Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al

Filing 440

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 409 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants may ask which family members were supported as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, but may not inquire into the immigration status of the Expungement Plaintiffs family members or other efforts of the Expungement Plaintiffs to obtain work.Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/24/2016.(TCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Puente Arizona, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13

No. CV14-1356 PHX DGC
ORDER

v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et
al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On January 22, 2016, the Court entered an order addressing several discovery

16

issues. Doc. 373. Plaintiffs seek clarification and partial reconsideration of the order.

17

Doc. 409. Defendants have filed a response as ordered by the Court. Docs. 414, 429.

18

The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

19

A.

20

Plaintiffs argue that Expungement Plaintiff Cervantes Arreola should not be

21

deposed again because she answered all questions in her deposition other than those

22

where she asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege and questions concerning family

23

members and efforts to obtain employment (discussed below). Doc. 409. Defendants

24

respond that Ms. Cervantes Arreola was slow in answering several questions and

25

unreasonably delayed Defendants’ ability to complete the deposition. Doc. 429 at 3-5.

26

The Court directed Defendants to provide specific examples. Doc. 414 at 2.

Cervantes Arreola Deposition.

27

The examples provided by Defendants do not support their position. See Doc. 429

28

at 4-5. Defendants assert that Ms. Cervantes refused to provide her address by invoking

1

the Fifth Amendment, and only later provided it. The transcript shows, however, that she

2

provided it one question later.

3

Cervantes Arreola refused to state whether she was working despite her lawyer’s

4

withdrawal of a Fifth Amendment objection, but Defendants did not re-ask the question

5

when the objection was withdrawn. Id. at 81-82. Defendants assert that Ms. Cervantes

6

Arreola said she did not want to answer a question about how she signed her name

7

despite her lawyer’s withdrawal of a Fifth Amendment objection, but she did answer the

8

question immediately after a discussion with her counsel. Id. at 46, line 20. Defendants

9

assert that Ms. Cervantes Arreola was too tired to answer a question, but the question was

10

of marginal relevance (“Do you believe that your involvement in this case will change the

11

laws?”) (id. at 112), defense counsel inquired at some length into why Ms. Cervantes

12

Arreola was tired (id. at 112-14), the parties agreed that she could rest (id. at 114), she

13

did rest and then said she was feeling better (id.), and yet defense counsel did not re-ask

14

the question (id.).1

Doc. 424 at 46-47.

Defendants contend that Ms.

15

B.

Relevancy of Family Member Information.

16

The Court’s previous order held that Defendants could inquire into the names and

17

immigration status of family members of the Expungement Plaintiffs. Doc. 373 at 2.

18

Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider this decision, arguing that information about the

19

immigration status of family members is not relevant to any issue in this case and that

20

requiring the Expungement Plaintiffs to disclose it would have a substantial chilling

21

effect on their involvement in this case. Doc. 409 at 6-7.

22

The Court specifically directed Defendants to address the relevancy of this

23

information in their response to Plaintiffs’ motion, but they did not. Defendants argue

24

that the Court previously decided this issue and should not address it again, and that the

25

protective order adequately protects Plaintiffs against possible disclosure of this

26

information, but they say nothing about relevancy. See Doc. 429 at 5-10.

27
1

28

Defendants cite other examples in a footnote (Doc. 429 at 5 n. 2), but the Court
finds them no more persuasive than those discussed above.
-2-

1

Upon reconsideration, the Court cannot see the relevancy of the immigration status

2

of family members of the Expungement Plaintiffs. The Expungement Plaintiffs do allege

3

that they were forced to work to support their families (Doc. 185, ¶¶ 11-12), and

4

Defendants may ask them which family members they supported as alleged in paragraphs

5

11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint. But Defendants should not inquire further

6

about family members and should not ask about their immigration status.

7

C.

Continuing Employment.

8

The Court’s previous order held that Defendants could inquire into efforts by the

9

Expungement Plaintiffs to seek or obtain employment other than the employment which

10

was the subject of their previous arrests and prosecutions. Doc. 373 at 2. Plaintiffs ask

11

the Court to reconsider this decision, arguing that this information is irrelevant to the

12

expungement analysis, which focuses only on the constitutionality of the challenged

13

conviction. Doc. 409 at 5-7. Defendants counter that this information is relevant because

14

“equity is the sole basis for a court to order expungement[,] and the balancing of equities

15

must always be considered before granting any [equitable] relief.” Doc. 429 at 9.

16

Defendants are correct that this Court’s authority to grant expungement is rooted

17

in equity, but it does not follow that the Court may engage in a freewheeling balancing

18

analysis when applying this relief. Because “the Constitution is the ultimate expression

19

of the public interest,” equitable balancing is inappropriate where a party’s constitutional

20

rights are at stake. Llewelyn v. Oakland Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 402 F. Supp. 1379,

21

1393 (E.D. Mich. 1975). Stated differently, “enforcement of an unconstitutional law is

22

always contrary to the public interest.” Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir.

23

2013).

24

This circuit and other courts have therefore held that a conviction under an

25

unconstitutional statute is properly expunged. See, e.g., Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 134

26

n.1 (9th Cir. 1978); Kowall v. United States, 53 F.R.D. 211, 216 (W.D. Mich. 1971);

27

United States v. Rothstein, 187 F. 268, 270 (7th Cir. 1911). Defendants do not cite any

28

case holding that a district court may withhold expungement where the plaintiff’s
-3-

1

conviction rests on an unconstitutional statute.2

2

Even if the Court were to conclude otherwise, Defendants have not shown that

3

information about the Expungement Plaintiffs’ other employment activities would be

4

relevant to the balancing of equities.

5

inequitable to “reward” an individual who continues to engage in misconduct (Doc. 429

6

at 14), a plaintiff’s unrelated misconduct is not a valid basis for denying him relief from

7

an unconstitutional statute. Cf. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 393 (1948) (plaintiff’s

8

“previous misconduct, not having any relation to the constitutionality of the challenged

9

statutes, did not call for application of the clean hands maxim” in preliminary injunction

10

suit). If equitable balancing were appropriate at all, it would focus on the public interest

11

and the relative hardship to the parties. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7

12

(2008). Defendants have not shown that the information they seek is relevant to these

13

questions. Therefore, the Court will grant reconsideration and preclude Defendants from

14

inquiring into the Expungement Plaintiffs’ other employment activities.

Although Defendants assert that it would be

15

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 409) is

16

granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may ask which family members were

17

supported as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, but

18

may not inquire into the immigration status of the Expungement Plaintiffs’ family

19

members or other efforts of the Expungement Plaintiffs to obtain work.

20

Dated this 24th day of February, 2016.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Rogers v. Slaughter, 469 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1972), is not to the contrary, as
there was no claim in Rogers that the underlying statute was unconstitutional.
-4-