YouTube page print - "Mike Zullo Does LIVE
Q&A on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups" dated June 14, 2015
Email from David Tennyson to Dave Zebro Re: Report Request
dated 4/27/2015 (MELC1397053)
Spreadsheet of traffic stops (1 of 2) (MELC413860)
2852
2853
Spreadsheet of traffic stops (2 of 2) (MELC413861)

HSU 2011 Master Log
2854
HSU 2012 Master Log
2855
HSU 2013 Master Log
2794
2799
2820
2823
2843
2860
2893
2895
2897
2900
2901
2902
2903
Partial video of IA 14-547 stop dated 3/7/2012

Interview of Mary Ann McKessey with David Tennyson re Case #
2015-0034 dated 3/27/2015 (MELC186200-MELC186266)
Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph
Sousa dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013638)
Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph
Sousa (Crossed Out) dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013679)
Departmental Report: Occurance Location: Multiple / Maricopa
County Victim: Multiple Occurance Type: Computer Tampering /
Identity Theft (MELC185195-MELC185370)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Updated Rev 3A dated
9/21/2014 (MELC202277)
MCSO Memo to Clint Doyle from Brian Mackiewicz Re:
Investigative Trip dated 11/30/2013 (MELC199821)
Record of Informant and MCSO Memo from Clint Doyle to Brian
Mackiewicz re: Confidential informant payment dated 12/6/2013
(MELC198431-MELC198432)
8
Exh.
No.
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2917
2918
2919
2920
Description
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Jenise Moreno Re: Confidential
dated 1/9/2014 (MELC1386579)
MCSO Property and Evidence Report dated 11/19/2014
(MELC266600)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 8/12/2014 (MELC198465MELC198466)
Confidential Informant Payment dated 3/29/2014 (MELC198448)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 1: "Joe Arpaio
Brief" Timeline dated 1/1/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 2: "Arpaio
Brief" Schematic dated 1/1/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 3:
"Whisleblower Chronicles" (CIA Chronicles)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 4: "Names of
People Involved" dated 2/17/2014
9
Exh.
No.
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
Description
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 5: "Check List
for Elmer" (Check List for Dennis) dated
3/27/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 6: "List 2" dated
3/27/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 7: "DOJ / Arpaio
Timeline" dated 12/4/2013
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 8: "Project
Courier" Hispanic Businesses in AZ (1 examplar
photo of a 113 page document)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 9: "Cover" dated
7/27/2014
MCSO Special Investigation Division Interview with Confidential
Informant #1437 dated 9/6/2013 (MELC184916 - MELC185029)
MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #13-0000, Interview
Confidential Informant dated 12/14/2013 (MELC185036 MELC185144)
10

Melendres # 1462 - Combined Proposed Statement of Issues W Exhibit

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 # 1462 - Combined Proposed Statement of Issues W Exhibit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

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

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 3 of 19

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

Statement of Issues for Continued Contempt Hearing

continued contempt hearing:

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

Arpaios or Chief Deputy Sheridans admitted contempt or any other MCSO

employees contempt of this courts orders was knowing and willful;

MCSO employee instigated, allowed, or encouraged an investigation of

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

activities to presently identify all those who were detained in violation of

the Courts preliminary injunction, including outside of the Human

Smuggling Unit, and to ensure proper tracking and disposition of

property of members of the Plaintiff class;

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

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 4 of 19

including seized identification documents that may belong to Plaintiffs

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

5. Deficiencies in MCSOs internal affairs investigation processes and

notice to and determining claims for compensation by victims.

specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated December

Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

dated December 23, 2011.

Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

December 23, 2011.

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

December 23, 2011.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 5 of 19

Gerald Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

Sousa violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

dated December 23, 2011.

trial of this matter in 2012.

to the trial of this matter in 2012.

of this matter in 2012.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 6 of 19

prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

obligations prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

trial of this matter in 2012.

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

May 14, 2014 Orders.

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

Courts May 14, 2014 Orders.

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