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

Filing 55

STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Reply to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment re 54 Reply by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4)(Popolizio, Joseph)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7801 wjones@jshfirm.com jmasterson@jshfirm.com jpopolizio@jshfirm.com Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 United States of America, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. 17 19 NO. CV10-01878-PHX-GMS Defendants, through counsel undersigned, submit their Supplement Statement of Facts in Support of their Reply to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 1. The scheduling of inmate and MCSO staff interviews was not particularly an easy task. (See Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of John T. Masterson and Joseph J. Popolizio) 2. It required reconciling the schedules of MCSO and DOJ lawyers, as well as MCSO personnel. (Id.) 3. At all times, MCSO personnel, attorneys, and paralegals facilitated as seamless an interview process as possible under the circumstances – something for which 28 2518503.1 1 the DOJ personnel openly expressed appreciation. 2 exchange between Joseph J. Popolizio and Kavitha Sreeharsha dated February 4, 2011) 3 4. (Id.) (See Exhibit 2 – E-mail As the Title VI investigation moved forward in January 2011, DOJ 4 attorneys and jail consultants continued to interview inmates in the Maricopa County Jail 5 system. (See Exhibit 3 – Affidavit of Sergeant James Seibert) 6 7 5. the DOJ with inmate rosters from which the DOJ selected interviewees. (Id.) 8 9 6. MCSO also reserved legal visitation rooms for the DOJ to conduct these interviews. (Id.) 10 11 To facilitate the DOJ’s inmate interview process, MCSO provided 7. MCSO did not limit the length or the number of these inmate interviews, nor did it limit the availability of any inmate for interview. (Id.) 12 8. In the infrequent event that an inmate whom the DOJ randomly 13 selected was unavailable, the unavailability was due to circumstances such as a previously 14 scheduled medical visit or work shift of the particular inmate. (Id.) 15 16 9. On one occasion, on the morning of January 25, 2011, an inmate at Durango jail appeared for an interview, but needed a Spanish interpreter. (Id.) 17 10. As the DOJ did not have an interpreter present as it had for other 18 interviews, the inmate’s interview was postponed until that afternoon when an interpreter 19 could be present. (Id.) 20 11. The interview process continued according to DOJ requests and 21 agreed upon guidelines with few understandable limitations stemming from the necessary 22 and expected security measures of jails. (Id.) 23 12. The DOJ conducted inmate interviews outside the presence of MCSO 24 personnel and attorneys as the DOJ requested, on dates and times that the DOJ requested. 25 (Id.) 26 27 13. The DOJ conducted 59 inmate interviews in January 2011 alone. (Id.) 28 2518503.1 2 1 14. Thus, to date, the DOJ has conducted a total of 145 inmate 2 interviews in furtherance of their Title VI investigation, and all occurred with the 3 assistance and cooperation of MCSO personnel and attorneys. (Id.) 4 15. In January and February 2011, MCSO coordinated the interviews of 5 both detention and patrol staff from an array of duty assignments. (See Exhibit 4 – 6 Affidavit of Lieutenant Doris Culhane) 7 8 16. Like the inmate interviews, the DOJ selected those staff members to interview, and MCSO made them available. (Id.) 9 17. In all, the DOJ requested and conducted 85 staff member 10 interviews, including interviews of 53 command staff (i.e., personnel holding the rank of 11 Sergeant and above). (Id.) 12 18. The 53 command staff included 5 administrative, 31 detention, and 13 17 patrol staff members. (Id.) 14 19. On the detention side, the DOJ interviewed 4 Chiefs, 6 Captains, 18 15 Lieutenants, 1 Sergeant, and 18 Detention Officers; the DOJ also interviewed 2 civilian 16 supervisors and 1 civilian employee. (Id.) 17 18 20. Captains, 2 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants, 2 Volunteer Posse Members, and 11 Deputies. (Id.) 19 20 On the law enforcement side, the DOJ interviewed 5 Chiefs, 8 21. The DOJ has also interviewed Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. (See Exh. 22. Although this interview was originally scheduled for January 28, 1) 21 22 2011, the DOJ cancelled that interview because of inclement weather in Washington, 23 D.C., and rescheduled it for February 11, 2011. (Id.) 24 23. The DOJ did not complete Sheriff Arpaio’s interview on February 25 11, 2011, however, but, with Sheriff Arpaio’s accommodation, it resumed and concluded 26 on February 17, 2011. (Id.) 27 28 24. His two interviews exceeded previously agreed upon time limits. (Id.) 2518503.1 3 1 2 25. MCSO's response to the United State's First Request for Production of Documents and Information is overwhelming. (Id.) 3 26. In addition to the 13,669 pages of documentation and a terabyte hard 4 drive containing 931 gigabytes, the MCSO also made available 116 boxes of documents 5 produced in response to the First Request. (Id.) 6 27. DOJ attorneys have reviewed documents the contained in those boxes 7 on four occasions at the offices of MCSO’s lawyers: December 17, 2010 and January 3, 8 4, 5, 2011. (Id.) 9 28. On many occasions, MCSO lawyers have made clear that DOJ is 10 welcome to resume its review of these documents upon reasonable notice and within 11 normal business hours. (Id.) 12 29. To assist the DOJ in its evaluation of the voluminous documentation 13 and information that MCSO has produced, MCSO attorneys have offered to provide the 14 DOJ assistance to evaluate the boxed and electronic information previously provided in 15 response to the DOJ’s First Request for Documents and Information. (Id.) 16 30. MCSO's cooperation and allowed access to information has occurred 17 and will continue to occur. (Id.) 18 31. As the DOJ nears the conclusion of this Title VI investigation, 19 MCSO's pledge of cooperation, among other things, will appear in an agreement between 20 the parties intended to conclude this investigation. (Id.) 21 32. Since Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. became counsel of record on 22 October 2, 2010, the United States has received nothing short of complete cooperation in 23 its investigation, including total access to MCSO staff, facilities, and documents, which is 24 precisely the injunctive and declaratory relief the United States seeks in this lawsuit. (Id.) 25 33. As an acknowledgement of the MCSO's continued cooperation, the 26 DOJ proposed entering into an agreement that would identify the few items that the DOJ 27 deems left to accomplish in this Title VI investigation. (Id.) 28 2518503.1 4 1 34. Although discussions regarding a contemplated agreement date back 2 at least to the beginning of February, 2011, and were formally acknowledged in the 3 Stipulation filed on February 25, 2011, the United States delivered a draft of this 4 proposed “go forward” agreement on April 13, 2011. (Id.) 5 35. The draft agreement outlines the tasks that the DOJ believes it has 6 left to accomplish, including limited follow-up interviews and review of certain 7 documents. (Id.) 8 36. 9 which to finalize the DOJ’s investigation, followed by a dismissal of this case. (Id.) 10 11 The proposed agreement also includes a reasonable time period in 37. The MCSO is confident that it will enter into an agreement which will lead to the conclusion of the Title VI investigation and this action shortly. (Id.) 12 DATED this 26th day of April, 2011. 13 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 14 15 By /s/Joseph J. Popolizio William R. Jones, Jr. John T. Masterson Joseph J. Popolizio 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2518503.1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 COPY e-mailed this 26th day of April, 2011, to: 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, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for the United States Michael M. Walker Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for the United States Thomas K. Irvine Cynthia R. Estrella Polsinelli Shughart, P.C. One East Washington, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Maricopa County /s/Joseph J. Popolizio 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2518503.1 6

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?