United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al
STATEMENT of Undisputed Facts re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Peter S. Gray, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68)(Aminfar, Amin)
United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al
Doc. 19 Att. 65
Preston, Judy (CRT)
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Preston, Judy (CRT) Monday, August 23, 2010 7:43 PM Driscoll, Robert; Saucedo, Luis E (CRT) Sierra, Laura; Frey, Brian RE: Meeting
W Bob, e have never asserted in this investigation that Title VI entitles DOJ to information e unrelated to national origin discrimination. Title VI regulations and assurance agreements ntitle us, however, to access any information and facilities as DOJ may determine are pertinent to assess MCSOs compliance with Title VI and the implementing regulations. There is no requirement in the statute, regulations, or any DOJ policy that a Title VI nvestigation be conducted pursuant only to specific complaints. Nor does the Title VI Investigation Procedures Manual (Manual) mandate a specific process for conducting T investigations. As the Manual notes: he decision as to the best manner in which to approach a complaint will be based upon the specific allegations and issues raised in the complaint, whether it is an individual problem or one of general policy that will affect others in addition to the complainant, and whether Mou are dealing with a cooperative recipient." y Manual at 8. oreover, this investigation is in fact based in part on numerous credible and specific p allegations of national origin discrimination related to jail operations and police ractices, including, inter alia, stops, searches, uses of force, detention, arrests, and other police practices. At this stage in an investigation involving allegations of discriminatory policing, it has never been a requirement of Title VI or the policy of DOJ to b e more specific regarding individual complainants than we have been. The information we have already shared regarding the scope of our investigation certainly enables you to make a d Metermination that our requests are pertinent to ascertaining compliance with Title VI in CSO's police practices and jail operations. W e'd like to finally move this process along, Bob. Again, we believe that our 51 requests, including Request 16 which you know goes to police behavior during vehicular and pedestrian stops, will help us determine if MCSO is compliant with Title VI. To make tomorrow's meeting useful for all sides it was our desire to move to a discussion of the specific r equests which you believe to not implicate Title VI. Hopefully this response to your W "broader concern" gets us closer. Je look forward to seeing you tomorrow. udy O
F riginal Message rom: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:Bob.Driscoll@alston.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:20 PM T o: Preston, Judy (CRT); Saucedo, Luis E (CRT) Cc: Sierra, Laura; Frey, Brian S Jubject: RE: Meeting udy:
I t 'm back from my vacation and working on digging out from last week. As such, I wanted o offer a quick thought regarding your email below in advance of our meeting tomorrow. I r n my view, there is a key broader issue that needs to be discussed to inform a equest by request discussion of what DOJ is seeking. To date, DOJ has not provided any cpecific information about a complaint or complaints of national origin discrimination in the s ontext of police practices that could define the issues and scope of the Title VI police practices investigation of MCSO. I assume such allegations exist and were in fact the basis for DOJ opening this investigation. In the Title VI context, it is both normal practice and aonsistent with the Title VI investigations manual that subjects of Title VI investigations c Ire provided with a description of the complaint or complaints that are being investigated. n fact, the description of the complaint in the LEP context is one of the reasons we have Uistinguished the police practices and LEP investigations as being undertaken pursuant to 42 d p.S.C. Section 14141 and Title VI, respectively. It is these complaints that would define the roper scope of a Title VI inquiry. For example, as the Title VI manual itself recognizes, information relating to gender would be irrelevant to the investigation of a complaint r delating to race discrimination. As such, in order to discuss the appropriate scope of DOJ's Yocument requests under Title VI, we need to know what allegations are being investigated. oour email indicates that none of DOJ's requests are beyond the scope of Title VI, but some f the information requested does not appear to relate to national origin discrimination at Rll, much less to any specific complaints of national origin discrimination. See, e.g., a bequest # 16 (requesting "all policies, procedures and manuals . . ." including policies on randishing of firearms, detentions, and many other policies of general applicability). If DOJ is truly of the view that, without identifying a specific complaint or complaints or l dinking a request to a particular issue being investigated, Title VI entitles DOJ to any ocuments or policies of general applicability, even if unrelated to national origin discrimination, we hope you will clarify this position in the meeting. I certainly don't raise this issue to foreclose any possible outcomes, particularly insofar as we have not heard from your team directly yet, but I do feel that that addressing this central issue early in tomorrow's meeting provides the best chance for an amicable B resolution. Pob l.S. Brian Frey (an associate at A&B) will also need to be on the list at DOJ. Also, please met me know if you need social security numbers or any other information for Brian, Laura, or e. Thanks. O
F riginal Message Srom: Preston, Judy (CRT) [mailto:Judy.Preston@usdoj.gov] Tent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:33 PM Co: Driscoll, Robert; Saucedo, Luis E (CRT) Sc: Sierra, Laura Oubject: RE: Meeting k, great. O F riginal Message rom: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:Bob.Driscoll@alston.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:31 PM T o: Preston, Judy (CRT); Saucedo, Luis E (CRT) S Cc: Sierra, Laura ubject: RE: Meeting
J udy, I will be back in the office monday and will try to get you responses then. Laura and I will need to be put on the list. Some others may want to call in, but I' ll try to work out R whether that is necessary over the weekend. (obert N. Driscoll 202) 239 3470<2022393470> (w) (703) 850 5058<7038505058> (m) bob.dOiscoll@alston.com r F riginal message Trom: "Preston, Judy (CRT)" o: "Driscoll, Robert" , "Saucedo, Luis E (CRT)" C c: "Sierra, Laura" Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 18:23:39 GMT+00:00 Bubject: RE: Meeting Iob, on order to make Tuesday's meeting as efficient as possible, we would like to know which of ur requests you do not believe to be authorized by Title VI and which of our requests were already provided, in their entirety, to the plaintiffs in the Melendres case. Of the 51 requests made in our First Request for Production, we believe that the Melendres plaintiffs' aequests fully cover just 5 of our requests (6, 8, 12, 14, 29). We would like you to verify r t our Tuesday meeting that you have provided all of the documents responsive to these 5 requests to the Melendres plaintiffs. The documents that you provided with your June 14, 2010 letter to FCS (formerly COR) appear fully to satisfy our requests 46 and 48. In addition to some questions that we still have about the completeness of your production to t he Melendres plaintiffs, it is our belief that MCSO still needs to fully comply with the remaining 44 requests. We also intend to receive your agreement when we meet that the D ivision's attorneys, investigators, and consultants will be permitted to access MCSO's staff and facilities, which were identified on pages 3 4 of MCSO's June 14 letter (as well as the Self Surrender facility). We look forward to discussing this with you further on Tuesday. P slease also email me about who will be attending with you so that we can get you all through Jecurity. udy O F riginal Message rom: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:Bob.Driscoll@alston.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:57 PM T o: Preston, Judy (CRT); Saucedo, Luis E (CRT) S Cc: Sierra, Laura Aubject: Re: Meeting ccording to the az republic, that time works. R (obert N. Driscoll 202) 239 3470<2022393470> (w) (703) 850 5058<7038505058> (m) bob.dOiscoll@alston.com r F riginal message rom: "Driscoll, Robert"
To: "Preston, Judy (CRT)" , "Saucedo, Luis E (CRT)" < CLuis.E.Saucedo@usdoj.gov> c: "Sierra, Laura" Sent: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 10:26:00 GMT+00:00 ubject: Meeting H ow's Tuesday at 10AM? R Aobert N. Driscoll lston & Bird LLP 950 F Street, NW ( Washington DC 20004 202) 756 3470 (direct) (703) 850 5058 (mobile) Bob.email@example.com b Aio tlanta I Charlotte I Dallas I Los Angeles I New York I Research Triangle Valley I Ventura County I Washington www.alston.com * I Silicon
I****************************************************** oRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and ther taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. N ______________________________________________________ OTICE: This e mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally p rrivileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any eading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please (otify the sender immediately by telephone (404 881 7000) or by electronic mail n firstname.lastname@example.org), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.