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)

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 : [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

From: Sreeharsha, Kavitha (CRT) [mailto:[e-mail]]
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 : [phone]
Fax: [phone]

5

[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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