Ciampi v City of Palo Alto, et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION, MOTION FOR NEW JUDGE, AND MOTION TO VACATE CASE SCHEDULE re 47 , 50 . Case Management Statement due by 10/13/2010. Case Management Conference set for 10/20/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Koh on 9/13/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lucy H. Koh, # 2 Transcript of Case Management Conference)(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2010)

C i a m p i v City of Palo Alto, et al

D o c . 53 Att.

1 2 3 4 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH CIAMPI, 6 PLAINTIFF, 7 V S. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: FOR THE PLAINTIFF : CITY O F PALO ALTO, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY; LYNNE JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; CHIEF DENNIS BURNS , A N INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER KELLY BURGER , A N INDIVIDUAL ; OFFICER MANUEL TEMORES, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER APRIL WAGNER , A N INDIVIDUAL; AGENT DAN RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS , A N INDIVIDUAL , DEFENDANTS.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C- 09- 02655 LHK SAN JOSE , CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2 7, 2010 PAGES 1- 26

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS B E F O R E THE HONORABLE LUCY H. K O H UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JOSEPH CIAMPI IN PROPRIA PERSONA P.O . B O X 1681 PALO ALTO , CALIFORNIA

94302

APPEARANCES CONTINUED O N NEXT PAGE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER : L E E- ANNE SHORTRIDGE , C S R, C R R CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595 1

Dockets.Justia.co

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 FOR THE DEFENDANT : FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN BY: S T E V E N A. SHERMAN 1631 EAST 18 TH STREET SANTA ANA , CALIFORNIA 9 2 7 0 5 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SAN JOSE , CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 27 , 2010

PROCEEDINGS ( WHEREUPON , C O U R T C O N V E N E D A N D THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: ) T H E CLERK: CALLING FIRST CASE, NUMBER

09 -02655 L H K, CIAMPI V E R S U S CITY OF PALO ALTO, ET AL . PARTIES COME FORWARD , PLEASE, AND STATE YOUR APPEARANCE. M R. CIAMPI : M R. SHERMAN: GOOD MORNING , YOUR HONOR . GOOD MORNING, YOUR H O N O R.

S T E V E N SHERMAN ON B E H A L F O F A L L THE DEFENDANTS ON COURT CALL. M R. CIAMPI : TO T H E P O D I U M? T H E COURT: N O, THAT'S FINE. PLEASE TAKE GO YOU WANT ME TO COME FORWARD

A SEAT T H E R E A N D YOU C A N U S E THE MICROPHONE. AHEAD AND B E COMFORTABLE. A R E YOU MR . C I A M P I? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: CORRECTLY? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: A L L RIGHT. CIAMPI . CIAMPI. YES . OKAY .

DID I PRONOUNCE THAT

OKAY , T H A N K Y O U.

M R. CIAMPI , D O Y O U INTEND TO 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

REPRESENT YOURSELF? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: DOES THAT MEAN ? YES , F O R THE TIME BEING. " FOR T H E TIME BEING "? WHAT

UNTIL TRIAL OR -WELL, I'M GOING TO PROCEED I F I D O N'T

M R. CIAMPI :

IN P R O S E U N T I L I FIND AN ATTORNEY.

FIND AN ATTORNEY, I' LL CONTINUE IN PRO SE . T H E COURT: OKAY . ALL RIGHT . SO I

UNDERSTAND THAT Y O U ARE -- Y O U HAVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES THAT A R E D U E ON SEPTEMBER 3R D. M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: YES . OKAY . LET ME A S K, WHAT

DISCOVERY - - WHAT DISCOVERY D O BOTH SIDES NEED TO RESOLVE THIS CASE ? M R. SHERMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR H O N O R.

SHOULD I L E T M R. CIAMPI SPEAK FIRST ? M R. CIAMPI : SURE.

I 'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT T H E DEFENDANTS A N D THEIR COUNSEL, MR . SHERMAN , A R E GOING TO BE PROVIDING O N SEPTEMBER 3RD , B U T THE -- I GUESS THE MOST PERTINENT EVIDENCE THAT I'M SEEKING WOULD BE TO INSPECT AND DOWNLOAD TECHNICAL DATA DIRECTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCES IN THE P O L I C E DEPARTMENT , A N D THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE TASER G U N DATA PORTS ; THE DOWNLOADING O F THE TASER CAMERA DIRECTLY , WHICH 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

WOULD INCLUDE THREE TASER CAMERAS; THE INSPECTION OF T H E O R I G I N A L D V DS FROM THE M A V S Y S T E M, M A V I S M O B I L E A U D I O V I S U A L SYSTEM FROM THE P A T R O L CARS ; A N D PRODUCTION OF A COPY O F T H E VERIFICATION SOFTWARE WHICH ANALYZES AN ADDITIONAL WATER MARK O N T H E M A V VIDEOS THEMSELVES TO DETERMINE IF THEY' VE BEEN TAMPERED WITH. OBVIOUSLY THERE' S A L O T MORE EVIDENCE THAT I'M SEEKING, B U T THAT 'S THE MOST PERTINENT . T H E COURT: MR . SHERMAN . OKAY . LET ME HEAR FROM

WHAT DOES T H E DEFENSE NEED OR WANT? THANK Y O U, YOUR H O N O R.

M R. SHERMAN:

A S YOUR HONOR CAN PROBABLY SURMISE FROM T H E J O I N T CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, I'V E BEEN T R Y I N G T O COOPERATE WITH M R. CIAMPI TO T H E E X T E N T THAT I C A N. H E H A S RECENTLY PROPOUNDED OVER 35 00 DISCOVERY RESPONSES. H E D I D, IN FACT, PARE THEM

DOWN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE STILL SIGNIFICANT IN NATURE. WITH R E G A R D T O WHAT HE JUST SAID, I A M WORKING ON GETTING H I M ANOTHER COPY BECAUSE WE HAVE, IN FACT, PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY OTHER COPIES . SOME OF H I S DEMANDS A R E G O I N G T O B E DIFFICULT T O COMPLY WITH I N LIGHT O F THE FACT 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT -T H E COURT: L E T ME INTERRUPT Y O U HERE . COPIES O F WHAT ? THE

WHAT COPIES DID YOU PROVIDE? VIDEO C A M E R A TAPE OR AUDIO ? M R. SHERMAN: YOUR HONOR.

Y E S, WE -- ACTUALLY BOTH,

M R. CIAMPI W A S A C T U A L L Y REPRESENTED B Y

LEGAL COUNSEL, A N D THEY -THE REPORTER: T H E COURT: M R. CIAMPI : WELL. T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: HEARING YOU . I S H E O N C O U R T CALL , M S. PARKER -BROWN ? T H E CLERK: ON A SPEAKER P H O N E. Y O U' RE KIND O F B R E A K I N G U P, COUNSEL. M R. SHERMAN: HONOR ? YOUR H O N O R? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: BETTER, YOUR H O N O R? A R E YOU ON SPEAKER PHONE? ACTUALLY , I S THIS ANY IS THIS ANY B E T T E R, YOUR H E I S. I DON 'T KNOW I F H E'S M R. SHERMAN? Y E S, YOUR H O N O R? W E'R E HAVING DIFFICULTY I C A N'T HEAR HIM . WAIT, MR. SHERMAN --

OKAY .

I C A N' T HEAR H I M EITHER THAT

I' M O N A CELL PHONE IN THE

HALLWAY OF A COURTHOUSE , Y E S. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BETTER.

THE REPORTER: T H E COURT:

THAT 'S OKAY. IT' S A L I T T L E B I T

OKAY .

G O A H E A D.

WHAT HAVE YOU PROVIDED? THANK Y O U, YOUR H O N O R.

M R. SHERMAN:

N O T -- WHAT I H A D INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, YOUR HONOR, W A S THAT MR . C I A M P I HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL, W H O PROPOUNDED DISCOVERY T O WHICH W E COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING BASICALLY. I N THAT , W E PROVIDED THE COMPLETED DOWNLOADS, THE INFORMATION THAT HE' S BASICALLY ONCE AGAIN REQUESTING. WHAT I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THE COURT M A Y N O T HAVE H E A R D, IS SOME O F T H E ITEMS THAT MR . C I A M P I IS SEEKING A R E GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO C O M P L Y WITH BECAUSE HE' S SEEKING PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE AND I CANNOT PRODUCE COPIES, COPYRIGHTED ITEMS THAT HE IS SEEKING. COPY OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS. T H E COURT: IT 'S LIKE A S K I N G FOR A I C A N'T PRODUCE IT.

WELL , L E T ME ASK Y O U, SO YOU

HAVE ALREADY P R O D U C E D T H E VIDEO OF THE T A S I N G, OR N O T? M R. CIAMPI : SEVERAL TIMES. YES , W E HAVE , YOUR HONOR ,

M R. CIAMPI IS N O T H A P P Y WITH O U R 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PRODUCTION, THOUGH. M R. CIAMPI : HONOR ? T H E COURT: M R. CIAMPI : G O A H E A D. THE M A V - - O N E OF THE M A V MAY I RESPOND T O THAT , YOUR

VIDEOS THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED DOES NOT HAVE THE DATE OF THE INCIDENT , W H I C H I T S H O U L D HAVE. I T H A S A L A T E R DATE , A N D IT ACTUALLY HAS

THREE LATER DATES . S O I T'S N O T A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL VIDEO . IT 'S A COPY OF AN E D I T E D VERSION OF T H E V I D E O. M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: UM , YOUR HONOR -OKAY . NOW , WHAT ABOUT T H E - -

N O W, IS THIS T H E VIDEO THAT'S ON T H E P A T R O L CAR THAT YOU 'RE A S K I N G F O R? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: MR . SHERMAN ? M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: THAT, MR . C I A M P I? M R. CIAMPI : IT' S N O T THE ORIGINAL , N O. Y E S, YOUR H O N O R. A N D YOU 'RE N O T SATISFIED WITH YES . HAS THAT BEEN PRODUCED ,

I T'S -- IT 'S -- THE ORIGINAL DATE WAS MARCH 15 TH, 2008. T H E VIDEO FILE, THE ELECTRONIC

FILE DATE O F CREATION, DATE O F MODIFICATION, THE 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EARLIEST O N E THAT W A S P R O V I D E D T O M E D U R I N G MY CRIMINAL CASE WAS MARCH 18 TH, THREE DAYS LATER. T H E -- SUBSEQUENTLY T H E DEFENDANTS PRODUCED COPIES O F THE VIDEOS . THERE' S T W O

DIFFERENT MAV VIDEOS , ONE FROM OFFICER TEMORES' S PATROL C A R, O N E FROM OFFICER BURGER 'S PATROL C A R. THEY HAVE PRODUCED A COPY OF B U R G E R'S M A V RECORDING. INCIDENT . HE H A S N O V I D E O. HE JUST H A S AUDIO. T H E COURT: OKAY . LET ME STOP YOU HERE. WAS HE DIDN' T CAPTURE T H E

WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE JUDGE BARRETT ? THERE A MOTION TO DISMISS? HEARING?

WAS THERE A PRELIMINARY

WHAT H A P P E NED IN THAT CASE? M R. CIAMPI : THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY

EXAMINATION IN WHICH HE DISMISSED T H E CHARGES AGAINST ME AS A R E S U L T OF A CONSTITUTIONAL R I G H T S VIOLATION O F A N UNLAWFUL DETAINMENT . M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: IF I MAY , YOUR HONOR ? G O A H E A D. THE DEFENDANTS RESPECTFULLY

DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION. WHAT ESSENTIALLY HAPPENED IS T H E - - T H E SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE , I N WHAT I BELIEVE WAS RELIANCE ON , I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T W O CASES, DISMISSED I T A S A N I M P R O P E R RUSE A N D THAT 'S HOW T H E 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CRIMINAL FILING GOT DISMISSED . M R. CIAMPI : UPON -T H E COURT: OKAY . I D O N' T WANT TO OKAY? BUT T H E RUSE W A S B A S E D

RELITIGATE THAT CRIMINAL CASE . M R. SHERMAN: MAKE A SUGGESTION ? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN:

IF I MAY , YOUR HONOR , M A Y I

WHAT 'S THAT? I MADE THIS OFFER TO

MR . C I A M P I' S P R E V I O U S C R I M I N A L A T T O R N E Y, MR . C I A M P I' S P R E V I O U S ATTORNEYS. T H E ISSUE THAT I BELIEVE HE' S RAISING H A S TO DO WITH DUPLICATION DATES. E V E R Y TIME IT 'S

DUPLICATED, OF C O U R S E, IT COMES UP WITH A DIFFERENT DATE. I BELIEVE IT WOULD POSSIBLY BE BEST I F I COULD ARRANGE A TIME , SOMETHING I'V E OFFERED TO DO WITH HIS ATTORNEYS, FOR THEM TO COME I N A N D INSPECT THE ITEMS THEMSELVES , THE ORIGINAL ITEMS THEMSELVES. M R. CIAMPI 'S ATTORNEYS WERE IN THE PROCESS OF ARRANGING THAT WHEN M R. CIAMPI RELIEVED THEM AS COUNSEL. I T I S ALSO POSSIBLE , YOUR HONOR , THAT IN LIGHT OF T H E I S S U E S THAT M R. CIAMPI BELIEVES EXIST , 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT A DISCOVERY REFEREE O R SOMEONE THAT MAY A S S I S T H I M W O U L D B E BENEFICIAL IN THIS MATTER AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. H E'S N O T N E C E S S A R I L Y G O I N G T O BELIEVE ME . HE DIDN' T BELIEVE H I S P R I O R ATTORNEYS AS WELL. T H E COURT: W O U L D Y O U ALLOW MR. C I A M P I T O

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL ITEMS ? M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: M R. CIAMPI : ABSOLUTELY. S O W H Y DON 'T WE DO THAT? THAT'S FINE WITH M E, AS LONG

AS WE GO ON R E C O R D WHAT WE MEAN BY "T H E O R I G I N A L ITEMS " A N D WHAT I T M E A N S B Y " INSPECTING" THEM. DOES THAT MEAN THAT I WILL B E ABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE DATA PORTS DIRECTLY ? M R. SHERMAN: WELL, L E T'S -- THERE 'S

POTENTIAL P R O B L E M S WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT I D O N'T KNOW IF HE' LL BE ABLE T O D O W N L O A D WHAT HE WANTS TO DOWNLOAD WITHOUT SOFTWARE IN WHICH TO RECEIVE THE DOWNLOAD . M R. CIAMPI : THE TASER GUNS HAVE BEEN

SECURED BY POLICE CHIEF D E N N I S B U R N S F O R THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE CRIME L A B T O D O W N L O A D T H E TASER C A M E R A V I D E O S, AS WELL AS THE ACTIVATION DATA. T H E COURT: Y O U. 11 I 'M SORRY. L E T ME INTERRUPT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THIS IS WHAT WE' RE GOING TO DO:

I 'M

GOING TO ORDER -- WE 'RE GOING TO DO THREE T H I N G S HERE. W E A R E GOING TO SET A CASE S C H E D U L E A N D

WE 'RE GOING TO S E T A TRIAL DATE; I' M ALSO GOING TO ORDER THAT YOU DO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; THIRD IS WE HAVE A BOOKLET C A L L E D CONSENTING TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE' S JURISDICTION IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. I WANT BOTH PARTIES ,

MR . C I A M P I AND MR . SHERMAN TO TALK TO HIS C L I E N T, T H E CITY OF PALO ALTO, AND LOOK AT ALL T H E BIOGRAPHIES . THIS COUNTRY. A N D YOU 'RE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH A L L THE BIOGRAPH IES A N D S E E IF THERE' S A N Y O N E THAT Y O U WOULD CONSENT TO, OKAY, SO THAT YOUR CASE WOULD PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE J U D G E. B Y NEXT F R I D A Y, SEPTEMBER T H E 3 RD, Y O U ARE GOING T O FILE A DECLARATION WITH THE COURT THAT SAYS THAT " I HAVE REVIEWED ALL O F THE BIOGRAPHIES OF T H E MAGISTRATE JUDGE S I N THIS DISTRICT A N D I " EITHER " CONSENT T O THE FOLLOWING " O R " I STILL DECLINE TO PROCEED B E F O R E A MAGISTRATE JUDGE ." D O Y O U UNDERSTAND, MR. C I A M P I? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: YES . OKAY . MR. SHERMAN, D I D Y O U 12 WE HAVE T H E BEST MAGISTRATE J U D G E S I N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

UNDERSTAND THAT? M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: Y E S, YOUR H O N O R. A L L RIGHT. I WANT THAT FILED

NEXT FRIDAY , SEPTEMBER 3RD . N O W, NUMBER T W O, I' M O R D E R I N G THAT Y O U ALL PARTICIPATE I N MEDIATION. HAVE Y O U H A D -- I

KNOW YOU ORIGINALLY HAD A SCHEDULE THAT W A S VACATED BECAUSE OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF MR. C I A M P I'S ATTORNEY . Y O U HAD SELECTED MEDIATION LAST S P R I N G. L E T M E A S K IF THE PARTIES ARE AMENABLE TO DOING MEDIATION N O W. M R. SHERMAN: THE CITY AND THE DEFENDANT S NOTHING HAS

A R E S T I L L AMENABLE, YOUR H O N O R. CHANGED WITH U S. T H E COURT: M R. CIAMPI : WELL. T H E COURT: OKAY . OKAY .

WHAT A B O U T M R. CIAMPI ?

I'M AGREEABLE WITH THAT AS

SO I NEED TO A S K Y O U

T H E NEXT QUESTION OF WOULD Y O U LIKE A MEDIATOR THROUGH THE COURT 'S ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: CITY? M R. SHERMAN: THAT WOULD BE FINE, YOUR 13 THAT'S FINE WITH M E. M R. SHERMAN, WHAT A B O U T T H E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HONOR . I F I MAY SAY SOMETHING ? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: G O A H E A D, PLEASE . PREVIOUSLY WHEN A MEDIATOR I

W A S A S S I G N E D, HE ACTUALLY PUT SOME TIME INTO IT . KNOW I SUBMITTED A B R I E F, I T H I N K M R. CIAMPI 'S

ATTORNEY SUBMITTED A BRIEF AS WELL WHEN I T A L L FELL APART . I D O N' T KNOW IF T H E C O U R T W O U L D B E INCLINE D

TO RESUBMIT IT TO H I M. T H E COURT: THAT -M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: INTERRUPTING. T H E FILE THAT WE 'VE INHERITED D O E S N'T S A Y WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY H A D A N Y MEDIATION SESSIONS . D I D YOU ACTUALLY MEET? M R. CIAMPI : M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: NO, YOUR HONOR. NO , YOUR HONOR . S O Y O U HAD JUST FILED SOME I S THAT WHAT YOU 'RE THE -I 'M SORRY, MR . SHERMAN , F O R WELL , L E T ME -- THE FILE

P R EMEDIATION STATEMENT? REFERRING T O? M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN:

Y E S, YOUR H O N O R. OKAY . WHO W A S THAT MEDIATOR ?

I DON 'T REALLY REMEMBER H I S 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NAME, YOUR HONOR.

I WANT TO SAY MAYBE IT W A S

ATTORNEY KEANE OR SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH T H E CITY OF OAKLAND SOMEHOW. I THINK IT WAS T H E CITY OF

OAKLAND CITY A T T O R N E Y'S OFFICE. T H E COURT: OKAY . MR. C I A M P I, WOULD YOU

BE WILLING TO PROCEED WITH MEDIATION B E F O R E THAT SAME MEDIATOR? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: THAT'S FINE WITH M E. OKAY . ALL RIGHT . THEN I 'M

REFERRING THIS CASE TO MEDIATION . DAYS.

YOU HAVE 90

N O W, WHEN I S A Y 90 DAYS, IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED WELL B E F O R E T H E 90 DAYS. I F Y O U' RE ABLE T O R E A C H A N AGREEMENT, THEN BEFORE T H E 9 0 DAYS WHEN YOU COME BACK HERE , I WANT YOU TO HAVE A WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT , AND YOU SHOULD FILE YOUR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND A REQUEST TO VACATE THIS NEXT C M C. OKAY ?

S O Y O U NEED T O MOVE ON THIS RIGHT AWAY. I WILL NOT GRANT A CONTINUANCE I F YOU WAIT UNTIL T H E LAST M I N U T E T O T R Y TO GET THIS DONE. RESPONSIBILITY TO G E T THIS DONE TIMELY . S O Y O U ARE GOING TO COME BACK F O R A FOLLOW-U P C M C FOLLOWING YOUR MEDIATION . YOU 9 0 DAYS . I'L L GIVE IT 'S YOUR

COME B A CK ON -- COME BACK O N 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DECEMBER 1S T.

OKAY? DECEMBER 1S T. WHAT TIME,

M R. SHERMAN: YOUR HONOR? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN:

THAT 'S AT 2:0 0 O 'CLOCK . AT 2: 00 P.M .? THAT 'S RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, I -- ONE LAST

ITEM, IF I MAY BRIEF IT WITH THE COURT ? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: MR . C I A M P I' S A P P R O V A L. T H E R E A R E MANY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MATTER . I' VE RECENTLY COME T O L E A R N THAT T H E RETIRED CHIEF OF P O L I C E, WHO IS O N E O F T H E DEFENDANTS, IS PRESENTL Y O U T OF THE COUNTRY AND UNAVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO THE DISCOVERY W H I C H I S D U E SEPTEMBER 3 RD. I D O N'T KNOW HOW INCLINED HE WILL BE TO GRANT AN EXTENSION. I WOULD REQUEST THAT HE GRANT G O A H E A D. AND I T WOULD B E WITH

O N E F O R LYNNE JOHNSON ONLY BASED ON H E R UN AVAILABILITY O U T O F T H E COUNTRY. T H E COURT: MR . C I A M P I? M R. SHERMAN: I JUST F O U N D O U T ABOUT IT HAVE YOU ADDRESSED THAT WITH

YESTERDAY, YOUR H O N O R, SO THE A N S W E R I S N O. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SECOND. POSITION ?

T H E COURT:

M R. CIAMPI , WHAT 'S YOUR

I PREFER THAT THE PARTIES D O I T B Y

STIPULATION . M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: WELL - A C T U A L L Y, LET ME STOP YOU O N E

H O W MUCH TIME DOES MS. JOHNSON NEED? WHEN IS SHE C O M I N G BACK ? M R. SHERMAN: I DO NOT NECESSARILY KNOW THERE ARE

THAT ANSWER AT THIS TIME, YOUR H O N O R.

SEVERAL E-M A I L S A N D VOICEMAIL MESSAGES LEFT FOR H E R. I AM , I N FACT -- I TRIED TO ASCERTAIN THAT INFORMATION ONCE I FOUND O U T THAT S H E W A S OUT OF T H E COUNTRY F O R T O D A Y'S HEARING. UNFORTUNATELY , I W A S N O T ABLE T O D O S O, SO I DON 'T DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER F O R H E R HONOR. S H E' S RETIRED , S O I D O N'T KNOW HOW LONG S H E'S GONE FOR . I CERTAINLY C A N FIND O U T. C A N, YES , I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY . Y O U KNOW, I D O N' T KNOW H O W LONG ACTUALLY . T H E COURT: WELL , SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT I WOULD -- I

S H E I S A DEFENDANT I N THIS LAWSUIT AND S H E H A S AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, WHETHER SHE 'S ON 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VACATION OR N O T. I A S S U M E S H E CAN E- MAIL WHAT H E R RESPONSES T O INTERROGATORIES OR RFK 'S WOULD BE. I

D O N'T UNDERSTAND WHY S H E C A N' T D O THAT FROM EUROPE . M R. SHERMAN: I DON 'T HAVE A N A N S W E R TO

THAT ONE E I T H E R, YOUR H O N O R, OTHER THAN I 'M ATTEMPTING TO ASCERTAIN H E R A N D MAKE CONTACT . I WOULD SAY POSSIBLY 3 0 DAYS WOULD SUFFICE, YOUR HONOR, B U T I R E A L L Y A M G O I N G O U T ON A LIMB WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION. T H E COURT: I 'M NOT GOING TO GRANT THAT. IF Y O U

Y O U'L L HAVE TO WORK IT OUT WITH MR. C I A M P I. C A N'T , G O T O T H E MAGISTRATE J U D G E A N D GET AN EXTENSION.

B U T IT DOESN' T S O U N D LIKE T H E H O M E W O R K H A S BEEN DONE AS TO HOW LONG SHE 'S GOING TO BE UNAVAILABLE , S O I 'M NOT GOING TO GRANT A BLANKET EXTENSION. M R. SHERMAN: I TRIED, YOUR HONOR. LIKE

I SAID, I ONLY LEARNED THIS INFORMATION YESTERDAY. T H E COURT: I UNDERSTAND. YOU HAVE UNTIL

SEPTEMBER 3 RD, SO IN T H E NEXT WEEK, W H Y D O N' T Y O U FIND OUT WHEN SHE 'S AVAILABLE . M R. SHERMAN: THANK Y O U. 18 I WILL D O S O, YOUR H O N O R.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXPERT O N? SCHEDULE .

T H E COURT:

A L L RIGHT.

N O W, L E T'S S E T

T H E S C H E D U L E F O R THE REST OF THE CASE. Y O U ORIGINALLY H A D A T R I A L DATE OF JANUARY 2011, AND THAT WAS S E T B Y J U D G E F O G E L A T T H E INITIAL C M C O N D E C E M B E R 4 TH. I D O N'T S E E W H Y WE SHOULDN'T KEEP THAT

M R. SHERMAN:

I NEED T O FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION, YOUR H O N O R, ONCE A L L THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES HAVE SETTLED DOWN. T H E COURT: A L L RIGHT. WELL , THEN , THIS

IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO BECAUSE I S E E NO REASON W H Y THIS CASE SHOULD LANGUISH. L E T ME ASK , A R E EITHER SIDE GOING TO HAVE ANY EXPERTS ? M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: Y E S, YOUR H O N O R. WHAT A R E Y O U GOING TO HAVE A N

M R. SHERMAN:

I' LL HAVE A U S E O F F O R C E

E X P E R T, AND BASED ON T H E A C C U S A T I O N S MADE BY MR . C I A M P I, I' M G O I N G T O HAVE TO HAVE A T A S E R EXPERT AND A MAV VIDEO RECOGNITION ALTERING EXPERT BECAUSE MR. C I A M P I B E L I E V E S THAT T H E E V I D E N C E H A S BEEN TAMPERED WITH. T H E COURT: A N D WHEN A R E YOU GOING TO 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DESIGNATE YOUR EXPERTS? M R. CIAMPI : HONOR . I HAVE ONE EXPERT, YOUR

I'M WORKING ON GETTING O T H E R S. I STILL HAVE TO DEPOSE MR . C I A M P I AS

WELL. T H E COURT: DIDN' T C A T C H I T A L L. OKAY . AND MR . SHERMAN , I

YOU HAVE - - YOU WILL HAVE A

TASER E X P E R T, A U S E OF FORCE EXPERT , A N D THEN A TECHNICAL E X P E R T ON THE RECORDINGS? M R. SHERMAN: MR . C I A M P I -- YES , O N

RECORDINGS, TO PROVE OR ESTABLISH THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED. T H E COURT: OKAY . ALL RIGHT . SO GIVE

ME -- WHEN ARE Y O U G O I N G T O G E T ALL OF THOSE EXPERTS DESIGNATED? M R. SHERMAN: EXPERT N O W, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE T H E USE OF FORCE I 'M WORKING O N

ASCERTAINING FROM TASER INTERNATIONAL WHO I SHOULD UTILIZE ON THAT I S S U E. A N D AS FAR AS T H E F A B R I C A T I O N O R A L T E RI N G OF T H E TAPE RECORDED EVIDENCE , I HAVEN 'T EVEN F O U N D ANYBODY YET , YOUR HONOR , S O I 'M WORKING O N I T. T H E COURT: OKAY . AND THEN YOU NEED THE

DEPOSITION OF MR. C I A M P I? M R. SHERMAN: Y E S, YOUR H O N O R. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T H E COURT:

OKAY .

MR. C I A M P I, DO YOU

ANTICIPATE TAKING ANY DEPOSITIONS? M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: NO. OKAY . ALL RIGHT .

S O T H E DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS, THE DEADLINE TO DO THAT IS GOING TO BE SEPTEMBER 24 TH OF 2010; T H E DISCOVERY CUT O F F, THAT'L L B E BOTH FACT AND E X P E R T, WILL B E N O V E M B E R 5 TH OF 2010; THE HEARING ON ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, I' LL GIVE Y O U T W O W E E K S A F T E R DISCOVERY CUT O F F T O FILE THEM, SO Y O U'L L HAVE TO FILE THEM B Y N O V E M B E R 1 9TH ; T H E HEARING ON THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WILL B E - - L E T' S DO THAT JANUARY T H E 6TH OF 2011. M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: EXCUSE ME , YOUR HONOR . Y E S? CAN Y O U R E P E A T THAT? Y E S. A N D DON 'T WORRY, I AM

GOING TO ISSUE AN ORDER TODAY THAT' LL SET O U T A L L THESE DATES THAT I'V E DECIDED , OKAY , A N D I'L L HAVE THAT FILED, SO Y O U'L L HAVE A COPY O F THAT . M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: ALL RIGHT . THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE I S

GOING TO BE -- I' LL SET THAT FOR JANUARY 26T H, 2010. THAT 'LL BE AT 2: 00 P.M . M R. SHERMAN: WOULD THAT BE 201 1, YOUR 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HONOR ? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: 2 011 , I 'M SORRY. AT WHAT TIME? 2 :00 P. M.

A N D THE TRIAL DATE, THEN, WILL BE TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT, SO WE 'LL S E T THAT ON FEBRUARY 14 TH, VALENTINE'S D A Y, 201 1. AT 9: 00 O'C L O C K. M R. SHERMAN: MY WIFE WILL CERTAINLY THANK Y O U. THAT' LL BE

APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR H O N O R. T H E COURT: IN ADVANCE.

WELL , GIVE HER M Y APOLOGIES

I DO N O T WANT THIS CASE T O L A N G U I S H. IT 'S ALREADY A L M O S T A YEAR A N D A HALF OLD . NO R E A S O N W H Y THIS C A N' T B E M O V I N G QUICKLY. I S THERE ANYTHING ELSE ? M R. SHERMAN: NO , YOUR HONOR . MY BIGGEST THERE' S

CONCERN WAS T H E ABSENCE OF T H E F O R M E R CHIEF OF POLICE FROM THE COUNTRY . T H E COURT: YOU T O B E REASONABLE . M R. CIAMPI : OKAY . MR. C I A M P I, I D O WANT

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I'V E ALREADY GIVEN H I M

SEVERAL EXTENSIONS A N D HAVE REMOVED MOST OF MY REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY. I D O N'T S E E A N Y REASON W H Y - - I WOULD 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THINK THAT MR. SHERMAN WOULD HAVE P R O V I D E D DEFENDANT JOHNSON WITH MY DISCOVERY REQUEST TWO MONTHS A G O WHEN I SUBMITTED I T T O H I M. M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: IF I MAY , YOUR HONOR ? G O A H E A D. MR . C I A M P I, AS I INDICATED

EARLIER, H A D PROPOUNDED OVER 350 0 DISCOVERY RESPONSE S, TO WHICH I I N F O R M E D H I M I W A S GOING TO SEEK A PROTECT IVE ORDER . A N D TO HIS C R E D I T, HE AND I WORKED IT O U T A N D H E D I D, IN FACT, R E D U C E I T DOWN . HOWEVER , T O H I S STATEMENT , I D I D N O T -I DO NOTE I D I D N O T PROVIDE A N Y T H I N G T O T H E DEFENDANTS IN LIGHT OF THE LIMBO TACTICS AND T H E FACT THAT H E ELIMINATED MANY OF THEM. S O S H E HAS N O T H A D THEM F O R SEVERAL MONTHS. M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: I DIDN 'T SAY SEVERAL MONTHS . I T D O E S N'T MATTER.

I 'M GOING TO GIVE A T W O WEEK EXTENSION, BUT -M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: THANK Y O U, YOUR H O N O R. B U T SHE 'S A DEFENDANT IN A

LITIGATION THAT MAKES SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER FORMER POLICE DEPARTMENT. S H E NEEDS TO BE 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

RESPONSIVE TO THIS LAWSUIT , WHETHER S H E'S ON VACATION OR N O T. M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: I WILL - OKAY . SO SEPTEMBER 17 TH,

2010 IS ONLY A S T O LYNN E JOHNSON , T H E FORMER CHIEF OF P O L I C E O F PALO ALTO. M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: A L L RIGHT. THANK Y O U, YOUR H O N O R. OKAY ? T H A N K Y O U ALL VERY MUCH.

I DO E X P E C T A VERY FRUITFUL MEDIATION , OKAY? L E T' S MAKE THAT WORK. OTHERWISE, AS Y O U'V E SEEN , I 'M GOING TO P U T Y O U ON A VERY , VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE . YOU WILL

BE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY A N D TIME ON THIS CASE. M R. SHERMAN: IF I MAY MAKE ONE STATEMENT

IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HER HONOR JUST INDICATED ? T H E COURT: Y O U. M R. SHERMAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY MAKE A I 'M SORRY? I DIDN' T HEAR

STATEMENT I N RESPONSE T O WHAT HER HONOR JUST INDICATED? T H E COURT: M R. SHERMAN: G O A H E A D. EARLY ON IN THIS MATTER ,

T H E DEFENDANTS D I D, IN FACT, MAKE A N O F F E R T O T H E DEFENDANT ( SIC ) WHEN HE W A S R E P R E S E N T E D B Y COUNSEL . 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OF IT .

WHEN THAT OFFER WAS N O T A C C E P T E D, WE PUT IN A RULE 5 8 O F F E R, WHICH WAS QUITE SOME TIME A G O. S O THE DEFENDANTS HAVE , I N FACT , ATTEMPTE D T O RESOLVE THIS. I BELIEVE THAT I S WHAT

CREATED THE DIVISION BETWEEN MR. C I A M P I A N D HIS ATTORNEYS. M R. CIAMPI : T H E COURT: THAT'S FALSE . B L E S S Y O U.

I D I D S E E THAT Y O U HAVE MADE O F F E R S, AND I APPRECIATE T H E ATTEMPTS ON THE DEFENDANT'S PART TO T R Y T O RESOLVE THIS CASE. M R. SHERMAN: T H E COURT: THANK YOU . M R. SHERMAN: WE WILL GIVE BEST EFFORTS THANK Y O U, YOUR H O N O R. S O I D I D S E E THAT. I' M A W A R E

TO T H E MAGISTRATE AS WELL, OR TO T H E SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. T H E COURT: OKAY . Y E S. L E T' S P L E A S E DO THAT.

THANK YOU . THANK Y O U. THANK YOU FOR

M R. SHERMAN:

EXTENDING T H E TIME, YOUR H O N O R. T H E COURT: MR . SHERMAN . T H A N K Y O U, MR . C I A M P I. ( WHEREUPON , T H E PROCEEDINGS IN THIS 25 OKAY . THANK YOU ,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MATTER WERE CONCLUDED.)

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 /S/ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ LEE -ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR , C R R CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595 I , THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF T H E U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT O F CALIFORNIA , 280 SOUTH FIRST S T R E E T, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO H E R E B Y CERTIFY: THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE , FULL AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT O F M Y SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREINBEFORE E N T I T L E D A N D REDUCED B Y C O M P U T E R-A I D E D TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER