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
EXHIBIT 1 1 2 I J 4 5 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 Jolrn T. Masterson,Bar #001447 Joseplr J. Popolizio, Bar #011434 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 Norlh Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone : (602) 263-17 00 Fax: (602) 200-7801 wjones@shfirm.com j masterson @j s hfi rm. com popolizio@ shfirm. com 6 j 7 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff,s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 NO. CVl United States of America, 12 Plaintiff, 13 I4 15 16 V. O-O 1 878-PHX-GMS JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN T. MASTERSON AND JOSEPH J. POPOLIZIO Maricopa County, Ãrízona; Maricopa County Sheriff s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. t7 18 STATE OF ARIZONA i9 County of Maricopa ) ) ss. ) 20 John T. Masterson and Joseph J. Popolizio, being first duly swoln, depose 2l and state as follows: 22 1. 23 matters set We are over the age of 18 years, are competent to testify to the forth in this Affidavit, and make this Affidavit from our own personal 24 knowledge. 25 26 2. We are attorneys and partners with the law firrn of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. and represent the named Defendants. 27 1c) LC't 3. 1 October 2,2010, we f,rled our appearances in this matter and began 2 our defense of named Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffls Office ("MCSO") J Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio in the above-entitled action. We are familiar with the history of 4 the defense of this matter prior to our appearances and, specif,rcally for purposes related to 5 the cross motions for summary judgment, are familiar with the production of information, 6 documents and facility access provided to the Deparlment of Justice ("DOJ"), as well l the interviews of inmate and MCSO staff that the DOJ conducted as a result of the 8 cooperation 9 furlherance of the subject Title VI investigation. of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO pursuant 4. 10 and as to the DOJ's requests in Pursuant to the DOJ's requests, the DOJ toured six MCSO detention 11 facilities and were allowed to engage in inforrnal discussions with MCSO personnel I2 during those tours. 5. 13 The MCSO's production of documents pursuant to the DOJ's First for Documents and Information has been overwhelming. This production began I4 Reqr.rest 15 before and after the filing of this action and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, has t6 continued to date, and will continue in the future. 6. I1 The MCSO has provided the DOJ a1l requested MCSO policies (1101 18 pages), documents disclosed in the Melendres matter (approximately 12,850 pages), 808 19 pages 20 grievance and visitation processes, and 93 i gigabytes of documentation responsive to the 21 United States' First Request. In addition to this 13,669 pages and 931 gigabytes of 22 documentation, MCSO produced 23 Request. DOJ attorneys have reviewed the documents contained in those boxes on four 24 occasions at the offTces 25 2011. On many occasions, MCSO lawyers have made clear that the DOJ is welcome to 26 resurìe its review of these documents upon reasonable notice and within normal business 27 hours. ,l0 LO of documents in support of its LEP position paper, 11 documents i16 boxes of documents associated with in response to the First of MCSO's lawyers: December 17,2010 and January 3.4,5, 7. 1 To assist the DOJ in its evaluation of the voluminous documentation 2 and infonnation that MCSO has produced, MCSO attorneys have repeatedly offered to J I provide the DOJ assistance to evaluate the boxed and electronic ìnformation previously 4 provided in response to the DOJ's First Request for Documents and Inforrnation. 8. 5 The scheduling of the two hundred and thirty (230) combined inmate 6 and MCSO staff interviews was not particularly an easy task. It required reconciling the l schedules of MCSO and DOJ lawyers, as well as MCSO personnel. 8 personnel, attomeys, and paralegals facilitated as seamless an interview process 9 possible under the circumstances - At all times, MCSO as something for which the DOJ personnel openly 10 expressed appreciation. Most importantly, the interviews that the DOJ requested all 11 occutred. 9. I2 The interview process continued according to DOJ requests and with a few understandable limitations stemming from the 13 agreecl upon guidelines T4 necessary and expected security measures of the.¡ails. 10. 15 t6 The DOJ conducted inmate interviews outside the presence of MCSO personnel and attorneys as the DOJ requested, on dates and times that the DOJ requested. I] 11. The DOJ has also interviewed Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. Although 18 this interview was originally scheduled for January 28, 2011, the DOJ cancelled that 19 interview because of inclement weather in Washington, D.C., and rescheduled 20 February 2I 2011, however, but, with Sheriff Arpaio's accommodation, 22 February I1,201i. 17 for The DOJ did not complete Sheriff Arpaio's interview on February 11, it resumed and concluded on ,201 1. His two interviews exceeded previously agreed upon time limits, 12. 23 it MCSO's cooperation and allowed access to information has occuned will continue to occur. As the DOJ nears the conclusion of this Title VI 24 and 25 investigation, MCSO's pledge of cooperation, among other things, most likely will appear 26 in an agreernent between the parties intended to conclude this investigation and litigation. 13. 27 ao ¿õ ¡'\^¿^L^-- \_,rçtuugt I Since Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. became counsel of record on a^1^ ^^^-^-^+i^lll iluulillB ^L^¿ ^f ^^*-I^+^ z) zv IV. ¿l^^ Iullltgu Ctr^¿^^ rrab ..^^^:-.^l LIIç T--i¿^l ùtattrs l^^^ rçççtvçu -^¿Li- - Srrurr ur uuillPrçtç çuuPçlcil.lull i.^ I its investigation, including total access to MCSO staff, facilities, and documents, which is 2 precisely the injunctive and declaratory relief the lJnited States seeks in this lawsuit. In J a fact, in the Stipulation filed with this Court to extend the deadline for filing this Reply, the 4 United States acknowledged that MCSO has made "great strides" in its production, 5 much so that 6 eventually be mooted by MCSO's efforts, and contemplated reaching an agreement with 1 MCSO for future information requests. (Dkt. # 52.) I 9 it so was "confident" that MCSO's sulnmary judgrnent motion would 14. As an acknowledgement of the MCSO's continued cooperation, the DOJ proposed entering into an agreement that would identify the few items that the DOJ VI investigation. Although discussions regarding r0 deems left to accomplish in this Title 11 contemplated agreement date back at least to the beginning of February, 201I, and were 12 fornrally acknowledged in the Stipulation filed 13 delivered a draft of this proposed "go forward" agreement on t4 agreement outlines the tasks that the DOJ believes 15 limited follow-r.rp interviews and review of cerlain documents. The proposed agreement 16 also includes a reasonable tirne period t7 followed by a dismissal of this case. The MCSO is conf,rdent that 18 agreement which l9 shorlly. will on February 25,207I, it a the United States April 13,2011. The draft has left to accomplish, including in which to finalize the DOJ's investigation, it will enter into an lead to the conclusion of the Title VI investigation and this action FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT. 20 2l 22 23 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me thidffiay offu-,2071by 24 Masterson. 25 26 21 10 !- () Notary Public My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL t-t. t4r . \õ sneL-ÈY coFFEY *'*,üf*ï88Ëf eB'3i-êf :l: 4 John T. I h J. Popóliz 2 SUBSCRIBED AND SWO I J 4 J. Popolizio. 5 Notary Publi 6 1 8 My Commission Expires: t.r .rQ.\3 9 l0 11 t2 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 LO 25r8421.1 EOTTEV . SHELLEY¡ Stote of Ariao Noto-ry -P_ub_lic MARtcopA coú¡.ffyMARICOPA CÔIJNIY- ^ r-oryn. bxpir€s April 19,2Ol trXHIBIT 2 Page I of2 From: IOE POPOUZO Sent: Friday, February 04,2011 8:57 AM To: 'Sreeharsha, Kavitha (CRT)'; JOHN MASTERSON Cc: Shapiro, Avner (CRT); Gray, Peter (CRT); Hedrick, Nicole (CRT); Aminfar, Amin (CRT) Subject: RE: jail staff interviews Hello Kavitha, No thanks necessary. I am glad that all went so smoothly. We will get back to you as soon as poss¡ble regarding this request. Hopefully, we can actually have seasonable temperatures (70 or so) when you arrive next. Joe Joseph J. Popolizio, Esq. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L C 2901 N. Central Avenue. Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602-263-1741 Fax 602-200-7876 Email jpopolizio@jshfirrn.com From: Sreeharsha, Kavitha (CRT) [mailto:Kavitha.Sreeharsha@usdoj.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04,2017 7:56 AM To: JOHN MASTERSON; JOE POPOLIZIO Cc: Shapiro, Avner (CRT); Gray, Peter (CRT); Hedrick, Nicole (CRT); Aminfar, Amin (CRT) Subject: ja¡l staff interviews Dear John and Joe, Nicole informs us that last Friday and this week's interview schedule of MCSO staff was well organized. Thank you for facilitating I am writing to seek your facilitation of one extra day of interviews to occur on Monday Feb 14th. We would like to interview the rernainder of the Detentiorr Officers on the list we originally sent. This would still be wlthin the number of MCSO staff we set out to interview (50) on the jail investigation. We could follow the same logistics as our first day of DO interviews on this. Jan28th. lunderstandthattheseinterviewstookplaceattheTrainingFacility. Wewouldnotbeaccompaniedbyaconsultaut for these ínterviews. I am listing below the DOs I believe Nicole did not interview on Jan 28. We would like to interview I of these9below. ltsoundsliketheDOinterviewsarealittleeasiertoorganizebecausetheyareshorterandweareofcourse flexible as to order but would probably ínterview one per hour from 9am-6pnr with a lunch break. Since I will be in Phoenix all of next week, I would appreciate your confirmat¡on of this extra day but our COB today so I can go ahead and make my travel plans. Durango: Page 2 of 2 Bevin Gillespie H¡att Acosta Sa nti ago-Rivera Estrel la: Alarcon Pritch ard Ramirez Stewart Many thanks, l(avitha Sreeharsha Attorney Advisor Federal Coordination a nd Corrr pliance Section Cìvìl Rìghts Dìvision lJ.S. Departrrtent of Justice 202-6L6-8430 EXHIBIT 3 I 2 a J 4 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) 263-17 00 Fax: (602) 200-7801 5 wjones@jshfirm.com 6 j masters on@j shhrm. com j p op olizio @j s hfirm. com 7 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 NO. CVl United States of America, t2 Plaintiff, 13 t4 15 t6 t9 1 878-PHX-GMS AFFIDAVIT OF SERGEANT JAMES SEIBERT V. Maricopa County, Anzona; Maricopa County Sheriff s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. T7 18 O-O STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) County of Maricopa ) ss. 20 Sergeant James Seibert, being first duly sworn, deposes and states as 21, follows: 22 1. 23 I am over the age of 18 years, am competent to testify to the matters set forth in this Affidavit, and make this Affidavit from my own personal knowledge. 24 2. 25 I am a Sergeant with the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office ("MCSO") and have been employed for approximately 24 years. 26 27 28 3. As the Title VI investigation moved forward in January 2011, DOJ attorneys and jail consultants continued to interview inmates in the Maricopa County Jail 2s184s1.1 I system. I coordinated the inmate interviews that occurred 2010 and 2011 pursuant to the 2 requests of the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). 4. J 4 the DOJ with inmate rosters from which the DOJ selected interviewees. 5. 5 6 MCSO also reserved legal visitation rooms for the DOJ to conduct these inmate interviews. 6. 7 8 To facilitate the DOJ's inmate interview process, MCSO provided MCSO did not limit the length or the number of these inmate interviews, nor did it limit the availability of any inmate for interview. 7. 9 In the infrequent event that an inmate whom the DOJ randomly 10 selected was unavailable, the unavailability was due to circumstances such as a previously 11 scheduled medical visit or work shift of the particular inmate. 8. l2 jail On one occasion, on the morning of January 25,2011, an inmate at appeared for an interview, but needed a Spanish interpreter. As the DOJ did 13 Durango l4 not have an interpreter present as it had for other interviews, the inmate's interview was 15 postponed until that afternoon when an interpreter could be present. 9. t6 The interview process continued according to DOJ requests and t7 agreed upon guidelines with few understandable limitations stemming from the necessary 18 and expected security measures ofjails. 10. t9 20 The DOJ conducted inmate interviews outside the presence of MCSO personnel and attorneys as the DOJ requested, on dates and times that the DOJ requested. 1. 12. 27 1 22 in The DOJ conducted 59 inmate interviews in January 201 Thus, to of their Title VI investigation, interviews 24 assistance and cooperation of MCSO personnel and attorneys. fuitherance FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. 25 26 t James 27 28 2518451.1 a total of 145 inmate and all occurred with the date, the DOJ has conducted 23 I alone. I 2 SUBSCRIBED AND SwoRN before me Sergeant James Seibert. J 4 5 My Commission Expires: 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 15 T6 l7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OF DEBRA A. GERDY Publlc . Stote of Ar¡¿oncr \RICOPACOUNTY Comm. Expires April 20, 20 j 3 thi$a , æ /JWI ,2[rrby EXHIBIT 4 I .' Wil[arn R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 Johlr T, MastersorL Bar #007447 Joseph J. Popolizjo, Bar #017434 L J 4 5 JONES. SKËLTON & HOCHULL P.L.C. 2901 Nôrth Cennal Aveûue, Suite 800 Phognix. Arizona 85012 Telephoire: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7801 wiones@ishfirm-com imasterlo"n @i shfi rrr. conr 6 jpopotizioffishfirm.com 7 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffi Office and Joseph M Aipaio I I T.NTTED STATES DISTRICT COTIRT DISTRICT OF'ARIZONA l0 r1, No. cv United States of America, Plairltifl 1,2 l3 t4 15 l6 10.0 I878-PrÐ{-G1t{S AFFIDAVTT OF LM,UTENATIT DORIS CUIHANE v. Maricona Countv. Arizona. Maricoua Counw Sheriffs OfficE; ãnd Joseph M. Arpaio, in hig official capaci,ty æ Sheriffof Mari,öopa County, AnzonA Defendants. t7 r8 STATE OF l9 counry of ARIZONA ) Maricopu **' I 20 Lieutenaut Doris Culhane, being first duly slvorni deposes and states as 21 22 fol].orvs: L 23 set 24 2. to testi-ry to the matters I am ¿ Lieutenant with the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office ("MCSO") and have been employed for approximately 20 years. 3. n'7 28 18 years, am competent foÍ.h in this Affidåvit, and make this Affidavit fiom my oïm personal lcrowledge, 25 26 I am over the age of ln January and February 2t).7, MCSO coordinated fle interviews of both detention and patrol staff from âu affdy of duty assignments as ths Þepartrent of 1.51&44T-r 1 Justice (.DOJ.) requested ) co orrli 4 I æsisted i¡ n¿1i¡g tho se interviews. 4. -) in fi¡therauce 0f ie Tftle M investigation. Like the inmate interviews, the DOJ selected those staffmembôrs to interviçw, snd MCSO made the selected staffmembers available. 5. 5 In all, the DOJ rcçested and conducted 85 staff member 6 interviews, including interviews of 53 command staff (i.e., personnel holding thæ ran-k of 7 Sergeant and above) I 9 6. 17 The 53 command saffincluded 5 adminisråtive, patol staffmem.bers. On the detention 10 18 Lieutenants, I 11 supervisors and I civilian 7. L2 13 Sergeanq and side, the DOJ interviewed 4 Chiefs, 6 Captains, l8 Detention Officers; the DOJ also interviewed 2 civilian employee. On the law enforcement side, the DOJ interviewed 5 Chiefs, FI-IRTIMR AFFIANT NAUGHT. 15 )'7 Culhane 16 L7 STJBSCRtsED AND SWORN before me this& tuy of Lieutenant Doris Culhane. 19 20 2t detenti.o& snd Captains, 2 Lieutenants,2 Sergeants, 2 Volunteer Posse Members, a¡d 11 Deputies. t4 I8 3l My Comrni ssion Expires )) : NOlrrqYÞtJzuC.AFlælIA 23 24 25 26 27 28 251s447_t &u.-L ,2011 by I

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?