melendres v. arpaio #1575 nov 19 2015 transcript - status conference
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
1/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)))
)))
)
)
)))
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
November 19, 2015
11:53 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Telephonic Conference)
Court Reporter: Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
2/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 2
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
By: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, Arizona 85011
Covington & Burling, LLP
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, California 94065
For the Intervenor United States of America:
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Maureen Johnston, Esq.
601 D. Street NW, #5011
Washington, D.C. 20004
For the Defendant Maricopa County:
Walker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, Esq.By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.
SGA Corporate Center16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office:Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLPBy: M. Craig Murdy, Esq.
2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
3/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 3
A P P E A R A N C E S
For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:Dickinson Wright, PLLC
By: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.By: David J. Ouimette, Esq.1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:
Mitchell Stein Carey, PC
By: Lee D. Stein, Esq.
1 Renaissance Square2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
4/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 4
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE CLERK: This is civil case number 07-2513,
Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for telephonic
conference.
Counsel, please announce your appearances.
MS. WANG: Good morning, Your Honor. For plaintiffs,
this is Cecillia Wang of the ACLU. We also have Dan Pochoda of
the ACLU of Arizona and Michelle Morin of Covington & Burling.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. POCHODA: Good morning.
MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge. John Masterson
and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and the individual alleged
contemnors.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
and Charles Jirauch for Maricopa County.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning. Mel McDonald making a
special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MURDY: Good morning, Your Honor. Craig Murdy on
behalf of retired Chief Brian Sands.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. JOHNSTON: Good morning, Your Honor. Maureen
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
5/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 5
Johnston on behalf of the United States.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BIRNBAUM: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Gary
Birnbaum and David Ouimette, special counsel to Deputy Chief
MacIntyre.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BIRNBAUM: Good morning.
MR. STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Lee
Stein, specially appearing for Chief Deputy Sheridan.
THE COURT: Good morning. Is there anyone else?
All right. Mr. Masterson, I'm informed that you
requested the conference.
MR. MASTERSON: I did, Judge. Thank you for being
available on such short notice, and thank you to everyone else
who is available on such short notice.
Judge, I have a concern. I'll cut right to it. It's
we got your order yesterday afternoon, late yesterday
afternoon, and started to digest it last night and this
morning, and to get right to the point, I just don't think
there's any way we can discuss all this tomorrow morning.
There's an awful lot here that some of this -- well, a lot of
this is going to require we're going to have to go down and
meet with folks at MCSO, look into some of the issues the Court
has inquired about and find out where, exactly, we stand, and
if the Court wants an informed discussion on these issues
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
6/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 6
tomorrow, I just don't see how that's going to happen.
THE COURT: Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, for plaintiffs, you know, I
guess our response is that all parties should have adequate
time to respond to the Court's questions. Plaintiffs are
prepared to go forward tomorrow, and as we've said before,
plaintiffs have a very strong interest in bringing these
proceedings to an expeditious conclusion. We had hoped to do
so tomorrow. But we are amenable to hearing any proposals by
defendants about how they can have adequate time to respond
and, yet, bring this to a close.
The Court had suggested in yesterday's order that
written submissions would be possible, so I wonder if we can
hear from defendants as to what their specific proposal is on
how much time they need, and in what format they would like to
address the Court's questions.
THE COURT: Well, first off, Mr. Masterson, I agree
that -- let me tell you what drove my request. And then I
agree, even though I tried -- I told you, I think, that I've
tried to keep up on this thing, but it's gotten so massive that
it got beyond me a little bit.
And what I'm really trying to get my arms around is a
number of exhibits that have been submitted, and those that
have not yet been submitted, and whether or not I would want to
look at those, and if I did want to look at those -- when I say
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 6 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
7/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
11:5
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 7
"not been submitted," I'm talking about things like 14-221,
which apparently has not -- I will tell you I just called
yesterday to check with my monitor to see if they had 14-221
and they didn't have it yet. And I know Ms. Iafrate
represented in court last week that it was at the vendor's to
be copied, and it occurred to me, as I was thinking about this
and trying to get the exhibits in order so that I could digest
them, and in context, that I might want to look at 14-221, and
then there may be some others that are closed that I might want
to look at.
So number 1 -- let's just go through them one by one
for a second, Mr. Masterson. Do you have any problem, if
anybody has anything more they want to say on Chief Sands'
motion for summary judgment, saying it tomorrow?
MR. MASTERSON: No, that's fine with defendant.
MR. MURDY: Craig Murdy, Your Honor. That will be
fine.
THE COURT: Okay. Number 2, any problem with that,
Mr. Masterson?
Well, I'm sorry. I didn't hear from you, Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, we are planning to address
Chief Sands's motion tomorrow.
THE COURT: Okay. Number 2, any problem with that? I
think I've already indicated that on the record and have had no
problem, but I thought I would put it on there to be clear.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 7 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
8/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:5
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 8
MS. WANG: Plaintiffs don't have any issue with
number 2, Your Honor.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I --
MR. WALKER: Your Honor, this is Richard -- go ahead.
MR. MASTERSON: I'm sorry, Rick. Go ahead.
MR. WALKER: This is Richard Walker, Your Honor. And
I won't have a problem addressing number 2 tomorrow, but the
County needs to register its objection to the consideration of
such matters that may have occurred or been entered when the
County was not a party to the case.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to overrule the objection
because the County's interests have always been represented in
this case in the status in which the County is now being sued,
which is as the legal entity for Sheriff Arpaio. But I
appreciate you clarifying --
MR. MURDY: Your Honor, this is --
THE COURT: -- Mr. Walker.
MR. WALKER: All right. I understand, Your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. MURDY: Your Honor, Craig Murdy on behalf of Chief
Sands. We would object to the Court considering matters of
record or on the docket prior to Chief Sands' involvement in
this action.
THE COURT: Okay. Your objection's noted, but I still
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 8 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
9/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 9
intend to, if I find matters that are -- I believe
Chief Sands -- well, if I find matters that are on the record
that I think are relevant, I'm going to so indicate, and you
can preserve whatever objection you have, Mr. Murdy.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, this is Cecillia Wang for
plaintiffs. In response to Mr. Murdy's comment, I think the
issue would be whether any party who is affected by the Court's
consideration of what's in the record has a fair opportunity to
be heard on that question, and I think as long as -- it
obviously would depend on how the record is -- would be
considered and whether it be considered in relation to
Chief Sands. But so long as he has an opportunity to be heard,
plaintiffs don't believe there's any issue.
THE COURT: That's a good point. Let me just check
and see if there's anything that I've encountered in the
record -- and I'll tell you right now what it is -- that may
relate to Chief Sands or any other party that's currently being
represented. I'll do that at the end of the hearing.
What about number 3? By these numbers, I'm talking
about the numbers listed in document number 1566, which was my
order of yesterday.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, this is John Masterson. I
didn't address 2 because I do have a question. Well, I
guess -- the Court says it feels free to consider matters set
forth in the docket and representations made by the parties and
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 9 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
10/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 10
their representatives to the Court.
My question is I just want to reserve -- or I guess my
position is I want to reserve objection, not knowing at this
point what representations made by parties or representatives
the Court's referring to in this particular paragraph.
THE COURT: All right. You know, I see that point,
and if I get, in my review of the record as I'm preparing
findings of fact, to points that I think that you have a right
to be heard on, I will indicate as much and allow you to be
heard. And if I have any today, I've made a list, I'll let you
know what they are right now so you can address them tomorrow.
Number 3. Any problem with that?
I mean, I don't think we -- well, yeah, any problem
with that? I don't think you need to do that, necessarily, I
will say, Mr. Masterson, I don't think you need to do that
tomorrow. We can set a time tomorrow by which you'll indicate
to me whether or not you have any problem with any sealed
portion, and we can hold a supplemental hearing if we need to.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anybody object to proceeding in that way?
MS. WANG: No, Your Honor, from plaintiffs.
MR. WALKER: No objection for the County, Your Honor.
MR. MURDY: No objection for Sands, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Number 4, that was my proposal, for
example, if I felt like I needed to look at 14-221 or anything
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 10 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
11/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 11
that you had -- that the MCSO has any PSB report that they
filed during the course of the evidentiary hearing if I felt
like I needed or wanted to look at it. That was my proposal so
that everybody would have the opportunity to know what I was
looking at and comment on it if they wished, but I wouldn't
decide anything other than seeing what the report said. And as
I've indicated, I'm open to alternative suggestions.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, John Masterson. One of my
concerns here is the Court I guess referring to or relying on
matters not in evidence without the parties having the
opportunity to examine a witness about that particular piece of
evidence or otherwise consider that particular piece of
evidence during the course of the trial or hearing on the
contempt charges.
THE COURT: Yeah, I understand that. And I'm not
really sure which of these final reports are in evidence and
which of them are final reports, which is one of the reasons
why I wanted the information I've asked for in 12C, so I've --
for what it's worth, I will represent to all parties that
although it is my understanding that such reports have been --
copies of such reports have been provided to the monitor when
they're complete, I have not seen any of them, nor have I
discussed any of them in substance with the monitor. I'm only
aware that some have been received and some have not.
I have asked once or twice during the course of the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 11 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
12/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 12
hearing for the monitor to provide me with an update of IA
reports that he think he has or doesn't have, but aside from
that, I have not discussed any of these reports with him, for
what that's worth.
If I do decide that I think it would be helpful for me
to look at the content of a report, then I would propose that I
simply indicate -- provide an order to the parties that I would
like to look at that report and have them preserve any
objections.
But that does depend a little bit, Mr. Masterson, on
your ability, and the plaintiffs' ability, to give me 12C so I
know what parts of reports have been admitted in evidence, even
if the whole report hasn't, and what reports have been in
evidence.
Have I clarified why I was asking that question?
MR. MASTERSON: I think so, Judge.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. And for plaintiffs --
THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor. For plaintiffs,
just in response to Mr. Masterson's comment, we have said since
before the contempt hearing that we will be asking for certain
additional injunctive relief or modifications to the Court's
previous supplemental injunction, and we will take the
position, and have been taking the position, that there are two
independent grounds for such injunctive leave. One is as a
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 12 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
13/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
12:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 13
remedy in the civil contempt; and the other is that the Court
does have the inherent authority, setting aside any ongoing
contempt proceeding, to issue orders in support of and in
enforcement of its previous orders.
So we understand the Court's request here and we don't
have any objection to that procedure. We would just seek
clarification that if the Court is considering MCSO's written
final report or any other materials in IA files that the
parties get notice. And to the extent that plaintiffs do not
have a copy of the report in question, we obviously would like
to have a copy of that and for all parties to be able to be
heard on consideration of those matters.
Whether an evidentiary hearing would be needed and
witness testimony would be needed, as Mr. Masterson suggests, I
think is something that we would have to take up on a
case-by-case basis. It's not always necessary, as the Court is
exercising its inherent authority, to issue injunctive relief
in a case like this.
THE COURT: Well, and just so all parties are clear
and so they can address this tomorrow if they want to in
conjunction with other questions, to the extent that it may
affect my factual findings, I believe that not only do I have
the two authorities that Ms. Wang has suggested, but when I
find discovery violations, I think I'm also entitled to create
remedies for those violations, especially when the trial's
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 13 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
14/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:0
12:0
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 14
already happened and relief has already been given. I think
that wholly independent of my contempt power for civil contempt
I have inherent authority to provide remedies for discovery
violations if I find that those exist.
But in any event, I will not -- I'm okay and I'm
amenable with the procedure of not -- I do want a final report,
without having to do it myself, of knowing which parts of IA
files have been admitted into evidence and what final IA
reports I have in evidence so that I don't -- just to make sure
I won't request anything -- any copies of reports from the
monitor without notifying the parties, but I want to make sure
that I know what I have and what I don't have.
So I still want what I've indicated in 12C, but that
being said, I won't ask to see any other reports,
Mr. Masterson, without informing the parties and giving them a
chance to be heard.
Is that acceptable?
MR. MASTERSON: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Murdy?
MR. MURDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Now, most of the rest of
this -- and there may be some exceptions -- there may be,
really, no answers, Mr. Masterson, Ms. Wang, Mr. Murdy, but
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 14 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
15/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 15
I -- you know, as I was recalling the recollection -- as I was
recalling the testimony, I just wasn't sure. That's what gives
rise to most of these questions.
So, for example, Ms. Wang, I seem to remember, and I'm
not saying it's perfect, but I seem to remember Lieutenant
Jakowinicz talking about 171 persons who in roadside -- there
was a spreadsheet, I think -- roadside interdiction patrols
were detained and turned over to ICE, or maybe it was ICE or
Border Patrol. And I seem to recall that he said that there
was another sheet that had to do with workplace tallies with
workplace operations, or maybe MCSO operations generally, and I
remember Lieutenant Sousa's testimony pertaining to overhearing
radio calls.
But I'm just inviting you, if there are other -- if
there's other testimony or exhibits that would demonstrate the
numbers of persons that may have been affected or that you
think allows the Court to derive that number, to identify where
it is so I don't have to -- you know, what allegations you say,
or what evidence you say supports explicit findings, and if you
think that it's not possible to do that, I just want an
explanation why.
Can you do that tomorrow, Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. We are preparing and
we'll be ready to do that tomorrow.
THE COURT: Is there an issue with you responding to
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 15 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
16/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 16
that, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Walker, or Mr. Murdy, tomorrow? I
really, frankly, don't see why on that one, because it all has
to do with evidence that's in the record. And I guess I'll say
if you can answer it, answer it; if you can't, then I'm
understanding and I'll excuse your non-answering of it.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, this is John Masterson. I
guess what I can say is I'm not going to address this
particular -- this particular point, but in general, if
plaintiffs were to come forward with some information and say,
Well, the information requested by the judge in section 5A is
in Exhibit 2933, I mean, I don't have a problem with that. But
generally, as to whether I have the opportunity to comb through
the entire transcript of the 20 days, or I don't even remember
how many we had now, but the entire hearing, we're just not
going to have the opportunity to do that by tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: Well, that's fine, but I don't see why we
should wait, frankly. I've indicated what I was going to do,
and the invitation then is for me to do it. And, I'm sorry,
but I believe that I am as busy if not busier than you, and I
have other matters that I have to give my attention to, and I
realize you do, too. But tomorrow is the day that it's set --
MR. MASTERSON: Oh, I'm not --
THE COURT: What?
MR. MASTERSON: I'm not saying we can't do it, Judge.
I'm just saying that depending upon what the question is, I
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 16 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
17/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 17
don't know that we can do it by tomorrow.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, then generally -- that's all
I'm asking. I mean, I'm just telling you what my recollection
of the testimony is; I'm telling you the questions I have about
the testimony and the evidence. I think, with very few
exceptions, I'm not asking you to supplement anything. I'm
just saying if there's something like this in the record that
I'm missing, tell me where it is.
For example, you may remember Captain Skinner
testified that he issued internal directives pertaining to the
Court's February 2015 discovery orders. They may be in some
exhibit that's been admitted. I'm not sure that they are. But
if they are, and if the parties are aware of it, I guess I want
you to tell me. And if you can't tell me by Friday, and you
become aware in the next several days thereafter that it
isn't -- that it is there, I'm not going to object if you file
some sort of a paper saying, Here it is, as long as it's in
evidence. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I mean, it wasn't my desire -- and I do realize,
Mr. Masterson, this is a lot of stuff -- it wasn't my desire to
necessarily derail your presentation for tomorrow; it's just to
tell you what I'm interested in.
So, you know, it's fine by me if -- unless any party
objects -- within a week after, or I'll even give you two weeks
after the hearing, if you find that you can give me responsive
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 17 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
18/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 18
material to questions like, What's in the record? I'll accept
it.
Does anybody object to that? You'll need to do it in
writing.
MR. MASTERSON: Masterson. That helps a lot, Judge.
THE COURT: Any objection --
MS. WANG: Your Honor, for plaintiffs, no objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MURDY: Craig Murdy for Sands. No objection, Your
Honor.
MR. WALKER: No objection on behalf of the County.
THE COURT: All right. Do we need to go over any
question -- is there any questions, then, about individual
questions that you would wish to address, any party would wish
to address?
MR. MASTERSON: This is Masterson, Judge. I have no
further specific questions.
MS. WANG: None from plaintiffs, Your Honor. This is
Cecillia Wang.
THE COURT: All right. I suppose I could also say
that, you know, when one party says, for example, like with
that Skinner question, if defendants find something that they
say, This is the response that he gave, and plaintiffs contest
it, you can contest it. You can just say: We don't know that
that's true. But if it's admitted as an exhibit, or part of an
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 18 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
19/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 19
exhibit, I'm going to at least look at it to see what I think
it is, because it is in evidence and -- but I'll allow the
parties the right to contest that it is what the other party
says it is. Is that fair?
I'm not going to allow --
MS. WANG: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I'm not going to allow any party to try to
seek to take it out of evidence, but I will allow them, allow a
party to say, That's not what it is, it's this, or whatever.
Is that okay?
MR. MASTERSON: John Masterson. That's fine, Judge.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then, unless there's
anything else, I'll see you tomorrow.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
MR. MURDY: Judge, this is --
MS. WANG: Thank you.
MR. MURDY: -- Craig Murdy. Your Honor?
THE COURT: Mr. Murdy.
MR. MURDY: Yes. You indicated that you would
perhaps, at the end of this hearing, I don't know if you meant
today's hearing or tomorrow, identify for us documents you
thought were in the record that may be applicable to Chief
Sands.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Murdy.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 19 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
20/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
12:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 20
And this may also be applicable to Mr. MacIntyre and
to Chief Sheridan, and one of the things may be applicable to
all. I'm just trying to remember things that I've seen that I
guess I should tell the parties about so they can address.
Way back when, when we were discussing whether or not
delivery of a message to Chief MacIntyre waived the
attorney-client privilege -- and I don't believe,
Mr. Masterson, you or Mr. Popolizio were in the case yet -- but
we were having a discussion as to why Chief MacIntyre was
copied on some of the correspondence, including the December
e-mail transmitting the preliminary injunction order from Tim
Casey, Maricopa County -- and, you know, I don't mean to
misstate the record, but Maricopa County basically said that
there was no reason that Chief MacIntyre got that
communication. His only job in connection with it was a
clerical function to make sure that Chief Sands and Chief
Deputy Sousa received that communication. There was that
representation, or something like it, made to me in court, and
I'm just going to invite you to address that, if you wish to,
whether or not I can consider it, whether I should or should
not, but that was clearly a representation made to me by
defense counsel at that time. That's one.
Another one -- the only other one I can think of right
at the moment, and if there are any more, I'll let you know --
is I do believe that the chronology of the documents in the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 20 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
21/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:1
12:1
12:2
12:2
12:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 21
docket demonstrate that when the preliminary injunction hearing
was pending -- in other words, the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment and a motion for class certification in early
December -- I issued supplementary questions before oral
argument much like the supplementary questions that we're
discussing in today's hearing, and they related to a March 2011
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case in which I said: This case
says that the MCSO cannot engage -- or that no state authority
can engage in attempting to enforce federal civil immigration
law.
The parties haven't really addressed that in their
briefing. It seems to me to be an important case and an
important holding relating to whether or not a preliminary
injunction should issue, I'm going to invite the parties to
address these questions, and then I laid them out. It's in a
December 1st, 2011 order from the Court.
Mr. Casey then, prior to oral argument, filed a
supplemental brief addressing those questions in which he
indicated that the MCSO did not claim any authority to enforce
federal civil immigration law, and hadn't done so since the
HSU -- or since the 287(g) authority was revoked, and that they
had further provided training concerning the Arizona case, the
March 2011 Arizona case, to the HSU.
It seems to me -- and then I went back and looked at
the transcript of the oral argument and my ruling on the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 21 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
22/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:2
12:2
12:2
12:2
12:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 22
preliminary injunction, and it seems to me that some of
those -- some of those positions definitely may -- or that
difference in chronology may make a difference in terms of
defenses that may be raised by individual nonparty contemnors
about whether they knew about the injunction, or even whether
it's relevant.
Because if you read -- I believe it's on December 16th
that Mr. Casey files that supplemental brief. He indicates, I
think, something to the effect that the MCSO is only reserving
the right to do reasonable and limited detentions if they have
a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot under
state law, meaning at the time the human smuggling state law,
which then was -- hadn't yet been stricken. And it seems to me
that that may possibly affect some defenses by nonparty
contemnors, which may include all of the nonparty contemnors.
So you might want to look at those things.
Those are the only two things that I can think of
immediately, Mr. Murdy. But if I become aware of others as I
prepare my findings of fact and conclusions of law, consistent
with what I've said I would do with respect to the IA orders, I
will raise them to the parties and allow you to comment before
I -- I won't give you a long period, but I will allow you to
comment before I issue my final findings of fact.
Have I identified those two things that I can think of
clearly enough so that you think you can find them in the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 22 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
23/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:2
12:2
12:2
12:2
12:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 23
docket?
MR. MURDY: Craig Murdy, Your Honor. Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER: You have, Your Honor, but not to put too
fine a point on it, you said the representation was made by
Maricopa County. I do not believe Maricopa County was a party
to the action at that time, and I believe the representation to
which you were referring in your first point was made by
counsel to the sheriff.
THE COURT: Yes, I believe that MCSO was a party at
that time, but I think you're correct that Maricopa County as
an entity was not named as a party until it was clear that that
was the jural entity that had to be sued when the sheriff and
the MCSO were being sued, so unless you disagree with that last
statement, I agree with yours.
Mr. Masterson?
MR. WALKER: Well, I think we're in agreement.
THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Walker.
MR. WALKER: No, I -- I was just saying I think we're
in agreement, with that correction.
THE COURT: Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON: What's the question, Judge?
THE COURT: My only question was: Have I identified
those two areas of the docket that are of possible interest to
me sufficient so that you can locate them in the docket?
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 23 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
24/25
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12:2
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 24
MR. MASTERSON: I believe so, Judge. Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor, I understand.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson?
MS. JOHNSTON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I will see you all tomorrow.
(Proceedings concluded at 12:24 p.m.)
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 24 of 25
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
25/25
R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 11/19/15 Telephonic Conference 25
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
was prepared under my direction and control.
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 20th day of November,
2015.
s/Gary Moll
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1575 Filed 11/20/15 Page 25 of 25