Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1681 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)


cwang@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
Brenda Munoz Furnish
bmfurnish@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys
for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

16
17
18

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,


et al.,

19
20

Plaintiffs,
v.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,


Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT ARPAIOS MOTION
FOR EXTENSION

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1681 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 5

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
Immigrants Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

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

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)


alai@law.uci.edu
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)


jbcofc@aol.com
Law Offices of James B. Chanin
3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 848-4752
Facsimile: (510) 848-5819

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)


syoung@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)


talbarran@cov.com
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
lpedley@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1681 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 5

1
2

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant Arpaios motion for an extension of time in which to


file a memorandum pursuant to the Courts May 13, 2016 Order. (Doc. 1680.)

Following 21 days of evidentiary proceedings, the Court issued extensive findings

of fact regarding the charges of civil contempt against Defendant Arpaio and other non-

party contemnors. (Doc. 1677.) During these proceedings the Court permitted the

Parties to introduce all factual evidence relating to such charges and the relief to which

Plaintiffs are entitled. Defendant now asks for an additional 90 days to review the

factual and legal basis for the Courts findings. The Court should deny this request for

the following reasons.

10

First, Defendant Arpaio did not meet and confer with Plaintiffs to determine their

11

position on the extension as required by Local Rule 7.3(b). For this reason alone,

12

Defendants motion must be denied.

13

Second, Defendant misconstrues the nature of the Courts findings of facts and has

14

had ample time to review the record. The Courts findings are final, based on the

15

considerable record before it (which Defendant has had six months or more to review),

16

and Defendant is not necessarily entitled an opportunity to contest every aspect of those

17

findings before this Court. This is not, as Defendant suggests, the equivalent of a

18

motion to which a party would be entitled to file a response in opposition. See Def.s

19

Mot. at 3. Further, while not obligated to do so, the Court has permitted the Parties 14

20

days in which file memoranda on the matters set forth by the Courts May 13 Order.

21

This is the same amount of time provided to Defendant to file a motion for

22

reconsideration, if he chooses to do so. See L. R. Civ. 7.2(g)(2). Defendant is not

23

prejudiced by the Courts timeline.

24

Third, Defendant also contends that the Parties had three months to analyze and

25

respond to the Courts original findings of fact issued on May 24, 2013. This is an

26

inaccurate comparison. At that time the Parties requested and were provided an

27

opportunity to meet and confer as to whether an agreement could be reached on

28

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1681 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 5

remedies alone. Here, the Court has delineated proposed relief for the Plaintiff class,

and there is no reason for further delay on those matters.

Fourth, settlement discussions are not only unnecessary at this point given the

Courts findings, they are also unlikely to be productive. The Parties were unable to

settle matters prior to or during the contempt proceeding. Plaintiffs do not believe there

is any purpose served by further delaying relief on this basis.

Fifth, Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by any further delay. As detailed by the

Court, Defendant intentionally violated several of this Courts orders, continuously

failed to disclose discovery that he was legally obligated to produce, and conducted

10

internal investigations designed to escape accountability. Swift remedies are necessary

11

to safeguard to rights of the Plaintiff class.

12

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of May, 2016.

13

By: /s/ Andre Segura

14

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)


Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project

15
16
17

Daniel Pochoda
Brenda Munoz Furnish
ACLU Foundation of Arizona

18
19
20

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

21

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)


Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP

22
23
24

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)


Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund

25
26

James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)


Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1681 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 19, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing
system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

6
7
8

Dated this 19th day of May, 2016.


/s/ Andre Segura

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28