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)

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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