Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
and
13
14
15
v.
16
17
Defendants.
18
19
The Court has been advised by its Clerks Office that Maricopa Countys Motion
20
for Recognition of its Rights as a Party Litigant (Doc. 1272) has not been formally ruled
21
on by the Court.
22
The Court believes nevertheless that it has ruled on this motion both orally and in
23
practicality as this case has proceeded. As the appropriate jural entity for the Maricopa
24
County Sheriffs Office, Maricopa County is a party to this lawsuit. Sheriff Arpaio, also
25
named as a Defendant in his official capacity since the initiation of this suit, has had
26
separate representation throughout this lawsuit provided by the County. Although there
27
28
appropriate jural entity for MCSO and also naming Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity,
Maricopa County has nevertheless retained separate counsel for the County as an entity
in this litigation.
No party has sought to dismiss the County as a separate entity. The Court has
representing the County as a whole. The County has nevertheless been allowed to
participate and proceed as a separate party, with the exception that, on a few occasions,
the Court has upheld relevance objections to some of the Countys lines of questioning in
light of its status in this suit as the appropriate jural entity for the MCSO.
10
The Court thus grants the motion in part, but denies it to the extent that the Motion
11
seeks to limit the County for purposes of this lawsuit as being other than the County as a
12
whole sued as the appropriate jural entity against which suits against the MCSO must be
13
brought.
14
15
16
Additionally, the Court has become aware of the need to update its previous order
Doc. 1624 filed last week in the following respects.
1.
The Court has become aware of Docs. 735, 749 and 755 which informed
17
the Court of the status of investigations prior to its November 20 Order, Doc. 795. It has
18
also become aware of Docs. 1052 and 1076 which, although in response to separate
19
orders of the Court, see, e.g., Tr. 427, 1012-13, and Doc. 1064, also can be viewed as
20
21
wishes to address the accuracy of the information or otherwise address these documents
22
23
2.
If any party
24
Exs. 2269, 2726, 2917-19, 2923, 2927, 2935, 2938 and 2940. The Court has not yet
25
reviewed the audio files that may contain statements by Montgomery but insofar as the
26
Court can determine those audio files consist of Exs. 2977-80, 2981A and 2981B. The
27
Court will hear whatever specific arguments any party wishes to present about the
28
-2-
In preparing its findings of fact the Court may wish to consider affidavits or
statements made under penalty of perjury previously filed in this action by Sheriff Joe
Arpaio. If any party would like to be heard on such matters, they are invited to address
its Rights as a Party Litigant (Doc. 1272) is granted in part and denied in part as stated
above.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-