United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 30

REPLY to Response to Motion re 27 MOTION to Continue All Case Matters filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Dowell, Leigh)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 778-3700 L. Eric Dowell, SBN 011458 Kerry S. Martin, SBN 023728 Alec Hillbo, SBN 020185 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., #00504800 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 778-3700 Eric.Dowell@ogletreedeakins.com Ke r r y . M a r t i n @ o g l e t r e e d e a k i n s . c o m Alec.Hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M. Arpaio IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County sheriff's Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (together, "the MCSO Defendants"), through their undersigned counsel, submit this Reply in Support of their Motion for Continuance, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. On September 27, 2010 the MCSO Defendants moved for a short No. 2:10-cv-01878-GMS DEFENDANTS JOSEPH ARPAIO & MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (Expedited Consideration Requested) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. continuance on the ground that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors had voted to terminate Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart's ("Ogletree") Legal Services Contract with Maricopa County. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 778-3700 2. On September 28, 2010, Plaintiff, the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), filed an Opposition to the Motion. DOJ's arguments rest on faulty assumptions and ignore the rapid developments in this matter. 3. The MCSO Defendants have moved quickly to inform this Court of the issues surrounding its outside counsel. On September 17, 2010, Ogletree received a letter from Maricopa County Manager David Smith that purported to declare "null and void" Ogletree's representation of the MCSO Defendants in this matter. On September 20, 2010, Ogletree received a letter from the Director of the Maricopa County Office of Special Litigation Services, Richard Stewart, which re-appointed Ogletree to represent the MCSO Defendants in this matter. Two days later, on September 22, 2010, without the consultation or approval of Mr. Stewart, Ogletree received a second letter from Maricopa County Manager David Smith informing Ogletree that Maricopa County had terminated Ogletree's Legal Services Contract. This letter also stated that Ogletree's representation of the Sheriff and MCSO would cease on all matters, including this case, on Monday September 27, 2010. 4. In light of these fast-moving events, neither Ogletree nor the MCSO 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Defendants have had any certainty about who is representing, or has authority to represent, the MCSO Defendants. Both Ogletree and the MCSO Defendants made every effort to clarify this issue prior to September 27, the deadline for filing an Answer to the Amended Complaint. As soon as it became apparent that no clarification would occur before the filing deadline, the MCSO Defendants filed the pending motion. 5. Moreover, in the context of Maricopa County's termination of Ogletree's Legal Services Contract, Maricopa County made serious allegations that make it virtually impossible for Ogletree to continue as counsel of record. Ogletree attorneys will move to withdraw their appearances as soon as Maricopa County appoints competent substitute counsel for the MCSO Defendants and the MCSO Defendants agree to that appointment. 6. A short continuance would not unreasonably delay DOJ's suit. DOJ notified the MCSO Defendants of its investigation on March 10, 2009. However, taking 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 778-3700 virtually no action for well over a year, DOJ did not initiate this lawsuit until September 2, 2010. The MCSO Defendants' Response to DOJ's Motion for Summary Judgment is currently due on October 13; a three week continuance would merely push back that date until November 3. 7. Furthermore, contrary to DOJ's suggestions, the MCSO Defendants should bear no blame for this short delay. Maricopa County, not the MCSO Defendants, created this uncertainty by terminating Ogletree's contract. Indeed, the MCSO Defendants filed their Answer on September 28, 2010, while its Motion for Continuance was pending, and on the same date that DOJ complained about the filing deadline. In contrast, the other named defendant, Maricopa County, has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Amended Complaint. 7. On the other hand, without a continuance, the MCSO Defendants would 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. suffer serious prejudice. DOJ's lawsuit raises complex constitutional, statutory, and factual issues. DOJ has already moved for summary judgment. Given the lawsuit's complexity and procedural posture, the MCSO Defendants deserve to have competent counsel represent them throughout this litigation. A short delay would simply ensure that substitute counsel has adequate time to learn the issues and present a competent defense for the MCSO Defendants. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of October, 2010. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. By s/L. Eric Dowell L. Eric Dowell Alec Hillbo Kerry S. Martin 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Eric.Dowell@ogletreedeakins.com Kerry.Martin@ogletreedeakins.com Alec.Hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 778-3700 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 5th day of October 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrant: Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. Matthew Colangelo Peter S. Gray Laurie A. Gelman Amin Aminfar U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Michael M. Walker Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 Attorneys for the United States Thomas K Irvine Cynthia Renee Estrella Polsinelli Shughart PC 3636 N Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1942 Attorneys for Maricopa County 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. s/Glenda Ready 9236231.2 (OGLETREE) 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?