United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al
Filing
41
STATEMENT of of Facts in Support of their Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Index and Exhibits 1-4, # 2 Exhibit 5, # 3 Exhibits 6-8, # 4 Exhibits 9-18, # 5 Exhibits 19-22)(Popolizio, Joseph)
United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al
Doc. 41 Att. 3
EXHIBIT 6
Dockets.Justia.com
ArsroNaBIRDup
Thc Atlorrc Burlùng
950
Fssrs, Nrf,
20004- 140{
\rydlrng¡oq DC
2ú2-75Ç3300 Fu.2U2-75&3331
wrrw o¡slo¡ coí¡
ßoHN.mtco[
D¡ræt Dl¡l: ã12756il70
Þo¡lt:
DoD,ff ¡col@tslo¡¡oo
August 5,2010
YU
E-iv'IAIL (Plúlfs.Thomos@usdoi.
FIR,STC¿/.SS þ{AIL
gw)
The Honorable Thomas E. Perez Assistant AttomeY General civil Riehts Division U.S. Deparbent of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20003
Re:
3,20l0letter regarding DOJ investigation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title YI
Response to August
pu$¡uant to
Dear MEssr, Percz:
I write in response to your letler on behalf of the Civil Rigbts Division (,.Division') of the U.S. Deparhent of Justice ("DO.f) to counsel for the Maricopa òourty She¡iffs Office (*MCSO"), dated August 3, 2010' I.wish to respond to several of the poinæ raised in your letter as well as to higblight certain key issues regarding your assertiõn that MCSO has not cooperated with the Division's investigation rmder Title VI of rhe Civil Rights Act of 1964.
L
The Division is improperþ conflating its Title vI investigation into MCSO's jails wÍth its Section 14141 investigation into
MCSOts Police Practlces.
According to your letter, the Division apparently contends that MCSO "is not in compliance withits obügations rmder Title VL . . to cooperate i¡ the investigation of altegø national origin discrimination undertaken by the [Division]." MCSO sÚongly disagrees with this contention. The Division's allegation totally ignores the important distinction between DOJ's Title VI investigation, conducted by the Coordination and Review Section C'COR'), and DOJ's investigation under the Violent Crime Contol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. $ l4l4l ("Section 14141'), conducted by the
Special Litigation Section.
As you arre no doubt awa¡e, Title VI ar¡d Section l4l4l are distinct siatutes, each witb diffsrent pruposes, different provisions, and different enforcement mechanisms'
ffi
s. Ìlar Yst . Rcca¡rà Treg¡c. Srtru
V!¡¡øy'
vønn Goüy.
lYËb@E oa D
c
Tbe Honorable Thomas E.Perez Aug¡¡st 5,2010
Page2
Yoru lettr ignores this fact and begins witb the unwa¡ranted assumption that Title VI-a fr¡nding statute prohibiting (for purposes of this investigation) intentional national origin discrimination in federally-funded progan*somenow requires coopetation with the Division's broad a¡d illdefined Section l4l4l investigation, which seeks information on nearly every aspect of law enforceme,lrt policy and practice by the MCSO'
From the initiation of this investigation, DOJ has consistently made it clear that the portion of DOJ's investigation that falls uuder Title VI relates only to MCSO's jails. The Division's Ma¡ch 10, 2009 letter to MCSO announcing the opening of the Division's investigation specifically distinguished betwen iæ investigation into þatterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and rmcon*itutional searches and seizures" by MCSO, which falls under Section l4l4l and is handled by the Special Litigation Section, and the Division's investigation into national origin discrimination related to allegations that MCSO'Tail[edJ üo provide meaningfi¡t aocess to MCSO service,s for limited English proficiency (LEP) individr¡als" in its jails, which clearly falls under Title
(
r)
VI and isinvestigated by CORI
DOJ subsequently reiærated this distinction in letters to MCSO. On March 25, 2009, Shanetta Cutlar, then Chief of the Special Litigation Sectior¡ sent a letter to MCSO containing DOJ's "First Request for Documents and Information" and also attaching a letter from Menily Friedlander, Chief of COR.z According to Ms. Cutlar, Ms. Friedlander's letter "provide[d] additional details regarding tlnse aspects of our írwestigatíon related to prohìbltio¡ts øgøinst natíonal orìgìn dìsøimìnatlon'a Thus, Ms. Cutla¡'s letter expressty indicated that aspects of the Division's investigation not addressed in Ms. Friendlander's letter do not relate to prohibitions against national origin
{
discrimination under Title VI.
This fact was confirmed by Ms. Friedlander's letter, in nùich she indicated that COR was "initiating an investigation of a complaint allegog discrimination on the basis of national origin" by MCSO in lhe operation of its jails.l As Ms. Friedlander noted, *COR is responsible for investigating complaints against recipients of federâl financial assistance from DOJ r:nder Title VI . . . and the nondiscrimination provisions of the Ornnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.'5
Thus, pursuant to both Ms. Cutlar's letter and Ms. Friedlander's letter, it is clear that the only part of the Division's investigalion of MCSO that relates to Title VI is the
I ExhibirAat l.
2
Ms. Cutlar's lener is attached hereto as Exhibit
B.
Ms. Friedlander's letter ig attached hereto as Exbibit
c
3
4 5
Þùibir B ar I (emphasis added). Exhib¡t c at L
Id atz.
Tbe Honorable Thomas E. Perez
August 5,2010
Page 3
jailg'c As sucb investigation of allegations of n¡tional origin discrimination i¡ MCSO's tU" ooli basis upon lhich the Division could even poæntiatly contend tbat MCSO is not in comitiance rmder Title vI is witb respect to MCSo's coopera!91with coR's investigation of Mcso's jails. An4 as ñrlly ad&essed below, Mcso bns ftlly cooperãted with COR's invastigation and continues 30 stand wi[ing to fi¡rther assist in that investigation.
u.
has ñrlþ cooperated with coR's TÍtle VI investigation and stands reaüy to provide frrrther asefutance.
Mcso
contary to your a¡¡sert¡on in your August 3,2010letter. MCSo has fr¡[y cooperated wittl COR's Title VI investigation into MCSO's jails. Further, MCSO
remains committed to such cooperation going forward'
In her Ma¡ch 25,2$9letter to MCSO, Ms. Friedlander requested that MCSO provide COR \ilith "a position statement rasponding to the allegations of discrimination" äutüned in the letter relating to LEP services in MCSO's jails.T As your August 3,2019 letter rightly noted, MCSO has provided tbe position st¿temeNrt to COR as requested. _It is atso significant to not that, despiæ MCSO's request in the positioa stat,ment that DOJ contapiMCSO if DOJ "ba[dJ any questions or would like any additional informationn related to the Title VI investigation, DOJ has not made any additional requests for information from MCSO since MCSO zubmitæd the position paper.
ln her March 25,2009letter, Ms. Friedlander also requested thât MCSO provide the inforr¡ation requested in paragraphs 43-51 of the Division's "First Request for Documents and Infonnatíon.' MCSO has complied with this request by submitting more than 800 pages of responsive docr¡ments,in conjrmction with iæ position paPer.
It is significant to nole that, in ligbt of the fact that Ms. cutlar and Ms. Friedlandcr bóth ageed that Ms. Friedlander's letter add¡essed tbe Division's Title VI investigation" MCSO understands that paragraphs 43-51 of the Division's "First Request for Doõuments and lnformation" ars the requests that relate to the Title VI investigation' MCSO ru¡derstands the remaining requests to relate to the Division's sepatate Section l4l4l investigation. Given the distinction between the Title VI investigation and the Section 1414i investigation discussed in Section I of this letter, MCSO understands that the Division does not and could not, as a matter of law, contend that MCSO's dEcision
6 Tl¡e
rbe Division now contends that Titlc VI somçhow mandates tbat MCSO must cooPemte with the Divis¡on's Secrion l4l4l investigatiort MCSO would respectfirlþ request that the Division provido its legal basis for such a contentlon. In MCSO's view, conflating compliance obligations under Title VI with a seParate bveshgæion under Section 14l4t would be an absoluteþ novel legal theory whrch has no supporl in the s¡atuþq the implementing regtlations, or caso law.
7
governmenl's investigation of MCSO police practices ¡mder Section 14l4l is not prrsuant to Title VL Asyouarewellaware,section 1414l doesuotgnnttlreDivisioasuþoenaPou'er. Totheextenttbat
Exbibir
c
at 3.
The Honorable Thomas E. Persz August 5,2010 Page4
r/
I ür
not to respond to document requests nade pursuant to a Section l4l4l investigation constih¡ted a violation of Title VI. Give¡r this &ct, and given that Section l4l4l does not provido the Division with zubpoena lþs,er, MCSO continues to assert its right not to rply to the Division's reques[s that MCSO produce documents related only to the
Division's Section 14141 investigdion.
Thus, it is clear that MCSO has complied with Ms. Friedlander's requests for information related to the Title VI investigation and that aoy obligation to cooperate has been satisfied because every request made in the Title VI investigation has been complied with- To tbe extent that tbe Division believe,s tbat tbere are deficiencies in MCSO's efforæ to provide the inforrration requested MCSO wottld Seek an opportunity to meet and confer with the Division in order to identifr vùat shortcomings the Division believes
exist.
IU.
The Division's threat to brlng a federal suit is prcmature'
Your August 3,2Ol0leuer indicates rhat ye¡ u'ill "initiats civil litigation under VI to compel compliance" as of August 17,2010, This th¡eat of suit is premature Title given MCSO's willingness to cooperate with the Division's Title VI investigation" As discwsed above, MCSO has made good faith efforts to coopeÌate witbtbe Division's Title VI investigation. Furthermore, MCSO stands ready and willing to Eeet and confer with the Division to address any ooncems that the Division migbt have with regard to MCSO's cooperation and production of documents related to invastigation of the complaint that forms the basis of the Title VI investigæion. Thus, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. $ 42.108(d), there cannot bave been a detrminstion on the part of the Division that compliance oannot be obained by voluntary means. As zuch, to the extent that the Division believes tha¡ a feder¿l civil suit to compel production of documents and information is authorized by law,8 such action would not yet be permissible under 28 C.F.R $ 42.108(d) bause MCSO is commited to voluntary compliance with the Division's Title VI investigation.
IV.
DOJ has no authority to compel cooperation with its Sect¡on investigation.
l4l4l
Section l4l4l does not provide the Division with adminisfative subpoena po.trr or the autbority to conduct interviews of MCSO. Section l4l4l thus places DOJ in the position of every other civil litigant. If DOJ has a good faith basis for believing a pattern and practice of constitutional or other violations of law exist, DOJ can file suit on that basis. This limitation on the Division's invaligative authority under Section l4l4l
E I woutd uote in this regard tbat MCSO is not awa¡e o{, and your leter does not cite, ury federal søtute which would authorize DOJ to bring a suit to compel compliance with a Titlc VI iovestigation under these
girpu¡nstances.
The Honorable Thomas E. Perez
August 5,2010
Page 5
reflecs a reasoned decisiou by Congress to balance tbe iuvestigative needs ofthe Division against the rigbts and interests of targets of DOJ investigations'e
Through your letter, the DivÍsion seeks to shoe-horn a broad police praotices investigation under Section l4l4l into a relatively narrow Title VI investigation relating to LEP services in jails. This Ís a transparent attempt to circumveut Congress's limitation of tbe Division's investigative authority in Section l4l4l cases. The Division's overeachi.g thr¡s violates the core sepæation of powers principles that are at the heart of ow system of governnent. Much as the Division may fiDd it distasteñ¡I, in the context of SestÍon l4l4l investigations, the Divisioq like every other civil litigant, canr¡ot take wrfettered, pre-suit discovery in the hopes of finding the basis upon which to eventually build a complain! which is exactly what your letter seelçs to do in this case.
Should the Division now contend conffiry to all prior comnunications on the topic, that some portion of the Special Litigation Section's Section l4l4l investigation falls within the scope of Title VI, the Division would need to provide significant clarification to MCSO. The Division would necd to a¡ticulate the basis upon which the Division asserts Title VI jrrisdiction over a police pattern and practice investigation, particularly in light of the faot that MCSO field operatíons a¡e no longer operating rmder a2B7(g) conüact The Division would also need to a¡ticulate which portions of its First Request for Docì¡ments and Information purportedly fall within the scope of Title VI as relating to allegations of intentional racial or national origin disctimination and detail the allegations of discriminatory conduot, as it has with the jail LEP issue.¡o
As it stands now, the Division's desperate attemPt to find a way to compel MCSO to produce documenls related to a Section 14l4l investigation" even tbough the Division clearly lacks such compulsory pows, demonstrates a disregard for ñ¡ndamental limitations on federal authority in our systern of governrnent. It is particularly disappointing that the Divisioq which of all components of DOJ should be wary of wide-
t hdeed, it rs stange
that the Division apparently interprets its lack of subpoeoa power in Section
l414l
çases not as a ¡sù¡ct¡on on ils powø, but as an uvitatiou to ørgage in ørte blanche discovery requests of all aspects oflaw eoforcemenl policies and practices without the focus, Judicial supervisioL õ¡d identification of a claim that a subpoena would require. It would sem rxlre likeþ that tbe draften of 14l4l contønplated thaq as ¡n most civil litigauoD, discovery would commence affer, pursuant !o FRSP Rule I l, the Division conducted some legitimaæ, independent investigation in a Section t4l4l prior Eling a complaint. By proceeding in this manner, some good faith basis of for allegations of vrrongdoilg would have lo exist prior to the Division publicþ smearing the reputation of the subjea of ûre mvestigation by declaring the mere openÍng of the rnvestigation a praise'worthy "accomplishment" as the DOJ has done
o
in lhis case. l0 For exampte, it is ctear that paragnph t6 ofôe requsts, requesting "all policies, procedures and manuals" would include a wide variety of documenB that have absohrleþ no conceivable relevance or rplat¡ou to ury allegation ofintent¡onal racial or national origin discrimination. Such unreasonabþ broad document regucsts are rmpermissible rn the context of a Title VI investigation. ,See Uniled Stares v. Htris Methodist Fort Worth,ll0 F 2d 94 (5¡h Cb 1992).
The Honorable Thomas E.Perez August 5,2010
Page6
ra¡rgng governmental assertions of power r¡ntethered to stahrtory and constitutional limitations, would engage in such conduct.
\-J
tl
V.
The Division has more than sufficient evldence to evaluate MCSO'g police practices.
Seüing aside the clear distinction between Section l4l4l and Title VI, as a practical matter, DOJ has more than enough information to evah¡ate whether or not "discriminatory policing" has occr¡rred in Maricopa Cor¡nty, to tbe qrtent that allegations of such conduct for the basis of the Section 14141 investigation. Indee{ ít is difücult to imagine a mor Eansparent Sheriffs Office in this regard.
SheritrArpaio routinely announces his crime supprassion s$/eeps in advance of such operations. Based upon these announcements, the ACLU, lvfALDEF, other advocacy groups, and cormtless television media outlas have filmed MCSO personnel enforcing the law (including immigration related laws) on hrmd¡eds of occasions. The bottom line is that MCSO's enforcement of immigration-related laws is no secreL
Moreover, the Division has already gained aooess to voluminous information, including arrest records, that MCSO produced it Melendres v. Arpaío,No. CV-07-02513 6ft. eriz filed July 16, 2008), acase which involves allegAions of racial profiling. In additior¡ a¡l a part of an agreement reached with cormsel for MCSO in that case, the Division has access to the deposition transcripts of a nrunber of high level MCSO
employees.
{
In addition, the Division has conducûed its own investigations in Maricopa Corurty, including numerous meetings witb local individuals and advocacy groups. In fac! the Division B'ent so far as to set up a 1-800 number to solicit complaints against the MCSO from Maricopa County residents.
Furthermore, until quite recentl¡ immigration enforcement activities of MCSO were conducted under a Section 287(9) agreement wittr Immigfation and Cusûoms Enforcernent ("ICE"). ICE conducted its own review of MCSO's immigration enforcement practices and did not find any evidence of racial profiling. To the exte¡rt that the Division wishes to obtain ICE's report on this iszue, it should be easily obtainable as MCSO obtained a copy through a routine FOIA request. Given the weallh of available information about MCSO's policing policies and practices that has already been obtained by the Division or is readily available to the Divisioru it is apparent that if tbe basis for a Section l4l4l suit existed, that basis should have been clear to the Division long ago. If that is the case, Section l4l4l provides a clearvehicle by which the Division can sue MCSO. If no such basis eústs, however,
The Honorable Thomas E. Pe,tez
August 5,2010
PageT
perhaps it is time fo¡ DOJ to stop its public relations campaign against SheriffArpaio and
MCSO.
Conclusion
I appreciate the Division's consideration of the various iszues discussed herein. Should the Division wish to schedr¡le a time to meet and confer regarding any conoems that the Division has about MCSO's production of documents and infomration relaæd to the Title VI investigation, please do not besitate to contact me.
Given your threatened deadline to file suit as of August 17,2010, MCSO requests
and would appreciate your or your designee's prcmpt response in addressing the various questions posed herein. Also, as a courtesy, I would request that you disbibute this letter ùo the same list of media outlets to which you distributed your Augrst 3, 2010 letter so that MCSO's respotu¡e can recive the sa¡ne as¡ount of publicity as your initial letter.¡l
'
MCSO looks forward to continuing its cooperation witb the Division's Title VI investigation.
Cc:Eric Dowell, Ogletee Deakins Asheesh Agarwal, Ogletree Deakins
Judy heston, Special Litigation Section Mark Kappelhofl Acting Chief, Coordination and Review Section
ll I noted with interesl lùat thesc outleB had copies of tbe letter nçarly simultaneous w¡th my rece¡F of from your assisant v¡a email,
il
(r
Exhibit A
(
U.
S,
Deporu6t of Juut¡cs RiFb Divisiø
C¡vil
AIW qltÌ* â'r,laol/
Ø.ßl
^ttoilq
tþttlÃgt¿¡\
DCmtt0
lilAR
I ()
æ{B
YTaFIBSCÍíASS¡MêrL,
ShaitrIoacph Arpaio
Ìvfcicopa Cor¡uty Sbcriff s Ofrco
l00WcstWashinglon Suiþ 1900 Phoroùr, AZ. E5003 RB: hvestigatio¡ of ÞgMFiccPa 9ormV Shldff
s
Otrce
DerShøiffArpaio;
Tbis is to inftrm pn that úe Uuited States Dpttn,at of Iustice is comencing on iuvætigation of the lvfæicopa Cormty SheriFs Offic (IvICSOJ pursuæt to lbc pattem or practice provisious pf tbc Viotent Clbe Conüol ad I¿w Bnforcemcnt Apt of 1994, 42 U.S-C. md üe omibru Gimo contol antt safe sbcets Adl of 1968, 42 $ r¿r¿r i"suaion àZegd fsafe SteÊE Aef), ud prrsumt b bo probibitions against national origm Ú.S.C $ discflniuüon io fiUu V¡ of the Civíl Rieþæ Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C' $$ 2000d !o 2000d./
l4t4l)
(:fÏde W) anrl üe Safo Sbects Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 3?89d(c). Ou bvestigation will foq¡s ou iltege¿ paúos orpractices of disodmÍnatorypolice practices æd unconstin¡tionel sea¡cùes md søãr"o'.oneooæA'Uy üe MCSO, md on allegalious ofndiooal origin discriminatio4 inchding frihue Ûo provitle neæiafrrt accss to Mcso seilvics fsr linitd Fnglisb pmficicot (tßF)
indivült¡als.
¡¡ conduoting üc invcstigation" we will see&to determinewbctber there re violation¡ of of the ¿¡ovs lcws Uy tUe I\4CSO. lvYe b¡ve not reached any conchrsions about tbe subjcct matter ofrci¡ls want to orPratÊ hc MCSO tlu io"*t¡gatioo- IVe beliwe thât 1ou and otbe,rMCSO co¡Ssþú;/iü the requireoents of the Coútitutioo and federal law. During the cor¡æe of otr invrstigÉion, we will conside¡ all ¡elevsot ilfomstioa, pÛtioúuly tbe cfforts the MCSO bas rmdøAlcm to ensure corapliæce with feder¿l law. We also wíll offer to provide tbat recommeodatio* oo *uyr to imprrove pnacticcs and pmcod¡res, as aplopriato- ÈovidBd inïe$igat¡sn, if we csûclude thât tùere se not systemio ttu À¡CSO cooperatcs fully witbow rhnt we re closing tbe violations of consti¡¡douai orotùcr federal rigb6, wo will notify 1ou
{" .r
inrredígption [,ontheotherhmdrwooonchdothcrocssuchviol¡¡tion¡,wewilliuñnyouof ûe c"dÍ¡gp æd ',trÉìTt to wort wiü tbs MCSO b nocúy uy soch violations. h addilio, we wiltidrotitøyfinæcial, teù¡cal, orotberassistæûo ütlhitcd Stahsmaybc úlcto pnovide m a¡s¡* üs MCSO in couccting ùe idûtiûd alefic¡æies.
Our enfoæcmeotof úsVioleirt GimeCoûol odLswBnforo@{ Aøof 1994bas a rmíety of stato Ðd local law enñ¡ocoeot ageûcies, both lrgo æd c¡onll, j¡risdidions snoh æ New Yodç C¡Iifui¿,New lemsy, Gsrgía' ths Di¡ùict of Coh¡¡nbis, úd Ohio. In neaty fiûea yece of enftrcing this stamr ûÊ geod åíü çfus of statc æal locsl jruísdicdons worùiugwitbru b¡vc eo¡bled ru mttínetyto ¡esolvo ourclainswitboutreffitingb co¡fstc¿ tit¡gatiot S/e h¡ve h¡d sír¡ils'suæss adùassing clains of rational cigin '
invotved
b
disc¡imindionmderTltleVl andüs SafeshtsEAct WecocowagethIi/CsOto
coopem¡e
wilhouimætigptio¡¡'rd ca!.assu¡c þùatwewill ssck1smi¡iírizsmjpomüal disnrytion or¡r dorg msy baræ on tbe operatioas of the MCSO. Our Spccial Litleario¡ Scctio¡ will be
bandtingthe in'estigÊtion incoope¡aÎÍon withüe Coordinátio¡ and Rsviett Sec*ion and wiU
conhA¡ourofrcoto¿¡scussúOnøCsl4s. ThoCbiefoftbssPoûialLitigatìonSecûion' Sbæeth Y. G¡lar, may be reacüFd.É (2@) tl4{255.
Sinccrely,
"4ryry
.AqdrgrvTbouas
IÆc{ta King Aoti¡g Assistmt Atto¡nP,Y Gqeral
I
CqutyAtbocY
MaicopaOomtY
Max T9ilson
Chairman, Boud of Comty Supervisors
MuicopeCounty
Ths Honorable Dime J. Humeteil¡a
Slates AtûoneY Distrist ofA¡izona
l}rited
i
Exhibit B
U.S. Department of Jusdce
CivilRigþDivísion
tt
ÐJ 207-s-8
SYC;DHl{:ÀÄ:tG.;Pjc
ÐdalltÅert&llr8.án'PflÙ
950
fuurt¡l,¿anlt ,lvøatt,
20530
W
v4'¡tùgtatDc
March
25,
2009
YI.â, EITEGIRO$IC ÀrfD
g'g'
l'lAIq
Clarice McCormick, Esg'
Maricopa CountY ÀtÈorneY's Office 222 North CenÈral Avenue
Suite
Phoeníx, AZ 85004
RE¡
1100
Dear Mg. McCormlck:
office,e (MeSo) appreciate the Marícopa County gherÍff,gwe renew our and pledge to cooPeraÈe with our investigation' a fair' obJect'lve and comrn-iEment to conáùct tshe investigatlon-in Ae we dlscusgeá, encloged pleaee find our ie efficient, **ur. encrosed oFireE RequesE for Document's aná-iåformatio"f , -*:? ; õ;;å-lã te ãi- erom r¡errnv Fr1ed13"1:::-- 91" I "" J;äffi;;";-!ià nãvrew secgión, which provides addftÍonal ": Í " :l: Ë
We
-Li
t_-- n o
-^'l
^¡
scrimínation'
reguest, Ehat you produce all requeeÈed documents and any ma¡erials by May 1, ZôOg.- A6 îe díecueãed, pl'eaee advise if ofourrequegEais.unctear.Pleahavê leoincludeanyrelaEwlsh_us Èo eea regueeted, you ed addl¡,ionar m"terlãr ,e-may no¿ -buc delLvered tso consider. Uateriàir Eent: electronicaliy should be should amrn.a+in¿"r-o,.sáãî-ãov.,--¡¡återfáit ¡"f"ä sen¿ by hard copy following address: aE the ffi
We
-
Trfal AEtorneY Special' litigat'ion Sectlon CÍvtl Righte Divislon
601 D SEreet, NW WaehingEon, DC 2O0O4
Amln Amínfar
WerelterateourofferÈomeeÈ$,iÈhyouandMCsoorríwourd you cial" uo d1ecues our ír,.,.ã"iig"t,ion. prease ret us }¡now if your iiL" i" schedulã *eeãittg. Thaf¡k you in advance for
"
f
-_-.,
'If you or MCSO aüaft' have any questione cont,lnued cooperatl.on, or concern" tug.idtng the fóregoing, pleaøe.dg 1ot heeiEaÈe to Weiee at' (2021 contacË ug, you may reach'DepuÈy õftfét Danfel 6L5-6594, or ne at (2021 5L4-6255'
t,a Y. Cr¡tlar
Speclal LiEigation gectlon
Enclosures
Í E.)
NSTTBSÍIGATION OF 1É IûARICOPA COINT$T ggERIEtr'S OFFICE
FrRsT
REOLEST FOR DOC[I!!BNT8 ¡lND INTOnUÀTION
of aLL of the dbcumentg and maÈeriale 1, 2OO8' to Ehe dat'e of production' For informati
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?