Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al

Filing 2694

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Michael Gennaco of the OIR Group is hereby APPOINTED to serve as the Court's expert. Mr. Gennaco may be reached at [e-mail]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Telephonic Oral Argument on Defendant MCSO's Motion to Amend Correct (Doc. 2674 ) for September 24, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. (AZ Time). Defendants shall provide a call-in number to the parties and the Court no later than Noon on September 21, 2021. Each party shall have 20 minutes to argue its position. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the Telephonic Status Conference scheduled on September 17, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. (AZ Time), the parties should be prepared to discuss the Court meeting with each party's experts pertaining to the remaining issue on the Joint Motion to Enforce Paragraph 70 (Doc. 2607 ). See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 9/7/21. (SMH)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2694 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 4

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.

10
11
12

No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,

13

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

14
15
16
17

v.
Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
Defendants.

18
19

BACKGROUND

20

On August 12, 2021, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause pertaining to

21

Defendants’ continual noncompliance with the injunction ordered on July 26, 2016.

22

(Doc. 2681.) As referenced in the Order to Show Cause, this Court will appoint a

23

management expert to provide the Court with recommendations on how best the Maricopa

24

County Sheriff’s Office can both come into compliance with the Court’s order pertaining

25

to the time limits for completing internal investigations and remain in compliance with

26

such limits as required by the injunction and thereafter by state law.

27
28

APPOINTMENT
Having considered all proposed candidates for appointment of a management

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2694 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 4

1

expert,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Michael Gennaco of the OIR Group is hereby

3

APPOINTED to serve as the Court’s expert.

4

[e-mail].

Mr. Gennaco may be reached at

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gennaco shall be impartial and function at

6

the request of the Court pursuant to this Order. The purpose of his appointment shall be to

7

conduct an investigation and create a report reviewing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

8

Office’s operations and procedures. The report should determine the causes of Maricopa

9

County Sheriff’s Office’s noncompliance with this Court’s injunction and propose

10

measures the Court could order to ensure future completion of internal investigations

11

within the timeframe contemplated by the injunction and state law. Mr. Gennaco is

12

authorized to retain reasonable staff assistance necessary to conduct the investigation, and

13

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and/or Maricopa County shall provide Mr. Gennaco

14

with full access to all materials he requests. If circumstances dictate it, Mr. Gennaco may

15

call upon the Monitor to assist him in securing needed documents and other materials.

16

Materials provided to Mr. Gennaco will be disclosed to the parties.1

17

COMPENSATION OF EXPERT

18

IT IS FURTHERE ORDERED that if the OIR Group desires, Maricopa County

19

shall enter a contract with Mr. Gennaco and OIR group for the provision of his services.

20

In any event, Maricopa County shall timely reimburse OIR Group and/or Mr. Gennaco for

21

the work outlined above. OIR Group shall be paid on a monthly basis and shall provide

22

Maricopa County redacted invoices sufficient to support his charges.

23

investigation has concluded, Mr. Gennaco shall provide non-redacted itemized statements

24

of his services to the parties.

25

After the

REQUESTS BY COUNSEL

26

During the status conference on August 27, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff–Intervenor

27

United States asked for a number of procedures to govern the expert’s investigation. Mr.

28
1

The Court will issue protective orders as needed.
-2-

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2694 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 4

1

Gennaco and the OIR Group are hereby authorized to conduct their investigation in the

2

way they deem best fit, and with the exception of the matters individually specified below,

3

the requests by the Plaintiff–Intervenor are DENIED.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

5

1. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request for limited discovery before the Court’s decision

6

on remedies is DEFERRED.

7

2. To the extent that Plaintiff–Intervenor would be more comfortable with the

8

result, the Court shall not have ex parte communications with the expert, beyond

9

the administrative communication necessary for his engagement and the

10

completion of this Order which has already occurred. As a result, the Court

11

authorizes the expert to make all of his own determinations about the nature and

12

scope of the investigation and about how he will conduct it. For its part, the

13

Court notes that it requires an efficient, expeditious, and thorough report and

14

recommendation from the expert.

15

communication with the Court, he shall file a request with the Court copied to

16

the parties, and the Court shall expeditiously schedule a date for a hearing.

17

Nevertheless, Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request that there be no ex parte

18

communications between the Monitor and the expert is DENIED. Counsel’s

19

request that there be no ex parte communication between the expert and any

20

party is DENIED. Mr. Gennaco may have ex parte communications as needed

21

to complete the investigation in a thorough, expeditious, and not overly

22

convoluted manner.

23
24
25
26

Should the expert desire to have any

3. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request for disclosure of the materials upon which the
expert relies is GRANTED subject to any necessary protective orders.
4. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request that the parties be able to review the expert’s
preliminary report before it is finalized is GRANTED.

27

5. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request that the expert include a timeline for

28

implementation and an estimate of costs in his report is GRANTED IN PART.

-3-

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 2694 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 4

1

Mr. Gennaco will be expected to make reasonable efforts to approximate

2

implementation costs.
6. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request for a status conference after the expert’s report is

3
4

complete is GRANTED.

5

7. Plaintiff–Intervenor’s request to put on its own expert at the final evidentiary

6

hearing is DEFERRED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Telephonic2 Oral Argument on Defendant

8

MCSO’s Motion to Amend Correct (Doc. 2674) for September 24, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

9

(AZ Time). Defendants shall provide a call-in number to the parties and the Court no later

10

than Noon on September 21, 2021. Each party shall have 20 minutes to argue its position.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the Telephonic Status Conference scheduled

12

on September 17, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. (AZ Time), the parties should be prepared to discuss

13

the Court meeting with each party’s experts pertaining to the remaining issue on the Joint

14

Motion to Enforce Paragraph 70 (Doc. 2607).

15

Dated this 7th day of September, 2021.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

To avoid challenges posed by the use of cell phones, headsets or other devices, the parties
are directed to utilize landlines for the Telephonic Oral Argument to enable clear
communication with the Court and accurate transcription by the Court Reporter. The
parties are reminded that the PUBLIC listen only line is for public and media only. It is
not for attorneys or parties calling in.
-4-