Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1488
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2
3
4
5
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 7, Pages 1488-1734)
18
DS
19
Court Reporter:
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Phoenix, Arizona
September 29, 2015
9:07 a.m.
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
17
21
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Andre Segura, Esq.
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
7
8
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

By: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
10
11
12
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Lauren E. Pedley, Esq.
1 Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
13
14
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
15
16
18
19
20
21
For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

County Attorney William Montgomery:
Ridenour Hienton, PLLC
By: April M. Hamilton, Esq.
Chase Tower
201 N. Central Avenue, Suite 3300
IEN
22
For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Walker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.
SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
DS
17
23
24
FR
25
1489
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office:
Iafrate & Associates
By: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.
649 N. 2nd Avenue
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.
By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC
By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.
P.O. Box 20527
For the Intervenor United States of America:

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Paul Killebrew, Esq.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
16
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.
601 D. Street NW, #5011
Washington, D.C. 20004
17
19
20
21
For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:

Mitchell Stein Carey, PC
By: Barry D. Mitchell, Esq.
1 Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900
IEN
22
For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:

Dickinson Wright, PLLC
By: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
DS
18
23
24
FR
25
1490
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.
For Timothy J. Casey:

Adams & Clark, PC
By: Karen Clark, Esq.
520 E. Portland Street
Also present:
10
Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio

Executive Chief Brian Sands
Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
IEN
22
DS
19
20
23
24
FR
25
1491
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I N D E X
1
2
Witness:
GERARD SHERIDAN
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang

Examination by the Court
Recross-Examination by Mr. Masterson
Further Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
No.
2072
2511
2512
2514
2533
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Description
2534
Admitted
Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery

investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166)
(MELC199917-MELC199935)
1724
Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al "Opinion Filed" dated
9/25/2012 (MCAO00025-27)
1681
E-mail from Tim Casey to Allen Lisa: Injunction 1684

compliance - Melendres Ortega v. Arpaio Letter
to Casey 10/11/2012 encls.pdf dated 10/12/2012
(MCAO00028-38)
E-mail from Tim Casey to Brian Sands, Gerard
Sheridan, Brian Jakowinicz, and John MacIntyre
re Melendres v. Arpaio (MCSO Response to
Plaintiffs' Accusation of Violation of Court's
12/23/11 Injunction.) Dated 10/18/2012
(MCAO00043-48)
1697
IA 14-0543 Casey Billing Records dated

12/31/2011 (MELC210534-1067)
1627
E-mail from Tim Casey to James Williams

copying Eileen Henry re Melendres Order on
Summary Judgment dated 12/23/2011
(MCAO0003 - MCA00006)
1637
DS
21
1612
E X H I B I T S
19
20
1507
1543
1599
1599
Direct Examination by Ms. Wang
17
18
Page
TIMOTHY J. CASEY
9
10
1492
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
E X H I B I T S
1
2
No.
2535
4
5
2537
6
7
8
2538
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
IEN
22
2541
23
24
FR
25
Description
Admitted
E-mail from Tim Casey to Eileen Henry Fw:

Melendres v. Arpaio et al. Research needed
dated 1/4/2012 (MCAO0007-MCAO0012
1656
E-mail from Tim Casey to Thomas Liddy copying

1659
Eileen Henry FW: Putting out training reference
the court order Melendres dated 1/11/2012
(MCAO00014-15)
E-mail from Eileen Henry to Tim Casey copying

Eileen Henry FW: Scenarios for review based on
judge's order dated 1/13/2015
(CaseySub 000045-49) 2539 E-mail from Brett
Palmer to Carlos Rangel, Christopher Lopez,
David Joya, Jesus Cosme, Juan Silva, Roland
Gonzalez, Victor Navarrette, Alejandro OrtegaRodriquez, Charley Armendariz, Christopher
Hechavarria, Daniel Frel, Gabriel Almanza,
Hector Martinez, Jesus Jerez, Susan Monroe,
Wade Voeltz, Cesar Brockman, Joseph Sousa,
Michael Trowbridge, Albert Brown, Brent Wise,
Brett Palmer, Brian Sands, Cathy David,
Christopher Hegstrom, David Ames, David
Letourneau, David Trombi, Frank Munnell,
Frank Zumbo, George Acritelli, Glen Powe,
Henry Brandimarte, Irene Barron-Irby, James
Barrett, Jeffrey Sprong, Jesse Spurgin, Justin
Griffin, Lisa Allen, Mari Rawleigh, Perla
Plata, Randy Paulsen, Tim Casey, and Vicki
Kratovil - Subject: My cell number dated
1/19/2012 (CaseySub 000044)
1666
E-mail from Tim Casey to John MacIntyre, Jerry

Sheridan, Brian Sands and Joseph Sousa copying
Liddy Thomas, Eileen Henry, James Williams Melendres v. Arpaio/Settlement Overture dated
1/30/2012 (MELC165701-702)
1673
DS
19
1493
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
E X H I B I T S
1
2
No.
2543
4
5
6
7
2557
8
9
2566
10
11
12
2567
13
14
15
16
2881
17
18
21
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Description
Admitted
E-mail from Tim Casey to Paul Chagolla, Liddy

1704
Thomas copying Larry Farnsworth, Eileen Henry,
James Williams, John MacIntyre, Gerard Sheridan,
and David Trombi RE: Attorney Client
Communication Casey Recommendations re Reading
the Court's Orders dated 4/4/2014
(MCAO00634-635)
E-mail from Tim Casey to Eileen Henry re
1698
injunction compliance - Melendres Ortega v.
Arpaio dated 10/18/2012 (CaseySub 000178-000181)
E-mail from Tim Casey to Liddy Thomas and James 1712

Williams copying Eileen Henry and Christine
Stutz RE: Attorney Client Communication dated
4/4/2014 (MCAO00577-79)
E-mail from Larry Farnsworth to Tim Casey
1703
copying Eileen Henry, James Williams,
Christine Stutz, Liddy Thomas, Gerard Sheridan,
John MacIntyre, David Trombi, Benjamin Armer,
Christopher Dowell, Hector Martinez, Kip
Rustenburg, Russ Skinner RE: Melendres
Order dated 3/28/2014 (MCAO00580-621)
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Complaint

Acceptance Report (MELC1306914)
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Authorization
to Release Information (MELC1306915)
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Policy and
Procedure, Subject: Internal Investigations
Policy Number GH-2, Effective Date 9/5/14
(MELC1306916-MELC1306934)
DS
19
20
1494
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1600
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
4
5
10
This is CV 07-2513, Melendres, et al.,
MR. YOUNG:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Cecillia Wang
Stanley Young,
Covington & Burling.
09:07:30
MR. POCHODA:
Arizona.
Dan Pochoda for plaintiffs, ACLU of
MR. KILLEBREW:
Paul Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the
United States, plaintiffs intervenor.
15
MR. MASTERSON:
Good morning, Judge.
John Masterson,
16
Joe Popolizio, and Michele Iafrate for Sheriff Arpaio and the
17
individual contemnors.
18
20
21
23
24
FR
25
09:07:43
Richard Walker
on behalf of Maricopa County.

MR. McDONALD:
Mel McDonald
09:07:53
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

MR. MITCHELL:
IEN
22
MR. WALKER:
DS
19
09:07:15
Michelle Morin, and Lauren Pedley for plaintiffs, of
13
14
THE CLERK:
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
11
12
Please be seated.
MS. WANG:
8
9
THE COURT:
v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued evidentiary hearing.
6
7
1495
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Barry Mitchell
specially appearing on behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan.

MR. COMO:
representing Brian Sands.
Greg Como
09:08:08
MR. BIRNBAUM:
Gary
Birnbaum, special counsel for Deputy Chief MacIntyre.
Mr. MacIntyre's in the courtroom as well.

THE COURT:
Thank you.
MS. HAMILTON:
April
Hamilton on behalf of Maricopa County Attorney's Office,
Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery.

MS. WANG:
8
9
THE COURT:
Your Honor, may I proceed with redirect of
Did you have an issue, Mr. Masterson?
begin redirect.
MR. MASTERSON:
13
Judge, I just have one thing.
14
talked to Ms. Wang about it this morning, and I know that we
15
have Rule 615's been invoked.
16
we have some additional members of MCSO in the courtroom today.
17
I've discussed with Ms. Wang, and she told me they do not
18
intend to call these people, but I wanted to, just in case
19
something comes up later, I wanted to alert the Court, too.
I wanted to alert the Court that
DS
We have Chief LeeAnn Bohn, Chief Shelly Bunn, Chief
Paul Chagolla, Captain Fred Aldorasi, Chief Ken Holmes, Chief
22
Joe Rodriguez, and Chief Traci Haggard.
IEN
21
23
THE COURT:
24
Have we arrived at proposed witness lists and
FR
25
09:08:46
I have a few matters I want to raise, too, before we
11
20
09:08:27
Chief Sheridan?
10
12
1496
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
09:08:58
09:09:14
Thank you.
stipulated or non-stipulated exhibits?
09:09:43
MS. WANG:
1
2
1497
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, Ms. Morin will address that on
behalf of plaintiffs.
MS. MORIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
The plaintiffs have
circulated to the parties a proposed pretrial statement on
behalf of plaintiffs' positions, and we are in the process of
discussing that statement of issues and also the exhibits, the
proposed amendment to the exhibit list and proposed stipulation
on exhibits as well.
We have not yet reached any exhibit stipulations.
The
10
parties have reached a stipulation, or have reached agreement
11
to admit certain portions of Mr. Seebert's deposition
12
transcript in lieu of calling Mr. Seebert.

THE COURT:
13
I didn't know about the draft joint
15
pretrial.
16
down here this morning, so I haven't seen it yet.
I guess that was submitted while we were on our way
Ms. Wang and Mr. Young this morning.
My understanding was that
19
we're going to get a list of proposed exhibits for each
20
witness, and then I would then go through each of those
21
witnesses and let plaintiffs know whether I agreed to stipulate
22
to the exhibit or not.
IEN
DS
18
09:10:56
I have not gotten that list, but I was told this
24
morning that my presumption, I guess, was wrong, that their --
25
they have not made a decision whether they are going to give me
FR
09:10:40
I just had a conference concerning exhibits with
17
23
09:10:12
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
09:09:59
09:11:13
such a list for each witness.
And you guys can correct me if I'm wrong; I'm trying
2
3
1498
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to tell the Court what we just talked about a little bit ago.
I think they're going to discuss with one another
4
5
whether they will provide such a list for each witness, and
then I will, of course, go through those exhibits.
Exhibit lists have been supplemented, and I understand
7
8
some are taken off and some are added.
still faced with over a thousand exhibits.
But my problem is I'm
And I, due to all
10
the proceedings we've had, haven't been able to go through the
11
thousand exhibits to tell them which ones we'll stipulate to.
12
But if they'd give me a condensed list for each witness, I will
13
do that immediately.
THE COURT:
14
15
All right.
Thank you.
objection, that I would have the monitor coordinate with the
18
parties who were interested as to the status of the Internal
19
Affairs investigations that had been disclosed to the monitor.
DS
Have all parties done that?

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
23
MS. WANG:
24
THE COURT:
FR
25
09:11:58
At the end of hearing last week I indicated, without
17
21
09:11:43
I think it might
help expedite and organize this matter.
16
20
09:11:26
Yes, Your Honor.
09:12:21
We have.
All right.
On behalf of plaintiff, we have.
Is there anything further you wish to
raise with respect to that?
09:12:30
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
1499
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No, Your Honor, not at this time.

Okay.
I discussed with you earlier on,
Mr. Masterson, whether we were going to be proceeding as we did
in the first part of this contempt hearing, which is we're all
going to call witnesses all at once, in which case you would
get the final redirect now, or whether you wished to reserve
the right to call your -- call the witnesses in any
case in chief you might wish to present.
going to get back to me later on that, and I think now's the
10
12
And you said you were
time we need to make that decision.

MR. MASTERSON:
11
09:13:03
Judge, I do wish to reserve the right
to recall witnesses in our case in chief.

THE COURT:
13
All right.
Let me ask you how to proceed,
14
then.
15
few as we've gone along; I may have a few more.
16
you the opportunity to address any questions I have.
17
you're going to reserve the right to call your witness in the
18
case in chief, I think Ms. Wang gets the final word in her
19
case in chief.
I may have some questions for witnesses.
I've asked a
I want to give
acceptable to you I wait and hear Ms. Wang's redirect.
22
have any questions of him, I'll ask them.
IEN
21
09:13:36
If I
Then I'll allow you
23
and any other defense witnesses an opportunity to pose him
24
questions based on my questions.
25
the final redirect, if she has any based on my questions, and
FR
09:13:19
But if
If I have any for Chief Sheridan, would it be
DS
20
09:12:44
And then we'll give Ms. Wang

09:13:53
1500
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
then we'll move to the next witness.

MR. MASTERSON:
I believe that is appropriate.
And I
just want to make sure the Court understands that I'm not
guaranteeing you that I will recall all the witnesses, so if
you have questions -- I know you'll ask them.

THE COURT:
Yeah, I get that.
09:14:07
I just want to make
sure -- and I'm certainly not going to insist that you recall
them -- but I just want to make sure we proceed in an order
that is appropriate in terms of fairness to all the parties.
Does anybody else have any objection if we proceed in
10
11
that way?
MS. WANG:
12
No objection, Your Honor.
It's helpful to
13
know that when Mr. Masterson is questioning a witness that that
14
is, in effect, both his cross following my examination and his
15
own direct.
16
might be appropriate to make.
17
THE COURT:
18
That will help me to understand which objections
09:14:37
Thank you.
One more item of business before,
Ms. Wang, I turn it over to you.
The marshals informed me this morning -- and I think
19
we did tentatively discuss this; I'd indicated I might raise
21
it -- that PSB would like to take individual photographs of
22
some or all of the identifications in the marshals' custody.
IEN
DS
20
23
I've told them that I thought that would be acceptable, but I
24
was going to raise it with all parties to see if anybody had an
25
objection.
FR
09:14:22
09:14:55
09:15:13
1501
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
The marshals indicate to me that they have made
1
2
arrangements, I think, Ms. Iafrate, with you, and with the PSB,
to go in this afternoon while we're in trial.
marshal present.
The marshal will be present while PSB takes photos of any of
the individual identifications that they wish to take photos
of.
09:15:28
that correct, as far as you understand it, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:
10
THE COURT:
11
12
There will be photographic equipment present.
Does anybody have -- I think that's the procedure, is
8
9
We'll have a
That is, Your Honor.
09:15:39
Anybody have any objections to proceeding
in that fashion?
MS. WANG:
13
Your Honor, so long as the IDs stay in the
14
custody of the U.S. Marshals, plaintiffs have no objection.
15
don't want there to be any issues about -- I don't want there
16
to be any issues about chain of custody later on coming from
17
the defendants' table.
18
receive a copy of any photographs that defendants take of those
19
identification documents.
21
And we would request that plaintiffs
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
address it later, because it doesn't sound like it's going to
24
be an issue today.
FR
09:16:07
Just one, Judge, and we can probably
23
25
09:15:50
Any further issues with any of that?
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
It's possible at some point we need -- and I'm not
09:16:20
1502
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
saying we need to take custody of the IDs, but have to go hands
on with them for the process of going through them for fraud --
fraudulent documents.
THE COURT:
4
5
A photograph might not be enough.
That will be fine, and we can take it up.
But as you stand there, I do think of one other issue.
If I understood the potential order of witnesses, it's
6
7
likely that we're going to call -- or that the plaintiffs are
going to call Mr. Casey today.
whether or not you were going to invoke advice-of-counsel
I raised with you previously
10
defense as to the May 14, 2014 meeting.
11
think about that and get back to me.
You said you would
MR. MASTERSON:
13
I understand there was more than one
14
meeting, Judge, and so we will be invoking attorney-client
15
privilege with respect to certain meetings that took place on
16
that day.
THE COURT:
17
with respect to advice -- or the course taken by the MCSO with
19
respect to gathering the identifications --
DS
MR. MASTERSON:
24
THE COURT:
FR
09:17:22
-- or gathering the videos and other
23
25
At this time --
matters?
IEN
22
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
09:17:05
Are you going to invoke advice of counsel
18
21
09:16:53
Had any further thoughts on that?
12
20
09:16:37
counsel?
At this time, yes.
You are going to be invoking the advice of

09:17:31
1503
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Just so plaintiff is aware of that,
we'll proceed, and then I guess we'll go on a
question-by-question basis from there on out.

All right.
Anybody else need to raise anything else?
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, as to the last point that was
addressed, this is news to plaintiffs for the first time the
that defendants will rely on an advice-of-counsel defense as to
10
the events of May 14th, 2015.
11
witnesses, including Chief Sheridan -THE COURT:
12
MS. WANG:
13
We have not deposed the relevant
Sorry, 2014, Your Honor, correct.
And we
have not deposed the relevant witnesses on that subject.
15
this defense was not raised previously we have not deposed
16
Chief Sheridan on that subject or any of the other relevant
17
witnesses, including counsel.
Since
plaintiffs to the late invocation of the advice-of-counsel
20
defense during the trial.
DS
19
THE COURT:
Well, what do you want to do about it,
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, I'd like to reserve the right
24
to depose the witnesses, reopen the depositions of the relevant
25
witnesses, so that we can take discovery on this late-breaking
FR
09:18:56
Ms. Wang?
IEN
23
09:18:37
And so I guess I have an objection on behalf of
18
22
09:18:20
That would be May 14, 2014.
14
21
09:17:40
09:19:10
defense.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
3
4
1504
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Well --
Or I would move to preclude the invocation
of the defense at this late stage.

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Mr. Masterson.
09:19:26
Oh, and I'm further informed, Your Honor,
that in their interrogatory responses prior to the continuation
of this hearing last week, defendants took the position -- I'm
sorry, in March, Your Honor, defendants did take a position
10
they would not rely on an advice-of-counsel defense as to the
11
events of May 14th, 2014.

MR. MASTERSON:
12
So this is a surprise.
Well, this is not a surprise.
We
13
talked about it the very first day of trial.
14
this issue was on the table; it just hasn't come up again since
15
then.
So everybody knew
09:20:05
Secondly, with respect to discovery, I don't know what
16
17
additional questions plaintiffs think they need to ask.
18
got hundreds and hundreds of pages of deposition for Chief
19
Sheridan.
20
of this defense I do not understand.
21
everything about this particular incident they wanted except
22
attorney-client privileged matters.
DS
IEN
They could have asked him
24
point.
THE COURT:
09:20:20
They chose not to do so.
So I don't see why we need additional depositions at this
FR
We've
What additional questions they could ask now because
23
25
09:19:49
Well, advice-of-counsel defense would
09:20:35
waive the attorney-client privilege, right?

MR. MASTERSON:
2
3
1505
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Understood.
But they didn't even ask
the questions.
THE COURT:
All right.
What I'm going to do --
Well, I'll hear from you, Mr. Young, but I'm not going
5
6
to make a decision right this second.
look at some matters at break, and maybe over lunch -- well,
depends on when we get to Mr. Casey.
matters before we get to Mr. Casey and make a determination of
10
What I'm going to do is
I'll try to look at some
how we're going to proceed.
09:20:58
Mr. Young.
11
MR. YOUNG:
12
Well, I would just note, just to
13
supplement, we did take a deposition of Mr. Liddy, and there
14
was some discussion of the May 14, 2014 issues then.
15
believe the discussion during that deposition, which occurred
16
on September 21, last Monday, was that those questions could
17
only be asked if it was not deemed to be a subject-matter
18
waiver as to the May 14, 2014 issue.
But I
last day we took dep- -- or the second-to-last day that we took
21
depositions prior to this hearing, that the issue of advice of
22
counsel was not raised and, in fact, it was specifically agreed
IEN
DS
20
09:21:32
that there would not be a subject matter waiver on that issue.
24
So this is indeed a surprise.
25
THE COURT:
FR
09:21:12
So my belief is that as of last week, which is the
19
23
09:20:45
Well, Mr. Masterson is right that I asked
09:21:50
1506
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
him this question last Thursday, I think, last Wednesday.
asked him this question before we re-began or resumed
testimony.
that extent he's quite right.
So I think to the extent he says it isn't new, to
I would ask that if you've got interrogatory responses
5
6
that say that, if you have relevant excerpts from deposition
transcripts, that you gather them and find them for me now, so
that I can take a look at what happened.

MS. WANG:
We will do that, Your Honor.
And just to clarify, it was defendants' position
10
11
during the April hearing that they were not waiving the
12
attorney-client privilege as to matters relating to the May
13
14th, 2014 events.
14
testimony, there was a meeting between Chief Sheridan,
15
Christine Stutz, and Chief Trombi that was not subject to the
16
privilege in the first place; and they did invoke the privilege
17
over an earlier meeting on May 14th, 2014, and they've taken
18
that position consistently, as Mr. Young said, through the
19
depositions between April and now.
21
23
24
FR
25
I do recall that, but I want to have as
Are you ready to resume?

MS. WANG:
09:22:30
They specifically said that based on the
full picture as both parties can give me.
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
09:22:13
I am, Your Honor.
09:22:48
09:23:05
1507
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sheridan - Redirect, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing
GERARD SHERIDAN,
1
2
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4
5
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Good morning, Chief.
A.
Good morning.
Q.
Chief, in response to questioning by Mr. Masterson you
testified that you began to pay close attention to this case
10
after the trial, is that right?
11
A.
12
the Court's issuance of the findings of facts and conclusions
13
of law.
14
Q.
That would be the trial ruling, is that right?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
And you testified that you did read the Court's May 2013
17
trial ruling, correct?
18
A.
I did.
19
Q.
And Mr. Masterson asked you to explain on the stand what
20
the trial ruling held, is that right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And you did so --
Specifically, it would have been May of 2013, upon
IEN
DS
Yes.
23
A.
I did.
24
Q.
-- correct?
FR
25
09:23:35
Now, you contend that you were not aware of the
09:23:58
09:24:08
09:24:13
1508
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
preliminary injunction order until your deposition taken in the
United States Department of Justice case on March 27, 2014, is
that right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
So you were not aware, although you read the Court's May
2013 trial ruling, that that ruling itself referenced
violations of the preliminary injunction order?

Is that your testimony?
8
9
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
Now, in response to Mr. Masterson's questions, you also
11
mentioned that you gave a press conference outside this
12
courthouse after the Court's May 2013 trial ruling, is that
13
right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And during that press conference you stated the ways in
16
which MCSO would comply with that ruling, correct?
17
A.
I don't recall what I said.
18
Q.
All right.
19
that press conference on your telephone, correct?
20
A.
That I do.
21
Q.
You're proud of that press conference, correct?
22
A.
Yes.
DS
IEN
09:24:45
09:24:57
Well, you testified that you have a photo of
23
Q.
24
indicated that MCSO would comply with the Court's trial ruling,
25
correct?
FR
09:24:31
09:25:15
And in effect you -- during that press conference you
09:25:27
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
caught on videotape disparaging that ruling by the Court,
correct?
A.
Not the ruling, no.
Q.
Well, didn't you call the ruling ludicrous and crap?
A.
No.
But in fact, just a few months later, you were
09:25:35
MR. MASTERSON:
1509
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Objection, Your Honor.
Goes beyond
the scope of the cross-examination.

MS. WANG:
10
Your Honor, Mr. Masterson elicited
11
testimony about the press conference in which the chief
12
expressed a willingness to comply with the Court's orders, and
13
I think this is relevant.

THE COURT:
14
15
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
17
MS. WANG:
18
20
All right.
-- dwell on them in great detail.
I'll move on, then, after I hear an answer
THE WITNESS:
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
IEN
All right.
My response was "No."
09:26:12
You did mischaracterize the Court's ruling, did
23
you not, during this preoperation briefing in October of 2013?
24
A.
I was not referring to the ruling.
25
Q.
Well, wasn't MCSO required to issue a corrective statement
FR
09:26:04
from the chief.
DS
19
I'll allow it, but I recall very well the
events myself, so you don't have to --
16
09:25:49
09:26:30
1510
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
about -- in response to your statements during the October 2013
briefing?
A.
questions you're asking me about my statement in October of
2014.
Q.
2013?
A.
2013, I'm sorry.
Q.
All right.
testimony on that, so we'll move on.
I think we have a miscommunication again about the
09:26:49
Well, the Court has indicated there's already
Sir, Mr. Masterson asked you about your reading of the
10
11
Court's February 2015 order requiring certain documents to be
12
produced to the plaintiffs.
Do you recall that?
13
14
A.
I'm sorry.
15
Q.
Sure.
16
2015 order requiring the disclosure of certain documents to the
17
plaintiffs.
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
look.
FR
25
09:27:13
Do you recall that?
That's Exhibit 2003, if you would like to take a
09:27:29
That was the Court's order.

Do you recall Mr. Masterson asking you about that
IEN
24
Mr. Masterson asked you about the Court's February
DS
19
23
Could you repeat that again?
This is about the 1500 IDs.
18
22
09:27:01
court order?
Take a look at page 2, the item referring to
identification documents seized from members of the plaintiff
09:28:09
1511
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
class.
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
Do you recall that question by Mr. Masterson?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
for a fact that any of the 1459 IDs from Sergeant Knapp had
been seized from the plaintiff class, correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And you testified that you did not know, is that right?
10
A.
That's correct.
11
Q.
But sir, by July 17, 2015, you did know that 30 percent of
12
the 1459 IDs belonged to people who appeared to be Hispanic,
13
correct?
14
A.
15
drivers.
16
Q.
And Mr. Masterson asked you whether you knew
09:28:32
That's correct, but we don't know if they were taken from
Okay.
09:28:52
But that's not my question.
I'm just asking you:
17
As of July 17, 2015, you were
well aware that 30 percent of the 1459 IDs apparently belonged
19
to people who were Hispanic, correct?
20
A.
That's correct.
21
Q.
That's about 500 IDs, correct?
22
A.
Yes, ma'am.
IEN
DS
18
23
Q.
24
had gotten all of the 1459 IDs from the destruction bin in the
25
Property and Evidence room, correct?
FR
09:28:16
All right.
09:29:06
And you knew by that point that Sergeant Knapp
09:29:17
1512
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you've testified before that in order to get into the
destruction bin at Property and Evidence, items would have been
seized by a deputy and processed for destruction, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So by July 17, you knew that 30 percent of the 1500 IDs
belonged to people who appeared to be Hispanic, number one,
correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And number two, you also knew by then that those IDs would
11
have been seized in order to get into the destruction bin,
12
correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Yet you did not tell the monitor about the existence of the
15
IDs before -- on July 17, 2015, correct?
16
A.
That's correct.
17
Q.
Now, you understand that the Court's February 2015 order
18
relates to the requirement that identification documents be
19
disclosed to the plaintiffs, correct?
20
A.
I do.
21
Q.
You also understand, sir, that MCSO has an independent and
22
separate obligation to be truthful to the court-appointed
IEN
DS
monitor, correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And you understand that the monitor team is an arm of this
FR
23
09:29:31
09:29:45
09:29:58
09:30:16
09:30:29
1513
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Court, correct?
A.
I do.
Q.
Now, you said that you wanted to wait until you got your
stories straight before telling the monitor about the IDs,
right?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Sir, nothing prevented you from telling the monitor on July
8th, when you found out about the existence of the IDs from
Captain Bailey, nothing prevented you at that point from
09:30:40
10
telling the monitor:
11
thousand IDs.
12
to know about this.
We've just become aware of over a
I don't know the full story yet, but I want you
You could have told the monitor that on July 8th,
13
14
correct?
15
A.
16
proceed.
17
Q.
18
what you knew at the point that Captain Bailey refer --
19
reported the IDs to you, correct?
20
A.
I wanted to act prudently, so I would disagree with you.
21
Q.
Had your counsel told you before that point, Don't disclose
22
any IDs to the monitor unless I tell you to?
We were waiting for advice from our counsel on how to
09:31:12
IEN
DS
But, sir, nothing prevented you from telling the monitor
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
scope.
25
of Chief Sheridan.
FR
09:30:54
09:31:29
Your Honor, this goes beyond the
I did not address this issue at all in my examination

09:31:47
MS. WANG:
1514
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, I think Mr. Masterson did
elicit testimony relating to why it was that the identification
documents were not disclosed earlier than they were.

THE COURT:
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. MASTERSON:
6
7
Just a moment.
09:33:24
Your Honor, I'll withdraw the
objection.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Please proceed.
THE WITNESS:
10
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Can you repeat the
11
question?
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
down.
15
Sergeant Knapp had turned in over a thousand IDs, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
At that point, nothing prevented you from telling the
18
monitor:
19
know anything about them yet, but I want you to know.
Sir, Captain Bailey -- let me break it
Captain Bailey informed you around July 8th that
We've just received over a thousand IDs.
Nothing prevented you from telling the monitor that,
21
correct?
22
A.
09:33:54
IEN
Nothing prevented me from doing that.
23
Q.
24
17th that you knew you had almost 1500 IDs, and that one-third
25
of them appeared to belong to people who were Hispanic,
FR
09:33:43
I don't
DS
20
I'll ask you again.
09:33:30
And nothing prevented you from telling the monitor on July
09:34:14
1515
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And nothing prevented Captain Bailey from responding to the
Monitor Team's question on July 20th by saying there was
another set of over a thousand IDs, but you hadn't gathered the
information on them yet, is that right?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Objection, foundation.
Are you asking about Captain Bailey?
That's right, Your Honor.
10
BY MS. WANG:
11
Q.
If you know.
12
A.
I do not know.
13
Q.
You had discussions with Captain Bailey all the way up
14
through July 17th about the Knapp IDs, correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And you discussed the Knapp IDs with Captain Bailey during
17
the week of July 20th, correct?
18
A.
We talked about a lot of things.
19
Q.
Including the Knapp IDs, right?
20
A.
I'm sure we did.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
anything preventing Captain Bailey from telling the Monitor
09:34:57
DS
IEN
09:34:45
So my question is:
09:35:10
To your knowledge, was there
23
Team, in response to their question on July 20th, We have
24
collected a new set of over 1,000 IDs and we're looking into
25
it?
FR
09:34:29
09:35:32
A.
Yes.
MR. MASTERSON:
1516
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
doing that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you contend that was the advice of Ms. Iafrate?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
Yes, there was something preventing Captain Bailey from
09:35:36
Sir, sitting here today, do you think that it
10
was a mistake not to disclose the Knapp IDs to the Monitor Team
11
on July 20th or earlier?

MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE COURT:
13
Objection, relevance.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
14
No.
We had every intention to advise
15
the monitor and the plaintiffs' counsel.
16
prudent and make sure what we were bringing forward was the
17
correct information.
18
and a half days.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
So you would do it all over again the same way?
21
A.
Well, I've had to answer this question five times.
22
would have done it differently so I wouldn't have to answer the
I just wanted to be
DS
IEN
09:36:10
I've said that five times in the last two
23
question five times.
24
same way because I had the same issues.
25
never -- that would not have changed.
FR
09:35:47
09:36:29
Maybe I
But I believe I would have done it the

They would have
I would have had
09:36:50
1517
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
concerns that I voiced before.
changed.
Those concerns have not
The Monitor Team, the plaintiffs' counsel, would have
3
4
had a full accounting of what we were dealing with.
every intention to advise the Monitor Team.
to hide anything.
a locked room with an IA number pulled and an active
investigation.
this is such a big deal, I don't know.
We had
We were not trying
They were secured in a locked cabinet behind
So I don't know what else to tell you.
Why
10
Q.
11
not disclosed?
12
A.
13
That's why I don't understand it's a big deal.
14
Q.
15
answered the question from the Monitor Team on July 20th the
16
way that he did?
17
A.
18
we were waiting for advice from our counsel.
19
Q.
21
Yes.
09:37:46
No, I don't, because we had consulted with our counsel, and
So you stand by how MCSO handled the 1500 IDs?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
23
subject, sir.
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
09:37:32
And you don't think it's a big deal that Captain Bailey
IEN
22
That we didn't ring the phone right away?
DS
20
So you don't think it's a big deal that the 1500 IDs were
No.
09:37:10
Objection, asked and answered.
09:38:02
I'm going to sustain that objection.

All right.
We'll move on to another
Now, Mr. Masterson asked you a series of questions about
09:38:12
matters other than the Melendres case that occupied your
attention in late 2011 and during 2012.
Do you recall those questions?
A.
1518
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'm sorry, I was a little distracted for a second.

Can you repeat that?
5
6
Q.
I can.
questions on Friday about matters other than the Melendres case
that were occupying your attention around the time the
preliminary injunction order issued and afterwards, correct?
Do you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you some
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
All right.
12
you about was an allegation that MCSO had improperly applied
13
$104 million in funds earmarked for detention purposes to pay
14
for deputy sheriffs on the enforcement side.
09:38:40
Now, one of the things that Mr. Masterson asked
Do you recall that testimony?
15
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
All right.
18
and Finance Division, correct?
19
A.
I do.
20
Q.
You testified in response to Mr. Masterson's questions that
21
the controversy over the $104 million was, quote, more of a
22
media problem than anything, end quote.
09:39:09
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Actually, sir, that is an accounting problem, not a media
FR
09:39:00
Now, as chief deputy, you oversee the Budget
DS
IEN
23
09:38:26
09:39:26
1519
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
problem.
Would you agree with me?
A.
I believe I talked about the accounting issues.
Q.
It's not just a media problem, it is an accounting problem.

Do you agree with that?
4
5
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
MCSO gets funds from different sources for different
purposes, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Some funds are restricted in how they can be used, correct?
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
Sir, did your work on that controversy about the
12
$104 million heighten your awareness of the importance of
13
proper accounting for different funds used by MCSO?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Now, during the Seattle investigation, do you agree with me
16
that it was important to make sure that funds used to pay the
17
confidential informant were from proper sources?
21
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
23
MS. WANG:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
Objection, beyond the scope of
Your Honor, I think it flows from the
09:40:25
testimony about other accounting --
IEN
22
09:40:05
cross-examination of this witness.
DS
20
09:39:51
MR. MASTERSON:
18
19
09:39:42
I'll allow it.

-- issues.
Thank you.
Do you agree with me on that, sir?
09:40:33
1520
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I do.
Q.
Now, MCSO in general has -- withdrawn.
MCSO has general funds in its budget, correct?
3
4
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Those can be used for any purpose, correct?
A.
Any lawful purpose, yes.
Q.
But you and Sheriff Arpaio chose to use state RICO funds to
pay the confidential informant, correct?

MR. MASTERSON:
9
10
Objection, beyond the scope of the
examination by me.
THE COURT:
11
MS. WANG:
12
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
investigations, sir.
09:41:03
Sustained.
All right.
We'll move on to another topic.
I'm going to turn to the subject of Internal Affairs
09:41:12
Now, you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you some
16
questions about the Internal Affairs investigation into
18
Deputy Ruben Garcia's complaints that fellow deputies had
19
discriminated against Latinos, correct?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
All right.
22
fact that Deputy Walters had been polygraphed, correct?
IEN
DS
17
09:41:29
And Mr. Masterson called your attention to the
23
A.
He did.
24
Q.
And you recall that the complaint that Deputy Garcia made
25
against Deputy Walters was that he refused to take complaints
FR
09:40:45
09:41:45
1521
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
about crimes from Latino victims, correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And you're also aware that there was another allegation
made by Deputy Garcia that he had been stopped, the subject of
a traffic stop, because of his race, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Those were different deputies other than Deputy Walters who
were alleged to have done that, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
And there was a reserve deputy, Mr. Coogan, who actually
11
conducted the stop, right?
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
And he had done so, it was alleged, at the direction of a
14
regular deputy, Deputy Jackson.
15
A.
I do.
16
Q.
Deputy Coogan, the one who conducted the stop, was not even
17
named as a principal in the investigation.
I recall discussing that in my deposition, but I have not
20
read the investigation recently.
21
Q.
22
number 2521.
DS
A.
Okay.
IEN
FR
25
Do you recall that?
09:42:29
19
24
09:42:12
Do you recall that?
18
23
09:42:04
Feel free to refer to the exhibit.
you have it.
09:42:44
It's
And the findings are listed at -- I'll wait till

The findings are listed at MELC820996 through 99.
Do you see, sir, that only Deputy Walters and Deputy
Jackson were charged?
09:43:35
1522
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
relating to the traffic stop of Deputy Garcia.
Now, Mr. Masterson asked you about the facts
Do you recall that?
4
5
A.
I'm sorry.
Q.
Do you recall that Mr. Masterson asked you about the
traffic stop of Deputy Garcia on Friday?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you testified that he had driven by Deputies Coogan and
10
Jackson at a high rate of speed at 3:00 a.m.
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
Now, you are aware that Deputy Garcia disputed those facts,
14
right?
15
A.
I -- I don't recall if he disputed those facts.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
polygraphed Deputies Jackson or Coogan?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Now, I'd like to ask you to turn to page MELC821009; again,
20
on the subject of the circumstances of the stop.
DS
MS. WANG:
23
THE COURT:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
09:44:31
Do you recall whether the IA investigators
THE COURT:
IEN
22
09:44:09
11
21
09:43:52
09:45:01
Which exhibit is this, again?

It's 2521, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Are you there, sir?
09:45:22
A.
I am.
Q.
Okay.
MS. WANG:
3
4
Your Honor, this is in evidence.
May I ask
that it be published?
5
6
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
And let's highlight the last three paragraphs.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Sir, do you agree with me that Sergeant Morrison -- well,
11
first, Sergeant Morrison was the IA investigator here, correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And he interviewed Reserve Deputy Coogan, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
All right.
16
at this point that's highlighted on the screen in front of you,
17
is telling Deputy Coogan, first, that he has already spoken to
18
Deputy Jackson, is that right?
19
A.
That's correct.
20
Q.
And second, Sergeant Morrison tells Deputy Coogan Deputy
21
Jackson's recollection of the incident is a little different
22
than Ruben Garcia's.
IEN
DS
10
Would you agree with me that Sergeant Morrison,
09:45:42
09:45:54
09:46:11
Do you see that?
23
A.
I do.
24
Q.
And do you see that Sergeant Morrison continues to tell
25
Deputy Coogan what Deputy Jackson's statement was regarding
FR
09:45:27
Let's turn to page MELC821009 in Exhibit 2521, please.
1523
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
09:46:27
1524
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
this traffic stop?
A.
I do.
Q.
Sir, as the chief deputy reviewing an IA file, do you think
that it is problematic for an IA investigator to tell one
deputy accused of participating in an unlawful stop what the
other deputy involved in that stop has said about it?
A.
are in their investigation; what is known by the investigator;
what technique the investigator is using; the investigator's
It depends on a lot of variables:
Depends on where they
10
experience level; the body reaction; the verbal responses from
11
the person they're interviewing; there's a lot of variables.
12
It's difficult to take one sentence out of a report
13
that is an inch thick and criticize a question that was
14
asked --
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
-- without reading the whole investigate -- rereading the
17
whole investigation.
18
Q.
19
sir.
20
Morrison says, and I'll ask you some questions about it.
21
right?
09:47:57
DS
Why don't you -- let me just read you what Sergeant
So here Sergeant Morrison says:
All
09:48:13
"So I can tell you
23
I've already talked to Deputy Jackson.
24
recollection of the incident is a little different than Ruben
25
Garcia's.
FR
09:47:27
Well, let's focus on this page and the next one for now,
IEN
22
09:46:51
Deputy Jackson's
The way he remembers it is that you guys were pulled
09:48:25
1525
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
over, and that Ruben's vehicle came in the lane right next to
you guys at a speed that he felt was above the posted speed
limit.
hell's going on, because they, you know, are putting us in
danger.
that the things -- so the things that he described would
certainly be reasonable suspicion, which is all you need for a
traffic stop, and would, I would think, would move to probable
cause, since you're actually witnessing the act and so forth
So he had asked you:
Go stop that car and see what the
They're supposed to move over a lane and so forth.
10
and so on.
11
traffic stop if you could just kind of go into it for me."
So
But I wanted to get your recollection of the
09:49:02
Do you see that?
12
13
A.
I do.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
it's clear from this transcript that Sergeant Morrison, the
16
interviewer, first tells Deputy Coogan what Deputy Jackson's
17
version of events was and then asks Deputy Coogan to tell him
18
his version of events?
19
A.
I would agree with that.
20
Q.
And do you agree with me, sir, that that interview
21
technique permits Deputy Coogan to tailor his statement to
22
Deputy Jackson's?
Let me ask you first:
Do you agree with me that
DS
IEN
23
A.
24
dishonest.
25
Q.
FR
09:48:45
09:49:14
09:49:29
Well, you're assuming that Deputy Coogan is going to be
Sir, I'm asking you:
Do you agree with me that the way
09:49:49
1526
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that Sergeant Morrison conducted this interview gave Deputy
Coogan an opportunity to tailor his testimony to
Deputy Jackson's?
A.
No.
Q.
Sir, focusing on what Sergeant Morrison says in the second
paragraph on page 821010, do you agree with me that Sergeant
Morrison is telling Deputy Coogan that he, Sergeant Morrison,
has already concluded that this was a lawful stop?

MR. MASTERSON:
9
10
BY MS. WANG:
11
Q.
09:50:29
Do you agree with that reading of this transcript?

MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE COURT:
13
Same objection.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
14
Yes.
15
BY MS. WANG:
16
Q.
And that's inappropriate, is it not, in an IA interview?
17
A.
For all the reasons I stated earlier, it could be or it
18
could not be.
19
Q.
20
with me that in that respect, Sergeant Morrison went too far,
21
isn't that right?
22
A.
09:50:44
DS
Sir, when I deposed you on September 15th, 2015, you agreed
IEN
He could -- he could have.
09:51:17
I don't know without reading
23
this entire inch-thick document, hundreds of pages, what he was
24
trying to do.
25
senior investigator with a lot of experience as a detective and
FR
09:50:02
Sergeant Morrison is a very well thought of

09:51:50
1527
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
an interviewer.
Why he did this, probably should have him on
the stand asking him why he did it, not the chief deputy.
Q.
the chief deputy reviewing an IA file.
focus, to be clear.
Well, sir, what I'm asking you is what your reaction was as
All right?
That's my
09:52:11
On September 15th, 2015, when I deposed you, I asked
6
7
you about this passage:
Do you think that Morrison's saying,
quote, "So the things that he described would certainly be
reasonable suspicion, which is all you need for a traffic stop
10
and I would think move to probable cause, end quote.
11
think that's proper for an investigator to say during an
12
interview of a principal in an IA case?

"Answer:
13
14
said."
Do you
Probably a little more than he could have
That was your testimony on September 15th, right?
15
16
A.
17
said that a minute ago.
18
Q.
19
that this was an improper technique to use in an IA interview.
Well, a minute ago you wouldn't commit to the testimony
What's your testimony now?
21
that was over the line?
22
A.
Do you agree with me that
09:53:00
IEN
It could be.
23
Q.
24
you can't be sure whether Sergeant Morrison's interview style
25
or technique here influenced Deputy Coogan's testimony, is that
FR
09:52:44
That's correct, and I stand by that, and I think I just
DS
20
09:52:27
All right.
You also have just testified a moment ago that
09:53:24
right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
All right.
paragraph.
Well, let's turn to page MELC821014, first
Do you see where Deputy Coogan says:
1528
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
what -- I beg your pardon.
said:
statements, same thing"?
I agree with
Do you see where Deputy Coogan
"I agree what your statements were about Jackson's
Do you see that?
9
10
A.
I see that.
11
Q.
And do you agree with me that Deputy Coogan is essentially
12
agreeing with the version of events that Deputy Jackson gave as
13
reported by Sergeant Morrison?
14
A.
15
also see a statement that's not highlighted that says, "I
16
disagree with him," so I don't know what he's agreeing to here,
17
what Coogan's agreeing to.
18
Q.
Where do you see a statement that he disagreed with him?
19
A.
Right before the highlighted area.
20
"d-i-s-a-g-r-e-e" is "disagree."
21
Q.
09:54:13
I don't know if I want to agree to anything else, because I
09:54:50
Well, take a look at the previous paragraph, then.
First of all, take a look at the middle of that
23
paragraph where there's a sentence that says:
24
pride and explain it when I've been challenged on the road with
25
my integrity about racial profiling."
FR
09:54:33
I think that word
DS
Okay.
IEN
22
09:53:51
"I always take
09:55:21
1529
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you see that?
1
2
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
this way:
follow up on whether Deputy Coogan had previously been accused
of racial profiling?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And is there any indication in this IA file that that
happened?
And do you agree with me that -- well, let me ask it
Should an IA investigator who hears that statement
10
A.
I don't know.
11
entirety when it was presented to me in 2011.
12
Q.
13
your point about Deputy Coogan's statement, "I disagree with
14
him."
Okay.
I don't know if I even read this in its
"Let me explain this
really clear to you what you were stopped for, and you might
17
disagree with it.
18
mean, and any stop I've gone on, I've also done the same thing.
19
What did you get him for?
20
he stopped for?
21
something, you know, one of the standard PC stops.
22
I disagree with him."
IEN
DS
16
09:56:23
But okay, you've got a cracked window, I
Oh, he's suspended.
But what he was
You know, headlight out or taillight out or
09:56:39
So yeah, so
23
Do you agree with him that at that point Deputy Coogan
24
says "I disagree with him," he's talking about his hypothetical
25
driver who is accusing him of racial profiling, not that he's
FR
09:56:05
So let's continue, because I want to get back to
So Deputy Coogan goes on to say:
15
09:55:46
09:56:55
disagreeing with Deputy Jackson?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So there is not an indication on page MELC821014 that
Deputy Coogan disagreed with anything in Deputy Jackson's
statement about the stop of Deputy Garcia, correct?
A.
That's correct, now that it's explained that way, yes.
Q.
Thank you.
All right.
8
9
10
case.
1530
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Let's move on and talk about the 542 IA
This is the investigation into supervision of Deputy
Armendariz.
09:57:41
Sir, in response to a question from Mr. Masterson on
11
12
Friday, you testified that in the case involving supervision
13
issues relating to Charley Armendariz, Chief Trombi and
14
Lieutenant Sousa received discipline.
15
Do you recall that?
09:57:56
16
A.
I did.
17
Q.
You testified also that a sergeant also was disciplined in
18
the 14-542 case.
19
A.
I did.
20
Q.
Sir, do you stand by that today?
21
A.
That's my belief, yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
IEN
DS
Take a look at Exhibit 2218.
23
the 14-542 case.
24
A.
Excuse me.
25
Q.
2218.
FR
09:57:20
09:58:08
That is the report on
And if you will turn to page -Did you say 20- --
Do you have that in front of you?
09:58:48
Oh, I'm sorry.
THE CLERK:
1531
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Thank you.
(Handing).
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
The cover sheets and findings can be found there.
know if you find any indication that any sergeant received a
finding of sustained in the 542 case.
Sir, if you'd turn to page MELCIA011167, towards the front.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Do you see any indication that any sergeant received a
11
finding of sustained in the 542 case?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
Where is that?
14
A.
It's on MELC1A011189.
15
Q.
You mean where it says "preliminary finding" at the bottom
16
of page -- that page?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Turn to the next page, and do you see that the final
19
finding was not sustained?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
All right.
DS
10
10:01:37
10:01:52
So I'll ask you again.
23
in this report that any sergeant received a finding of
24
sustained in the 542 case.
25
A.
FR
10:01:19
Well, let me just tell you, I don't see any indication
IEN
22
09:59:08
8
9
And let me
No.
Do you disagree with that?
The case that I'm talking about with Lieutenant Sousa
10:02:04
1532
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
and Sergeant Palmer, I must be confusing two different cases.
Q.
trinkets, is that right?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
All right.
A.
There's so many cases, IA numbers that were pulled, and
it's hard to, without actually having a list here, to sit here
and testify accurately like this.
received it.
You were talking about the 541 case into the so-called
10:02:31
I know that a sergeant
I must have misunderstood that it was not part of
10
the 542 case.
11
Q.
12
issues on Charley Armendariz, no sergeant received discipline
13
in that case, correct?
14
A.
15
the discipline and the names of the individuals that received
16
the discipline, I'm afraid to answer that question.
17
Q.
18
Armendariz' supervision, which is the 542 case in front of you.
19
A.
The 542 case --
20
Q.
Correct.
21
A.
-- in front of me?
22
Q.
No sergeant received discipline, correct?
Okay.
10:02:58
So to be clear, in the case involving supervision
Again, without having some document with all the cases and
Fair enough.
But my question is only about the case on
IEN
DS
10:03:36
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
All right.
FR
25
10:03:21
Yes, do agree.
Let's move on to the 541 case.
Sir, you testified in response to questions from
10:03:48
1533
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Mr. Masterson that MCSO, in fact, did open IA cases looking
into the drugs that were found in MCSO evidence envelopes in
Armendariz's home.
A.
I don't think I would have testified to that.
Q.
You don't recall that testimony with Mr. Masterson?
A.
I don't think I would have testified that we opened
individual cases on drugs found in Charley Armendariz's home,
because I'm fairly sure we did not.
Q.
10
I'm going to read to you from your testimony on Friday,
September 25th, 2015, starting at page 1435, line 22:

Question by Mr. Masterson:
11
10:04:34
"You also talked a bit
12
with Ms. Wang about some drug issues, I guess drug IAs.
13
kept mentioning heroin and methamphetamine.
She
"Do you remember that?
14
"Answer:
15
Yes, sir.
"Question:
16
17
10:04:07
10:04:52
Tell me, what part of Armendariz had
anything to do with heroin or methamphetamine?

"Answer:
18
When sheriff's detectives executed a search
warrant in Charley Armendariz's house, those items were found
20
in his garage and in his house.
21
"Question:
"Answer:
IEN
22
DS
19
23
10:05:04
Did you investigate that?

Yes, sir.
"Question:
Was it a separate IA?
Let's talk about
this.
25
There was an IA concerning Armendariz himself, is that correct?
FR
24
And I think I might have this a little bit confused.

10:05:15
"Answer:
Yes, sir.
"Question:
Was there another IA, then, or was -- I'm
a little bit confused about 40 IAs.
what seems to be another IA we're talking about now about
drugs, methamphetamine, and heroin.
An IA in Armendariz, and
10:05:31
"Can you just kind of straighten that out for me?"
And I'll skip now to page 1437, line 25:
"Question:
8
9
1534
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
So you investigated these
drug/heroin/methamphetamine issues, is that correct?

"Answer:
10
Yes, sir.
"Question:
11
"Answer:
12
10:05:53
You didn't blow them off?
No, sir."
Do you recall that testimony now?
13
MR. MASTERSON:
14
Your Honor, under Rule 106, I'm going
15
to ask that ask counsel go back and read this witness's entire
16
answer on page 1436 and on to 1437, where he clarifies this
17
whole matter for her.

THE COURT:
18
MS. WANG:
19
1436, line 16.
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
DS
20
IEN
"Answer:
Why don't you do that, Ms. Wang.
Sure, I can do that.
There were many items.
Let me start again at
10:06:16
Trying to remember the
23
number.
24
seized during the search warrant of Charley Armendariz's home.
25
Some of those items could be attributed back to other deputies.
FR
10:06:04
It was over a thousand items that were confiscated,
10:06:28
1535
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
For example, a driver's license, let's say, that we were able
to backtrack through our CAD system, through our Records
Management System to another deputy sheriff.
sheriff had contact with that individual.
internal investigation of that deputy sheriff over that ID.
That would be one of the 40-plus spin-off Armendariz
investigations, as an example.
were able to attribute to somebody other than Charley
Armendariz, we could follow up on a separate investigation.
The deputy
We initiated an
So any item that we had that we
"Now, your question about the drugs specifically, I
10
11
don't recall if we were ever able to match up, because some of
12
those drugs were in evidence bags with a seal with no numbers
13
on them with some -- with some information on them.
14
ever able to connect them with another deputy, I don't believe
15
so.
10:07:18
"So that's how the Charley Armendariz investigation
17
was very big, very volu -- as a matter of fact, the executive
18
summary was 542 pages.
19
week.
20
grammar, and there are, I understand, I haven't seen it, there
21
are 17 volumes or so of support documents, tens of thousands of
22
pages, support documents for that investigation, so we have
I just reviewed that within the last
IEN
DS
I sent it back for some editing, not of content, but of
10:07:35
that.
24
"So then there's the 40 spin-off investigations where
25
we were able to identify sheriff's personnel that had violated
FR
10:07:01
If we were
I don't believe we were.
16
23
10:06:44
10:07:48
1536
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
policies, and we were also able to identify some outside law
enforcement agencies, their officers that had violated some
policies, and we notified those agencies about their officers'
behavior.
"Question:
5
6
So you investigated these
drug/heroin/methamphetamine issues, is that correct?

"Answer:
Yes, sir.
"Question:
"Answer:
You didn't blow them off?
No, sir."
That's the complete testimony, sir.
10
So my question
11
again is:
12
looking into the drugs found in evidence envelopes in
13
Armendariz's house?
14
A.
15
involving the drugs.
16
case that -- and I don't know what the number of it was -- the
17
main Charley Armendariz case.
18
Q.
19
Armendariz?
20
A.
21
the IDs; not any of the other cases.
22
Q.
10:08:11
Do you recall testifying on Friday about IA cases
No, because I don't believe we did any individual IA cases

They were all contained in the one IA
10:08:33
Not the case into the trinkets, but the case into
It was the Armendariz case.
DS
Yes.
IEN
All right.
Not the trinkets; not
10:08:56
And do you know whether that case was the
23
14-221 case?
24
A.
I'm sorry, I don't recall any of those numbers.
25
Q.
Sir, are you aware that defendants were supposed to
FR
10:08:02
10:09:11
1537
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
disclose all the documents relating to any Armendariz
investigation or Armendariz spin-off investigation to the
plaintiffs in this case?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So would the documents relating to this -- any
investigation into the drugs found in Armendariz's house, would
those be among the documents turned over to us?
A.
past week or two.
It would be in the case that I just reviewed within the
10
Q.
So that has not been turned over --
11
A.
It took me -- it took me about three weeks to read the
12
542-page executive summary.
13
Q.
14
221 investigation actually have been turned over to plaintiffs?
15
A.
16
it yet.
17
Q.
18
that I had asked you about allegations that TVs, in the plural,
19
had been taken by HSU members.
Okay, sir.
10:09:49
So are you aware that documents relating to the
I don't know if they have or not; I haven't signed off on
Okay.
10:10:27
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
And Mr. Masterson elicited from you testimony that you knew
IEN
21
23
of only one TV that was seized by HSU.
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
So I just want to make sure, sir:
FR
10:10:07
Sir, Mr. Masterson called your attention to the fact
DS
20
10:09:25
Do you recall that?
Is it true that you are
10:10:41
1538
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
not aware of PSB looking into more than one TV seized by HSU?
A.
That's my understanding.
Q.
To your knowledge, HSU has only seized one TV.
A.
That's my understanding.
Q.
All right.
asked you about a new protocol that MCSO has where lieutenants
on the division side, as opposed to the PSB side, who are
involved in Internal Affairs investigations receive training in
Internal Affairs investigations.
Sir, shifting gears slightly, Mr. Masterson
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And you said this is a relatively new development for MCSO,
13
correct?
14
A.
Correct.
15
Q.
And the goal is to have all of the lieutenants who are
16
assigned to divisions who are involved in IA investigations be
17
trained in IA investigations, correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
But that you're not sure you've completely accomplished
20
that goal yet, correct?
21
A.
Correct.
22
Q.
Now, the lieutenants in the division side who con -- who
IEN
DS
11
are involved in IA investigations do not actually conduct all
24
of those investigations, correct?
25
A.
FR
23
That's correct.
10:11:03
10:11:30
10:11:36
10:11:48
10:12:00
1539
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
They would assign investigations to sergeants or other
personnel on the division side, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Those sergeant investigators are not required to go through
the training currently, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And, sir, isn't it true that at the time that you assigned
Captain Bailey to command PSB, he had never been trained in IA
investigations?
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And sir, you have never been trained in IA investigations,
12
have you?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
You also testified in response to questions from
15
Mr. Masterson that PSB does not handle all IA cases at MCSO, is
16
that right?
17
A.
That's right.
18
Q.
In fact, you testified that they only handle about 200 out
19
of 550 cases annually, is that right?
20
A.
Approximately.
21
Q.
So in order for PSB to investigate all IA cases within
22
MCSO, you would need quadruple the PSB staff, right?
IEN
DS
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
But you don't have that, right?
25
A.
I do not.
FR
23
10:12:10
10:12:26
10:12:39
10:12:53
10:13:06
1540
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
PSB is not adequately resourced to handle all of the
internal investigations for this agency, correct?
A.
No, I -- I would disagree with that statement.
Q.
Well, PS -- you have to assign many IA cases to the
division, correct?
A.
It would be a waste of resources.
Q.
all internal investigations at MCSO to PSB, PSB would not have
10:13:20
Not all of them are necessary to be investigated by PSB.
Okay.
Well, my only question was:
If you wanted to assign
the resources to do that, correct?
11
A.
Correct.
12
Q.
Sir, you said that you assigned Captain Bailey to command
13
PSB, correct?
14
A.
I did.
15
Q.
That was in early June of 2014, right?
16
A.
Approximately.
17
Q.
And at the time you assigned Captain Bailey to command PSB,
18
you knew that PSB was going to handle many issues relating to
19
Charley Armendariz, correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
You were aware at the time you assigned Captain Bailey to
22
command PSB that he had been in Charley Armendariz's chain of
IEN
DS
10
command, correct?
24
A.
25
worked at Special Investigations, HSU worked for Lieutenant
FR
23
10:13:38
10:13:52
10:14:07
I knew that Charley Armendariz, while Lieutenant Bailey

10:14:35
1541
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Jakowinicz for a period of time, and when Lieutenant Bailey was
promoted to Captain Bailey, it was a very short time, if
Charley Armendariz was still assigned to SID.
I think it was a very short time, a matter of weeks,
4
5
before Charley Armendariz was transferred to District 3 Patrol,
I believe.
Q.
assigned to command PSB, you were aware that Charley Armendariz
had been in his chain of command, correct?
So your answer is yes, at the time Captain Bailey was
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
All right.
12
you actually took Captain Bailey out of the loop on some IA
13
cases because of conflict of interest problems?
10:15:30
And in fact, didn't there come a point where
MR. MASTERSON:
14
15
Objection, beyond the course -- or
beyond the scope of my examination of this witness.

THE COURT:
16
MS. WANG:
17
10:15:47
Sustained.
All right.
18
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
20
had a large volume of recordings of traffic stops, lieutenants
21
were assigned to do a secondary review of videos that were
22
flagged as potentially problematic, correct?
IEN
DS
Sir, you testified that after it was discovered that MCSO
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Lieutenants who did that review of the videos were not
25
given any written protocol for their review, is that right?
FR
10:15:12
10:16:04
10:16:22
1542
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't recall.
Q.
Okay.
Sir, you testified about IAPro.
Do you remember that?
3
4
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
That was in response to Mr. Masterson's questions, correct?
A.
Yes, I remember talking about IAPro.
Q.
Okay.
of deputies, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
It's a technology that PSB uses, right?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
You testified that the green lights, yellow lights, and red
13
lights in IAPro will help to prevent a future Charley
14
Armendariz from happening, is that right?
15
A.
That's correct.
16
Q.
But, sir, would you agree with me that an agency's IA
17
system is not run by colored lights or a computer program; it's
18
run by the human beings who work in the agency, right?
19
A.
Correct.
20
Q.
And because human beings run the IA system, the culture of
21
the agency is critical to how IA functions, right?
22
A.
IAPro is a software tool to help track the behavior
DS
10:17:28
IEN
That's correct.
Q.
And that's true at MCSO, right?
24
A.
In any organization, including MCSO.
FR
10:16:58
10:17:14
23
25
10:16:44
MS. WANG:
All right.
Thank you, sir.
That's all I
10:17:45
have for you.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
3
4
1543
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sheridan - Examination, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing
Thank you.
Chief, I think I'm going to have a few
questions for you; I just want to get some things straight.

EXAMINATION
5
6
BY THE COURT:
Q.
MCSO?
A.
Which matter, Your Honor?
10
Q.
I'm not talking about a specific matter; I'm talking about
11
written policies that govern the operation of PSB.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Do they have anything in them relating to conflicts of
14
interest, and how they're to be handled?
15
A.
I'm not sure.
16
Q.
Well, let me you an example.
17
think -- and if I'm misstating it, please correct me -- that
18
Sheriff Arpaio designated Chief Olson to be the officer who
19
considered your discipline, and we also heard testimony that
20
Chief Olson reports to you.
10:18:32
We've heard testimony, I
10:18:50
conflict of interest, arguably?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Do you have anything that you can recall in your written
25
policies that would govern a situation like that?
FR
10:18:13
Do you understand how that could be considered a
IEN
22
Are there written policies that govern IA or PSB for the
DS
21
10:17:55
10:19:08
1544
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No.
Q.
Now, we did talk last April, you and I -- we were kind of
hurried, because I wanted to get through some things, and I
said we might talk about some things later.
In addition to talking about what Ms. Wang just
5
6
raised, which I don't think we need to re-raise, about
Captain Bailey supervising Sergeant Armendariz for a time, and
you've already the testified on that, I raised to you my
concern when I showed you Exhibit 1000 about a memorandum being
10
sent to Captain Bailey while he was head of SID that says:
11
Gosh, look at all these documents.
12
with them?
13
Captain Bailey had actually received that document and was
14
conducting investigations on IDs, that would not be
15
appropriate.
What do you want me to do
And I believe you indicated at that time that if
10:20:04
A.
I'm sorry, I don't.
18
Q.
Well, I don't think I need to remind you of it, but if you
19
want to see it, I can look it up.
20
to sort of a collateral point.
DS
17
My question is:
But my question really goes
Are you aware that -- whether PSB
23
a captain is investigating an issue that he may have been
24
involved in, even collaterally?
25
A.
FR
10:20:16
would have any policies regarding a situation like that, where
IEN
22
10:19:47
Do you remember that testimony?
16
21
10:19:28
I do, Your Honor.
I believe I also testified that
10:20:42
1545
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Captain Bailey, while he was a lieutenant --
Q.
is --
A.
Um-hum.
Q.
-- are you aware whether there are any policies governing
the operation of PSB to govern a situation like that where --
where at least there's some evidence that Captain Bailey had
received an inquiry about a situation when he wasn't in PSB
that he's now assigned to investigate the larger issue?
You know, Chief, I don't mean to be rude, but my question
Are you aware of any written policies that deal with
10
11
that.
12
A.
No, Your Honor.
13
Q.
Now, I did raise for you last time that concern, and you
14
remember -- you may remember; you may not remember -- did you
15
do anything to investigate whether or not Captain Bailey had
16
received the memorandum?
17
A.
18
talking about.
19
Q.
20
whether you do or not.
21
A.
I do.
22
Q.
And you may remember it's an incident report, which is on
10:21:19
10:21:29
I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the memorandum you're
Do you have it there?
I don't know
IEN
DS
It's Exhibit 1000.
23
top of a memorandum to Steve Bailey from Detective D. Frei,
24
that has attached to it a number of identifications and
25
requests what to do with these identifications.
FR
10:20:58
10:21:50
10:22:14
1546
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you remember discussing that last April?
1
2
A.
I do.
Q.
And do you remember, for example, that we discussed a lot
of the identifications in there were Mexican-issued
identifications, and it wouldn't make sense for somebody to
assume that they were forged if they were trying to establish
American residency.
Do you remember that discussion?
8
9
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
and whether or not the memorandum -- my concerns about the
12
memorandum being sent to Captain Bailey by Detective Frei?
Do you remember a discussion about Captain Bailey,
14
A.
I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't.
15
Q.
That's all right.
10:23:02
Did you do anything to investigate whether or not
16
17
Captain Bailey ever received this memorandum, or Detective Frei
18
ever forwarded it to Captain Bailey?
19
A.
I don't remember.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
about whether the seized cards were used as training aids.
DS
Now, you may remember that we had some discussion
10:23:23
IEN
Is it MCSO's position that all of the cards that have
23
been seized were used as training aids?
24
impression you're still taking that position, but if you are,
25
I'd like to know it.
FR
10:22:42
You remember that?
13
22
10:22:31
I'm not under the
10:23:54
1547
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No, sir.
Some of those cards were used on an informal
basis.
that were in the unit would show them:
like; this is what you should look for; this is what the
matricula card looks like; and those types of things, but it
was an informal basis done for new people assigned to the unit.
Q.
and you're not claiming that there was.
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
And you're not claiming that all of the cards that were
11
seized were used in that informal training.
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
Is it fair to say -- and if it isn't, I'm not trying to
14
oblige you to say anything.
15
appears that there was a habit among some officers of taking
16
identifications and drivers' licenses and other things kind of
17
as souvenirs or trophies?
When a new deputy was assigned to the unit, deputies
Okay.
Q.
You can answer if you know.
21
A.
It appears that might have been the case.
22
Q.
Now, in addition to the drugs, there was also found in
DS
20
IEN
10:24:52
BY THE COURT:
23
Armendariz's home currency, bank cards, debit cards, things
24
like that.
FR
10:24:35
Is it fair to say that these -- it
19
25
10:24:20
So there's no evidence of, like, formal training,
MR. MASTERSON:
18
This is what they look
Was any investigation ever done into those bank cards,
10:25:06
10:25:26
1548
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
debit cards, credit cards?
Was there ever an IA investigation
done into that?
A.
the overall Armendariz case.
Q.
about what Ms. Wang just referred to as 2 --
Some of those items that you mentioned would be included in
When you say "the overall Armendariz case," are we talking
Was it 221?
MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS:
If that's the case that I'm thinking of,
10
because, I'm sorry, I don't remember the individual IA numbers,
11
I didn't --
12
BY THE COURT:
13
Q.
All right.
14
A.
-- pay attention to those, then yes, if we were able to get
15
a -- let's take, for example, a bank card with someone's name
16
on it.
17
Q.
18
to follow up on two questions I have so I can get them out, get
19
answers, and then I'll let you clarify for me.
20
A.
Okay.
21
Q.
221 is not yet complete.
22
signed off on it?
10:26:04
10:26:17
IEN
DS
You know, I want to hear this, so remember it, but I want
10:26:34
Did I hear you say you've not yet
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
So it hasn't been turned over to plaintiffs?
25
A.
I assume not.
FR
10:25:45
10:26:43
1549
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And it hasn't been turned over to the monitor?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Is the subject of that in -- is the only subject of that
investigation Detective Armendariz?
Armendariz.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
All right.
other possible subjects.
A.
That's correct.
10
Q.
But you were aware that other deputies provided materials
11
that were found in the Armendariz house.
12
A.
We were.
13
Q.
All right.
14
A.
Okay.
15
house -- and if I recall correctly, there was a purse.
16
were no items in it -- or there were some items in it, but
17
nothing where we could link another deputy sheriff that it was
18
in their possession at any time.
19
attributed to Charley Armendariz.
10:27:00
So that investigation does not involve any
Now give me your explanation.
There were drugs.
There
There was heroin, cocaine,
22
on them; some just in boxes, if I recall correctly.
IEN
methamphetamine, whatever, in evidence bags with no identifiers
10:27:51
Again, we
23
were not able to identify those things with anyone in
24
particular.
FR
10:27:27
That purse would be
21
25
10:27:06
The trouble with some of the items in Charley's
DS
20
Or, I'm sorry, Deputy
The items that we had, for example, where you would
10:28:21
1550
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
have a bank card that had somebody's name on it, and we were
able to backtrack that name through our CAD or Records
Management System that another deputy had possession of that or
had contact with that individual however long ago, we would
initiate an IA number on that.
attribute to anyone were contained in the main Armendariz
investigation.
Q.
details which of these credit cards you could identify folks
Okay.
But items that we could not
And I assume the main Armendariz investigation then
10
for and which you couldn't.
11
A.
12
Charley Armendariz in the Human Smuggling Unit was
13
interviewed --
14
Q.
Well, let me ask --
15
A.
-- during this investigation.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
I assume, though, if you found a credit card, you'd have
19
the name of somebody that lost the credit card.
20
A.
That's correct.
21
Q.
And you could go back in your CAD system and find if that
22
person had ever had an encounter with police, or with Maricopa
That's correct.
10:29:14
Every deputy sheriff that worked with
IEN
10:29:36
Did you complete your answer?
DS
I interrupted.
23
County Sheriff's Office.
24
A.
Yes, sir, if it was in the system.
25
Q.
And I assume that you did that and put it in the Armendariz
FR
10:28:53
10:29:49
10:30:01
1551
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigation.
A.
through the search warrant, so it would be documented, yes.
However, if it wasn't Deputy Armendariz that had contact with
it, say it was Deputy Sheridan, then a new IA number would be
pulled, and that would be a separate spin-off Armendariz
investigation.
Q.
I understand.
A.
Okay.
10
Q.
-- any such investigations?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
Do you know how many?
13
A.
Again, I'm afraid to guess because --
14
Q.
That's all right.
15
monitor, or are they still incomplete, some of them?
16
A.
17
the main Armendariz investigation, it's my understanding.
18
Q.
19
Armendariz's home, and in addition to the 1459, which include
20
some percentage that involve members of the plaintiff class, a
21
number of other identifications and other items, including
22
cell phones and other things, have been found during the course
Well, it would be inventoried that we confiscated that
Are there --
10:30:38
Have they all been turned over to the
10:30:52
I believe as of today, the monitor has all of them except
IEN
DS
Now, in addition to the identifications found in Charley
23
of this ongoing proceeding; fair to say?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
Has any investigation ever been started on those
FR
10:30:26
10:31:25
10:31:44
1552
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
identifications in Exhibit 1000?
A.
Your Honor.
Q.
defendants turned over -- and I think there were 111 of
those -- defendants turned over 51 from Deputy Gandara and 44
from Sergeant Powe.
I don't recall what we did with the IDs in Exhibit 1000,
At the same time that we got the IDs in Exhibit 1000,
Was anything ever done with respect to those
8
9
identifications?
10
A.
11
so many, I don't recall what we did with them.
12
Q.
13
are identifi- -- are investigations?
14
A.
15
think I'm the best person to ask that question.
16
Q.
17
pull -- assuming you pulled IA numbers, and I'm not assuming
18
that, but I understand you're telling me you think you did, but
19
you're not sure, assuming you pulled IA numbers, you can't tell
20
me whether the IAs are complete as to those identifications.
21
A.
22
only one that is not complete is the Armendariz one that I
I know we initiated internal investigations, but there were
Okay.
24
FR
25
10:32:41
So you don't know in fact even if there
Oh, I believe that we did pull IA numbers, but I don't
10:33:06
So you don't know whether the IAs -- if you
DS
All right.
10:33:21
I believe they would be complete, because I believe the
IEN
23
10:32:24
mentioned earlier.
And the problem -- the reason I'm having a hard time
answering your question, Your Honor, there was so many IAs
10:33:47
1553
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
pulled.
There were four sheets, a spreadsheet with four
sheets' worth of information on them, and I can't recall those
specifically, you know, I'm afraid to guess.
Q.
don't know, that's fine.
That's all right.
Let me just ask you if you know, and if
10:34:11
In addition to the Powe, Gandara, the Frei, there have
6
7
been since then a number of IDs that keep being found and
turned in, including IDs after the 1459, correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
As far as you are aware, are all of those identifications
11
being investigated?
12
A.
Now, when you say "investigated," are you --
13
Q.
I mean trying to find out who took the IDs.
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
All of them?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
And I take it that your investigation on those aren't
18
complete, since some of them were found as late as September
19
9th?
20
A.
21
who took them, let -- give me an example, because I don't want
22
to give you any wrong information, okay?
IEN
DS
Well, can we back up one second?
23
10:34:40
When you say as far as
10:34:50
When let's say with Sergeant Powe, he had 44 -- 44 IDs
24
in his go bag in his truck for a year that were confiscated --
25
or not "confiscated" -- that were obtained through the property
FR
10:34:24
10:35:16
1554
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
room in the destruction box.
investigated to see how they were obtained.
Q.
you can't speak about individual investigations.
A.
Correct.
Q.
Now, you talked with Mr. Masterson about what I think he's
referred to, and I've occasionally referred to as unicorn bins,
which are these bins where identifications are cut up, and I
think your testimony was they exist all over the Valley in all
Okay.
I don't think that we
So fair to say you think you've been diligent, but
kinds of police departments.
11
A.
Except MCSO.
12
Q.
Now.
13
A.
Now.
14
Q.
Unicorn bins did exist at MCSO.
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
Fair to say that a number of identifications have been
17
destroyed over the past five years?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
Over the past eight years?
20
A.
Your Honor, I don't know when that practice began at the
21
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
22
Q.
DS
10
10:36:04
10:36:13
10:36:26
IEN
Can you tell me when the practice ended?
23
A.
When you ordered it.
24
Q.
I'm not recalling an exact order I ever said that
25
stopped -- stopped the unicorn boxes, but it's clear that I've
FR
10:35:46
10:36:50
been very interested in this issue, I grant you.

MR. MASTERSON:
Excuse me, Judge.
I must have missed
the question, because I thought the question was IDs being
destroyed, and you did issue an order on that.

THE COURT:
I did?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
7
8
Thank you.
BY THE COURT:
10:37:06
Yes, sir.
You're right.
10
Q.
When was that?
11
A.
I believe it was in April, yes.
12
Q.
Whatever.
13
I ordered it, you did it.
14
A.
You're correct.
Do you have that date?
THE COURT:
17
minutes and then I'll finish my questions up?
10:37:21
Can we take 15
(Recess taken.)
18
THE COURT:
19
Thanks.
Please be seated.
DS
If I can, I'm going to resume.
10:55:53
Anybody need to raise anything?
IEN
THE COURT:
23
Chief, a question.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
24
clerk.)
25
BY THE COURT:
FR
But whenever
You know, I still have a few more
questions, but it is time for morning break.
22
10:37:11
You can provide me with the date.
16
21
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
15
20
1555
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
10:56:08
1556
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
When you sign off -- you sign off on all PSB
investigations, normally?
A.
Yes, sir, all PSB investigations.
Q.
Okay.
a division.
A.
Correct.
Q.
When you sign off on a PSB investigation, does
Captain Bailey, now Captain Molina, also sign off on that
investigation?
As opposed to an investigation that might happen in
10:56:21
10
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
I want to be clear; I'm going to change gears now.
12
to be clear about the chronology of some of the things I think
13
I heard you testify to.
10:56:35
I want
When is the first time you heard about Dennis
14
15
Montgomery?
16
A.
Oh, gosh.
17
Q.
I appreciate that.
18
A.
Sometime in 2013.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
A.
That he worked for -- he was a contractor for the CIA, NSA,
21
and he had information that 150,000 Maricopa County residents'
22
personal bank accounts had been hacked into by the -- either
10:56:49
I would only be guessing, Your Honor.
Can you give me a rough time frame?
IEN
DS
And what did you hear when you heard about him?
the CIA or the NSA, and that he was looking to give us that
24
information.
25
Q.
FR
23
Do you remember whether it was early 2013?
Late 2013?
10:57:28
10:58:22
1557
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I can only -- I can't even speculate.
Things are -- things
are kind of a blur.
Q.
NSA or CIA infiltration into Maricopa County residents'
personal information.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
You heard nothing else.
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And did you understand that this was information that
When you heard about him, you only heard about these -- the
10:58:44
10
Mr. Montgomery claims to have gleaned from his employ with the
11
federal government?
12
A.
13
was that he helped build the hammer, which is the high-powered
14
software program supercomputer that is housed somewhere in
15
Maryland, I believe, that the CIA/NSA uses to get this
16
information on U.S. citizens.
17
Q.
18
doing that, I do not mean to mischaracterize your testimony of
19
yesterday and previously, so if I do, correct me.
Okay.
His story
All right?
I thought I understood, and I think it was in response
to Ms. Wang, that when you heard this, you were a little bit
22
concerned about the legality of everything.
IEN
21
23
A.
24
about his credibility.
25
Q.
FR
10:59:26
And I'm just going to try and speed it up, but by
DS
20
He was a contractor that worked for a company.
10:58:53
10:59:54
I was concerned about the legality of it; I was concerned
Did you do anything to protect yourself legally?
11:00:11
1558
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Well, that's when we contacted the Attorney General's
Office.
Q.
Mr. Montgomery's story.
A.
some of those documents to us that had spreadsheet with
people's names and numbers on it, and the bank account numbers,
and that's when we contacted the Arizona Attorney General.
Q.
All right.
And you did that right as soon as you heard
As soon as we heard Mr. Montgomery's story, he provided
All right.
When you say spreadsheet on it, you don't mean
10
the spreadsheet that you've referred to as -- or that's been
11
shown you that's the DOJ/Arpaio timeline; you mean a
12
spreadsheet that relates to information that he claims he had
13
regarding the CIA's infiltration into Maricopa County folks'
14
bank accounts.
15
A.
16
that I never saw that spreadsheet document; that was coming
17
from Detective Mackiewicz and Detective Zullo.
18
Q.
19
about a personal records document.
20
A.
Yes, sir.
21
Q.
So Mackiewicz -- you never saw the spreadsheet; Mackiewicz
22
described it to you.
That's correct.
And I just want to make it quite clear
11:01:09
11:01:22
DS
IEN
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
And then you went to the attorney general.
FR
11:00:51
When you say "spreadsheet document," again you're talking
23
25
11:00:25
Did you go with Mr. Montgomery?
3?
11:01:30
1559
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Who went to the attorney general?
A.
Sheriff; myself; Detective Mackiewicz; Posseman Zullo.
not sure if someone else went with us.
Q.
Who did you meet with at the Arizona Attorney General?
A.
We met with the Arizona Attorney General himself, the
assistant attorney general, I -- sorry, I don't recall his
name, and we discussed this case with them.
I'm
One of the issues that Mr. Montgomery was hesitant to
9
10
give us any further information was he was seeking immunity,
11
and that's why he came to a law enforcement agency with this
12
information.
14
with the Attorney General's Office -- at the detective level
15
now -- to have a free talk with Mr. Montgomery.
16
attend that free talk, but Mr. Montgomery came to Arizona for a
17
free talk with the attorney general.
18
Q.
Was that pretty quickly after your initial meeting?
19
A.
I think it was a few months later.
20
Q.
Few months later?
DS
And I did not
11:03:13
Arizona?
23
A.
I don't recall exactly, but I -- I believe so.
24
Q.
You said that the attorney general himself was there, Tom
25
Horne.
FR
11:02:51
Was it paid for by the MCSO, Montgomery's trip to
IEN
22
11:02:17
And out of that meeting there was further discussions
13
21
11:01:54
You said there was an assistant attorney general.
11:03:33
1560
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you remember who that was?
1
2
A.
Sorry, I don't remember his name, but if somebody told me
it, I'd probably remember.
Q.
coordination about immunity and other things before Montgomery
came down, if I understood the chronology correct, is that
right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Who were those detectives?
10
A.
Well, it would be Detective Mackiewicz was the case agent,
11
and I don't know who from the -- who he was working with from
12
the Attorney General's Office.
13
Q.
14
sheriff, with the attorney general, about these bank matters;
15
within a month or two, Montgomery comes down and has his free
16
talk with the attorney general.
Okay.
You said later there was sort of detective
All right.
11:03:57
So you hold an initial meeting with the
11:04:16
Do you know who went to the free talk?
17
A.
No, sir.
19
Q.
Do I have the chronology right so far?
20
A.
I believe so.
21
Q.
You know that Montgomery himself -- and when I say
22
"Montgomery" I mean "Dennis Montgomery" -- went to the free
IEN
DS
18
23
talk.
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Do you know of anybody else that accompanied him to the
FR
11:03:48
11:04:28
11:04:39
1561
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
free talk?
A.
I don't recall who went to the free talk.
Q.
Did somebody --
A.
But there were others; I don't remember who.
Q.
Did somebody from the MCSO go with him to the free talk?
A.
Yes, Detective Mackiewicz.
Q.
And you don't know if there may have been others or not.
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And you don't know who they met with at the attorney
10
general.
11
A.
No, sir.
12
Q.
When did you first start hearing about the Department of
13
Justice in relation to Dennis Montgomery?
14
A.
15
Justice with Montgomery was on that timeline that Ms. Wang
16
showed me the other day.
17
Q.
That was Exhibit 2074A?
18
A.
I'm not which exhibit number it was.
19
Q.
Can you see if you happen to have it there?
20
did discuss it with you the other day.
21
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q.
And again, I think you said it was just you and the sheriff
11:05:03
IEN
DS
I think the first time that I heard about the Department of
23
when you discussed the timeline?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
And how did that strike you, the timeline?
FR
11:04:51
11:05:28
I think she
11:05:52
11:06:11
1562
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
By this time, I had read the -- excuse me -- the online
information about Dennis Montgomery constantly questioned his
credibility, but yet, if he did have information about the
federal government hacking into American citizens', 150,000 of
them that lived in Maricopa County's personal information, that
was something that was of interest to law enforcement.
there was always that in the back of our mind to maybe continue
to do business with him; I don't know what other word to use.
So
But when I saw this document, which a lot of the
9
10
information looks accurate, but again, like I testified the
11
other day, it's something that it's out there in the public
12
domain, it wouldn't be difficult, except for those two DOJ
13
wiretaps.
14
Justice would be interested in Jerry Sheridan.
15
ran the jail system, and I couldn't think of anything.
16
Q.
17
you're only dealing with memory, I think you said that kind of
18
shook you up a little bit to see your phone number on it?
19
A.
20
you see your name at the Department of Justice, the federal
21
government is looking -- maybe listening or has listened to
22
your phone calls.
11:07:38
You know, I tried to think why the Department of
Back in 2009 I
11:08:20
And again, I don't mean to mischaracterize your words,
IEN
DS
Well, yeah, it did.
That's why I am saying, you know, when
11:08:33
You know, this is my personal cell phone
23
number.
24
Q.
What did the sheriff say to you about this document?
25
A.
He was concerned about the wiretap also, but the other
FR
11:07:12
11:08:56
1563
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
issue, you know, we were quite concerned at about -- you know,
at this time about the Department of Justice lawsuit against
us.
fourth line down.
handwriting there, but it looks like he wrote crim, c-r-i-m,
question mark.
remember he was quite concerned about that.
Q.
Do you remember anything else he said?
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
So you decided to continue to do business with
11
Mr. Montgomery.
12
banking stuff, now you were interested in whether the
13
Department of Justice might be investigating you?
14
A.
15
the sheriff and I didn't give it much credibility.
16
Q.
Neither one of you.
17
A.
No, sir.
18
Q.
And so you did pursue matters with Mr. Montgomery, but you
19
didn't pursue anything, as far as you're concerned, that
20
related to the Department of Justice.
21
A.
22
my thought was, you have to -- I have to go back for a second.
So I remember him homing in on that line, I think it's the
I know, I
11:09:59
I was concerned that this was on here, but
11:10:28
11:10:43
And my thought was -- to understand what
Dennis Montgomery was very difficult to deal with.
24
That's why we had to send the detectives up there to deal with
25
him.
FR
11:09:30
And you were interested in, as well as the
That's correct.
IEN
23
Criminal, does that mean criminal?
No, sir.
DS
No.
I don't know if that's the sheriff's
He is a lot of things, but one of the things that I
11:11:06
1564
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
understand and I believe, he is -- he is a computer genius.
He
is probably a very good con man also.
President of the United States and --
Q.
It appears now that he conned you, too.
A.
Oh, there's no doubt about it.
we were in very good company with the federal government and
the President of the United States, and, you know, the DOJ and
the NSA, and Homeland Security shutting down the airports, and,
you know, so we were in very good company.
I mean, he conned the
No doubt about that.
But
So while I am
10
embarrassed about that, okay, I'll stand next to the President
11
and be embarrassed with him.
12
Q.
All right.
13
A.
So we -- we didn't really follow up on it because he was
14
trying to get us to pay him, because it was a constant thing:
15
Get us information.
16
enough.
17
put all this information together.
Oh, I can't do it.
It's not fast enough.
My computer's not big
Those kinds of things.
11:11:54
11:12:23
I can't
I have way too much.
And I'm not a technical person as far as computers are
18
concerned, and so at times Posseman Zullo, Detective
20
Mackiewicz, someone would get along with him, one wouldn't, one
21
would threaten not to pay him, one -- you know, and so that's
22
when he came up with this.
IEN
DS
19
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
And --
25
Q.
When was the next time that you recall hearing anything
FR
11:11:34
11:12:47
11:12:59
1565
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
about a Department of Justice investigation that involved
Montgomery?
A.
Masterson, Tom Liddy, Tim Casey, the sheriff, myself, where we
talked on the phone with Mike Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz.
were in the old building, the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo
building, I don't remember when it was, when Dennis Montgomery
had given them information that the DOJ had hacked into the
Jones, Skelton, Hochuli server and the Maricopa County
I recall being at a meeting with Joe Popolizio, John
We
Attorney's Office server, and that's what that meeting was
11
about.
12
Q.
Were there any documents distributed during that meeting?
13
A.
No, sir.
14
Q.
What was said at that meeting?
15
A.
Just that.
16
fragment, and we learned a lot about -- and this was from
17
Mackiewicz and Zullo -- about how e-mails were -- were sent.
18
You type an e-mail on your computer.
19
out in bits and pieces.
20
back in seconds, or if you know sometimes by practical nature,
21
sometimes it takes minutes for it to come back; sometimes they
22
get lost for some time.
IEN
DS
10
23
That Montgomery had come up with an e-mail
11:14:32
11:14:48
Your computer sends it
It could go around the world and come
11:15:25
And that's how e-mails get sent out.
But the problem that Montgomery has is that he has
24
these e-mails from the DOJ or whoever, the NSA, the CIA, the
25
ones that he collected while he was a contractor, and his --
FR
11:13:44
11:15:59
1566
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Allegedly, at least.
A.
Allegedly.
stipulate everything's allegedly?
Q.
With Montgomery?
A.
Yes.
Okay.
And I should say everything.
Maybe can we
Sure.
Thank you.
11:16:14
And so he had an e-mail fragment that he believed was
6
7
about Mr. Popolizio's daughter playing a soccer game, but it
was just a fragment.
whole e-mail together -- and never did put any e-mails together
And the reason that he couldn't put the
10
for us -- is because he needed this supercomputer like the
11
hammer that was able to take those fragments from the -- and
12
I'm just going to make this number up, but from the hundred
13
million terabytes of information that he had on his servers
14
that was able to blend those back together.
15
we never got any other information from him about the e-mails
16
or any of that stuff.
And so, therefore,
11:17:06
However, the meeting was called because there was
17
concern that there was a lot of attorney-client privilege
19
information on the Jones, Skelton and the Maricopa County
20
Attorney's Office, and I learned that day how important
21
attorney-client privilege is to lawyers.
22
Q.
DS
18
11:17:27
IEN
So are you saying that Mr. Masterson or Mr. Popolizio
23
called the meeting?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Who did call the meeting?
FR
11:16:42
I -11:17:40
1567
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
It may have been me, because -- and again, Your Honor, I'm
trying to put these memories together.
memories, but it probably was me.
Detective Mackiewicz would have called me, I would have
thought, Hmm, this is something I should let my counsel know
about and get everybody together.
Q.
All right.
A.
No, sir.
heard testimony about that meeting and I was not at that
I hate to create
Thinking that Mackiewicz,
And was that a January 2nd, 2014 meeting?
I don't think -- I don't think so, because I've
meeting.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
A.
That was not the meeting I attended.
13
Q.
So somebody -- you've heard from somebody -- and don't
14
discuss things that your attorneys have talked to you over with
15
because you've just talked about how important the
16
attorney-client is.
17
A.
Right.
18
Q.
But you have some notion that there's been testimony about
19
a January 2nd, 2014 meeting, and you don't have any
20
recollection of being there.
21
A.
22
meetings, because I recall --
DS
10
IEN
That's correct.
11:18:25
11:18:36
11:18:44
I think people are confusing two different
23
Q.
24
meeting you do know about.
25
A.
FR
11:18:02
I appreciate that, but let me just ask you about the
Um-hum.
11:18:53
1568
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
When would that meeting have been?
A.
That's what I don't remember.
Q.
Well, in relation to the November meeting when you met with
Sheriff Arpaio and discussed the DOJ/Arpaio document, which is
2074, how much later would it have been?
recollection.
A.
I can't even speculate a guess, Your Honor.
Q.
A month?
A.
You're asking me to guess.
10
Q.
Six months?
11
A.
Within six months.
12
Q.
You think more likely closer to a month or closer to six
13
months?
To your best
11:19:32
I used to be a lawyer, too.
14
15
A.
16
with Ms. Wang, and she's very good.
I know.
I've just been through a couple of depositions
Again, I don't want to speculate.
17
months.
19
Q.
20
communication regarding Montgomery and the Department of
21
Justice?
When's the next time you remember any
DS
All right.
IEN
Before we -- I'm sorry.
11:20:03
I am going to ask that
23
question, so keep it in mind.
24
meeting you remember, who said anything, that you recall?
25
A.
FR
11:19:49
I'd say within six
18
22
11:19:12
But before we get away from the
Well, I know all the lawyers did, because that's -- I think
11:20:25
1569
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
they were jumping up and down about how important the
attorney-client privilege was, and I know that -THE COURT:
That being said, Mr. Masterson, I haven't
ruled that there's waiver as to this meeting, so I don't know
if you want to pose any problem, but I'm going to raise it for
your consideration.
BY THE COURT:
Q.
Mr. Masterson; he can defend his own interests in this one.
So you can go ahead and answer the question.
I've alerted
10
A.
I wasn't seeking any legal advice, Your Honor.
11
Q.
All right.
12
A.
And I also remember Mr. Liddy.
13
Q.
So it was your impression that Mr. Masterson and
14
Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Casey, Mr. Liddy, were concerned about the
15
possibility that the Department of Justice was operating hammer
16
on MCSO, Jones, Skelton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Was each one of them concerned about this?
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
specifically?
22
A.
DS
Do you remember anything that any of them said
11:20:57
11:21:12
11:21:27
IEN
Yes, I do.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
I remember that Mr. Liddy said that he grew up near the
25
building that housed the hammer.
FR
11:20:44
And we all know who his
11:21:43
1570
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
famous father is.
And his father told him what that building
was and what they did there.
meeting knew all about the hammer.
before.
And that Mr. Liddy at that
I'd never heard of it
And he gave, in my opinion, he gave Mr. Montgomery a
5
6
lot of credibility that day for knowing about all these issues.
And that's what I remember specifically that Mr. Liddy had
said.
Mr. Montgomery had to say.
So in my mind, it gave us some credibility to what
10
Q.
11
meeting?
12
A.
13
the day.
14
Q.
Do you remember where it occurred?
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
building, the sheriff's old headquarters.
17
Q.
All right.
18
A.
We moved there --
19
Q.
From there.
20
A.
Sorry.
No, sir.
23
24
FR
25
Do you remember anything else about that
It was in the evening.
11:22:42
It was late -- later in
It was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo
11:22:59
When did you move from there, do you recall?
Thank you.
11:23:16
We moved from there January -- excuse me, December of
2014.
IEN
22
All right.
DS
21
11:22:06
Q.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next time that you remember any communication
involving the DOJ in connection with the Montgomery
11:23:31
1571
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigation.
A.
Detective Mackiewicz advising me that Mr. Montgomery had some
information that the DOJ had phone conversations.
information about phone calls that went into your office.
Q.
And what did he say about that that you recall?
A.
It was a pretty quick conversation, because, you know, I
was not excited to hear that.
other than what I just told you and my response, which I've
I believe it was the phone call that I got from
He had
And I don't really recall a lot
10
said several times.
11
Q.
Sure.
12
A.
Okay.
13
Q.
Well, let me just make clear:
14
you and Mr. Mackiewicz are the only people on the phone call.
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
All right.
17
A.
So I told -- I told Detective Mackiewicz that this
18
Montgomery investigation is not to go anywhere near Judge Snow
19
or the Court.
20
investigating Judge Snow.
21
contact Montgomery and tell him that we will walk away, we'll
22
stop doing business with him if he even attempts to do this in
This is on a phone call, and
I don't want to hear anything about Montgomery
DS
IEN
11:24:44
Go ahead.
the future.
24
Q.
25
conversation at all?
FR
I can repeat it if you want me to.
11:24:55
23
All right.
11:24:13
I am giving you a direct order to
11:25:24
Anything else you remember about this

11:25:44
1572
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
excited about -- and not in a good way -- excited about hearing
that information.
Q.
And did Mackiewicz call from Seattle?
A.
I believe he was.
Q.
And it was after the meeting in which Mr. Liddy discussed
the hammer.
A.
Oh, it was way, way after that, yes, sir.
Q.
So when Mr. Liddy discussed the hammer, you indicated that
10
No, sir.
It was a pretty short conversation.
I was pretty
that gave some credibility to what Montgomery was saying.
11:26:14
Did you continue to get reports about the DOJ?
11
12
A.
13
19th floor, before we really knew who Montgomery was and what
14
he was all about.
15
Q.
16
after?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Do you recall where you were when you had this phone call?
19
A.
I was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building; I was
20
at work.
21
Q.
22
Department of Justice in connection with the Dennis Montgomery
It gave me credibility that day that we sat there on the
DS
And so this conversation about me occurred did you say way
IEN
Okay.
11:26:43
11:27:04
When do you next recall hearing anything about the
23
investigation?
24
A.
I don't believe I did.
25
Q.
Ever did?
FR
11:26:02
11:27:36
1573
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't recall ever hearing Mackiewicz or Sergeant Anglin
or Posseman Zullo talk about the DOJ after that, because I did
give Sergeant Anglin a direct order also not to investigate
this or not to --
Q.
Sergeant Anglin?
A.
to -- as this thing, as this investigation seemed to get bigger
with the IDs -- excuse me, with the bank account IDs, and there
Let's discuss that.
When did you have a discussion with
When I assigned Sergeant Mackiewicz -- Sergeant Anglin
10
were some issues about Zullo and Mackiewicz and Montgomery
11
getting along and all those issues like I explained earlier, I
12
thought Sergeant Anglin would be a good person to go up there
13
because of his experience as a detective, to go up there and
14
give the sheriff and I, because we didn't have the luxury of
15
talking to these people or going up there and evaluating it
16
ourselves, to go up there and manage this investigation.
17
Q.
18
to this investigation you discussed something with him.
All right.
11:28:42
11:29:05
So when you initially assigned Sergeant Anglin
What was that?
19
A.
I'm not sure if -- I wish I would have wrote this stuff
21
down; I didn't.
22
Anglin about Mr. Montgomery and you when I sent him up there.
IEN
DS
20
11:29:24
I'm not sure that I talked with Sergeant
23
I don't think we knew about it at that time.
24
Q.
25
right, upon reflection, when did you discuss me with Sergeant
FR
11:28:11
I'm not sure.
Well, when did you discuss -- if you think that that's not
11:30:02
1574
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Anglin, if you did at all?
A.
he was back from Seattle, I believe when that information came
to light, it was shortly after he came back into town and I had
that conversation with him in person.
Q.
light?
A.
Which information, Your Honor?
Q.
Well, I assumed, and maybe I'm assuming wrongfully, that
I know I had that conversation with him in person, so when
11:30:32
How did that come -- how did that information come to
10
when you had the discussion with Sergeant Anglin, you were
11
saying that it was a discussion about me.
12
A.
13
doing whatever he wanted to or thinking that we were interested
14
in hearing any information about the Court.
15
I said, We are not interested in this at all.
16
Q.
17
conversation?
18
doing something with respect to me?
19
A.
It's from the phone call that I had with Brian Mackiewicz.
20
Q.
So you believe that you had the conversation with Sergeant
21
Anglin after the phone conversation with Mackiewicz.
22
A.
It was a discussion about Montgomery trying to look into or
And I told Anglin,
11:31:05
And how did you find out -- what triggered that
DS
How did you find out that Montgomery might be
11:31:25
IEN
Oh, yes, sir.
23
Q.
24
about the Department of Justice in connection -- or a
25
discussion or communication of any kind, being aware of one --
FR
11:30:43
When is the next time that you remember having a discussion
11:31:42
1575
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
about the Department of Justice with respect to Dennis
Montgomery's investigation?
A.
Mackiewicz, who I also, just so you know, I did leave out the
fact that I told him, I told Detective Mackiewicz to ensure
that Zullo understood my order, and I never did hear again
about the DOJ and this Court.
Q.
remember testifying that when you found yourself the subject of
I don't believe after I had those conversations with
Let me ask a follow-up question before I move on:
Do you
10
a wiretap investigation, you continued with Mr. Montgomery,
11
continued -- well, I think you said he strung you along -- in
12
part because a justice of the FISA Court had been contacted and
13
verified for you that the wiretap number given to you by
14
Mr. Montgomery was a wiretap number that was in use.

15
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
What can you tell me about that?
18
A.
One of the things that we continually tried to do was
19
ascertain some type of credibility for Montgomery.
20
our focus was 150,000 bank accounts from Maricopa County
21
residents, to see if the federal government did order him to do
22
that.
And again,
DS
IEN
11:32:37
11:33:02
16
23
Q.
Did you discuss those with the FISA Court justice?
24
A.
I don't know, Your Honor.
25
direct that conversation.
FR
11:32:09
11:33:23
I didn't attend that; I didn't
Detective Mackiewicz and Posseman
11:33:49
1576
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Zullo went to Washington and --
Q.
When did they go to Washington, do you recall?
A.
I don't recall, but it -- it's all a matter of -- we have
the records, the travel records and that kind of thing.
Q.
Did Dennis Montgomery go with them?
A.
I believe he did the second time.
Q.
So they went one time and then Montgomery went with them a
second time?
A.
If I'm recalling things correctly, yes, I believe they did.
10
Q.
How was it that Mr. Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo were able to
11
get an interview with a FISA Court judge?
12
A.
I believe it was through someone that Mr. Zullo knew.
13
Q.
Is that Mr. Klayman?
14
A.
It's possible.
15
Q.
Let me ask, in your previous testimony you indicated that
16
the FISA Court judge verified that the wiretap numbers used for
17
you and Sheriff Arpaio were typical wiretap exchanges, or
18
something like that.
11:34:34
I'm not sure exactly who that was.
11:35:02
19
A.
Yes, sir.
21
Q.
So what were you told about the conversation?
22
A.
Just that: that those numbers looked like typical numbers
IEN
DS
20
23
associated with a wiretap.
24
Q.
Who did you -- who told you that?
25
A.
That would have been Detective Mackiewicz.
FR
11:34:16
11:35:19
11:35:39
1577
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Would it have -- would Mr. Zullo also have also been
involved in that conversation?
A.
He could have been; he could have been around.
Q.
And do you remember where you were when this conversation
occurred?
A.
building.
sheriff's office.
Q.
Is this the new building or old building?
10
A.
New building, sir.
11
Q.
And you moved there when?
12
A.
In December of 2014.
13
Q.
All right.
14
A.
I hope I'm right on the year that we moved there.
15
Q.
Well, let me ask you:
16
is?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
building, not the old building.
20
A.
Yes, sir.
21
Q.
And that was with Mackiewicz and -- well, it was with
22
Mackiewicz.
11:35:54
I was at work on the fifth floor of the headquarters

I don't know if we were in my office or the
11:36:15
And so what all -- who all was present?
Are you right on where the location
IEN
DS
So you remember having this discussion in the new
11:36:45
Who else was there?
23
A.
And I -- I believe Zullo was there.
24
Q.
Anybody else there?
25
A.
Possibly the sheriff, I -- possibly the sheriff.
FR
11:36:35
11:36:55
Q.
1578
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Possibly the sheriff was there.

And what do you recall?
2
3
A.
Specifically about that meeting, the judge -- and I'm
sorry, I don't recall his name -- seemed to think that those
were typical numbers associated with a wiretap.
he -- the judge was very sketchy on try -- he wanted some more
information, I believe, and he wanted some more information and
didn't want to commit to whether or not Montgomery was
reliable, unreliable, whatever.
But again,
Q.
Who told you that?
11
A.
That would be Detective Mackiewicz and/or Zullo during our
12
briefing.
13
Q.
You don't remember who between the two of them?
14
A.
No, sir.
15
Q.
What did you say?
16
A.
I don't remember.
17
Q.
What did the sheriff say?
18
A.
I don't remember, Your Honor.
19
Q.
Do you remember any other awareness on your part of
20
Mr. Montgomery doing an investigation into the DOJ?
21
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
22
Q.
Let me ask you:
IEN
DS
10
this time when you had the FISA judge tell you that it was --
24
it looked like it might be legitimate?
25
A.
FR
11:38:00
11:38:12
11:38:32
Were you concerned about the wiretap at
23
No, sir.
11:37:20
11:38:47
1579
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You thought it was garbage, nonetheless?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you tell Sheriff Arpaio that?
A.
Yes, sir.
being garbage and those numbers used as a ruse to try and get
us to continue to do business with him.
Q.
you thought that gave credibility to Mr. Montgomery?
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
You wouldn't dispute that, though, if that was your
11
testimony?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
There's been some discussion that you're in charge of
14
finance, and there's been some suggestion in your direct that
15
HIDTA funds were initially used to pay Mr. Montgomery.
We had many conversations about that wiretap
Do you remember your previous testimony when you told me
11:39:21
11:39:38
Do you know whether that's correct or not?
16
17
A.
18
used.
19
Q.
20
out they were not appropriate and paid them back?
21
A.
22
finance, noticed that some HIDTA funds were used, and that was
Yes, I'm a -- I'm aware that there were some HIDTA funds
DS
And were those the initial funds used, and then you found
IEN
That's correct.
11:39:51
Chief Freeman, who was our -- who was over
23
immediately corrected by our own volition.
24
Q.
25
funds?
FR
11:38:59
And then you started paying out of, what was it, forfeiture
Asset forfeiture funds?
11:40:13
1580
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Well, most of the -- the funds, well, they were paid from
RICO --
Q.
Ah, RICO.
A.
Our RICO funds.
Q.
RICO's different than asset forfeiture?
A.
Yes and no; that's where we get the RICO funds.
Q.
All right.
thing you paid him from was HIDTA funds.
was inappropriate, then you paid RICO funds.

No.
I apologize.
So if I have the chronology down, the first
No, Your Honor.
You found out that
10
A.
11
don't remember exactly; I know the document's here -- but there
12
was a small amount of money, relatively speaking, paid from
13
HIDTA for some reason, and that was quickly caught and
14
rectified.
15
Q.
16
to Mr. Montgomery?
17
A.
I do not.
18
Q.
But you do recall that HIDTA funds were paid and RICO funds
19
were paid?
20
A.
Yes, sir.
21
Q.
Any other kinds of funds used?
22
A.
Well, we used general funds to pay for the travel expenses;
I think there was a small -- and I
IEN
DS
And do you recall whether those were the first funds paid
23
salary, overtime; some equipment purchases from general funds.
24
Q.
Did the Cold Case Posse use some of its funds?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
FR
11:40:28
11:40:45
11:41:10
11:41:17
11:41:35
1581
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And do you administer Cold Case Posse funds?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Do you know how many -- how much funding came from the Cold
Case Posse?
A.
I do not.
Q.
I do recall in your previous testimony you did discuss a
conversation where you were with Mackiewicz, Anglin, and the
sheriff, and told them not to investigate me.
11:41:44
Is that yet a separate conversation, or do you recall
9
10
it at all?
11
A.
12
little bit.
13
Q.
14
have twice-a-week briefings on the Montgomery investigation,
15
and that Mackiewicz was in charge but reported to you and the
16
sheriff.
17
that Mack -- that you were in charge of the investigation.
11:42:02
You know, sir, as time goes on, my memory kind of fades a

I don't recall that.
All right.
I think your testimony last time was that you'd
And the sheriff testified that he reported to you, or
Were any documents generated in connection with these
18
weekly briefings?
20
A.
No, sir.
21
Q.
No documents at all.
22
A.
No, sir.
IEN
DS
19
23
Q.
24
Montgomery's progress on the bank accounts that you thought he
25
was infiltrating?
FR
11:42:25
11:42:38
So you don't recall any documents that would go through
11:42:52
1582
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm sorry.
Q.
Sure.
concerned, the infiltration of private information of Maricopa
County residents like bank accounts, correct?
A.
was attempting to do was through his computer -- now, I was
told that he had a computer that filled his garage -- that
through his computer system he was attempting to put back
together the information that he had gleaned from when he was a
Montgomery was investigating, as far as you were
Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
What Montgomery
10
contractor with the NSA.
11
investigation.
12
Q.
13
about his attempts to put back together this information?
14
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
15
Q.
And did he refer to these categories of information that he
16
was trying to put together as "packets"?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
And so in your weekly briefings or biweekly briefings, you
19
didn't get any papers that would discuss these efforts at all?
20
A.
No, sir.
21
Q.
Let's then switch to -- I believe you testified yesterday
22
that -- well, before we get there, do you remember when I
IEN
23
think -- and I'm sorry, because there's a lot to remember for
24
me, too.
25
Thomas Drake and a Wieby where Maricopa County -- it was an
FR
11:43:44
And no doc -- he didn't generate any documents
DS
I see.
That was, quote-unquote, the
11:43:08
11:44:03
11:44:17
There was documents showed you that was authored by

11:44:41
1583
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
e-mail from Mackiewicz to you that attached this report from
Drake that said that Montgomery was a fraud?

3
4
A.
Oh, yes, sir.
Q.
Did you get that e-mail?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you read it?
A.
I don't recall reading it.
Q.
Do you recall reading the report that was attached to it?
10
A.
I do.
11
Q.
And what did it say?
12
A.
I recall reading it; I don't recall right now what it said.
13
Q.
Do you recall when you read it?
14
A.
It would have been right around the time that I got the
15
e-mail, and I also had a conversation with Detective Mackiewicz
16
about his meeting with those two gentlemen.
17
Q.
And what did he say?
18
A.
He said that they confirmed that Montgomery was a fraud,
19
and that the vast majority of the information that he gave us
20
on those 50 hard drives was nothing but junk, and Al Jazeera
21
broadcasts, that kind of thing.
22
Q.
11:45:02
11:45:13
DS
When you first read it.
11:46:03
IEN
What did you tell him?
23
A.
24
towards the very end of us doing -- or using Mr. Montgomery as
25
an informant, and we were just, again, verifying this
FR
11:45:38
I said, Oh, great.
But, you know, by this time, this was
11:46:45
1584
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
information.
It was towards the end of our relationship with
him.
Q.
Did you say anything to the sheriff?
A.
Yes.
knew about this.
Q.
Did you do that?
A.
I don't recall if I did.
Q.
Do you recall any conversation or communication with the
sheriff about that e-mail, other than your general sense that
I believe the sheriff was -- was briefed on that and
10
the sheriff was briefed about it?
11
A.
12
Mr. Montgomery, and their opinion of him.
13
Q.
Whose opinion of him?
14
A.
The former NSA employees.
15
Q.
And what did you say?
16
A.
I don't remember the exact details, Your Honor, but I
17
remember the sheriff agreeing that, you know -- again, the
18
sheriff and I all along had always questioned Mr. Montgomery's
19
reliability.
20
event that he did have something credible, because at times he
21
did give us a little information here and there.
22
Q.
11:47:14
I know we talked about those two former NSA employees and
11:47:36
DS
But we continued to do business with him in the
11:47:56
IEN
Like with the FISA Court judge.
23
A.
24
send detectives out with information on the bank accounts to
25
contact people that were still available, because his
FR
11:46:59
Like with the FISA Court judge; like with the -- we did
11:48:25
1585
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
information was old.
I think the latest information he had was
from 2010.
approximately -- please don't hold me to this number -- but
approximately 50 or so county residents to check up on their
bank accounts:
this your number?
he did provide us with some valid information.
Q.
Name/address/bank account number?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
I think your testimony was that he got the amount in the
11
accounts wrong, right?
12
A.
13
vary, and people don't remember how much they had in their bank
14
account in 2008 and 2009.
15
account number and the name, people might remember --
16
Q.
There were a few of them that --
17
A.
-- or have record of that.
18
Q.
-- few of them that were verified.
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
Let me ask, you indicated that there were two visits to the
21
FISA Court judge.
22
A.
And so we sent detectives out to follow up on
Is this your name?
Is this your address?
And about half of them came back valid.
Is
So
11:49:10
DS
Well, it was difficult on the amounts, because amounts
Some did, some -- but the bank
11:49:28
11:49:36
IEN
Yes, sir.
23
Q.
When was the second visit to the FISA Court judge?
24
A.
I'm sorry, I don't recall.
25
Q.
Who told you about the visit to the -- the second visit to
FR
11:48:53
11:50:01
1586
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the FISA Court judge?
A.
Detective Mackiewicz; he kept me abreast of that.
Q.
And what did he say about that visit?
A.
I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't recall.
Q.
Let me just ask:
told you?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
In your previous testimony -- I didn't ask you to do this,
but you told me that you had the name of the FISA Court judge
10
written on your pad, and if I'd let you, you could go look at
11
it.
12
A.
Well, Detective Mackiewicz.
13
Q.
Would have told you who the FISA Court judge was?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
what it is.
16
Q.
17
name on your pad before your testimony.
18
name from that you wrote on your pad?
19
record, some notes you'd made of your conversations with
20
Detective Mackiewicz?
21
A.
22
Detective Mackiewicz.
Did you ever take notes of things that he
11:50:42
Where did you get that name from?
And if I heard his name I'd be able to tell you
I just don't recall it right at the moment.
What I'm really asking you is:
11:50:58
You apparently wrote his
Where did you get the
Did you look at some
DS
11:51:16
IEN
I never took any notes, Your Honor, from

Probably just from conversation, you
23
know, I might have jotted the judge's name down just --
24
Q.
25
topics on the same pad?
FR
11:50:27
What pad was it?
Did you keep conversations on the same

11:51:41
1587
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No, sir.
Q.
So where would you have gotten that name from, to the best
of your recollection?
A.
sometimes I can remember things and, you know, a minute later I
can't, you know, so with this judge's name -- and it begins
with an L -- I can't think of it right now.
Lambert.
Well, I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but
It might be Judge
Again, I don't want to -- I don't want to guess.
You know, it's -- sometimes, you know, I'd be talking
9
10
to Detective Mackiewicz on the phone.
11
judge's name, I'd write his name down on a -- on a yellow
12
sticky.
13
talk.
14
Q.
15
were briefed about this second conference with the judge?
16
A.
I'm not sure.
17
Q.
Where did that conversation occur?
18
A.
I'm sure on the fifth floor of the Wells Fargo building.
19
Q.
Was it in person or on the telephone?
20
A.
I believe it was both.
21
Washington to brief me after the meeting, and then when he came
22
back from Washington he came to see me.
11:52:26
I have a bunch of them on my desk right now as we
I don't really keep a ledger.
DS
MR. MASTERSON:
24
clarification.
25
the Wells Fargo building.
FR
If he told me the
Was there anybody else present at the conversation when you
IEN
23
11:51:53
I believe he called me from
11:52:42
11:53:13
Excuse me, Judge, just a
The witness just testified the fifth floor of

It's either the wrong building or
11:53:28
1588
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the wrong floor.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
That would be the fifth
floor of our headquarters building.
BY THE COURT:
Q.
Montgomery actually attended that meeting.
A.
Yes, I believe he did.
Q.
And I think you said that MCSO would have paid for that
11:53:38
And I think you testified that he told you that Dennis
10
and --
11
A.
12
appearance to Washington, D.C.
13
for his transportation to meet with the Arizona Attorney
14
General.
15
Q.
16
Mr. Zullo to go to Washington, D.C., presumably.
17
A.
Yes, sir, we did.
18
Q.
Do you recall now any other communications that you had
19
with anyone regarding Montgomery's investigations with the DOJ,
20
or that might involve the DOJ?
21
A.
No, sir.
22
Q.
You testified that -- I think there was some confusion --
11:53:55
We did -- we did not pay for the transportation for his
You would have paid for Detective Mackiewicz and
IEN
DS
Okay.
We did -- I believe we did pay
maybe at your deposition and maybe in this court -- when
24
Ms. Wang first discussed with you Exhibit 2074A, which is that
25
DOJ/Arpaio timeline.
FR
23
And I think you testified yesterday that
11:54:13
11:54:36
11:55:09
1589
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
you didn't -- even though you may have said in the deposition
you saw some things later on, that you didn't see anything
called the, I don't know, Arpaio timeline or something, until
April 23rd or 24th in Captain Knight's office, right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Tell me about that.
A.
This was in response to your order to myself and
Ms. Iafrate to produce Montgomery documents.
Q.
Yeah.
11:55:30
Now, to be clear, I did give that order to the
10
sheriff, right?
It came during the sheriff's testimony.
11
A.
Okay.
12
Q.
Did the sheriff delegate that job to you?
13
A.
I assume so.
14
Q.
All right.
15
A.
But that was ultimately delegated to Chief Knight by me.
16
Q.
All right.
17
the 23rd.
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
What did you do next?
20
A.
I asked Chief Knight to collect all that information from
21
Detective Mackiewicz concerning the Montgomery investigation,
22
because he had all the records --
So that would be on the 23rd, and I don't know --
DS
IEN
11:56:18
What did you -- you heard me issue the order on
23
Q.
All right.
24
A.
-- on that case.
25
Q.
Let me just say:
FR
11:55:55
Where did you do that?
Where were you
11:56:33
11:56:49
1590
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
when you did that?
A.
I don't recall, Your Honor.
Q.
When did you do it?
A.
Shortly after you advised us to get it done.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
What happened next?
A.
Chief Knight contacted Detective Mackiewicz.
Detective Mackiewicz turned over what he did to Chief Knight.
So that would have been on April 23rd.
11:57:06
10
Chief Knight was putting this information together, and we must
11
have been on a break, because I remember being over there at
12
his office, and because he called me in and he said:
13
got -- you gotta see this.
And he showed me a phone tree.
14
You
It's a one-sheet piece
15
of paper.
16
Holder's name in an oval.
17
probably 20 other ovals in it with people's names in it, and
18
your name happened to be in one of those.
19
first time I had -- I had ever seen that document.
20
Q.
11:57:59
And then it had many, I don't know,
Let's go back.
And that was the
When did he call you?
A.
11:58:27
I think I was in my office when he called me and he said:
23
You gotta come over and see this.
24
gotten me and -- I don't --
25
Q.
FR
It had Eric
Or he didn't call you; you were there, you said.
IEN
22
DS
21
It had "Arpaio briefing" on top.
All right.
11:57:26
Or he may have come over and
This I think you said was when we were on a break here?
11:58:44
1591
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I think I -- I went over to make sure this was being done.
I know I was over there.
Q.
you went over there at noon because we had some issues about
production.
A.
That's probably what I'm remembering.
Q.
All right.
I do remember that on the 24th, when you were testifying,
11:59:03
So you were over there at noon on the 24th.
Is that your best recollection?
8
9
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
All right.
11
Captain Knight calls you in your office.
12
A.
Chief Knight, yes, sir.
13
Q.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to --
So you're over there at noon on the 24th and
Thank you.
Chief Knight calls you in your office, and you do
14
15
what?
16
A.
17
And I said -- I told Bill, I said:
18
document before.
19
Q.
Did he show you any other documents?
20
A.
I don't remember seeing or looking at any other documents
21
other than that one.
22
Q.
11:59:32
I look at that document, and I probably said a bad word.

I've never seen this
DS
This is not good.
11:59:59
IEN
And what did Chief Knight say?
23
A.
He agreed with me that it's -- it's not good.
24
Q.
And what did you say?
25
that you can remember.
FR
11:59:15
Tell me everything that you said

12:00:21
1592
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I didn't stay very long.
I don't remember saying anything
else to him, and I remember coming back here.
Q.
And then you continued your testimony?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did he say anything else to you?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Are you positive that he didn't show you any other
documents?
A.
Am I positive?
10
Q.
Yes.
11
A.
I don't recall seeing any other documents.
12
Q.
If I were to show you documents, would you remember whether
13
or not he showed you those documents?
14
A.
It's possible.
15
Q.
Do you have Exhibit 2080 in front of you?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
Can you pull that out.
12:00:57
12:01:07
Can you take a look at those documents, please.
18
19
BY THE COURT:
21
Q.
Have you had a chance to look at them?
22
A.
I have.
IEN
DS
20
23
Q.
24
entitled "Joe Arpaio brief" until the April 23rd or 24th time
25
that you reviewed documents?
FR
12:00:43
12:02:42
Do you remember saying that you didn't see anything
12:02:53
1593
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not
you were showed any of these documents?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Do you recognize any documents in that pile that you were
shown?
A.
the closest thing that I recall seeing that day are the last
three pages that say "Arpaio brief."
Well, I guess the best way to answer that, Your Honor, is
But I recall seeing them
10
in ovals, not a round structure in the middle with squares and
11
lines to that.
12
Q.
Did you see several different copies?
13
A.
No, sir.
14
document had "Arpaio brief" on it, with Eric Holder's name and
15
your name on it, that's what I focused on.
16
recall if Chief Knight showed me these other documents, if he
17
even had them up on his computer or a hard copy.
18
remember -- I think it was a hard copy he showed me.
19
Q.
20
appears on any of the documents.
I remember it was so graphic to me that this
And I really don't
I don't even
Now, there are on these -- several times my name
A.
12:04:46
No, sir, just on that one -- just on that one oval.
23
Q.
24
the way -- that I authorized a wiretap on you?
25
A.
FR
12:04:23
Did you recall my name appearing several times?
IEN
22
Okay.
12:03:39
I remember all of them being ovals.
DS
21
12:03:03
And was the one oval the one that indicates -- falsely, by
No, I didn't even know that, no.
12:05:02
1594
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
Did the document that you looked at say that
this page is still under construction?
A.
No.
Q.
It was a completed version?
A.
I don't recall it saying that it was under construction.
Q.
All right.
it didn't say it?
A.
I don't think it did.
Q.
Okay.
It might have been -- it might have said it or
Did Chief Knight provide us with the document he
10
showed you?
11
A.
12
ready to do was get it to counsel.
13
Q.
14
Montgomery investigation.
15
document, did you?
12:05:24
Oh, I'm sure he did, because that's what he was getting
That afternoon you came back and I asked you about the
You didn't mention seeing this
12:05:45
I did ask you -- you did testify that you hadn't seen
16
anything in the Montgomery investigation that would suggest
18
that I was involved, didn't you?
19
A.
I don't recall, Your Honor.
20
Q.
Did you ever find out who Thomas Drake was from
21
Mr. Mackiewicz?
22
A.
DS
17
12:06:06
IEN
Yes, sir.
23
Q.
Who is Mr. Drake?
24
A.
He was a former employee of the NSA, I believe.
25
Q.
And was he familiar with Mr. Montgomery?
FR
12:05:13
12:06:50
1595
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
Was Mr. Montgomery familiar with him?
A.
I don't know.
Q.
You'll be happy to know, Chief, I'm almost through, and so
I'm just going to ask you a few more questions; then we'll
break for lunch.
When did you become aware that the 50 hard drives
7
8
weren't provided in response to my order?
A.
I believe when the Monitor Team brought it up.
10
Q.
You knew that I'd asked for them; you knew that I'd ordered
11
their production.
12
A.
13
documentation.
14
Q.
Did you ever talk to anybody about that?
15
A.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
16
Q.
Did you ever talk to Mr. Mackiewicz?
17
A.
No, sir.
18
Q.
Did you ever talk to Chief Knight?
19
A.
I did talk to Chief Knight.
20
Q.
And what did you say to him?
21
A.
"Did you get all the information from Mackiewicz?"
22
Q.
And what did he say?
12:07:44
IEN
DS
I knew that you asked for the -- all the Montgomery
23
A.
He said "Yes."
24
Q.
Anything else?
25
A.
No, sir.
FR
12:07:13
12:08:09
12:08:25
12:08:41
1596
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did you ask him what he asked Mackiewicz to provide you?
A.
I don't think we got into detail.
Q.
Did you ever talk to anybody about the documents that
Chief Knight showed you?
A.
I don't remember.
Q.
You have no recollection at all?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Did you ever have any recollection of anybody showing you
any other documents that would involve the DOJ in the -- that
resulted from the Montgomery investigation?
11
A.
Just in my deposition with --
12
Q.
That was the only other time you've seen such documents?
13
A.
Yes, sir.
14
Q.
So the only recollection you have is that Chief Knight
15
showed you one document that looks something like, but you
16
don't think is, the same as the last three pages of
17
Exhibit 2080?
18
A.
That's what I believe, yes, your --
19
Q.
Do you remember in your testimony last April telling me
20
that no PS -- that you weren't aware of any PSB investigations
21
arising from the Seattle operation?
22
A.
DS
10
12:09:20
12:09:33
12:09:48
IEN
That's correct.
23
Q.
24
ever made to PSB concerning the Seattle operation?
25
A.
FR
12:08:56
Have there been any PSB investigations or any complaints
Yes, sir.
12:10:06
1597
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And do they involve Detective Mackiewicz?
A.
They do.
Q.
And I think that you've indicated that there is a criminal
investigation.
A.
pending also.
Q.
in investigating either one of those?
A.
Is that still ongoing?
There's criminal and an administrative investigation
Is Sergeant Tennyson investigating, or has he been involved
Sergeant Tennyson is not now involved in either one of
10
those investigations; I don't know if he was in the beginning.
11
Q.
When was the complaint made, do you know?
12
A.
A complaint was made approximately a year ago.
13
Q.
Are you overseeing those investigations?
14
A.
I am.
15
Q.
Taking an active role?
16
A.
I don't know what you mean by an active role, Your Honor.
17
Q.
Well, has it ever concerned you or ever -- have you ever
18
considered whether or not you should have assigned this
19
investigation, since Detective Mackiewicz will be a witness in
20
this action that personally concerns you?
21
A.
22
Detective Mackiewicz made some comments that involved me, and I
12:10:42
DS
Originally.
12:11:07
12:11:30
IEN
Well, as of last week I was notified that
23
don't mean that in a bad way, but involved me where I'm going
24
to need to have a notice of investigation served on me and give
25
a statement.
FR
12:10:18
So what I have done since that has occurred is
12:12:08
1598
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
assigned that responsibility that I normally would do over a
PSB investigation to Executive Chief Trombi.
Q.
Did you generate any paperwork in connection with that?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Did you ever have, or any members of your family ever have
any business dealings with Detective Mackiewicz?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And what are those?
A.
My wife's a real estate agent and sold him a couple of
10
houses.
11
Q.
And so she got a commission.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
You ever have any social interaction with
14
Detective Mackiewicz?
15
A.
I have.
16
Q.
Consider yourself to be a friend?
17
A.
I consider myself to be an acquaintance, yes.
12:12:47
THE COURT:
18
answers.
20
lunch break.
IEN
22
12:12:53
Thank you, Chief.
I'm through with my questions.
We'll reconvene at 1:30.

(Lunch recess taken.)
23
THE COURT:
24
Mr. Masterson.
FR
25
I appreciate your
I think it's time for
12:13:14
DS
19
21
12:12:31
Please be seated.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
1
2
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q.
I just have one question for you, Chief:

When did you move offices?
4
5
1599
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sheridan - Recross, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing
A.
I was mistaken earlier.

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
It was December of 2013.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MASTERSON:
10
Your Honor, excuse me.
13:35:41
I'm sorry, Ms. Wang.
11
Just to make clear, I mentioned earlier today, but we
12
13
are reserving the right to call Chief Sheridan during our case
14
in chief.
THE COURT:
15
You did make that clear.
MR. MASTERSON:
16
13:35:49
Thank you.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
Good afternoon, Chief.
20
A.
Good afternoon.
21
Q.
Sir, the Court asked you questions about current policies
22
relating to PSB activities.
IEN
DS
18
13:35:55
Do you recall that?
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Could you please take a look at Exhibit 2881.
25
be in front of you now.
FR
13:35:20
That should
This was produced by defendants to the
13:36:08
1600
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
plaintiffs.
If you skip to the third page, this appears to be
MCSO Policy Manual on Internal Investigations, Policy GH-2.

Do you see that?
3
4
A.
I do.
Q.
And I will tell you that upon review, it appears to us that
the first two pages of Exhibit 2881 are attachments to the GH-2
policy.
Does it look that way to you?
They come the beginning of the exhibit, but they're
8
9
attachments to the policy.
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
governing internal investigations at MCSO?
13
A.
13:37:04
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
18
THE COURT:
19
No objection.
No objection.
Exhibit 2881 is admitted.
DS
(Exhibit No. 2881 is admitted into evidence.)

MS. WANG:
Thank you.
23
Q.
24
where within IA files any investigation of the drugs found in
25
Deputy Armendariz's house would appear.
FR
13:37:13
BY MS. WANG:
IEN
22
Your Honor, I'd move Exhibit 2881 into
evidence.
17
21
And is this familiar to you as the current policy
MS. WANG:
16
20
13:36:49
Yes, ma'am.
14
15
13:36:31
Chief, the Court asked you some questions following up on
13:37:35
1601
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you recall that?
1
2
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you testified that they would appear in what you refer
to as the main Armendariz investigation, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
answer to my questions back on Thursday as the death
investigation, is that right?
A.
Yes.
13:37:52
And that was something that you described in
Some people have referred to it as that, and I
10
believe I did also.
11
Q.
12
into far more than just the death investigation, correct?
13
A.
That's correct.
14
Q.
And you also testified in response to the Court's questions
15
before lunch today that in that investigation there were some
16
items found in Armendariz's house that could be linked through
17
investigation to deputies other than Armendariz, is that right?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
And if that were the case, a new IA number would be pulled
20
and a new IA case would be started against those deputies, is
21
that correct?
22
A.
DS
But that investigation ultimately developed into being --
13:38:18
13:38:39
IEN
Correct.
23
Q.
24
deputy other than Armendariz, those investigations stayed
25
within what you call the main Armendariz investigation, is that
FR
13:38:06
But as to other items that could not be linked to another
13:38:54
1602
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So if you could not find any documentation linking an item
of evidence found in Armendariz's home to someone else, you
would just keep it in the Armendariz investigation.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, you said that the Armendariz investigation is still
open, is that right?
A.
Yes.
You're reviewing the final report?
We would classify it as open until my final
signature.
11
work has been completed.
12
Q.
When was that work completed, sir?
13
A.
I'm not sure.
14
Q.
Was it your testimony that the only principal in that case
15
is Deputy Armendariz himself?
16
A.
That's correct.
17
Q.
Armendariz died in early May of 2014, right?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
And the investigation continued after that time?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Sir, I'm going to turn now to the issue of the Seattle
22
investigation.
IEN
FR
13:39:34
13:40:03
13:40:14
The Court asked you whether -- about the nature
of your relationship to Detective Mackiewicz.
24
25
However, just for the record, all the investigative
DS
10
23
13:39:09
A.
I do.
Do you recall that?

13:40:35
1603
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And you testified that you were the one who assigned
Detective Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation, correct?
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
All right.
me -- well, I beg your pardon.
Did you testify in response to questions from
Did you and the sheriff jointly decide to assign
6
7
Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So you had a part in assigning Mackiewicz to this
10
investigation?
11
A.
I did.
12
Q.
And the judge asked you whether you had a personal
13
relationship to Brian Mackiewicz.
13:41:09
Do you recall that?
14
15
A.
I did.
16
Q.
And the Court asked you whether there was any business
17
relationship between Brian Mackiewicz and you or any member of
18
your family.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And you testified that Brian Mackiewicz and his girlfriend
21
were clients of your wife's real estate business, is that
22
right?
13:41:22
IEN
DS
Do you recall that?
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
You did not testify to that?
25
A.
No.
FR
13:40:58
13:41:35
13:41:49
1604
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did your wife act as a real estate agent to Brian
Mackiewicz?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did she act as a real estate agent to Brian Mackiewicz's
girlfriend?
A.
The judge didn't ask me that question.
Q.
Oh, I apologize.
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Okay.
13:42:00
I'll ask you now:
Is that true?
Sir, is it the case that earlier this year, 2015,
10
your wife still was acting as a real estate agent to Brian
11
Mackiewicz --
MR. MASTERSON:
12
13
A.
Objection, relevance, 403.
-- and his girlfriend?

THE COURT:
14
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
15
Yes.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
commission on two real estate transactions on behalf of Brian
19
Mackiewicz's girlfriend?
21
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Same objection.
Correct.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
And that was in -- earlier this year, 2015, correct?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
FR
13:42:41
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
13:42:30
And is it true that your wife stood to make a $100,000
DS
20
13:42:18
13:42:48
1605
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Sir, at the time that you and Sheriff Arpaio assigned Brian
Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation were you aware that he
had been the subject over the years of several IA
investigations?
MR. MASTERSON:
5
6
This goes beyond the scope
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
I think that's sustained.
All right.
I'll move on, then.
BY MS. WANG:
10
Q.
11
detailed a meeting -- or you testified that you were present at
12
a meeting about the Seattle investigation at which
13
Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy, and Mr. Casey were
14
present, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
Now, do you recall that during your two depositions in
17
September, earlier this month, you testified that you were not
18
present at a meeting with those counsel on January 2nd of 2014?
Now, in response to questions from the Court, sir, you
13:43:15
13:43:37
19
A.
That's correct.
21
Q.
And is your testimony now that you were present at a
22
meeting on a different date with those counsel?
IEN
DS
20
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
Concerning the Seattle investigation?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
FR
13:43:04
of the Court's inquiry with this witness.
Objection.
13:43:52
13:44:03
Q.
All right.
counsel that you attended?
A.
He was.
Q.
He was not?
A.
He was.
Q.
All right.
This is not in evidence.
Was Sheriff Arpaio present at the meeting with
13:44:12
Sir, you have in front of you Exhibit 2273.
First of all, sir, let me ask you:
1606
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Are you aware that
in e-mail correspondence, Dennis Montgomery used the alias or
10
the e-mail address "David Webb"?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
You're not aware of that?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
of this e-mail on Exhibit 2273.
I'm going to direct your attention to the first line
to?
18
A.
No, ma'am.
19
Q.
Do you see the date on this e-mail, February 11th, 2015?
20
A.
I do.
21
Q.
All right.
22
"Judge Snow Info"?
IEN
DS
17
A.
13:45:15
And you're not familiar with the reference to
No, ma'am.
24
MS. WANG:
25
THE COURT:
FR
13:44:51
Do you know what this reference "Judge Snow Info" is
16
23
13:44:43
Your Honor, may I have a moment?

You may.
13:45:34
1607
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
A.
I don't know.
Q.
Okay.
another question.
understand that Detective Mackiewicz was using the alias or
e-mail address "David Webb" in connection with the Seattle
Sir, were you speaking with Detective Mackiewicz about the
13:46:09
I may have misspoken earlier.
Let me just ask you
Looking again at Exhibit 2273, did you ever
10
investigation?
11
A.
No, I've never heard of that name before.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
14
A.
I don't recall anything like that, no.
15
Q.
Do you recall ever speaking to Posseman Zullo about the
16
Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
17
A.
No.
THE COURT:
19
21
23
Chief, I think you can step down.
Thank
13:47:17
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
MS. WANG:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Next witness.
Your Honor, before we hear testimony from
24
the next witness, plaintiffs did want to submit to the Court
25
some discovery responses and deposition transcripts connected
FR
13:46:54
Nothing further.
you.
DS
20
And you don't recall whether you spoke to Brian
MS. WANG:
18
13:46:37
13:47:47
1608
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to defendants' current assertion of the advice-of-counsel
defense as to the events of May 14, 2014, as the Court directed
earlier this morning.
MR. MASTERSON:
MS. WANG:
We --
MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor --
13:48:04
Your Honor, excuse me.
there, maybe we can shorten this up.
that defense.
THE COURT:
All right.
THE COURT:
11
MS. WANG:
12
We're not going to assert
All right.
MS. WANG:
10
Before we go
That seems to shorten it up.
Your Honor, plaintiffs call Tim Casey.
Your Honor, I have copies of Mr. Casey's deposition
13
14
testimony, which we may or may not refer to during his
15
testimony.
MR. WALKER:
18
MR. COMO:
No objection.
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
23
break that she does not have paper copies of all the exhibits.
24
So I would ask that when I refer to an exhibit, if I can have
25
that shown just on the screens at counsel table so she can
FR
13:49:04
Your Honor, Ms. Clark has informed me at the lunch
IEN
22
No objection.
THE COURT:
DS
19
13:48:44
Any objection?
MR. MASTERSON:
17
21
May I hand those up to the witness stand?
THE COURT:
16
20
13:48:11
13:49:15
1609
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
review those as we go along.
THE COURT:
Where are you going to sit, Ms. Clark?
MS. CLARK:
Well, that's what I was approaching --
3
4
good afternoon, Your Honor.
Tim Casey.
because we do need a place, both myself and my law partner, to
be.
9
10
I was approaching to address that very issue,
MR. MASTERSON:
Karen Clark, ethics counsel for
Your Honor, we can probably move
around here somewhere and get Ms. Clark stuffed in here at some
point.
11
12
13:49:43
THE COURT:
Thank you, Mr. Masterson.
MS. CLARK:
Judge, I have paper copies from the
13
deposition, but my copies were not marked with exhibit numbers,
14
so it would be difficult for me to follow along.

THE COURT:
15
16
MS. WANG:
18
Are the exhibit numbers the
them.
Mine aren't marked with numbers, most of
THE COURT:
That's all right.
We're going to take
care of it by letting you see the screen as Mr. Masterson and
22
Mr. Popolizio are moving around.
IEN
21
23
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
24
THE COURT:
Thank you.
25
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
13:49:55
They are, Your Honor.
MS. CLARK:
DS
20
All right.
same as they were in the deposition?
17
19
13:49:29
Judge, we've got a spot.
Is there
13:50:02
13:50:15
another chair lurking around here somewhere?

Oh, never mind.
2
3
1610
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
now.
THE COURT:
Kind of feel like Elmer Fudd here
I don't know that this will be a problem,
but courtroom mechanics require that if counsel table can see
it, the witness can see it as well.
Is that going to be an issue?
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Not from my perspective, Your Honor.
If it is an issue, Mr. Masterson, please
10
be aware of it.
11
Mr. Walker.
12
before we publish it so that Ms. Clark can see it, and we'll
13
have to find her a paper copy.
Can you please state and spell your first
THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:
18
Timothy J. Casey, C-a-s-e-y.
Please raise your right hand.
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Can I see counsel at sidebar, please.
IEN
DS
THE CLERK:
Please take our witness stand.
13:51:30
(Bench conference on the record.)
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
THE COURT:
25
My only concern is this, Mr. Masterson.
FR
13:51:07
(Timothy J. Casey is duly sworn as a witness.)
19
22
13:50:42
and last name.
17
21
Also Mr. Jirauch and/or
So if it's going to be a problem, let me know
THE CLERK:
15
20
Mr. Como.
Mr. Casey, please come forward.
14
16
13:50:31
We need a bigger sidebar.
I'll just do this in public next time.

In Chief
13:52:12
1611
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Deputy Sheridan's testimony, he referenced a meeting he doesn't
think is a January 2nd meeting.

THE COURT REPORTER:
3
4
Judge, I couldn't quite hear
that, I apologize.
THE COURT:
I'm really directing this to
Mr. Masterson, so maybe you could come in and another folks can
hear.
In Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony he referenced a
8
9
meeting at which you and Mr. Casey, other counsel, were
10
present, that he did not believe was a January 2nd meeting.
11
You didn't invoke any objection to his discussion of that
12
meeting, so I'm going to presume that you are not going to
13
assert the privilege as to that meeting if it comes up in the
14
questioning of Mr. Casey.

MR. MASTERSON:
15
I am not.
And also because the chief
16
deputy also testified that he was not seeking legal advice from
17
me or Mr. Popolizio at that time, I believe, during his
18
testimony.
THE COURT:
19
21
IEN
22
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
13:52:49
13:53:00
Yeah.
Okay.
Thanks.
23
MS. WANG:
24
(Bench conference concluded.)
25
MS. WANG:
FR
13:52:36
He did say that, or at least that's my
recollection of what he said.
DS
20
13:52:24
Thank you.
May I proceed, Your Honor?
13:53:32
1612
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Casey - Direct, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing
THE COURT:
Please.
TIMOTHY J. CASEY,
2
3
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
5
6
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Casey.
A.
Good afternoon.
MS. CLARK:
Judge, could we have a moment?
10
having some logistical issues.
11
the witness.
THE COURT:
13
THE COURT:
Pardon me?
You're welcome, Judge.
18
MS. CLARK:
19
If I could have a moment.
DS
MS. CLARK:
IEN
MS. WANG:
13:54:49
Thank you.
You're welcome.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
representation of the defendants in this matter who your
FR
13:54:12
I just said thank you for your courtesy.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
22
13:53:41
Thank you for your courtesy,
MR. MASTERSON:
16
21
We need one more seat facing
Mr. Masterson.
15
20
We're
12
14
13:53:35
Mr. Casey, can you tell me during the course of your

13:54:56
1613
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
primary client contact was?
A.
over the course of years.
management case, for whatever reason, under the County, and I
was directed to speak through the risk manager, originally to
Jack MacIntyre, but that evolved over the years.
It varied.
As I mentioned during my deposition, it varied

Originally, this was a risk
Under David Hendershott's tenure it became David
7
8
Hendershott, Joe Arpaio and Brian Sands.
left, it was Brian Sands until his departure, and then it
And after Hendershott
10
became the sheriff and Jerry Sheridan.
11
Q.
12
you've mentioned where your primary client contact may have
13
changed, you spoke frequently about this case with Sheriff
14
Arpaio as well?
15
A.
13:55:31
Sir, is it true that throughout the various times that
That's correct.
MS. CLARK:
16
13:55:48
Judge, excuse me.
I'm going to assert an
17
objection based on client confidentiality, and I need to make a
18
record about it.
THE COURT:
Make your record.
MS. CLARK:
Judge, I'm ethics counsel representing Tim
DS
19
20
Casey, and as everyone knows, he's under subpoena to testify
22
here today.
IEN
21
13:56:01
He is former counsel to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the
23
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in this case and a host of
24
other civil litigation cases.
25
obligations to his former clients to maintain both
FR
13:55:10
As such, he has ethical

13:56:21
1614
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, as well as
client confidentiality.
Mr. Casey's coun- -- excuse me.
Mr. Casey's clients
are the holders of the privilege.
Mr. Casey is not.
Furthermore, he has not been authorized by his former clients,
in writing or in any other way, to waive attorney-client, work
product, or client confidentiality.
intends to and will honor his ethical obligations to his former
clients as set forth in the ethics rules and relevant law.
Accordingly, Mr. Casey
Because of Mr. Casey's obligations to his former
10
11
clients, and as Your Honor has generously allowed me, I intend
12
to be advising him independently as appropriate regarding the
13
scope of his obligations as they may arise during his
14
testimony.
At this time I am objecting to the question based on
15
16
THE COURT:
All right.
19
understand your position and you're allowed to make whatever
20
objections you wish, I have already ruled that as it pertains
21
to any advice about the preliminary injunction, the
22
attorney-client privilege and the work-product immunity have
IEN
DS
indicated to you both at deposition and here, while I
FR
25
13:57:09
And as I've previously
18
24
13:56:54
attorney-client confidentiality under Ethical Rule 1.6.
17
23
13:56:35
13:57:23
been waived.
To the extent that you assert confidentiality
obligations on those matters, I'm going to overrule those
13:57:35
1615
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
objections to the same extent I did at the deposition.
I've also ruled that any content of the January 2nd,
2
3
2014 meeting has been waived, and I am similarly going to treat
any questions about the January 2nd, 2014 meeting.
As we've just confirmed at sidebar, Chief Deputy
5
6
Sheridan just testified to another meeting at which Mr. -- he
testified Mr. Casey was present.
he testified that he was not seeking nor was attorney-client
privilege -- or legal advice sought during that meeting, and
10
Mr. Masterson has indicated he's not going to seek to assert
11
the privilege at that meeting.
He did not seek attorney --
13
that meeting it has been waived, and even though you assert a
14
confidentiality objection, it will be overruled, just to sort
15
of get the blanket down.

MS. CLARK:
16
13:58:26
Thank you, Judge.
At the depositions, we made objections and Your Honor
17
entertained them.
19
question-by-question basis, as Your Honor indicated and
20
instructed at the deposition.
DS
18
However, at the depositions it was on a
13:58:39
So I've advised Mr. Casey that it will be the same
today during his trial testimony.
IEN
22
The deposition was the
23
deposition; this is his trial testimony.
24
objections on a question-by-question basis on all three of
25
those bases.
FR
13:58:10
And so to the extent that questions revolve around
12
21
13:57:53
So I will be making
13:58:54
1616
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
In addition, because his former client --
THE COURT:
Let's just be clear.
You've already said
that you do not have the attorney-client privilege or the
work-product immunity to assert.

MS. CLARK:
That's right, Judge, and I was just about
to make a record about that.
is incumbent on current defense counsel, current civil defense
counsel, to raise objections based on attorney-client privilege
and/or work product.
I've instructed Mr. Casey that it
And he's been instructed that if current
10
civil defense counsel does not make such an objection, then
11
attorney-client privilege and/or work-product privilege have
12
been waived by the defendants, and I have so instructed him.

THE COURT:
13
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
15
All that said, similar to the
statement I made at Mr. Casey's deposition, there may well be,
17
and I expect there to be, questions asked of this witness where
18
I will not know whether a privileged communication is being
19
asked for because I was not present at the meeting, and my
20
clients may or may not have been present at the meeting, so --
21
at least the ones sitting here today.
DS
16
IEN
counsel in certain instances as to whether it was, in fact, an
24
attorney-client privileged question.
FR
13:59:40
14:00:06
So I will need assistance from Mr. Casey and his
23
25
13:59:24
Mr. Masterson.
14
22
13:59:07
In addition, I'm going to object to the first
14:00:21
1617
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
question.
I think -- it's been a bit now, but I think it was
beyond the scope of the Court's ruling on preliminary
injunction and waiver.
communications Mr. Casey may have had with his clients at some
certain date or occasion, I don't recall.

THE COURT:
I think she asked a question about all
I will tell you the question I recall was
who his principal client contact was, and then who he had
contact -- whether he had contact with the sheriff even when he
had other client contacts.
That's what I recall the question
10
to be.
11
I can't remember whether there was an objection made.
13
That was allowed -- I allowed that at the deposition.
MR. MASTERSON:
12
the question.
I don't have an objection if that's
All right.
Now, let me just say in response to your speech -- and
15
16
we're going to quit speechifying, Ms. Clark -- we -- I
17
recognize, as occurred at the deposition, sometimes questions
18
have to be parsed.
19
to accommodate whatever needs to be accommodated, but please be
20
alert and make whatever objections need to be made so that we
21
can parse it or otherwise deal with it on a
22
question-by-question basis.
DS
IEN
14:01:04
And so if they have to be parsed, we want
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
25
THE COURT:
Ms. Wang.
FR
14:00:54
I thought there was a subsequent question.
THE COURT:
14
14:00:39
14:01:23
Thank you, Judge.
14:01:35
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
2
3
1618
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I am going to overrule the objection and
direct you to answer the question.

THE WITNESS:
4
5
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
I don't remember the question.
14:01:41
You might have answered it, sir.
I think the question was:
During the periods in which you had various primary
7
8
client contacts did you also frequently speak with Sheriff
Arpaio about this case?
10
A.
I did.
11
Q.
Is it also true that at the time of the Court's preliminary
12
injunction order you also were in regular contact with
13
Lieutenant Sousa about this case?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Sir, during this litigation, while you were representing
16
the defendants, who was your official contact for purposes of
17
document preservation and production issues?
18
A.
19
under your predecessor counsel there was a letter of
20
preservation sent by your predecessor counsel.
21
that, sent that over to then my contact, Jack MacIntyre.
22
was an issue in the case that came up about that.
14:01:52
Primarily, early on in the case
IEN
DS
It -- it was twofold.
I received
14:02:23
There
After that,
23
he was not involved.
24
believe the person who headed that was a lieutenant, and I
25
think it's Dot Colhane, Dorothy Colhane.
FR
14:02:04
It became MCSO legal liaison, and I
14:02:44
1619
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And did there come a time where you went directly to
Lieutenant Sousa for document production issues relating to
this case?
A.
I did is tried to follow what I understood was the chain of
command.
liaison was not operating timely, based on some demands that we
had.
Chief Brian Sands, explained my concerns, and then he went to
I'm not trying to be difficult, but the answer is no.
What
So there was a time that I believed the MCSO legal
And I tried to circumvent that process and I went to
10
Lieutenant Sousa.
11
believe I made Mr. Sousa's life, Lieutenant Sousa's life
12
miserable.
13
Q.
14
directed by Chief Sands to go directly to Lieutenant Sousa for
15
document issues?
16
A.
17
I'd go to Chief Sands and tell him:
18
need, and I don't think we can do it through MCSO legal liaison
19
for these reasons.
20
or not.
21
Q.
22
right?
And, unfortunately, we did that a lot, and I
14:03:19
So there were periods of this litigation where you were
What it was is I would go to lieutenant -- excuse me.
DS
No.
All right.
IEN
14:03:36
Can I go to Joe?
This is what I think we
And he would approve that
14:03:52
And he generally did approve that, is that
23
A.
He was very cooperative all times.
24
Q.
Was it consistent with MCSO protocol for you to bypass the
25
legal liaison office and go directly to the chain of command in
FR
14:02:59
14:04:00
1620
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that way?
A.
MCSO legal liaison.
you, it wasn't operating in a timely basis for what I deemed we
needed to do to respond to the plaintiffs and to our court
obligations, so we went that different route.
Q.
you understand that plaintiffs' document requests included
video recordings of traffic stops?
My understanding was that you were supposed to go through
But then, for the reasons I've shared with
Sir, during the pretrial discovery period in this case did
10
11
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
THE COURT:
I'm going to allow it.
THE WITNESS:
12
Yes.
Mental impressions.
The short answer is yes.
Your
14
broad, and certainly covered any video or audio.
15
BY MS. WANG:
16
Q.
And did you convey that request to anyone at MCSO?
17
A.
I conveyed -- I forwarded your discovery request directly
18
to MCSO legal liaison.
19
Q.
And did they produce anything in response?
20
A.
There were no videos available.
21
Q.
All right.
22
MCSO did have video recordings?
IEN
DS
document definitions were like they always were: were very
23
FR
25
14:04:36
Overruled.
13
24
14:04:19
14:04:52
14:05:03
Did there come a time where you learned that
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
Client confidentiality,
ER 1.6.
14:05:19
1621
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MS. CLARK:
Judge, when you say "overruled," I just
want it clear on the record under ER 1.6, Mr. Casey is only
authorized to answer the questions -THE COURT:
4
5
When I say "overruled," that means that
I'm directing Mr. Casey to answer.
6
7
8
MS. CLARK:
And it's an order under ER 1.6.
THE COURT:
It is.
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
THE WITNESS:
14:05:28
In fall of 2009, as I shared with you
10
during the deposition, there was a series of MCSO HSU member
11
depositions.
12
equipment that were just being introduced to HSU, is my memory.
13
After that, because of that potential, Brian Sands and
It came up at that time that there were new video
14
I -- Brian went to every deposition with me, is my memory.
15
that time, we needed to find out:
16
keep them?
Are there videos?
18
out of the box yet.
19
testimony was.
20
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
All right.
22
A.
So --
How do we
And that's pretty similar to what the
14:06:11
DS
IEN
14:05:59
They're not
23
Q.
24
found out there actually were video recordings of traffic
25
stops?
FR
At
Let's get them.
And the response that we got back was:
17
14:05:39
I'm sorry.
And did there come a time after that where you
14:06:20
A.
Yes.
Q.
When was that?
A.
May 12th, 2014.
Q.
Did you do anything to find out about those
video recordings and to produce them?
6
7
14:06:28
MS. CLARK:
Just a continuing objection on 1.6, Judge.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
1622
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Yes, I did.
BY MS. WANG:
10
Q.
What did you do?
11
A.
My counsel and I, my co-counsel, and I don't remember if my
12
colleague at my firm was with me that day, but there was a
13
meeting in which we were introduced to the fact that there were
14
videotapes.
14:06:35
We were shown some exemplar videotapes.
And immediately, I guess to put it bluntly, Mr. Liddy
15
16
is the co-counsel, and he and I were not happy.
17
And so we immediately wanted to find out when were the dates --
18
when did these things take place?
19
we match documents with the videos?
This was news.
Where were they stored?
And there were problems with this videos.
DS
20
stamp was obviously incorrect on some of them.
22
do that.
IEN
21
Can
The date
14:07:18
So we needed to
23
Q.
And who at MCSO did you speak to on this issue?
24
A.
The meeting -- I can't tell you for sure, because it was a
25
very large room with a whole host of people.
FR
14:06:55
I believe that it
14:07:35
1623
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
was the head of PSB, the Internal Affairs, the new Professional
Standards Bureau.
everyone was there.
there.
obligations that our client had to the Court.
Q.
well?
A.
I believe he was.
Q.
And Chief Trombi?
10
A.
-- I can't tell you for certain, but I believe he was.
11
Q.
All right.
12
September 16th that Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sheridan, and
13
Chief Trombi were present at that meeting, is that correct?
14
A.
15
said.
16
sheriff being there.
17
Q.
18
questions that you just described?
I can't tell you --
14:08:06
Well, you testified during your deposition on
I don't -- as I sit here today, I don't remember the
Okay.
14:08:23
And what did you find out during that meeting on the
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
Calls for
attorney-client privilege and confidentiality under 1.6.

THE COURT:
14:08:36
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
We learned for the first time that the
23
MCSO had been aware that those videos had been in existence
24
since February, and we had not been, as counsel, told.
25
BY MS. WANG:
FR
14:07:56
If that's what I said, then I -- you know, that's what I
IEN
22
I mean, the sheriff I don't recall being
But that's what we were most interested in because of
DS
21
But, I mean,
Do you recall that Chief Sheridan was at that meeting as
19
20
I think it was Steve Bailey.
14:08:58
1624
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did you look into why that was the case?
A.
We did.
Q.
Did you get any response?
A.
We did not get -- my memory's both Mr. Liddy and I were not
satisfied with the response, but it was essentially we needed
to find out what we had before we wanted to alert you.
Q.
videos since February of 2014 but did not disclose it to you
until May 2014?
10
A.
Did you ever find out why your client had known about the
No.
11
12
14:09:28
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
13
Mental impressions.
No, other than what I shared with you is
14
that -- I think the explanation was we needed to get our handle
15
around these things before we alerted the defense lawyers.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
the preliminary injunction order.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
The preliminary injunction order came about as a response
21
to the summary motions filed by the parties, correct?
22
A.
14:09:39
I'm going to turn to the issue of
DS
All right, Mr. Casey.
14:09:49
IEN
That's right.
23
Q.
24
on those summary judgment motions?
25
A.
FR
14:09:08
And do you recall when the argument in this courtroom was
It was the day before it was issued.
14:10:04
1625
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Was that December 22nd of 2011?
A.
It was.
Q.
And prior to the argument on the summary judgment motions
did you meet with MCSO personnel?
A.
tell you we did not meet to prepare for the hearing, because
that was lawyer work and did not need input from clients.
Q.
2011?
You know, we went over this in the depo.
A.
I'm sure we did.
11
Q.
All right.
12
A.
I have -- I found these up here, but --
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
There we go.
16
A.
There we go.
17
Q.
33.
18
A.
I do.
23
(Handing).
What is it?
Is that going to be produced on the
DS
MS. WANG:
14:10:58
Oh.
Could we have -- Mr. Klein, could we
have each exhibit produced just on the screens for counsel

table?
24
MS. CLARK:
25
THE WITNESS:
FR
25 what?
screen, Judge?
IEN
22
14:10:34
14:10:51
MS. CLARK:
19
I remember you asking me about a date.
THE CLERK:
13
21
14:10:16
Well, did you meet with your clients earlier in December of
10
20
I did, but I can
Thank you.
I have the exhibit.
14:11:09
1626
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Okay.
3
4
5
Sir, we went over this in your deposition.
MS. CLARK:
I don't have it yet.
THE COURT:
Do you have it now?
MS. CLARK:
I do.
MS. WANG:
I'm sorry.
I guess I have a cover page.
Okay.
Okay.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Exhibit 2533 is a redacted copy of your -- what was represented
So Mr. Casey, we went over this in my deposition.
10
to us and produced to us by defendants as a reacted copy of
11
your billing records for a certain period of time.
13
to be the case to you.
14
A.
15
deposition --
16
Q.
It is.
17
A.
I don't know how you all got it, but it is a copy of my
18
time sheets for various periods that are redacted.
19
Q.
20
reacted, copy of your time sheets for certain periods of time?
21
A.
22
accurate, yes.
Yeah, this is the same one that I looked at my
FR
25
14:11:48
And appears to you to be an accurate, if
DS
All right.
I remember looking at it at my depo.
IEN
24
14:11:31
Take a look at it and let me know whether that appears
12
23
14:11:18
MS. WANG:
All right.
14:11:57
It does appear
Your Honor, I'd move the
admission of Exhibit 2533 into evidence.

MR. MASTERSON:
No objection.
14:12:09
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
1627
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No objection.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
All right.
14:12:16
You may publish.
Can we highlight the time entry for
December 1st of 2011 on this page, MELC210536.
BY MS. WANG:
10
Q.
11
2011, there is a notation that you conferred with MCSO
12
Lieutenant J. Sousa?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And do you also see that you again conferred with J. Sousa
15
for three-tenths of an hour?
16
A.
17
that day.
18
Q.
19
12-6-11, let's take a look at that one.
It looks like I talked to him several different occasions
Okay.
And let's turn to the next page.
The time entry for
Sir, do you see that your time entry there indicated
that you prepared for a meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, Chiefs
22
Sheridan, Sands, and MacIntyre, and HSU Sergeant B. Palmer?
IEN
21
23
A.
I see that's what it says.
24
Q.
And do you see that the next time entry that's not redacted
25
indicates you conferred with clients except for absent Sheriff
FR
14:12:27
14:12:49
DS
20
Sir, do you see that in your time entry for December 1st,
14:13:07
14:13:25
1628
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Sir, do you read that billing record to indicate that you,
in fact, met on December 6th, 2011, with Chief Sheridan,
Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre, and Sergeant Palmer about the
Melendres case?
A.
That's what I wrote, so that's what would have happened.
Q.
All right.
A.
I try to be accurate so my bills get paid, yes.
10
Q.
And your typical practice is to make your time entries
11
after the fact, correct?
12
A.
13
as I go during the day.
14
in the evening.
15
I come in in the morning is enter the time from the previous
16
day so it's not lost, but --
17
Q.
Yeah.
That would be an accurate time record, sir?
14:13:51
I think I explained to you what I do is I take notes

I either record them before I go home
If it's a late evening, first thing what I do
14:14:06
Thank you.
All right.
18
Let's turn to your entry for December
15th, lower on that page.
Do you see an indication there that
20
you conferred separately with Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre, and
21
Sheriff Arpaio about this case on that date?
22
A.
DS
19
14:14:25
IEN
I do.
23
Q.
24
December 21st, 2011.
25
summary judgment argument, correct?
FR
14:13:39
And then turning to the next page, your time entry for
That would have been the day before the
14:14:46
1629
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
And on December 21st, 2011, do your time entries indicate
that you conferred at length with Sheriff Arpaio, and then
separately with Chief MacIntyre, and on multiple occasions
separately with Chief Sands on that date?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And let's turn now to the next page, the continuation of
your time entries for December 22nd, 2011.
A.
What date is this?
10
Q.
December 22nd.
11
A.
Okay.
12
Q.
It's the continuation from the previous page.
13
A.
Okay.
Thank you.
14
Q.
Okay.
Do you see that you had extended conferences with
15
Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, and Lieutenant Sousa?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
All right.
18
after the summary judgment argument, do you recall?
19
A.
20
redactions, but my guess is it probably was, but I can't be
21
certain.
22
Q.
14:15:22
14:15:32
That would have been -- would that have been
I cannot tell with the
DS
That was the -- you know what?
14:15:50
IEN
Do you recall debriefing with any of your clients about the
23
summary judgment argument afterwards?
24
A.
25
would come to the hearings and report back, but I also would
FR
14:15:02
Yeah.
Typically, Brian would try -- Chief Brian Sands

14:16:10
1630
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
try to report back myself, or at least be available for
questions if additional questions came up.
Q.
summary judgment argument in this case on the 22nd of December,
2011?
A.
would tell you it would be the normal practice to do that, but
this was so close to the Christmas holidays that I couldn't
tell you if the normal practice was followed.
And do you recall debriefings specifically about the
14:16:26
I mean, you're almost talking four years ago.
All right.
I don't.
10
Q.
During your deposition on September 16th you
11
actually recalled that -- you recalled debriefing them that you
12
thought we would probably have a jury trial, based on how the
13
argument went.
14
A.
I do recall.
15
Q.
Does that ring a bell now?
16
A.
Yeah.
17
all lawyers try to size up where they think the Court may or
18
may not be going; most of the time we're wrong.
19
reaction was we're going to have a trial, and what I said there
20
was I thought there was a Fourth Amendment concern in the
21
Court's mind, which turned out to be accurate.
22
Q.
14:16:54
Yeah, my memory after the hearing is reporting -- is
DS
But my
14:17:09
IEN
So, sir, the preliminary injunction order did issue on
23
December 23rd, 2011, correct?
24
A.
It did.
25
Q.
What immediate steps did you take in response to the
FR
14:16:39
14:17:20
1631
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Court's order?
2
3
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge, work product.
THE COURT:
What steps he took?
THE WITNESS:
Overruled.
I remember it coming out late.
remember the motions pending for some period of time.
And
parties have no control over when a court issues an order but I
remember it coming out late on the 23rd.
it, but not studying it, because the key thing is that because
you're representing, obviously, a defendant who's also a public
I remember reading
10
official, so it was important to give them notice as soon as
11
possible because the media would pick up on it.
13
Chief Brian Sands and gave him an oral report about the main,
14
you know, the highlights, but the main issue was the
15
injunction.
16
e-mail summary to the various people.
And then I know that I prepared that note, the
records requests.
19
have -- it looks to me that I spoke with Joe Arpaio that day
20
and with Jack MacIntyre that day, but I can't tell you for
21
sure, but that's what it looks like.
22
Q.
DS
18
I saw a note that indicated that I may
14:18:47
I do not remember that.
IEN
You said a moment ago that when you read the preliminary
injunction order you thought the main issue was the injunction.
24
FR
14:18:23
I saw -- since I had a subpoena from you folks, I did
17
25
14:18:02
So reading it, I am confident that I talked to
12
23
14:17:42
A.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
You know, as lawyers, you get summary judgment rulings all
14:19:03
1632
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the time.
happens.
You win/you lose; none of us like to lose but it
That's why there is a court or a jury.
But you don't get injunctions all the time; in my 25
3
4
years of practice, probably a handful.
So when a court enjoins
you from doing something, that's an official order.
very serious.
immediately to your client, because it's not issued to the
lawyers, it's issued to the client.
get out something in writing right away.
That's
And you have to make sure you disseminate it
10
Q.
11
That should be in front of you.
And that's why I wanted to
Take a look at Exhibit 187, which is already in evidence.
MS. WANG:
12
13
14
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
15
BY MS. WANG:
16
Q.
Sir, do you have it in front of you?
17
A.
I've got it in front of me; I've got it on the screen, yes,
18
ma'am.
19
Q.
20
conveying that the Court had issued this injunction?
21
A.
It is.
22
Q.
All right.
And is that the e-mail that you sent to your clients
DS
IEN
14:20:06
14:20:16
Who did you send it to?
23
A.
24
Sands, Jack MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, and Joe Sousa.
25
Q.
FR
14:19:42
Your Honor, may we publish this one?
THE COURT:
Okay.
14:19:24
I sent it to Brian Sands -- the recipients up there:
And why did you send it to each of them?
Brian
14:20:31
A.
1633
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Brian Sands --
2
3
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge, mental impressions.
THE COURT:
I'm going to allow the question.
The witness is directed to answer.
THE WITNESS:
Brian Sands because he was the chief
head of law enforcement, and HSU was really his direct report
under the sheriff.
The sheriff doesn't take e-mails.
Jack MacIntyre for the sole reason as a courtesy copy.
8
9
He had no chain of command authority, had no responsibility,
10
but the sheriff had at various time -- at least one time after
11
Hendershott left asked me to copy him on key developments, so I
12
did.
was the new deputy chief.
And then Joe Sousa, and I think I shared this with you
15
16
during my deposition, I normally would not have copied him on
17
it as lieutenant of HSU.
18
telephone conference that I copy him so he gets it, because HSU
19
at the time was the proverbial tip of the spear.
20
ones that were most likely to be in a position to either comply
21
or violate this, so we wanted to make sure that he got it right
22
away.
They were the
DS
IEN
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
Chief MacIntyre as a courtesy?
All right.
14:21:27
I believe Brian suggested during a
23
FR
14:21:11
Jerry Sheridan as a sheer courtesy to him because he
13
14
14:20:52
14:21:48
Now, you said that you sent this e-mail to

Is that what you just
14:22:00
1634
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
testified?
A.
authority.
Q.
was important to share the news of the injunction with Chief
MacIntyre, other than as a courtesy?
A.
That was my view, because he had no chain of command
Okay.
Yes.
Did you have any other reasons why you thought it
MS. CLARK:
8
9
impressions, Judge.
10
THE COURT:
11
Continuing objection on mental
To the extent it involves what he was
THE WITNESS:
I'm not able to answer that.
I was told
13
by the sheriff to copy him on it, but I formed an impression,
14
based on my work during client confidentiality about why that
15
was important that he be copied on it.
16
that's at least client -- my mental impression's based on
17
client confidentiality.
18
19
All right.
MS. WANG:
Well, sir --
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
And that would --
You've already answered the question.
Q.
24
MacIntyre should get the preliminary injunction order?
FR
14:22:56
I'm sorry.
23
25
14:22:45
BY MS. WANG:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
21
14:22:24
told, I'm going to allow him to answer, direct him to answer.
12
20
14:22:12
Did you have any particular reason you thought Chief
MS. CLARK:
Same objections, Judge.
14:23:03
THE COURT:
1635
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
To the extent that it's limited to the
preliminary injunction order I'm going to direct the witness to
answer.
THE WITNESS:
Jack MacIntyre was a trusted member of
the executive staff, in my judgment, for the sheriff.
He
happened to be a lawyer by training.
law, but it was my impression that very often the sheriff liked
to get second opinions, at least bounce it by Jack MacIntyre
because he had a lot of outside counsel on various cases.
14:23:14
He was not practicing
So
10
it's not uncommon, in my experience, that he might ask Jack
11
MacIntyre what's his -- what's his thought on this.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
as a courtesy because he was the chief deputy, is that right?
15
A.
Yeah, that's right.
16
Q.
Did you think that the fact that an injunction had issued
17
against MCSO was important to convey to the chief deputy of
18
MCSO?
19
A.
20
will say honestly that Jerry Sheridan at the time was a new
21
face to me, was an unknown commodity that I did not get to know
22
until the time of our trial and our trial prep.
And you also testified that you sent this to Chief Sheridan
DS
Yes and no.
IEN
23
24
FR
25
14:23:38
14:23:52
You know, we went over this in my depo and I
14:24:05
My
relationship really was with Brian Sands and Sheriff Arpaio.

My thought process was to copy him on it because he is
the number two in the chain of command, but I didn't have any
14:24:28
1636
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
expectations of him because I hadn't dealt with him on this.
Q.
on this e-mail.
A.
fairness, tell you that we didn't have any dealings with him.
Q.
records --
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- earlier this month, correct?
10
A.
About the case --
11
Q.
All right.
12
A.
-- yes.
13
Q.
You did not send the December 23rd, 2011 e-mail to Sheriff
14
Arpaio, right?
15
A.
He doesn't do e-mail.
16
Q.
Did you convey the preliminary injunction order to him in a
17
different format?
18
A.
I did.
19
Q.
How was that?
20
A.
Telephonically.
21
Q.
And I think you testified a few minutes ago that you
22
believed that in addition to Chief Sands, you spoke by
But you did think it was important to copy the chief deputy
Obviously I did, because I included it.
But I have to, in
Well, you had met with him, according to your billing
14:24:54
14:25:01
IEN
DS
14:25:10
23
telephone with Sheriff Arpaio and also with Chief MacIntyre
24
about the preliminary injunction order that day, correct?
25
A.
FR
14:24:46
I have no memory of that.
But I did find an e-mail to my
14:25:24
1637
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
colleague in my office summarizing their impressions after my
report, so it tells me that I must have spoken, albeit briefly,
with them that day.
Q.
All right.
A.
34?
Q.
Correct.
A.
Yes, I have it.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes, that's the one from me to my colleague at 9:30 that
10
night.
14:25:49
2534.
Is that the e-mail you were referring to just now?
14:26:11
MS. WANG:
11
12
Your Honor, I would move the admission of
Exhibit 2534 into evidence.

MR. MASTERSON:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
MR. COMO:
15
THE COURT:
16
No objection.
No objection.
17
MS. WANG:
18
Thank you.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
December 23rd, 2011, with Chief Sands, correct?
22
A.
DS
So Mr. Casey, just to recap, you spoke by telephone on
14:26:26
IEN
I'm positive I did.
23
Q.
24
spoke by telephone with Sheriff Arpaio and with Chief MacIntyre
25
the same day, correct?
FR
14:26:19
All right.
And you have seen documents indicating you also
14:26:41
1638
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
2534 indicates, but I have no memory.
Q.
Okay.
correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Okay.
convey the preliminary injunction order to your clients?
A.
when 187 went out, but I think -- I think I got my report out
within an hour of receiving Judge Snow's injunction.
And you also sent the e-mail that's in Exhibit 187,
Did you do anything else on December 23rd, 2011, to
As I sit here, I don't remember.
I believe -- I don't know
And I can
10
see here that I'm writing an e-mail to my colleague at 9:30, so
11
I obviously was there certainly from 4:30 -- I see it to be a
12
Blackberry, so -- but obviously I was doing stuff until 9:30
13
that night five hours later.
14
Q.
15
for December 23rd, 2011, don't reflect all the work you did on
16
this case?
17
A.
18
December 23rd, which I -- I'm surprised at, but I -- there's no
19
entry.
20
Q.
But you obviously did work on that date, correct?
21
A.
I -- yes, I did.
22
didn't charge -- I'm sure it was an oversight.
All right.
DS
IEN
14:27:33
I did not bill any time on
14:27:48
I did all the things I described, but I

I would have
23
charged for it, but I'm sure it got lost over the holidays.
24
Q.
25
you spoke to him by telephone about the preliminary injunction
FR
14:27:13
And do you believe that your billing records
I have no billing record.
All right.
14:26:50
Sir, what did you convey to Chief Sands when

14:28:06
1639
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
order on December 23rd, 2011?
A.
tell you now, this many years, the precise words; I could tell
you the gist of it.
We can no longer turn people over.
people over to the federal authorities.
something more.
under the human smuggling statute.
that HSU understands this right away.
The focus -- the focus was on the injunction.
But the focus was:
And I can't
We have an injunction.
We no longer can turn
There has got to be
We had some issues about the judge's analysis
But we've got to make sure

And that's the gist of
10
it.
11
Q.
12
injunction order issued, did you speak to anybody else about
13
the preliminary injunction order?
14
A.
15
another date after Christmas, the 26th or 27th, I don't
16
remember, that I do have a conference with Joe Arpaio.
17
28th there was a conference with Brian Sands, is my memory.
14:28:54
Okay.
Over the period of the days after the preliminary
Yeah, I've seen my time sheets, and there -- there was
14:29:14
On the
And then on the 30th there was a very long -- I think
18
it was all telephonic -- meeting, over an hour, with Brian
20
Sands and Joe Sousa about what HSU could and could not do under
21
the human smuggling statute, given the injunction.
22
Q.
DS
19
IEN
Okay.
14:29:37
Going back to the 23rd when you spoke to
23
Chief Sands, did you discuss with him whether it was urgent to
24
get word of the preliminary injunction order out to HSU
25
immediately?
FR
14:28:29
14:29:54
1640
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
He knew that.
We talked about that.
That's why -- and I
can't tell you specifically, I'm just sharing with you that
that is why I believe he suggested to me to copy Joe Sousa on
it, because he recognized the urgency on it, and it was
important that his people under Enforcement Support comply.
Q.
operations over the holidays where they would need to know
about the order?
A.
Was there any concern that HSU might be conducting any
I don't know if they had any planned.
Historically, they
10
were very active over the holidays in one way or another, and
11
that was one reason why it was important that HSU get that.
12
But I don't -- they certainly did not have -- at that time,
13
they were not doing saturation patrols.
14
Q.
15
specifically telling him the injunction required?
Okay.
THE COURT:
17
matter?
MS. WANG:
19
14:30:44
Objection, hearsay.
Is it being offered for the truth of the
Not really, Your Honor.
Let me back up a
question and maybe we can avoid the objection.
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
14:31:08
DS
20
IEN
Was it important to convey the preliminary injunction order
23
to the client in order for them to follow it?
24
A.
25
was important to talk to them and it was important to send that
FR
14:30:28
When you spoke with Brian Sands, what do you recall
MR. MASTERSON:
16
18
14:30:13
If they don't know about it, they cannot follow it.
So it
14:31:16
1641
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
letter e-mail off.
Q.
order to Chief Sands?
A.
Okay.
So how did you describe the preliminary injunction
That we --
MR. MASTERSON:
MS. WANG:
Objection, hearsay.
Your Honor, it's not offered for the truth;
it's offered to show the sequence of events and what MCSO were
told about the preliminary injunction order.

MR. MASTERSON:
9
10
12
Well, that sense that it was offered
for what was told is the truth.

MS. WANG:
11
14:31:51
I also think it's non-hearsay as the
statement of a party opponent.

THE COURT:
13
I'm going to overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS:
14
I cannot, Cecillia, tell you the details
of it, other than to focus on that.
16
whether we were going to take an appeal, but that was mostly an
17
issue with the sheriff.
18
expressed by Chief Sands.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
And tell me more about that.
21
A.
No one wanted to turn over people to the federal government
22
at HSU.
IEN
DS
15
23
24
FR
25
14:31:26
Also, the big issue was
14:32:11
But I just remember there was relief
Why was he relieved?
14:32:29
Not Brian; not Lieutenant Sousa; not the sergeants;
not the troops.
They didn't like that.
They told me that.
And when this first came in, it was relief, because
they didn't have to do it any more.
They were being told they
14:32:54
1642
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
weren't doing it, that they couldn't do it, and so there was
relief expressed.
Q.
injunction order to the sheriff, how did you describe it to
him?
A.
And when you conveyed the substance of the preliminary
14:33:10
I --
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Objection, hearsay.
I don't remember when we spoke.
I do
10
remember we spoke, and I believe -- I do remember, one, we had
11
a substantive discussion.
12
whether we were going to appeal, how quickly we were going to
13
appeal.
The sheriff was very concerned about
We talked about it.

Also told him:
14
You can't turn anyone over to the
15
federal government and that was not a problem.
16
resistance from Sheriff Arpaio.
17
it because I was very pleased to hear that.

His comments were:
18
There was no
Nothing changes anything because

And what he meant by -- and he
20
said, We're not doing the saturation patrols, and we're not
21
turning anyone over to ICE because Obama won't take them.
DS
we're not doing it any more.
14:33:51
IEN
And what that was a reference to, as I understood it,
23
was that under the President's policy that he made a decision
24
that they were not going to be simply taking over
25
non-criminal -- violent criminal people who were in the country
FR
14:33:34
And I was very -- I remember
19
22
14:33:19
14:34:08
1643
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
unlawfully.
So that was his expression that nothing changes
because we're not doing that.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Sir, take a look at Exhibit 2534 again.
A.
Which one is that?
Q.
That's the e-mail that you sent at 9:26 p.m. to James
Williams.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Do you see the indication where you said -- well, first you
14:34:23
10
said, "rankly, I am relatively pleased.
11
MacIntyre."
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
"Arpaio is conflicted on how he feels"?
14
A.
Right.
15
Q.
So Arpaio expressed conflicted feelings about the
16
preliminary injunction order to you?
17
A.
18
resistance.
19
lose.
20
concerned about some appeal grounds that we thought we had
21
because we had -- at least I had some issues as counsel about
22
my understanding of what Judge Snow ordered.
No.
14:34:42
I can't tell you specifically, but no one likes to
Parties don't like to lose.
And I remember him being
14:34:59
I turned out to
23
be wrong and he turned out to be right by the Ninth Circuit,
24
but I remember him -- that's what I understand him being
25
conflicted on it.
FR
14:34:36
He had no reservations about that; he had no
DS
IEN
So are Chief Sands and
14:35:15
1644
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Well, is the point that Sheriff Arpaio expressed to
you during this specific conversation that he hated to lose but
he did not resist.
A.
He did not express any resistance --
There was no resistance -MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Objection, leading.
Sustained.
Your Honor, I believe that under the
hearsay rules, Mr. Casey is affiliated with the adverse party,
and therefore I can lead him.

THE COURT:
10
11
Well, it may be that you can establish
MS. WANG:
All right.
Respectfully, Your Honor, I
13
think that the fact that he is former counsel for defendants
14
establishes that, but I will -THE COURT:
15
Well, let me just say I think I have a
fair amount of discretion on that.
17
objection because even though what you say is true, I haven't
18
detected anything that is argumentative on behalf of Mr. Casey
19
or that suggests that he is other than answering your questions
20
when I direct him to do so.
14:36:15
If in fact that changes, then I might let you lead
IEN
him, but I'm sustaining the leading objection.
23
MS. WANG:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
14:35:57
I have sustained the
DS
16
22
14:35:44
adverseness, but you haven't done it yet.
12
21
14:35:33
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Casey, did you -- can you explain to me what you meant
14:36:24
1645
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
when you wrote in your e-mail to James Williams that Arpaio was
conflicted on how he feels?
3
4
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge, mental impression.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
I think I shared with you I don't know,
but I can tell you it was not anything earth-shattering any
more than any other private client would have when they get an
adverse result.
BY MS. WANG:
10
Q.
All right.
11
A.
It means nothing about resistance to the order.
12
Q.
When you spoke with Chief MacIntyre about the preliminary
13
injunction order in the days after it issued, how did you
14
describe the preliminary injunction order to him?
15
A.
16
lines and there -- you know, with him it would have been just
17
making sure that we were on the same wavelength about the
18
interpretation of the judge's order.
19
anything specifically, but that's what it would have been
20
about.
21
Q.
22
preliminary injunction order?
14:36:53
I don't remember, but it would have been along the same
14:37:05
DS
And I don't remember
14:37:23
IEN
And was he in agreement with your reading of the
23
A.
24
one way or the other what was said.
25
Q.
FR
14:36:43
I'm sure he was, but I couldn't sit here today and tell you
Okay.
You've just testified that you described the
14:37:30
1646
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
preliminary injunction order as prohibiting turning over people
to ICE --
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- is that your testimony?
A.
Yeah, the federal government.
Q.
Did you give any -- did you also describe the preliminary
injunction order as prohibiting detention of individuals solely
because of suspected immigration violations?
9
10
11
client.
12
13
14
MS. CLARK:
MS. WANG:
The question is what he conveyed to the
MS. CLARK:
Based on --
THE COURT:
Well, what he conveyed to the client, he
Objection's overruled.
I'm going to direct the
14:38:07
witness to answer.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
THE COURT:
18
Objection, hearsay.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
19
The letter -- the e-mail letter that you
showed me quoted right out of Judge Snow's order that used that
21
language about detentions.
22
later trying to paraphrase for you what -- you know, what was
IEN
DS
20
14:38:14
And what I'm doing is four years
23
the message that was conveyed, and that's -- that's what it
24
was.
25
BY MS. WANG:
FR
14:37:58
conveyed to the client.
15
16
14:37:39
14:38:32
1647
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
When you spoke with Sheriff Arpaio about the preliminary
injunction order, did you come up with a simple way of
conveying the preliminary injunction order to him?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Objection, leading.
14:38:50
I don't remember when I came up with
arrest or release.
I think it was certainly after December
23rd.
expect everyone to know and read it, but -- the order was
But to me -- the order was 40 pages long.
You can't
10
detailed, but it wasn't complicated in its injunction.
11
pretty straightforward, in my judgment.
12
MCSO either could arrest -- if someone was in the country
13
illegally and you came across them, you could either arrest
14
them on state charges, and there was a footnote there about
15
whether or not certain federal charges, but I kept it state, or
16
you released them.
17
options.
18
we can't charge him state-wise, we hold him for the feds.
19
cannot do that.
20
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
All right.
22
A.
Yes, multiple times.
So there's no more saying:
DS
IEN
14:39:11
And it was either the
14:39:27
AOR, arrest or release; those are your two

We found this person.
If
You
14:39:47
And you conveyed that to your clients?
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
Certainly Brian Sands understood.
25
he understood.
FR
It was
To whom did you convey that?

I conveyed it to Brian;
I understand he also conveyed the same message
14:40:01
1648
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to the sheriff.
understand from a conversation with him that he conveyed the
same thing to the sheriff.
Sands, Sousa, Palmer.
right now.
Q.
individuals, believe that they understood what you were telling
them about the preliminary injunction order?
Okay.
Judge.
And did you, through your conversations with those
MS. WANG:
12
I conveyed that to the sheriff.
14:40:21
MS. CLARK:
10
And I
Those are -- that's what I remember
MR. MASTERSON:
11
Jack MacIntyre understood that.
Also objecting on mental impressions,
Withdrawn, Your Honor.
I'll ask a
13
different question.
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
injunction order, which I think the shorthand was "arrest or
17
release," is that right?
18
A.
Right.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
listed -- Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre,
21
Lieutenant Sousa, and Sergeant Palmer -- did you discuss that
22
with them?
When you conveyed that description of the preliminary
DS
IEN
14:40:47
When you conveyed that to those individuals you just
23
A.
AOR?
24
Q.
Correct.
25
A.
Yes.
FR
14:40:39
14:40:59
14:41:10
1649
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did you make sure that they understood it?
A.
There was no indication of not understanding.
pretty clear.
relief, because they didn't want to ever do it in the first
place.
Q.
conversations with those individuals, that they did not
understand arrest or release?
A.
That's correct.
10
Q.
All right.
11
spoke with Chief Sands you discussed the fact that HSU was the
12
tip of the spear in terms of getting the word out to the rank
13
and file, is that right?
14
A.
15
would come across -- at that time on that date, since there
16
were no saturation patrols being conducted by MCSO -- would
17
come in contact with people that were in the country
18
unlawfully.
19
Q.
20
informed of the preliminary injunction order?
21
A.
22
he was going to call, when he hung up with me, was going to
Right.
It was
In fact, the -- from Sands on down there was
14:41:23
And so you had no reason to believe, based on your
You said a moment ago that when you initially
They were the ones that were most active in which they
14:41:56
DS
And did you have an understanding about when HSU would be
14:42:11
IEN
My understanding from the conversation with Brian is that
23
call chief -- excuse me, Sheriff Arpaio right away and brief
24
him.
25
other, and tell him, This is on the way on the e-mail, and get
FR
14:41:32
Then he was going to call Joe Sousa, or one order or the

14:42:30
1650
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
it to the troops.
That's what I was told on the night of the
23rd, because we wanted to make sure it got to HSU over the
holidays.
Q.
order would be conveyed immediately to HSU?
A.
So your understanding was that the preliminary injunction
The night --
MR. MASTERSON:
7
8
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Was that your understanding, based on the conversations you
10
had?
11
A.
That was my understanding.
12
Q.
All right.
13
whether the preliminary injunction order needed to get out
14
beyond HSU, office-wide?
15
A.
Yes, Brian Sands and I discussed that.
16
Q.
When did you discuss that?
17
A.
It was either our first conversation or it was -- or it was
18
right after the Christmas holiday that HSU was tip of the
19
spear, but we need to make sure that anyone in patrol also gets
20
it.
21
better than I remember it now -- but there was the
22
Briefing Board, the bulletin board, and that Brian said that he
14:42:52
And did you also discuss with anyone at MCSO
IEN
DS
And I forget the methodology -- I used to know the case
23
was going to have it issued through that, so all -- anyone who
24
does patrol, vehicle patrol, would have it -- know the same
25
injunction applied to them as it would to HSU.
FR
14:42:43
14:43:03
14:43:22
14:43:42
1651
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And did you discuss why Patrol Division deputies needed to
know about the preliminary injunction order, in addition to
HSU?
A.
I don't remember that level of detail.
Q.
All right.
spoke directly with Lieutenant Sousa and Sergeant Palmer about
A.
Eventually I did, yes.
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
I have a time sheet that shows I talked with Chief Sands
11
and Sousa I think on December 30th for over an hour, and then I
12
know that I later talked with Sergeant Brett Palmer about the
13
order.
14
he sent over some proposed training scenarios.
15
Q.
16
injunction order other than the individuals you've just
17
mentioned: Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre,
18
Lieutenant Sousa, and Sergeant Palmer?
19
A.
If I did, I don't remember.
20
Q.
Did you ever brief anyone else in HSU about the preliminary
21
injunction order?
22
A.
And did you say that -- did you say that you
14:44:10
I forget the whole genesis of that, but that was before
DS
Did you speak to anyone else at MCSO about the preliminary
14:44:32
14:44:47
IEN
I did not, and I wasn't asked to.
23
Q.
24
Lieutenant Sousa and Sergeant Palmer, did you also describe it
25
as arrest or release?
FR
14:43:54
And as you described the preliminary injunction order to
14:45:04
1652
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I did.
Q.
Mr. Casey, did you think that MCSO needed to take any steps
to implement the preliminary injunction order?
4
5
MS. CLARK:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
14:45:20
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
taken to implement the preliminary injunction order?
A.
Did you convey to anyone at MCSO whether steps needed to be
At some point -- again, it's either the night of the 23rd
10
of December or it was afterwards -- Chief Brian Sands, who was
11
my contact, we discussed and I recommended that it would be a
12
good measure, a prophylactic measure, to have some training on
13
this.
And he was very supportive of it.
14
That was good.
15
It's always nice to have a client tell you, Hey, we like that
16
recommendation, and that was going to happen.
17
some point it did happen.
18
Q.
19
understanding, based on your conversation with Chief Sands,
20
that he would say cause a Briefing Board to go out
21
office-wide --
DS
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
FR
25
Let me go back, actually.
MS. CLARK:
IEN
22
All right.
14:45:31
14:45:48
And in fact, at
Was it your
14:46:05
Objection, mental impression.
-- conveying the preliminary injunction order?

MR. MASTERSON:
Objection, leading.
14:46:14
THE COURT:
1
2
Can you rephrase the question, please,
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG:
Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
sending out a Briefing Board office-wide to convey the
preliminary injunction order, correct?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
All right.
You testified a moment ago that Chief Sands mentioned
be done?
11
A.
12
going to have it done, was going to send it out, because we
13
have to send it out office-wide.
14
Q.
15
you recall that you, based on your billing records, you
16
conferred with Chief Sands about the preliminary injunction
17
order on December 28th, is that right?
All right.
And I think you've already covered this, but
Well, let's back up, actually.
And if you need to
DS
refer, again, to Exhibit 2533, please feel free.
14:47:17
Did you meet with Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, Chief
IEN
MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Sousa about the preliminary
23
injunction order on December 26th, 2011?
24
A.
I'm going to have to go -- let me go back --
25
Q.
Sure.
FR
14:46:50
Feel free to refer to Exhibit 2533 if you need.
19
22
14:46:32
My understanding is that's what he was telling me is he's
18
21
14:46:18
Did he convey to you whether that was going to
10
20
1653
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
14:47:34
A.
1654
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
-- real quick to find this, please.

THE WITNESS:
I see that I have a time entry with Joe
Arpaio going up to 24 minutes; I conferred with Brian Sands up
to 18 minutes; I conferred with Jack MacIntyre up to six
minutes; with Joe Sousa up to a half hour.

MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor, could we please have the
witness give us some date references there?
where he's talking about right now.

THE COURT:
10
I'm not seeing
Okay.
THE WITNESS:
11
14:48:05
December 26, 2011, on the time sheet in
12
Exhibit 2533.
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
28th, 2011, about the preliminary injunction order?
16
A.
All right, sir.
14:47:52
And did you confer with anyone on December
14:48:16
It's redacted here but I mentioned it to you in my depo.
I did talk to Brian Sands, because over the holiday
17
18
somebody made an accusation that the MCSO had already violated.
19
It wasn't you; it wasn't the ACLU; it wasn't any of your
20
clients.
21
Q.
22
think you might have already mentioned this.
DS
And we -- we talked about that.
14:48:40
IEN
And did you also confer -- let's turn to December 30th.
Did you confer at
length with Lieutenant Sousa and Chief Sands about the
24
25
A.
FR
23
Yes.
And that was where we discussed about what we could
14:48:56
1655
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
and couldn't do under the order and the human smuggling law.
Q.
preliminary injunction order consistently with how you've
described it today in your testimony?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
All right.
with Lieutenant Sousa and Chief Sands?
A.
What was your previous date that you asked me about?
Q.
Oh, I'm sorry.
10
A.
Yeah.
11
Q.
I beg your pardon.
And again, during that meeting did you describe the
And on December 30th of 2011 did you meet again
I just repeated myself.
14:49:26
All right.
12
14:49:13
I withdraw the question.
You mentioned a moment ago that you had a
13
discussion with the sheriff about whether to take an appeal
14
from the judge's preliminary injunction order.

Was that correct?
15
14:49:39
16
A.
17
discussed options that you have if you get an adverse result,
18
and I think we talked afterwards about what options that he
19
had.
20
Q.
21
an e-mail chain dated January 3rd and 4th of 2012.
Why don't you take a look at Exhibit 2535.
DS
Okay.
This is
23
A.
I do.
24
Q.
All right.
25
client and co-counsel about the preliminary injunction order?
FR
14:50:01
Do you see that?
IEN
22
No, I think -- I don't remember what exactly I said, but we
Was this an e-mail exchange you had with your

14:50:26
A.
It was.
MS. WANG:
2
3
1656
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
All right.
Your Honor, I'd like to move
the admission of Exhibit 2535.

MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection.
14:50:51
I have no objection.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
10
You may publish.
14:51:02
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
13
continuation of your e-mail to Tom Liddy, John MacIntyre, and
14
Brian Sands on January 4th, 2012.
All right.
Let's turn to the second page.
This is a
In this e-mail you were discussing whether to file a
15
16
notice of appeal from the preliminary injunction order,
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
All right.
20
you wrote -- you're referring to the sheriff, and then you
21
wrote:
22
of appeal on file, even though the injunctive relief is, in
IEN
DS
Do you see here on -- what's on the screen that
14:51:27
During the call he indicated that he wanted the notice
23
actual practice, relatively harmless to MCSO field operations?
24
A.
I see that.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
14:51:12
Did you have any understanding -- well, what did you
14:51:41
mean by that?
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
I believe that your
orders waiving privilege and client confidentiality go to
compliance --
THE COURT:
5
6
1657
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
You know what?
I want single-word
14:51:53
objections.
7
8
MS. CLARK:
Privilege; work product.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
This was my -- Cecillia, this was my
10
characterization of the conversation that I had with the
11
sheriff.
12
the deposition that we used this -- when he said, We're not
13
doing this any more, I said:
14
patrols, you're not doing any turning over to the feds, and if
15
you're telling me that's true, it's the equivalent of being
16
ordered not to wear a dress.
17
doesn't change anything.
18
you're doing or not doing, then it's relatively harmless.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
sheriff was well aware of what HSU practices were?
And I think I described to you earlier that -- or in
You're telling me no saturation
If you don't wear a dress, it
So if you're telling me that's what
DS
MR. MASTERSON:
14:52:38
23
I'm going to look at the question one moment.
24
MS. WANG:
25
THE COURT:
FR
14:52:25
And at that time did you have an understanding that the
IEN
22
14:52:05
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

I'm going to overrule the objection.
14:53:00
1658
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
think that the question will indicate whether he had -- it was
just the question asked if he had an understanding.

THE WITNESS:
Yes, I do have an understanding.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
And what was your understanding on that question?
A.
My understanding is that Sheriff Arpaio knew exactly what
was going on at all times in HSU.
Q.
application for a stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit?
Did you discuss with your clients whether to file an
10
A.
We did discuss that.
11
Q.
And what did you decide to do?
12
A.
I think the record shows that we did not file an
13
application to stay or a motion to stay.
14
Q.
15
file an application for a stay.
16
A.
17
remember who else, but it would have been with the sheriff and
18
whoever else he wanted to be part of it.
19
Q.
20
you indicated that you had that discussion with the sheriff and
21
with Chief MacIntyre.
22
A.
Who did you discuss that with?
14:53:25
The question of whether to
It would have been with the sheriff.
It would -- I don't
During your deposition on September 16th, 2015,
DS
All right.
14:53:39
14:53:53
Is that your recollection?
IEN
That -- yes.
23
Q.
24
and Chief Sands discussed a voluntary training --
25
A.
FR
14:53:07
Okay.
Right.
All right.
I'm going to -- you mentioned that you
14:54:13
1659
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
-- to implement the preliminary injunction order, is that
right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Okay.
Let's turn to Exhibit 2537.
Exhibit 37 is not in evidence yet.
It appears to be
an e-mail string where the earlier e-mail is from Joe Sousa to
Brett Palmer dated January 11th, 2012, copying you, Rollie
Seebert, Brian Sands, David Trombi, Eileen Henry, and Joseph
Sousa.
Do you see that?
10
14:54:54
11
A.
I do see that.
12
Q.
And then you forwarded this e-mail to Tom Liddy the same
13
day, correct?
14
A.
That's correct.
15
Q.
All right.
16
discussion you and Chief Sands had about a voluntary training
17
on the preliminary injunction order?
18
A.
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
14:55:11
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
No objection.
No objection.
23
MR. COMO:
24
THE COURT:
25
FR
14:54:59
Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 2537.
DS
21
And was this an e-mail to follow up on the
That was my understanding it was.
19
20
14:54:33
None.
2537 is admitted.
14:55:18
1
2
3
1660
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MS. WANG:
All right.
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
Let's publish that, if we may.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Palmer:
scenarios, right way and wrong way, based on Judge Snow's order
to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey."
So Mr. Casey, do you see that Joe Sousa is directing Brett

"Per our phone conversation, write up a couple of
Do you see that?
9
10
A.
I do see that.
11
Q.
All right.
12
this e-mail, it appears that you had already spoken to Brett
13
Palmer about the preliminary injunction order, is that right?
14
A.
15
sense, generally, because that's what I remember.
16
Q.
17
did you convey the preliminary injunction order, the substance
18
of it, to Sergeant Palmer?
19
A.
I did.
20
Q.
And was that consistent with the arrest or release
21
formulation that you've described earlier?
22
A.
14:55:43
Now, as of the time that Lieutenant Sousa sent
I don't remember specifically, but that's -- that makes
14:56:01
And do you remember during that conversation,
DS
All right.
14:56:12
IEN
It was.
23
Q.
24
understand that, correct?
25
A.
FR
14:55:27
And you had no reason to think that Sergeant Palmer did not
Not at that time.
14:56:20
1661
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
reason to doubt that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
Sergeant Palmer before January 11th, 2012, when Joe Sousa sent
this e-mail?
A.
What do you recall about your conversation with
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Objection, hearsay.
I think you're going to have to lay
foundation before you overcome the hearsay objection.

MS. WANG:
11
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14:56:58
All right, Your Honor.
So Mr. Casey --
THE COURT:
14
MS. WANG:
15
So I'm sustaining the objection.
Sure.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
Sergeant Palmer before Joe Sousa sent -- Joe Sousa sent this
19
e-mail on January 11th, 2012, correct?
20
A.
Yes, that's my general memory.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
14:57:05
IEN
DS
So Mr. Casey, you said that you did speak with
14:57:17
And did you convey to him the substance of the
23
A.
I did.
24
Q.
What else do you recall about that conversation?
25
A.
I remember --
FR
14:56:39
Again --
10
Did there come a time later when you did have
14:57:28
MR. MASTERSON:
MS. CLARK:
2
3
1662
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Objection, hearsay.
Objection, privilege, if it's not about
the preliminary injunction order.

THE COURT:
I will sustain the objection to the extent
that it requires you to discuss matters that are not related to
the preliminary injunction.
the preliminary injunction, I'm going to direct you to answer.

THE WITNESS:
8
9
10
To the extent that it relates to
I remember communicating to Brett Palmer
the AOR, no more turning over.
He had already heard that from
Joe Sousa.
14:57:59
He had also conveyed, I think it was at this meeting,
11
12
that he had already briefed his troops.
13
you, in HSU you had one sergeant with people underneath him;
14
another sergeant with people underneath him.
15
if he was talking about the universe of HSU or the troops
16
underneath him, but he had already conveyed it by the time we
17
spoke in the first week or so of January.

I also remember him asking me:
18
And as I explained to
So I didn't know
That's my paraphrase; it's not to say
20
those are his words.
But:
21
board?
And it was:
22
clear.
He doesn't have a problem.
IEN
DS
sheriff is on board?
Are you sure the sheriff's on
Absolutely.
14:58:16
Are you sure the
19
I spoke with him.
14:58:36
It's
There's no resistance.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
to you that he doubted the sheriff would be on board with the
FR
14:57:38
Did he express to you any doubt that the -- did he express

14:58:50
1663
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
on board?
Q.
doubting -- expressing some doubt that the sheriff was on board
with the preliminary injunction order?
I interpreted what he said as:
All right.
Yes, absolutely.
And did you interpret that as Brett Palmer
MR. MASTERSON:
7
8
And I said:
Are you sure the sheriff is
Objection, foundation; asked and
answered.
MS. CLARK:
MS. WANG:
10
THE COURT:
11
Objection, mental impression.
All right.
I'll move on.
14:59:16
Ms. Wang --
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
drafting the training?
15
A.
I'm sorry.
16
Q.
Do you know why Brett Palmer was tasked with writing the
17
training curriculum?
18
A.
I don't know.
19
Q.
Did you express any concerns to anyone about the fact that
20
Palmer had been tasked with that job?
21
A.
I did.
22
Q.
To whom did you express that concern?
Do you know, Mr. Casey, why Brett Palmer was tasked with
IEN
DS
Could you repeat it?
23
A.
24
Brian -- Chief Brian Sands or Lieutenant Joe Sousa.
25
Q.
FR
14:59:04
14:59:26
14:59:36
It would have either been Brian or Lieutenant Sousa; either
And did they respond in any way to that concern?
14:59:47
1664
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
You know, Joe did a remarkable job, but under very
difficult circumstances.
you know, I mean limited ability in HSU.
Palmer at that time was sort of like a senior sergeant; the
other one I think had just rotated out or something.
Palmer was the man.
7
8
THE COURT:
Ms. Wang.
And I think Brett
So Brett
MS. WANG:
13
14
15
Yes.
I'll just tell you it's 3 o'clock, and I'm
15:00:16
Why don't we break now?
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. WANG:
As you like.
THE COURT:
15 minutes.
Thank you.
15:00:26
(Recess taken.)
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. WANG:
18
Please be seated.
May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
DS
19
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
15:18:05
IEN
Mr. Casey, right before the break you testified that you
23
expressed concerns about the fact that Brett Palmer was the one
24
who was assigned to write up training scenarios to implement
25
the preliminary injunction.
FR
15:00:07
kind of looking for a good time to break.
12
20
All right.
THE COURT:
10
11
MS. WANG:
MS. WANG:
He had limited ability, limited --
15:18:20
1665
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
How did you convey that concern?
What did you say?
A.
My concern was we had an issue with him in the case where
he had done some research for some reason, and it was a
problem, and I was concerned that maybe there ought to be
someone else that can do this.
Q.
the response, but essentially they said he's going to be the
one, is that what happened?
A.
He's the one that's going to do it, so....
10
Q.
All right.
11
telling me about your conversation with Brett Palmer initially,
12
before Joe Sousa sent his e-mail to Brett Palmer directing him
13
to write the scenarios, so I'm not sure we finished that
14
testimony.
15
A.
I think we did.
16
Q.
Oh, we did?
17
A.
I think we did.
18
Q.
All right.
19
A.
I don't remember anything else.
20
Q.
All right.
21
Sergeant Palmer to write up the training, correct?
22
A.
DS
And what was -- I think you might have testified already on
24
FR
25
Q.
Now, I think right before the break you were
15:18:57
15:19:14
Okay.
So in Exhibit 2537, Lieutenant Sousa directed
15:19:20
That's correct.
IEN
23
15:18:41
All right.
And then turn to Exhibit 2538.
This was an e-mail chain that contains Brett Palmer's
draft dated January 19, 2012, correct?
15:19:55
1666
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
It is.
Q.
And then there are some e-mails that follow where you were
forwarding this on, correct?
A.
There -- that's true.

MS. WANG:
5
6
All right.
admission of Exhibit 2538.

MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
10
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
2538 is admitted.
15:20:26
11
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
All right, sir.
Why don't we look at Brett Palmer's draft.
Do you see that Brett Palmer wrote to
14
15
Lieutenant Sousa, copying you and Sergeant Trowbridge:
16
is a rough construction of an E Learning segment based on Judge
17
Snow's order.
18
conversations you and I have had, as well as taking into
19
account the information conveyed to us both from Tim Casey
20
concerning Judge Snow's order."
I constructed this in accordance with the many
A.
15:20:59
I do see that.
23
Q.
24
Brett Palmer about the preliminary injunction order?
25
A.
FR
15:20:42
Do you see that?
IEN
22
"Below
DS
21
15:20:09
And did you take this to refer to your conversation with
Yes, and Joe Sousa.
15:21:09
1667
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Now, you testified a few minutes ago before the
break that there came a time when you were concerned that Brett
Palmer did not understand correctly what you were conveying
about the substance of the preliminary injunction order.

Do you recall that?
5
6
A.
I do.
Q.
All right.
concern?
A.
It is.
10
Q.
All right.
11
concerns were?
12
A.
I called him directly.
13
Q.
Okay.
Is this the e-mail that gave rise to that
Did you express to Brett Palmer what your
THE COURT:
15
Objection, hearsay.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
16
15:21:42
This is going back years, so I can't
tell you precisely, but I can tell you when I looked at this
18
again, responding to your subpoena, it was clear.
19
when I read the scenarios.
20
and 50 percent of them had problems.
It was clear
There were four scenarios in there,
15:22:01
Problem number -- scenario number 3 was a problem
because it talked about turning them over to ICE.
IEN
22
DS
17
21
Holding them
23
because they're simply here unlawfully and turning them over to
24
the federal government.
25
it was completely contrary to our discussion, and we discussed
FR
15:21:32
Tell me what you said to him.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
15:21:26
That was completely contrary to AOR,

15:22:16
that.
1668
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
It was -- discussed that.
Then scenario number 4, I remember that I thought
2
3
there was not enough meat in there for a probable cause
discussion.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
characterization of the preliminary injunction order, as arrest
or release?
A.
15:22:32
And you mentioned just now AOR.
Was that your
That's how I tried to keep it simple to remember.
It's
10
either/or, no other options.
11
Q.
12
Brett Palmer's draft about transporting individuals to federal
13
authorities?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And did you tell him anything in response to that?
16
A.
You can't do it.
17
release.
18
that's an arrest under Fourth Amendment.
19
them or you arrest them.
20
very clear.
21
Q.
22
told him all that?
All right.
DS
All right.
IEN
And did you tell -- was there any content in
15:22:57
You cannot -- it's either arrest or
You cannot transport because that's a detention;
23
A.
24
essentially:
25
used to do.
FR
15:22:43
So you either release
Those are the two options, to make it
15:23:16
And what was Brett Palmer's response when you
I don't remember specifically, but it's -- it was

Yes, I get it.
I understand.
This is what we
Okay, I'm going to make the changes.
And it was,
15:23:31
1669
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
as I phrased to you in the deposition, it was a done deal after
that.
Q.
you thought it was a done deal?
A.
going to correct scenario number 3, he was going to add some
facts to number 4, and it was going to be used for training.
Q.
receive this training?
And what did you mean by -- what do you mean when you say
We made corrections, I made corrections, he said he was
Okay.
Did you have an understanding about who was going to
10
A.
11
discussions with Chief Sheridan -- not Sheridan, because he had
12
nothing to do with it, it was Sands, is that first it was going
13
to be HSU, and then it was going to roll out to Patrol.
14
Q.
Do you recall when you gave Brett Palmer this feedback?
15
A.
No.
16
there were some records showing that I did not operate on this
17
quickly.
18
but I can't tell you when it was done.
19
Q.
All right.
20
A.
I do know I got one follow-up from Joe Sousa.
21
Q.
All right.
My understanding, yes, going back to the original
I think I told you originally I tried to be quick, but
DS
15:24:34
This is not in evidence.
It's an e-mail from you dated January 30th, 2012, to John
24
MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Joseph Sousa.
FR
15:24:19
Let's move on.
23
25
15:23:56
So I know it was done in the first quarter of 2012,
IEN
22
15:23:47
Do you see that?
15:25:08
A.
I do.
Q.
Okay.
second sentence of the third paragraph.
I want you to focus on a sentence in -- it's the
Do you see that sentence?
1670
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
It starts "I reminded him."
A.
Yes.
Q.
Sir, is that a reference to the Court's preliminary
injunction order?
A.
re -- I'm going to call it DiPietro was the officer.
10
15:25:27
I'm not sure it is.
I think -- for some reason, I think it

DiPietro,
Louis DiPietro that made the stop.
And I think that's what I was referring to on the
11
12
narrow Fourth Amendment.
13
Fourth-Amendment-related issue, but that's what I remember that
14
referring to.
15
Q.
16
reference to the summary judgment order, correct?
17
A.
18
relates to the injunction.
19
Q.
20
MacIntyre, Jerry Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Joseph Sousa?
21
A.
Okay.
23
24
FR
25
I mean, the injunction was a
But you do -- you do think that that sentence is a
15:25:51
Definitely to the summary judgment order; I'm not sure it
And you sent this e-mail to, again, John
DS
All right.
15:26:08
Yes.
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
15:25:40
Exhibit 2541.
MR. MASTERSON:
basis of privilege.
Your Honor, I'm going to object on the
The witness has said he's not certain it
15:26:22
applies to the injunction.

MS. WANG:
2
3
Honor.
4
5
6
It does refer to the same order, Your
THE COURT:
Well --
MS. CLARK:
Judge, if you rule with Mr. Masterson, it
THE COURT:
Before I admit this I'm going to need more
clarification from Mr. Casey -MS. WANG:
All right.
THE COURT:
10
MS. WANG:
11
-- about what that refers to.
15:26:48
Okay.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
23rd, 2011, ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary
15
judgment?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
I think it also ruled on plaintiffs' motion for class
18
certification, correct?
19
A.
That's my memory.
20
Q.
And in that same order of December 23rd, 2011, there was a
21
preliminary injunction issued, correct?
22
A.
Mr. Casey, is it true that the Court's order of December
DS
15:27:03
15:27:09
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
related to plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, is that right?
25
A.
FR
15:26:36
would also invoke confidentiality, 1.6.
7
8
1671
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
All right.
And the preliminary injunction in this case
That's -- yes.
15:27:30
1672
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And the preliminary injunction, in summary -- well, you
summarized it as arrest or release, correct?
A.
That's my summary.
Q.
It also, in a lengthier way, said:
based solely on suspected illegal presence in the United
States, correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And the sentence that you wrote here in Exhibit 2541 is
referring to relief on Fourth Amendment claim as to detentions,
Do not detain someone
10
correct?
11
A.
12
this was about a conversation I had with Stan Young about
13
settlement --
15:28:01
Yes, but you're taking it out of context, Cecillia, because
MR. MASTERSON:
14
Excuse me, Your Honor.
Object to the
15
witness and counsel reading from the exhibit that is not in
16
evidence.
17
on Mr. Casey's last statement.
MS. WANG:
19
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
21
23
MS. WANG:
Well, nobody's read from anything.
I'm sorry, Your Honor?
I didn't hear anybody read this.
15:28:27
I don't think I did.

There was a sentence read earlier.
Your Honor, I also note that defendants
24
produced this document to us without redaction, and therefore
25
waived any privilege associated with it.
FR
15:28:13
And also, I think we have a 408 problem here, based
THE COURT:
18
20
15:27:46
15:28:43
1673
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MR. MASTERSON:
1
2
3
Well, Your Honor, 408 still applies.
THE COURT:
One moment, please.
All right.
I'm going to overrule 408.
This isn't
being offered, as I read it, for evidence of settlement
discussions.
15:29:25
And because I cannot recall, despite Mr. Casey's --
6
7
well, I'm not sure that I understand Mr. Casey's testimony, but
I don't recall granting anybody any relief on the Fourth
Amendment claim that wasn't related to the preliminary
10
injunction.
MR. MASTERSON:
11
12
I cannot, Your Honor.
15:29:44
I was just
basing it on Mr. Casey's testimony a couple minutes ago.

THE COURT:
13
14
Can you inform me where I did?
overruled.
Well, then the objection is
I'm going to admit the exhibit.
MS. WANG:
15
Okay.
16
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
Q.
19
your billing records that you met with Chief Sheridan about
20
this case on December 6th, 2011, is that correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And you said that -- well, did there come a time in this
IEN
DS
Mr. Casey, you said that -- well, we've seen evidence in
23
case when you began to meet with him more often about it?
24
A.
25
trial in 2012, and then very frequently after Chief Sands
FR
15:29:59
15:30:12
Met with him more often as we were getting close to the

15:30:27
1674
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
departed.
Q.
Sheridan more often?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
billing records for -- in Exhibit 2533, and look at your time
entry for April 3rd, 2012.
So as you were preparing for trial you met with Chief
Take a look again at your -- excuse me, your
March 23rd, 2012.
10
A.
Could you give me those dates again, please?
11
Q.
Sure.
Let's start with March 23rd, 2012.
12
A.
Okay.
I'm there.
13
Q.
Okay.
Do you see an indication that you met with Chiefs
14
MacIntyre and Sheridan --
15
A.
I see that.
16
Q.
-- about this case on March 23rd, 2012?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
Circuit appeal from the preliminary injunction order was filed?
20
A.
I do not.
21
Q.
All right.
22
period?
DS
IEN
15:31:16
15:31:37
Do you recall when the reply brief in the Ninth
23
A.
I do not.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
2012.
FR
15:30:49
Actually, first take a look at your billing entry for
8
9
He retired shortly after the May 13 order came out.
15:31:55
You don't recall it being around that time
And now let's turn to your entry for April 3rd,

15:32:11
1675
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm there.
Q.
Okay.
that on April 3rd, 2012, you met with Chiefs Sheridan,
MacIntyre, and Sands about this case?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
me ask you this:
in the Ninth Circuit appeal from the preliminary injunction
order around this time frame in April of 2012?
Is there an indication here in your billing records
15:32:27
I think I actually asked you the wrong -- let
Do you recall whether there was any activity
10
A.
I don't remember.
I remember going to the hearing on the
11
interlocutory appeal, but I do not remember the dates or
12
filings.
13
Q.
14
case in your time entry for April 2nd, 2012?
15
A.
16
office.
17
Q.
Do you see any indications referring to the Ninth Circuit
It doesn't look like I had an entry; that was someone in my
Oh, I see.
I didn't hear a response if there was one.
A.
I'm sorry.
20
Q.
I said -- I was referring to the time entry for April 2nd,
21
and you said that was someone else in your office, and I asked
22
whether that was Eileen Henry's time entry.
IEN
I apologize.
24
FR
25
You said --
DS
19
A.
Q.
Okay.
15:33:07
That was Eileen Henry?
I'm sorry.
18
23
15:32:46
15:33:46
I didn't realize that was a question.
Yes, that's Eileen Henry, my paralegal.

15:33:58
A.
I apologize.
Q.
That's all right.
It's my fault.
Mr. Casey, did there come a time when you learned that
3
4
MCSO was in violation of the Court's preliminary injunction
order?
A.
very concerned, and that it was my private assessment, my
judgment, that it likely was a violation.
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
Well, yeah.
11
I think it was a witness that I had.
12
a detention and a transporta- -- I don't remember.
13
remember thinking:
14
injunction.
15
Q.
And did you take any action to address that?
16
A.
Yes, my co-counsel and I did.
17
Q.
What did you do?
15:34:16
The best way to phrase it is there came a time that I was
18
19
And did that happen during the trial in this case?
I mean, I think I was standing where you were.
I just
That's a violation of the preliminary
Objection, Judge, work product.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
You know, my guess is it was probably
during a break, but we went into -- we had in this courtroom
22
the east witness room, and went in there with Brian Sands, and
IEN
21
23
we said:
24
happened, who it happened with, see if we can get reports, that
25
sort of thing, but let's figure out why this has happened.
FR
15:34:33
It came up that there was
MS. CLARK:
DS
20
1676
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
15:34:49
15:35:03
We need to find out why this happened, how it
15:35:21
1677
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
And did you find out anything as a result of that?
A.
Not during the trial.
Q.
Did there come a time when you did find out something about
it?
A.
15:35:33
Yes.
MS. CLARK:
7
8
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Objection, Judge, privilege.
When was that?

Sorry.
10
There was a pending objection.
THE COURT:
11
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
12
15:35:37
We never did hear what happened
13
afterwards.
When the trial ended, I know that I made phone
14
calls to HSU.
15
at SWAT, but I'm not certain about that.
16
find out what happened, and we were told what the story was.
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
Q.
19
again at that point after the trial?
20
A.
21
soon -- I forget exactly what we did, but we did talk to him
22
about that and there was some disagreement about how it
Joe Sousa was no longer at HSU.
I think he was
But we were trying to
Did you take any steps to ensure that it would not happen
IEN
DS
We talked with Brian Sands about -- about that, but he was
23
happened.
24
Q.
25
Lieutenant Sousa's successor at HSU is Lieutenant Jakowinicz?
FR
15:35:52
15:36:06
Did you talk with -- well, do you -- do you know that

15:36:28
1678
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
up about this testimony that came up at trial?
A.
with Brian Jakowinicz as I did with Joe Sousa, but I do know
that I did have contact with him.
Q.
the testimony that concerned you, that the preliminary
injunction order had been violated?
Did you talk to Lieutenant Jakowinicz to follow
I cannot tell you if I did.
All right.
I did not have as much contact
And -- well, did you follow up with HSU about
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And did you give them any direction about what action to
12
take going forward?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
What did you say?
15
A.
Same thing as --
15:36:56
15:37:02
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE COURT:
17
Objection, hearsay.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
18
It was the same thing as before:
It
19
needs to go out to the troops.
20
troops.
21
did send it out -- he actually told me he briefed the troops on
22
that.
DS
IEN
I was told it went out to the
I think that Brett Palmer was still there.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
on?
FR
15:36:41
He said he
15:37:12
And did he say what they briefed -- what he briefed them

15:37:22
1679
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yeah -- well, it goes back to the scenarios that we went
over earlier in the year, the training scenarios.
make sure, since the scenarios weren't correct, did he brief
the troops correctly?
Wanted to
And the impression that I got is yes, he did brief
5
6
them correctly, that he did understand that, and that correct
understanding was imparted to the troops in HSU.
Q.
And what was that understanding that was imparted to --
A.
That you don't -- you do not detain, and you don't take
10
people in and transport them; you either arrest or you release.
11
Q.
And was that reinforced during or after the trial?
12
A.
It eventually was later that year.
13
Q.
Do you know when?
14
A.
In the fall of 2012.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
that you do recall the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit
17
on the appeal from the preliminary injunction order, correct?
18
A.
I do remember.
19
Q.
Was that on September 13th of 2012?
20
A.
I couldn't tell you the date; I do remember.
21
Q.
All right.
22
A.
I do remember it was before your partner's letter.
IEN
DS
Speaking of the fall of 2012, you mentioned earlier
Q.
24
about whether MCSO was detaining people based solely on
25
immigration status?
FR
23
15:37:33
15:37:50
15:38:07
15:38:25
Did you make any representations to the Ninth Circuit panel
15:38:38
1680
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I did.
Q.
What did you say to the Ninth Circuit?
A.
Told them the MCSO is no longer doing that.
Q.
And what basis did you have for making that representation
to the Ninth Circuit?
A.
My clients' assurances that that was not happening.
Q.
Who individually did you speak to and get that
representation from?
A.
From Brett Palmer; from Joe -- not Joe, because he was
10
gone.
11
Q.
12
Exhibit 2533, and I'll refer you to the entry for September
13
25th, 2012.
14
A.
What was the date?
15
Q.
September 25th, 2012.
Brett Palmer; from Brian Sands; from Joe Arpaio.
15:39:01
And take a look at your billing records again,
15:39:25
Do you recall that was the day that the Ninth Circuit
16
17
opinion on the preliminary injunction order came down?
18
A.
No, I don't remember that.
19
Q.
All right.
20
A.
You want me to look at the entry on the -- entry on the
21
25th?
22
Q.
DS
Well, take a look at the --
15:39:53
IEN
Yes.
23
A.
Yeah, I'm reading my entry.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
the PI appeal had come down?
FR
15:38:48
Does that indicate that the Ninth Circuit opinion on

15:40:07
1681
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, on the interlocutory appeal.
Q.
And does it also indicate that you conferred with MCSO
client representatives that day?
A.
It does.
Q.
All right.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Okay.
you to John MacIntyre, Gerard Sheridan, Brian Sands, and Amy
Lake, dated September 25, 2012.
Take a look at Exhibit 2511, please.
Exhibit 2511, not yet in evidence, is an e-mail from
Do you see that?
10
15:40:47
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Is this an e-mail that you sent to those recipients
13
advising them of the Ninth Circuit opinion on the preliminary
14
injunction order?
15
A.
Yes.
17
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
19
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
All right.
25
A.
My memory is that she is Sheriff Arpaio's administrative
FR
15:41:03
IEN
22
MR. COMO:
DS
21
Exhibit 2511.
18
20
15:40:55
MS. WANG:
16
15:40:16
Who is Amy Lake, Mr. Casey?

15:41:12
1682
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
assistant.
Q.
And why did you send this e-mail to her?
A.
I wanted to make sure the sheriff got this directly.
Q.
Now, in this e-mail you wrote:
change the status quo, nor does it have any direct effect on
Judge Snow's ruling on the trial.
release/decision."
A.
Yes, I think "release" is a typo.
Q.
Okay.
"This ruling does not
We are still waiting for a
Do you see that?
Well, I'm just going to ask you about the first part
10
of this.
11
Circuit's opinion does not change the status quo?
12
A.
13
anything about the preliminary injunction.
14
it doesn't reverse it; it doesn't do anything.
What did you mean when you said that the Ninth
15:41:47
It doesn't change anything to do -- it does not change
It doesn't lift it;
The injunction was about an interpretation that we
15
16
had, or I had as counsel, about what Judge Snow had ordered
17
about certain things in the human smuggling statute, and I
18
wanted to make sure that it was clear that this doesn't have
19
anything to do with the preliminary injunction.
20
my memory.
21
Q.
And did you convey that the injunction was still in place?
22
A.
I mean -- I mean, I didn't say that here, but that's --
15:42:20
DS
IEN
15:42:04
Well, that's
23
that was sort of ceteris paribus, the Latin for "the one thing
24
that's held constant."
25
I needed to say that again.
FR
15:41:30
That was always there so I don't think

15:42:38
1683
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You did not have any reason to -- you didn't say anything
to suggest that the injunction had been lifted.
A.
No.
Q.
All right.
time in the fall of 2012 when the instruction about the
preliminary injunction order was reissued or reiterated, is
that right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
Okay.
11
Q.
Is Exhibit 2512 an e-mail string that is triggered by a
12
letter from plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Segura, on October 11th,
13
2012?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And were the plaintiffs alleging that MCSO had violated the
16
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you forward that letter to Gerard Sheridan, John
19
MacIntyre, and Brian Sands?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
All right.
22
correct?
24
FR
25
A.
You mentioned a moment ago that there came a
15:42:54
15:43:18
DS
IEN
23
No.
15:43:31
15:43:45
And that's what this e-mail chain is about,
Correct.
MS. WANG:
Exhibit 2512.

15:43:51
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
1684
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
5
6
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
press release that is attached to Mr. Segura's letter and is
part of Exhibit 2512, page MCAO00033.
So, sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the MCSO
Do you see that?
10
A.
I do.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
were forwarding on to your clients, correct?
13
A.
It was.
14
Q.
All right.
15
let me ask you this:
16
whether the sheriff is directly involved in the issuance of
17
MCSO news releases during the time period of September 21st,
18
2012?
I'm going to call your atten- -- well, first

Do you have an understanding as to
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
15:44:47
I'll sustain the objection.

All right.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
of this news release, the paragraph that begins "Three members
FR
15:44:31
Objection, Judge, client confidentiality,
1.6.
IEN
22
And this is part of Mr. Segura's letter which you
DS
21
15:44:20
MS. CLARK:
19
20
15:43:57
Mr. Casey, let me direct your attention to the second page

15:45:00
1685
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
of the group."
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
was reporting that there were individuals who had been taken
into custody by MCSO where there were no state charges against
them, and then the sheriff's office attempted to turn the
suspects over to ICE?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
Did you understand that the MCSO news release
And do you see where it indicates that that was
10
consistent with MCSO's practice over the last six years?
11
A.
I see where that's reported.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
quotation attributed to Sheriff Arpaio.
15:45:38
And then looking at the next paragraph, there is a
Do you see that?
14
15
A.
I see that quote.
16
Q.
And the quote reads:
17
eventually, so I had a back up plan in place, which was to take
18
these illegal immigrants not accepted by ICE to the Border
19
Patrol."
20
A.
I do.
21
Q.
All right.
22
you read this press release?
"I expected that it would happen
Do you see that?
DS
IEN
15:45:51
15:46:04
Sir, when you received Mr. Segura's letter, did
23
A.
I did.
24
Q.
Did you have any -- did you have an understanding about
25
whether this backup plan, as described in the news release, was
FR
15:45:21
15:46:14
consistent with the preliminary injunction order?
2
3
4
1686
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MS. CLARK:
Objection, Judge.
Mental impressions.
THE COURT:
To the extent you're only asking for his
mental impression, I'm going to sustain the objection.

MS. WANG:
All right.
15:46:30
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
activity described in this news release was inconsistent with
Sir, did you convey to your clients a concern that the
MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
time frame, please?
12
THE COURT:
14
Could we have a
She asked:
Did you tell your clients
this was --
THE COURT:
15
All right.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
October 11th, 2012.
19
A.
I did.
20
Q.
All right.
21
A.
That would be attorney-client privilege.
23
24
FR
25
15:46:50
DS
And let's say on October 11th and the days following
IEN
22
15:46:41
Time frame on his --
MR. MASTERSON:
13
Excuse me.
What did you tell them?
THE COURT:
I'm going to direct you to answer.
MS. CLARK:
Objection also on client confidentiality,
15:46:59
1.6, Judge.
THE COURT:
I'm still directing him to answer.
15:47:11
THE WITNESS:
1687
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I immediately called that day Brian
Sands, told him about this.
is true, if you guys -- "you guys" being plaintiffs' counsel --
are accurate, this could be a potential problem.
to get our arms around the facts.
How do I get some sort of police report on this to figure out
whether there's any merit to this?
And we needed
How do I get a CAD report?
Brian J.
10
BY MS. WANG:
11
Q.
Brian Jakowinicz?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
All right.
14
2012, to Gerard Sheridan, John MacIntyre, and Brian Sands,
15
correct?
16
A.
In bold I did.
17
Q.
And you said you intentionally made this bold face?
18
A.
I did.
19
Q.
And you marked it "high importance," correct?
20
A.
I did.
21
Q.
You thought it was very important to convey that to these
22
folks?
15:47:50
And you also sent this e-mail dated October 11,
15:47:59
IEN
DS
15:48:08
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
All right.
25
A.
Of the press release?
FR
15:47:29
And I believe he referred me to the new head of HSU,
8
9
Our initial assessment is if this
Let's turn to the second page.

15:48:21
Q.
e-mail, page MCAO00029.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And let's highlight the paragraph that begins "While I
would not be surprised."
Of the -- I'm sorry, your e-mail of October 11, 2012,
MS. WANG:
6
7
1688
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
published.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, I don't know if this is being
May I request that it be published?
THE COURT:
15:48:32
It may be published.
Thank you.
10
BY MS. WANG:
11
Q.
12
if plaintiffs are using the attached letter as a springboard
13
for electoral-related negative press toward the sheriff, I
14
expect that they will move quickly to raise this issue with
15
Judge Snow sometime next week either for electoral or
16
legitimate reasons.
17
on this issue."
18
A.
Those are my words.
19
Q.
What did you mean by that?
21
MS. CLARK:
23
"While I would not be surprised
We will need to get 'ahead of the curve'
Objection, mental impressions;
THE COURT:
15:49:09
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
We did not have any data by the time I
24
sent this out to know whether or not this was a legitimate good
25
faith -- well, I assumed everything you sent over was good
FR
15:48:57
confidentiality.
IEN
22
So, Mr. Casey, you wrote:
DS
20
15:48:43
15:49:17
1689
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
faith, but whether or not it was factually supported.
So this
was to alert the client that either there's going to be some
sort of electoral news, political news, or you're going to have
a real factual problem.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
2012, campaigning for reelection, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you informed the client -- reminded the client of that
15:49:35
And the sheriff was at this point in time, October 11,
10
fact when conveying the news of plaintiffs' allegations,
11
correct?
MR. MASTERSON:
12
MS. CLARK:
13
14
Objection, leading.
Continuing objection for the reasons
stated, Judge.
THE COURT:
15
Sustain the leading objection.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
your e-mail reporting plaintiffs' allegations that the
19
preliminary injunction order had been violated?
21
MS. CLARK:
Objection, mental impressions.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
23
attention for certain.
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
15:49:57
Why did you convey this information about the election in
DS
20
15:49:49
15:50:11
Because that would catch the sheriff's
And sir, did you have a concern, based on what you learned,
15:50:21
1690
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that the sheriff had issued the press release for reasons
related to the election?
A.
That's what --
MS. CLARK:
Objection, mental impressions, Judge.
MR. MASTERSON:
MS. WANG:
Objection, leading; foundation.
Your Honor, I do think that what Mr. Casey
had in mind goes to the issue of what he was informing his
clients and the advice that he was giving them.

THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
10
I'm going to still sustain the objection.
All right.
15:51:04
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
13
allegations in October of 2012, that the activities described
14
in the MCSO news release were related to the election campaign?
Did anyone convey to you, in connection with plaintiffs'
15
16
MS. CLARK:
Objection, confidentiality.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
17
15:51:36
Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
Can you tell me about that.
20
A.
I remember working cooperatively and quickly with Chief
21
Brian Sands to try to find out if we had a problem.
22
point he told me that somehow he learned that these were --
IEN
DS
18
15:51:42
At some
23
this was issued solely for political purposes for the election,
24
the press releases.
25
BY MS. WANG:
FR
15:50:44
15:52:01
1691
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did he convey to you that these facts actually didn't
happen?
A.
working on.
underlying activity was done to generate publicity.
Q.
activity described in the press release violated the
preliminary injunction?
A.
We didn't know about facts yet, because that's what I was
I see.
He was just telling me the press releases and the
Did you convey to your clients that the underlying
Eventually, I got enough facts that there was a meeting,
and it was my preliminary view that it was likely, not
11
definitive, but it was likely a violation of the preliminary
12
injunction.
13
Q.
And who did you have that meeting with?
14
A.
Brian Sands and the sheriff.
15
Q.
Were both of them present throughout that meeting?
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
Was there a point where you spoke just with the sheriff
18
one-on-one?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Did you tell the sheriff during that meeting that his,
21
quote, backup plan, violated the preliminary injunction?
22
A.
DS
10
15:52:35
15:52:52
15:53:01
IEN
I'd never heard of a backup plan until I read of this.
23
Q.
24
it, did you convey to him that that activity violated the
25
preliminary injunction?
FR
15:52:12
Okay.
But as described in the press release, once you saw
15:53:23
1692
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
That it was my judgment that you cannot, you cannot turn
them over to ICE; you cannot turn them over to Border Patrol;
you can't turn them over to anyone.
Q.
news release indicated that had been the consistent practice of
MCSO over six years?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What did he say?
A.
I don't remember.
10
Q.
All right.
11
telling him?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What did he -- how did he react?
14
A.
Initially, that he was the sheriff and he made the
15
decisions.
16
Q.
17
on the subject of the activities described in the press
18
release?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Was that a heated discussion?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Did you take the position with the sheriff that the
It is arrest or release.
Did you raise with him any concern about the fact that the
Did Sheriff Arpaio react to what you were
15:53:47
15:54:00
IEN
DS
And did you have a further discussion with Sheriff Arpaio
23
activity should end because it was in violation of the
24
25
A.
FR
15:53:39
I took that position.
15:54:10
15:54:29
1693
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did anyone else during the meeting take the position?
A.
Brian Sands took it.
Q.
And what was the outcome of that meeting at the end?
A.
That's attorney-client privilege and client
confidentiality.
I'm not able to answer that unless ordered.
THE COURT:
You are so ordered.
THE WITNESS:
It was not a pleasant conversation, and
Brian was not in when we had this, but it was relayed to him
that this is a problem.
This cannot go on.
And the response was:
10
The City of Phoenix is doing
11
it; some other metropolitans are doing it.
12
under a court order.
13
cannot happen.
people.
But they're not
We're under a court order, MCSO.
It
It doesn't matter.
15:55:31
And I was assured before I left there that this was
16
17
the end of it.
18
to argue over a mistake or not, that it would not happen again.
It was a, quote, mistake.
Not whether we want
And I felt confident, even though this time Brian
19
Sands excused himself for the reasons we discussed at my depo,
21
that I had the full support of Chief Brian Sands, because he
22
didn't know about this before it happened.
IEN
DS
20
23
told.
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
15:55:15
There was something like it only involved a handful of
14
15
15:54:49
15:55:52
That's what I was
You said that this was a heated discussion with Sheriff
15:56:04
1694
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio?
A.
It did.
Q.
Did you and Chief Sands threaten to resign during the
course of that heated discussion?
A.
right, he'll resign, and I told him that I would.
Q.
during that meeting was to say, "I'm the sheriff, I make the
decisions here," but that you won him over by the end of the
It was.
I remember Brian Sands telling me that if it doesn't go
So is it fair to say that the sheriff's initial reaction
10
conversation?
11
A.
I would not say I won him over.
12
Q.
All right.
13
conversation?
14
A.
15
fall of '12 -- that you and I spoke after the injunction came
16
over and you said:
17
doing saturation patrols; we're not turning people over to the
18
federal government.
19
going to happen.
20
Q.
21
understanding that the sheriff would stop that activity?
22
A.
15:56:31
How would you describe the course of that
I think the conversation harkened back -- this is in the
We're not doing it any more.
Now we are.
We can't.
And it's gotta stop.
15:56:44
We're not
You said it's not
It must stop.
DS
And at the end of the conversation did -- was it your
15:57:06
IEN
He assured me that it was a mistake, that it wasn't going
23
to happen again.
24
point until I got off this case in the -- I think Judge Snow
25
released me in November of '14, I'm not aware of this happening
FR
15:56:12
And to his credit, to my knowledge, to the
15:57:26
1695
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
again.
Q.
that heated discussion that he had done this for political
purposes?
A.
He did not.
Q.
All right.
A.
From Chief Sands.
Q.
Okay.
Did you raise with him -- well, did he acknowledge during
15:57:40
But you heard that from someone else.
And take a look at the top e-mail in Exhibit 2512.
You forwarded this e-mail string about plaintiffs'
9
10
allegations that the preliminary injunction order had been
11
violated to Lisa Allen.
12
A.
I do.
13
Q.
Who is Lisa Allen?
14
A.
She was his main -- the sheriff's main public information
15
officer.
16
Q.
17
closely with Lisa Allen at that time?
18
A.
He did.
19
Q.
Did you raise with Sheriff Arpaio during the heated
20
discussion the fact that you had not seen the press releases
21
before they were sent to you by plaintiffs?
Do you see that?
15:58:11
DS
And were you aware of whether the sheriff worked very
MS. CLARK:
Objection, client confidentiality.
23
THE COURT:
Overruled.
24
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
FR
25
15:57:59
Yes.
15:58:22
As we discussed in our deposition,
Mr. Liddy and I suggested after the trial in July and August of
15:58:37
1696
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2012 that it would be advisable that we receive any press
releases that dealt with anything what I'm going to call "south
of the border" issues, and I thought that those would be
circulated, and I don't believe we ever see these until Andre
Segura sent those.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
surprised by those press releases?
A.
And you raised with the sheriff the fact that you had been
Yes, because the month earlier I had been in the Ninth
10
Circuit representing the contrary, based on what I had been
11
told.
12
Q.
13
sheriff agree that he would thereafter let you and Mr. Liddy
14
see press releases relating to detentions of suspected
15
undocumented immigrants before they went out?
16
A.
17
that day, about seeing press releases.
18
Q.
19
subsequently?
20
A.
21
was the blow back, if you will, of my meeting with the sheriff.
22
Q.
15:59:15
And during the course of that heated discussion, did the
15:59:30
I don't -- that was not the subject of our conversation
All right.
Did you discuss that with Lisa Allen
DS
I don't remember, but this was in response to the -- this
15:59:45
IEN
What do you mean by that, blow back?
23
A.
24
trickled to Lisa Allen that was a problem and wanted to know
25
why it was a problem.
FR
15:59:04
Well, whatever time we met, I assume that something got
16:00:03
1697
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And did you discuss that with Lisa Allen?
A.
I tried not to.
Q.
All right.
Take a look at Exhibit 2514 now.
Exhibit 2514 is an e-mail from you to Brian Sands,
4
5
Gerard Sheridan, Brian Jakowinicz, and John MacIntyre dated
October 18, 2012.
A.
I do.
Q.
Was this your e-mail forwarding them your response to
plaintiffs' letter alleging violations of the preliminary
10
injunction order?
11
A.
It was.
12
Q.
All right.
Do you see that?
MS. WANG:
13
16:00:49
Your Honor, I'd move 2514 into evidence.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
MR. WALKER:
15
MR. COMO:
16
THE COURT:
17
No objection.
No objection.
16:01:04

2514 is admitted.
18
MS. WANG:
19
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
22
e-mail.
Thank you.
DS
20
16:01:13
IEN
Sir, let's highlight the second paragraph here on your

Do you see where you wrote in your e-mail to these
23
chiefs:
24
very public court filing and issue a new release right before
25
the election"?
FR
16:00:33
"I still anticipate that they will 'cry foul' in a
16:01:38
1698
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I do see that.
Q.
Okay.
A.
You know, I don't remember specifically, but I do remember
believing that you folks were going to file a, what, an OSC, an
order to show cause of some sort on that.
Q.
to the recipients of this e-mail?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And again, the reelection campaign was ongoing at that
What were you conveying here?
And you thought that was something that would be of concern
10
time, correct?
11
A.
I just know that November was the general election.
12
Q.
All right.
16:02:06
2557 consists of two e-mail chains.
13
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
They're essentially two e-mails you sent to Joe Sousa
16
within a minute of each other at 11:51 a.m. on October 15,
17
2012.
18
A.
MS. WANG:
Okay.
Your Honor, I'd move the admission
of Exhibit 2557.
IEN
22
Do you see that?
DS
21
16:02:53
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
No objection.
No objection.
23
MR. COMO:
24
THE COURT:
25
FR
16:02:36
I do.
19
20
16:01:53
No objection.
2557 is admitted.
16:03:01
MS. WANG:
1699
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
correspondence with Lieutenant Sousa in connection with the
plaintiffs' allegations about violations of the preliminary
injunction order, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And can you describe why you did that?
A.
This was -- my memory here -- and again, it's been a
So Mr. Casey, on October 18, 2012, you had e-mail
10
while -- is that Brian Sands and I, we dealt with the chief
11
decision maker.
12
troops understood this doesn't happen.
13
especially after the trial that we have.
Now we needed to make sure that the line

It cannot happen,
15
resolved with the -- with Sheriff Arpaio, and making sure it
16
doesn't happen with HSU.
17
so I'm not sure why he's involved.
18
Q.
19
to follow up on getting word out once again -- well, withdrawn.
All right.
Do you know whether Lieutenant Sousa was asked
DS
Do you know whether at that time, around October 18,
22
preliminary injunction order out to MCSO troops?
IEN
2012, Lieutenant Sousa was tasked with getting word of the
23
A.
24
a great history.
25
Q.
16:03:43
But Joe Sousa's not in HSU any more,
21
FR
16:03:24
So this was part of the response to getting it
14
20
16:03:11
16:04:13
I don't know why he was involved in this, other than he had
Okay.
Fair enough.
16:04:29
1700
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Mr. Casey, did you ever advise your client, Sheriff
1
2
Arpaio, that his so-called backup plan violated the preliminary
injunction order?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And did he ever express to you the view that, in fact, his
backup plan did comply with the preliminary injunction order?
A.
or other lawyers had told him, it was fine.
Q.
He told me, and I'm paraphrasing, that others had told him,
Okay.
But did he express to you a view that the backup
10
plan as described in that news release complied with the
11
12
A.
13
that was the language that we used for advocacy purposes, to
14
argue that it was not clearly spelled out, but I gave him my
15
opinion on, well, that's an argument, but I gave him my opinion
16
on the likelihood of that argument being successful before this
17
Court or any court.
18
Q.
19
argue with you about the legal merits of whether the backup
20
plan complied with Judge Snow's preliminary injunction order?
21
A.
22
The backup plan, he thought it was okay.
16:05:10
That the judge's order said "without something more," and
But my question, I guess, is:
16:05:30
Did Sheriff Arpaio
DS
Okay.
16:05:46
IEN
Yeah, he -- yes, he was re -- I remember he was resistant.
23
Q.
24
discussion, agreed that he would stop that activity, correct?
25
A.
FR
16:04:44
But he ultimately, over the course of that heated
He did.
16:06:03
1701
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
Did anyone ever ask you, in advance of the
activities described in those news releases, whether those
activities would comply with the preliminary injunction order?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, the trial ruling in this case came down on May 24th,
2013.
A.
May of '13, I am.
Q.
Okay.
evidence.
Are you aware of that?
Take a look at Exhibit 103, which is already in
MS. WANG:
10
11
12
And Your Honor, may I publish this one?
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
16:06:48
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
Briefing Board dated May 28, 2013, correct?
16
A.
I'm sorry.
17
Q.
That's okay.
18
A.
I do.
19
Q.
All right.
20
28th, 2013, is that right?
21
A.
Correct.
22
Q.
And this Briefing Board effectively summarizes the Court's
Do you see the first paragraph -- well, this is a
16:06:54
I was --
This was a Briefing Board that issued on May
16:07:10
DS
IEN
23
trial ruling of May 2013, correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Sir, are you aware -- well, let me ask you this first.
FR
16:06:20
The
16:07:19
1702
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
first paragraph here says:
"By order of Sheriff Arpaio,
effective immediately, no MCSO personnel shall detain any
person for turn over to ICE unless probable cause to arrest or
detain exists under Arizona criminal law."

Do you see that?
16:07:41
A.
I do read that.
Q.
That comports with your description of the preliminary
injunction order to your clients, correct?
A.
That does.
10
Q.
That you had given since that order issued in December of
11
2011, right?
12
A.
December 23rd.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
direction go out to MCSO prior to May 28th, 2013?
15
A.
I did not see.
16
Q.
17
A.
2567?
18
Q.
Correct.
Sir, did you ever see a Briefing Board giving that
16:08:06
Two five six seven.
All right.
19
This is an e-mail chain between you and
Larry Farnsworth on March 28th, 2014.
21
A.
I do.
22
Q.
All right.
IEN
DS
20
Do you see that?
16:08:38
At that time -- well, who was Larry Farnsworth?
23
What was his position?
24
A.
25
commander of the Court Compliance Implementation Division that
FR
16:07:49
Like it says there in the letter, he was the -- he was

16:08:53
1703
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
was set up by MCSO.
Q.
this e-mail chain, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you read this e-mail chain as indicating that Captain
Farnsworth was unaware of the preliminary injunction order at
this time?
A.
That's what it looks like from his March 28th, 2014 e-mail.
Q.
Okay.
And Captain Farnsworth was asking for a copy of an order in
MS. WANG:
10
11
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
13
MR. COMO:
14
THE COURT:
15
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
Q.
All right.
19
A.
I'm there.
20
Q.
Yes.
I'm going to have you turn now to Exhibit 2543.
DS
Thank you.
16:09:57
So this is an e-mail chain dated April 4th, 2014,
IEN
between you and Paul Chagolla and others?
23
Do you see that?
24
A.
I do.
25
Q.
And starting with the earlier e-mail from Paul Chagolla to
FR
16:09:35
16
22
16:09:24
Exhibit 2567.
12
21
16:09:05
16:10:08
1704
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Tom Liddy where he copies you, is it fair to say that Chief
Chagolla was informing counsel about an E Learning training
that would require mandatory review by deputy sheriff chiefs,
captains, and lieutenants of the Court's orders in this case,
including the preliminary injunction order?
A.
That's what it looks like.
Q.
And then turning to your e-mail in response, let's
highlight on the first page --
I'm sorry, this is not in evidence yet.
MS. WANG:
10
11
16:10:37
Your Honor, may I move Exhibit 2543 into
evidence?
MR. MASTERSON:
12
MR. WALKER:
13
MR. COMO:
14
THE COURT:
15
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
2543 is admitted.
16:10:57
16
MS. WANG:
17
THE COURT:
18
May I publish it, Your Honor?

You may.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
2543.
22
strongly recommend that Sheriff Arpaio voluntarily review these
IEN
DS
Let's highlight that last paragraph on the first page of

Do you see, Mr. Casey, where you wrote:
16:11:04
"I also
23
orders, but not under internal MCSO compulsion or
24
certification.
25
official.
FR
16:10:49
It is voluntary for the sheriff as an elected
In my judgment, however, Sheriff Arpaio needs to be
16:11:22
1705
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
able to testify under oath in the future in any contempt
proceedings against him that he has read all three of the
orders.
some degree the nature and extent of the punishment issued
against the sheriff following a contempt finding, and
incidentally, prove less publicly embarrassing in the public's
eyes."
The fact of reading them could or might mitigate to
Do you see that?
8
9
A.
I see that.
10
Q.
You put this in bold face and underscore, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Why did you say that in this e-mail?
13
A.
It was my judgment that it was in my best interest -- in my
14
client's best interest for him to be advised by his lawyer that
15
it was prudent for him to read these things.
16
Q.
17
there might be contempt proceedings against the sheriff?

MS. CLARK:
impressions, Judge.
20
THE COURT:
DS
19
MS. WANG:
Object -- I'm sorry.
Objection, mental
Q.
24
there might be contempt proceedings against the sheriff?
FR
16:12:16
All right.
23
25
16:12:01
BY MS. WANG:
IEN
22
16:11:47
Did you anticipate at this point, April 4th, 2014, that
18
21
16:11:38
Were you conveying to the recipients of this e-mail that
MS. CLARK:
Same objection, Judge.
16:12:32
1706
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Why did you convey that?
A.
I'm not able to answer that question without going into
attorney-client privileged information and client
confidentiality that would relate to the reasons I gave Sheriff
Arpaio for my withdrawal.
Q.
Sir, did your withdrawal as counsel in this case relate in
10
any way to the preliminary injunction order?
11
A.
MS. CLARK:
Objection, mental impressions; work
product; privilege; confidentiality.

THE COURT:
14
The answer was "not directly"?
Did you have something to say, Mr. --
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
18
a question which they could answer yes or no they sometimes
19
blurt out an answer, anyway, so I wanted to stop that before it
20
happened, because I am going to assert a privilege on the next
21
question that I believe is on the way here.
DS
objection, but only because sometimes when witnesses are asked
IEN
THE COURT:
16:13:29
All right.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
indirectly relate to the preliminary injunction order in this
FR
16:13:16
Well, I was going to join in the
17
22
16:13:01
Not directly.
12
13
16:12:39
Well, the next question is:
Did your withdrawal as counsel

16:13:40
case?
2
3
4
1707
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MS. CLARK:
Same objections, Judge.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
Nevertheless -- well, the
answer is a yes or no answer.

THE WITNESS:
Could you read the question back?
apologize.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
preliminary injunction order in this case?
Did your withdrawal from this case relate indirectly to the
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
So, sir, I will ask you:
12
to withdraw as counsel in this case related in any way to the
13
preliminary injunction order, can you tell me what the reason
14
was?
16:14:00
MS. CLARK:
15
foundation as to the answer.
18
THE COURT:
Overruled.
Let me just check one thing.
19
DS
I'm going to overrule the objection as the -- to the
MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor, request a couple of
23
things.
24
have the deposition of Mr. Casey up there.
FR
25
16:14:46
extent that the question was worded the way it was.
IEN
22
16:14:18
Join in the privilege objection, and
17
21
To the extent that your decision
Same objections, Judge, all four.
MR. MASTERSON:
16
20
16:13:52
One, if the Court could look at -- I don't know if you
THE COURT:
I don't.
16:15:02
MR. MASTERSON:
I could give you a copy.
What I'd
like to refer you to is a page and line cite or ask for a
minute to voir dire the witness.

THE COURT:
4
5
to --
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
8
9
10
11
I have copies, Your Honor.
-- need to bring it to me.
May I hand them up?
THE COURT:
Sure.
MS. CLARK:
Judge, I don't have a copy of the
MS. WANG:
13
14
I have one you for you, too, Ms. Clark.
MS. CLARK:
Well, thank you.
THE COURT:
Are you going to give me the page and line
cite, please?
16:15:31
MR. MASTERSON:
16
Yes, Judge.
Page 143, lines 9 through
17
11, and my objection is as to the foundation for the answer I
18
believe Mr. Casey is about to give.

THE COURT:
19
21
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Okay.
143, 9 through 11.
And what's your objection?
DS
20
16:15:21
deposition transcript.
12
15
Sure, but I don't have it, so you're going
16:15:12
MS. WANG:
1708
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
16:16:00
Foundation.
I mean, are you saying he didn't observe
these things?
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, he's observing subjective things
and then making an interpretation based on those very
16:16:11
1709
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
subjective, highly subjective things.
And he goes further to say that -- well, on the same
2
3
page, line -- well, actually, I'm sorry, Judge.
page 142, line 12, and move on to the section I cited to you on
through 143, lines 13 through 14.

MS. WANG:
6
7
for now.
I think I can lay a better foundation.
MS. WANG:
16:16:38
Your Honor, let me withdraw the question
THE COURT:
Let's start at
All right.
We may come back to this point, but let me
10
come to it at a later time.
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
13
your recommendation in that last paragraph of your e-mail that
14
the sheriff read the orders, was that based in part, in any
15
part, on discussions you had had with the sheriff in the past?
16
A.
Mr. Casey, can you -- now looking again at Exhibit 2543,
Yes.
MS. CLARK:
17
18
16:16:53
Mental impressions, Judge.
And
confidentiality also.
MS. WANG:
Well, you --
THE COURT:
Overruled.
MS. CLARK:
I should have objected also on privilege,
23
THE COURT:
Overruled.
24
THE WITNESS:
21
FR
25
16:17:30
Judge.
IEN
22
DS
19
20
16:17:18
BY MS. WANG:
Yes.
16:17:42
1710
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Can you tell me what that was?
A.
I think it goes back to the history from the first
conversation after the preliminary injunction all the way up to
what we had in the fall of '12, going back, you know, it's a
space of 18 months or more, but I think that's what it relates
to.
Q.
the sheriff in October of 2012?
A.
And you're referring to the heated discussion you had with
Yes.
MR. MASTERSON:
10
THE COURT:
11
Objection, leading.
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
recommended on April 4th of 2014?
15
A.
I do not.
16
Q.
All right.
Do you know whether the sheriff read those orders, as you
DS
MS. WANG:
MS. WANG:
IEN
FR
I --
You may.
Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
23
25
May I have a moment, Your Honor?
19
24
THE COURT:
18
22
16:18:27
MS. WANG:
17
21
16:18:14
I'll allow that one.
12
20
16:18:03
I apologize.
16:19:11
I don't think I have that up here.
I apologize.
Ms. Zoratti, would you mind giving the witness a copy
of 2566?
THE CLERK:
(Handing).
16:19:34
THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
starts with Chief Chagolla's April 4th, 2014 e-mail?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
Mr. Liddy and Mr. Williams:
All right, sir.
10
read it"?
11
A.
Yes.
13
exhibit.
"The troops need to have it and
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Can we put that on the screen for --
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
Chief Chagolla's e-mail to your co-counsel?
19
A.
21
Yes.
MS. WANG:
MR. MASTERSON:
23
MR. WALKER:
24
MR. COMO:
25
THE COURT:
FR
All right.
16:20:42
admission of Exhibit 2566.
IEN
22
16:20:30
Was this an e-mail string in which you were forwarding
DS
20
I don't have this
15
16:19:45
16:20:17
MS. WANG:
14
Is Exhibit 2566 a different chain that
And do you see where in the top e-mail you wrote to
MS. CLARK:
12
1711
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
16:20:52
1712
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MS. WANG:
2
3
4
May we publish it, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Mr. Williams:
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then the next sentence reads:
All right.
16:21:00
Do you see we are you wrote to Mr. Liddy and
"The troops need to have it and read it"?
"It maybe overinclusive,
10
but the next round of problems will be over whether they ever
11
read the preliminary injunction"?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
All right.
14
"the troops need to have it and read it," you were referring to
15
the preliminary injunction order, correct?
16
A.
17
issues earlier that year with some executives not having read
18
it.
19
Q.
20
were you reacting to Chief Chagolla's original suggestion that
21
only certain commanders read the orders?
22
A.
That was a reference to -- well, when you say
DS
And when you said "the troops need to have it and read it,"
16:21:36
IEN
Yes.
Q.
24
read the preliminary injunction order as well?
FR
16:21:22
I think it was that and everything, because we had some
23
25
16:21:11
All right.
Why did you think that the troops needed to
MS. CLARK:
Mental impressions.
16:21:53
THE COURT:
1713
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sustained.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
at MCSO below the lieutenant rank needed to read the
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
A.
I believe I did.
recommended the sergeants.
All right.
Did you convey to anyone that the rank and file
Did you say why?
I think we saw one of the e-mails here I
10
Q.
And why did you do that?
11
A.
Because they're -- they're the first line of review for the
12
people underneath them.
13
Q.
14
events, also go into your judgment as expressed to the troops
15
that they needed to read it?
16
MS. CLARK:
Objection, mental impressions.
THE COURT:
Do you want to ask what was conveyed and
MS. WANG:
DS
THE COURT:
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
Sure.
-- what Mr. Casey thought?
16:22:42
IEN
Did you convey to anyone whether the history of your
23
discussions with your clients about the preliminary injunction
24
order also led you to believe that the sergeants needed to read
25
that order?
FR
16:22:28
communicated and not --
19
20
16:22:12
And did any of the history, including the October 2012
17
18
16:22:04
16:22:58
1714
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't know if I conveyed that.
Q.
All right.
to make sure that various MCSO personnel read the order because
some executives had not read it?
A.
That's my memory.
Q.
And are you referring to the instances when Chiefs Trombi
and Sheridan had clearly not read the court orders?
A.
I just remember there was testimony that they -- I remember
You said that at this time there was an effort
Was that your testimony?
I don't know about clearly, but I could just tell you that
10
Dave Trombi testifying he had not read it.
11
Q.
12
corrective statement to go out to MCSO because of the ways that
13
Chiefs Trombi and Sheridan had characterized the Court's
14
orders, is that right?
15
A.
I remember that.
16
Q.
All right.
17
time you withdrew from this case, there were still HSU
18
personnel who were unaware of the preliminary injunction order?
19
A.
20
it at that time.
21
Q.
22
the preliminary injunction order issued, the sheriff made --
All right.
16:23:34
And you're aware that the Court had ordered a
16:23:52
Are you aware of any information that at the
DS
I have no information indicating that anyone was unaware of
IEN
All right.
16:24:20
Now, I think you've testified that at the time
23
assured you that MCSO was not detaining people based solely on
24
immigration status, is that right?
25
A.
FR
16:23:19
He said, We're not doing that any more, and the bottom line
16:24:39
1715
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
is the federal government won't take it.
do it.
Q.
MCSO was doing that?
A.
testimony from a witness --
Q.
Okay.
A.
-- or two.
Q.
And at that time did Sheriff Arpaio tell you anything about
Okay.
Obama, ICE, will not
And during the trial did you learn that, in fact,
I think we went over that maybe an hour ago, and I remember
10
whether he would continue to conduct those kinds of detentions?
11
A.
12
he clearly understood what the preliminary injunction order
13
required.
14
Q.
15
assure you that he would stop the detentions based solely on
16
immigration status?
17
A.
18
was the -- that was absolutely the message that was received,
19
that we're not sure what happened, but it was not supposed to.
20
Q.
21
Arpaio?
22
A.
16:25:02
I don't believe the sheriff understood the LEAR policy, but
Well, when it came up during the trial, did Sheriff Arpaio
16:25:23
I think we handled that through Chief Sheridan, and that
DS
All right.
And was that message conveyed to Sheriff
16:25:37
IEN
My understanding is that's where it was from.
23
Q.
24
activity would stop.
25
A.
FR
16:24:52
All right.
That Sheriff Arpaio was conveying that that
That's correct.
16:25:47
1716
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Ninth Circuit that you did, right?
A.
my client it wasn't happening, it wasn't going to happen, ICE
wouldn't do it.
them.
Q.
again you learned MCSO was detaining people based solely on
immigration status, correct?
Yeah.
And that was why you made the representation to the
Well, the whole host of times I've communicated with
Even if we wanted to do it, ICE won't take
And in October of 2012 we've heard your testimony that once
MR. MASTERSON:
10
MS. WANG:
11
THE COURT:
12
Objection, leading.
I know you're trying to sum up, but I do
think that we need to be very sensitive to that concern, so I'm
14
going to sustain the objection.

MS. WANG:
15
Very well.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
violating the preliminary injunction order?
19
A.
20
likely a violation; not definitively, likely.
21
Q.
But that's the message you conveyed to the sheriff?
22
A.
Yes.
16:26:28
In October of 2012, did you learn whether MCSO was
IEN
DS
Like I said some time ago, it was my view that it was
23
Q.
All right.
24
A.
Same thing that we went over some time ago.
FR
16:26:15
I'm trying to just sum up, Your Honor.
13
25
16:26:02
16:26:39
And what did the sheriff tell you in response?
MR. MASTERSON:
Objection, asked and answered.
16:26:51
THE COURT:
I'll allow it this one additional time.
THE WITNESS:
1717
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
That gets into the whole heated argument
that we had in October of 2012 after Mr. Segura's letter.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
December 23rd, 2011 order, how many times did Sheriff Arpaio
communicate to you that there would no longer be detentions
based solely on suspected illegal presence in the United
States?
All right.
So Mr. Casey, since the Court issued its
10
A.
Three.
11
Q.
I want to get back now to the question about whether the
12
preliminary injunction order was -- gave rise to your decision
13
to withdraw as counsel.
16:27:22
Was your decision to withdraw as counsel for the
14
15
sheriff related in any way to what you've just discussed in the
16
last two minutes?
MS. CLARK:
17
MR. MASTERSON:
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
23
THE WITNESS:
24
THE COURT:
FR
25
Judge, I don't object to the yes or no
16:27:59
I'm going to overrule the objection
and direct the witness to answer.
IEN
22
One moment.
question, but I'll probably be up here again in a second.
DS
21
Objection, Judge.
16:27:42
Confidentiality, privilege, and work product, Judge.
18
20
16:27:03
no, please.
As I mentioned before --
Well, would you answer the question yes or

16:28:11
THE WITNESS:
1718
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
decision to withdraw as Sheriff Arpaio's lawyer in this case
was based on that history relating to the preliminary
injunction order, why did you withdraw?
All right.
MS. CLARK:
10
I'm going to object on the basis of
foundation, refer the Court again to the deposition page and

lines cited.
16:28:42
THE COURT:
11
All right.
I'm going to instruct the
12
witness that he is to answer the question based only on the
13
extent to which it involves communications with his client.

THE WITNESS:
14
Very indirectly, just resistance from my
15
client.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
Who expressed that resistance?
18
A.
That was the sheriff.
19
Q.
And resistance to what?
20
A.
Being told what to do.
21
Q.
Including the preliminary injunction order?
22
A.
Eventually.
IEN
DS
16:29:01
23
Q.
24
topic.
25
the confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, correct?
FR
16:28:26
Same three bases for the objection, Judge.
MR. MASTERSON:
8
9
And can you explain, to the extent that your
All right.
16:29:10
Mr. Casey, I'm going to move on to a different
You're familiar with the MCSO's investigation involving

16:29:32
A.
I remember attending a meeting.
Q.
Okay.
And what was discussed during that meeting?
Well, let me back up.
1719
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Who was present at the meeting?
A.
I'm going to start off with the lawyers:
It was myself; my
co-counsel, Tom Liddy; at this meeting I do not believe my
partner, James Williams, was present; John Masterson was
present; Joe Popolizio was present; I believe Steve Bailey was
present.
said at my deposition, I can't be certain about Jerry Sheridan.
I believe that Jerry Sheridan was present, but as I
10
And I believe that Jack MacIntyre was present, but I cannot be
11
certain about his presence.
12
present, but I'm not certain.
13
Q.
14
Montgomery investigation was discussed?
15
A.
I only remember one meeting.
16
Q.
All right.
17
people you named?
18
A.
Well, the sheriff was there.
19
Q.
Anyone else?
20
A.
Did I mention Bailey?
21
Q.
Yes.
22
A.
And there were two guys that were on a speakerphone.
16:30:19
I believe that Lisa Allen was
Did you attend more than one meeting where the Dennis
DS
IEN
16:30:39
And was anyone else present other than the
23
Q.
24
on the speakerphone?
25
A.
FR
16:29:55
16:30:51
Did you have an understanding about who those people were
My understanding is they were both employees of MCSO.
16:31:07
1720
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And you don't know who they were?
A.
No.
re -- I don't remember.
Q.
from the same location?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And do you know whether that was in the Seattle, Washington
area?
A.
That's my memory.
10
Q.
Okay.
Okay.
Was it your impression that they were calling in
16:31:21
Tell me everything you remember about this meeting.
MS. CLARK:
11
12
You mentioned in the deposition the names, but I don't
Objection, confidentiality; ER 1.6; work
product; as applicable, attorney-client privilege.

THE COURT:
13
I've already ruled that there is a waiver
14
as to this meeting, and so the attorney-client privilege
15
objection is overruled; the 1.6 objection is overruled; and the
16
confidentiality objection is overruled without prejudice to its
17
renewal, or any of the above, depending upon the question.

MR. MASTERSON:
18
20
21
THE COURT:
Well, he testified that the two guys on
MR. MASTERSON:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
25
Your Honor, I make a hearsay objection
16:32:11
the speakerphone were MCSO employees in Seattle, right?
IEN
22
16:31:48
to statements made by the two guys on the speakerphone.
DS
19
16:31:27
it's an admission?
He did.
Overruled.
Is the Court's basis for this that
16:32:25
1721
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
It's a statement, not an admission.
It's
a statement.
investigation and they were sent up to work with Montgomery, I
believe it is a statement under -- well, it's called admission
in the title, but it says statement is offered against a party.
It's 801(d)(2).
THE WITNESS:
10
Just a brief record that I don't think
these two people have the -- or had the status in MCSO to make
an admission on behalf of the organization.
THE COURT:
11
read the rule to require an admission; it merely refers to
13
statements.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
MS. WANG:
15
Thank you.
And Your Honor, in response to
16
Mr. Masterson's argument, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), a statement
17
offered against an opposing party that is made by the party's
18
agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that
19
relationship and while it existed is not hearsay.
I believe I've already ruled in your
MS. WANG:
16:33:32
Thank you, Judge.
23
THE WITNESS:
24
MS. WANG:
25
THE COURT:
FR
16:33:13
favor, Ms. Wang.
IEN
22
DS
21
THE COURT:
16:33:03
And I will -- I accept that, but I don't
12
20
16:32:45
Am I ordered to answer?
MR. MASTERSON:
8
9
To the extent that it involves the Montgomery
Am I ordered to answer, Your Honor?
Sorry.
You are.
16:33:39
1722
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE WITNESS:
My memory of this is there was an offer
of proof, if you will, that the MCSO folks on the phone were
explaining what this CI, the confidential informant, could
offer MCSO if MCSO continued to seek his services, his
consultation, his informant status, whatever.
16:34:07
And I do remember there was a discussion about him --
6
7
the CI wanting to have some type of immunity.
the details of that or what that's about.
lawyer; I don't practice in that area.
I don't remember
I'm not a criminal
I remember that there were discussions about him
10
11
having access to a duplicate set of NSA or CIA data that he
12
could mine, m-i-n-e.
13
indicated from that data that he could mine that there was
14
either telephone or e-mail surveillance on, I think it was Joe
15
Popolizio at Jones, Skelton.
16
also was discussion about a connection between the Court, DOJ,
17
and people in the federal administration.
18
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
20
that the confidential informant had evidence of a conspiracy
21
among those parties: this Court, the Department of Justice, and
22
the law firm of Covington & Burling against Sheriff Arpaio?
And that his preliminary research
Could be other people.
There
16:35:13
IEN
DS
On the latter point, Mr. Casey, did you hear anyone purport
23
A.
That's what was being reported.
24
Q.
Was that report -- who was that reported by?
25
A.
One or both of the fellows on the phone were reporting that
FR
16:34:36
16:35:35
16:35:56
1723
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
there was this collusion involving the Court that had an
adverse effect on Joe Arpaio, and that it could be proven if
MCSO would go forward with using the CI's services.
Q.
between the Department of Justice and Judge Snow's chambers?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And was it purported that that information came out of data
that Dennis Montgomery had mined from the NSA or the CIA?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Did you hear any mention that former U.S. Attorney Dennis
11
Burke was involved in that same conspiracy?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did you hear any mention of the then-Attorney General of
14
the United States, Eric Holder?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Was it alleged that he was involved in that purported
17
conspiracy?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Did you hear any mention of then-Deputy Attorney General
20
Lanny Breuer being involved in that purported conspiracy?
21
A.
I believe he was included in that, but I'm not certain.
22
Q.
I'm going to have you turn to Exhibit 2072.
Did you hear any mention of a purported telephone call
16:37:06
Take a look at Exhibit 2072 and let me know if you saw
24
a copy of those documents during this meeting.
25
A.
FR
16:36:36
16:36:54
DS
IEN
23
16:36:20
I have it, and I did see it.
16:37:40
1724
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
and then there's also something labeled "Arpaio brief."
you see both of those documents during this meeting?
A.
I do remember seeing a graphic that looked like this Arpaio
brief.
Q.
appeared on those documents?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Was that discussed during the meeting?
11
A.
I don't remember the judge specifically being addressed,
12
but he had either a law clerk or a former law clerk that was
13
supposedly a conduit for communications.
14
Q.
15
sheriff?
16
A.
All right.
16:38:31
MS. WANG:
Exhibit 2072 at this time.

MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
No objection.
24
MS. WANG:
FR
BY MS. WANG:
16:38:39
No objection.
23
25
16:38:11
That was my impression.
IEN
22
And do you recall that Judge Snow's name
DS
21
16:38:02
In connection with this purported conspiracy against the
19
20
Did
As I told you in my depo, I remember seeing a timeline, and
17
18
There's something that is labeled a timeline,
Thank you.
16:38:48
1725
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You mentioned that the MCSO personnel on the phone said
that the source of this information was data that the CI had
mined from the CIA or the NSA, is that right?
A.
That's my memory.
Q.
Did anyone express a concern that that use of that data
might be illegal?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Who expressed that concern?
A.
I did, and I know that -- I believe that a couple of the
10
other lawyers also did.
11
Q.
Did anyone in the room react to that?
12
A.
It was not said during the meeting; it was said as we're
13
breaking up.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
All right.
17
A.
I don't remem- -- I know I should remember it because it
18
was just -- I thought this was November of '13, by the way, but
19
I don't remember who it was, but it would have been one of the
20
executives.
21
Q.
16:39:32
And who did you express that concern to?
DS
It would not have been the sheriff himself.
16:39:46
And did that, whoever you expressed it to --
One of the chiefs?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
about the use --
FR
16:39:22
As you were leaving that meeting?
All right.
IEN
22
16:39:05
Did that chief respond to your expression of concern

16:39:56
MR. MASTERSON:
1726
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Objection, Your Honor.
I think we're
beyond the scope of the Court's ruling on the waiver in that
meeting.
THE COURT:
4
5
Was your testimony that it was while the
meeting was breaking up?

THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
I honestly don't remember, but whoever
it was I think had that concern and was going to -- my
10
expression -- run it to ground.
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
I didn't hear you.
13
A.
Run it to ground.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Make sure that the MCSO had looked into that.
16
Q.
All right.
MS. CLARK:
17
clarification that by allowing the testimony you were ordering
19
it from the witness?
DS
THE COURT:
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
I was ordering the witness to testify.
16:40:39
16:40:46
IEN
Mr. Casey, during the course of this meeting, did anyone
23
express a view on the reliability of the information about the
24
purported conspiracy against Sheriff Arpaio?
25
A.
FR
16:40:29
Your Honor, if I could just get a
18
20
16:40:17
I'm going to allow it.
THE WITNESS:
8
9
We're at some post meeting activity now.
Yes.
16:41:01
1727
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Who expressed that view?
A.
The lawyers.
Q.
What was expressed?
4
5
MS. CLARK:
Objection, client confidentiality, Judge.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
16:41:09
The witness will answer.
THE WITNESS:
I'll tell you my conclusion, what I
mentioned in the deposition:
unbelievable.
It was hogwash.
It was
And I believe that the other lawyers shared that
10
same sentiment, that same conclusion, and that was expressed.
11
This is someone to be avoided.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
reliability of the information about the purported conspiracy?
15
A.
16
silent during this.
17
Q.
Did the sheriff speak?
18
A.
He did.
19
Q.
What did he say?
20
A.
He said something that indicated that he was enthusiastic
21
and it needed to be looked into.
22
Q.
Did anyone else in the room express a view as to the
DS
I remember MCSO people, except for the sheriff, being
16:41:38
16:41:46
IEN
The purported conspiracy involving the Court?
23
A.
That was my impression.
24
Q.
Did you have any further involvement in the Dennis
25
Montgomery investigation after this meeting?
FR
16:41:22
16:42:16
1728
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
None.
Q.
Why not?
MS. CLARK:
Objection, client confidentiality, Judge.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Join.
All right.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
about the evidence of the purported conspiracy?
Mr. Casey, did Sheriff Arpaio express to you any emotions
10
11
MS. CLARK:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
MR. MASTERSON:
12
where talking about.
14
out -- post-meeting, we're outside the Court's order.

THE COURT:
15
If we're talking post-meeting, we're
I will agree.
If it's post-meeting,
16
you're not to answer; if it's during the meeting or while the
17
meeting is breaking up, you are to answer.

THE WITNESS:
18
20
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
DS
was while we were breaking up walking out of the meeting.
16:43:08
And what did he convey to you?

MS. CLARK:
Continuing objection, Judge.
23
THE COURT:
Overruled.
24
THE WITNESS:
IEN
FR
16:42:55
It was not during the meeting, but it
19
25
16:42:45
I'm going to -- I'm not sure when
13
22
16:42:26
BY MS. WANG:
The witness will answer.
He added an additional fact.

16:43:15
1729
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
What's that?
A.
He had his finger out and he says:
is at Covington, and Kyle got the judge his job.
Q.
did you -- did you hear anything indicating why the sheriff was
interested in following up on this information about a
purported conspiracy?
THE WITNESS:
You know that Jon Kyle
During the meeting, or as it was breaking up, Mr. Casey,
Your Honor, I cannot answer that
question without violating attorney-client privilege and client
10
confidentiality, because the information I have is outside that
11
meeting, outside the exiting of that meeting.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
When did you get that information?
14
A.
I think it was a course of about 30 or 40 days.
15
thought this is November of '13, not January '14, but it would
16
have been in 30 to 40 days is when I gathered that.
17
Q.
After the meeting or before?
18
A.
It was after the meeting.
19
Q.
During the meeting or as it was breaking up, did Sheriff
20
Arpaio express any attitude towards Judge Snow?
21
A.
22
while it was breaking up.
DS
Q.
And I
16:44:12
16:44:31
Did he do so at some other time?
24
MS. CLARK:
25
THE COURT:
Sustained.
FR
16:43:52
He did not express any attitude during that meeting or
IEN
23
16:43:32
16:44:46
MS. WANG:
1
2
3
1730
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, may I have a moment?
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
4
5
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
meeting, or as it was breaking up, did you have a sense that
the sheriff was being vindictive?
16:45:11
Mr. Casey, based on what you heard and saw during this
9
10
MS. CLARK:
Objection, mental impression, Judge.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
MS. WANG:
11
16:45:23
I'm not sure this is a different question,
12
Judge, but I'll try.
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
or otherwise during that meeting or as it was breaking up, a
16
vindictive attitude?
Did the sheriff say anything, or otherwise express verbally
MR. MASTERSON:
17
THE COURT:
18
21
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
The only thing I remember him saying was
that it needed to be followed up on.
DS
20
I'll allow it.
THE WITNESS:
19
All right.
Mr. Masterson.
Do you want to start again tomorrow?
24
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
16:45:54
Nothing further.
23
25
16:45:40
If it's not too presumptuous, I'd just
as soon take an early break tonight.
16:46:10
THE COURT:
1731
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'll allow you to do that.
What I am going to require, though, is I just got
2
3
notice that you'd filed a motion to quash a subpoena sometime
today.
MS. WANG:
5
6
Have you seen that, Ms. Wang?
I know it was filed, but I have not looked
at the motion.
THE COURT:
7
8
tomorrow.
some urgency to it.
All right.
Well, if we can deal with it
I did read the motion to quash.
I gathered it has
We need to deal with it tomorrow, so if
10
you can take a look at it tonight.
11
here 15 minutes early tomorrow, since we're ending 15 minutes
12
early today we can start 8:45 tomorrow and we will deal with
13
the motion to quash, and then we will proceed with testimony.
And then if you can both be
16:46:37
Is there an issue?
14
MS. MORIN:
15
Yes, Your Honor.
I have looked briefly at
the motion to quash, and I just wanted to clarify because Your
17
Honor may have read this, and it looks like the defendants have
18
referred to -- excuse me -- the wrong date, the return date
19
that's on the motion, which might be relevant to your
20
consideration of that.
21
at the right subpoena date, they might have a misimpression of
22
what -- what their motion was about as well.
IEN
DS
16
And if the defendants are not looking
23
So the motion -- or the subpoena that we served, the
24
document subpoena, has a return date of October 5th, and that
25
was what I noticed in the motion.
FR
16:46:23
16:46:54
16:47:10
16:47:27
1732
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
3
THE COURT:
Return date of October 5th?
MS. MORIN:
Correct.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, let me just say, here's
what interests me, and obviously I'm going to give you a chance
to respond.
objection as it pertains to overbreadth might have some
purchase to it.
relevant and appropriate.
But it did seem to me that the date
10
pertains -- that tracks from the preliminary injunction date
11
might be a little early, and it also might be more targeted
12
than talking about every MCSO employee.
13
that we could narrow it down and not make it so onerous on --
MR. MASTERSON:
15
THE COURT:
16
I mean, it seems to me
Mr. Zullo.
Yeah, Mr. Zullo.
telling you that I did read it over the break.
19
issues that interested me.
20
to address it if you want tomorrow.
IEN
DS
18
23
24
FR
25
16:48:12
Anyway, you haven't had a chance to read it.
17
22
16:47:50
Who was it served on?
14
21
16:47:37
I do think that the material sought seems to me to be
8
9
But it did seem to me like the nature of the
I'm just
Those were the
You can take a look at, be prepared
MS. MORIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Ms. Clark.
MS. CLARK:
It sounds like preliminary matters will be
handled tomorrow at 8:45.

THE COURT:
16:48:29
What time would you like --
The testimony's going to resume at
16:48:35
9 o'clock, hopefully.
2
3
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT:
Anything else by anybody?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
Nothing from me.
Your Honor, just one personal matter.
Your Honor has noted that I've walked in a few minutes
9
10
late on a couple of occasions.
11
morning.
12
9:00?
THE COURT:
23
24
FR
25
16:49:05
And so, as welcome as you are, you're not
MR. JIRAUCH:
I've been told that many times during my
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Anything else?
All right.
See you tomorrow at quarter to 9:00.
DS
career.
IEN
22
I do.
necessary as long as co-counsel's here.
18
21
Well, it seems to me like you have
MR. JIRAUCH:
16
20
16:48:52
co-counsel here.
15
19
I have an appointment tomorrow
Could I be relieved of being here at 8:45 and come at
THE COURT:
13
17
16:48:44
Okay.
MR. JIRAUCH:
Nothing from me, Judge.
What?
MR. MASTERSON:
14
1733
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
(Proceedings concluded at 4:49 p.m.)
16:49:14
1734
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
4
5
6
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
7
8
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
10
11
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
12
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
13
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my direction and control.
15
16
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 30th day of
17
18
September, 2015.
20
21
IEN
22
DS
19
23
24
FR
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

(Evidentiary Hearing Day 7, Pages 1488-1734)

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

Covington & Burling, LLP

Covington & Burling, LLP

For the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

For the Intervenor United States of America:

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:

For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

For Timothy J. Casey:

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang

Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery

Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v.

E-mail from Tim Casey to Allen Lisa: Injunction 1684

IA 14-0543 Casey Billing Records dated

E-mail from Tim Casey to James Williams

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

E-mail from Tim Casey to Eileen Henry Fw:

E-mail from Tim Casey to Thomas Liddy copying

E-mail from Eileen Henry to Tim Casey copying

E-mail from Tim Casey to John MacIntyre, Jerry

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

E-mail from Tim Casey to Paul Chagolla, Liddy

E-mail from Tim Casey to Liddy Thomas and James 1712

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Complaint

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

This is CV 07-2513, Melendres, et al.,

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Covington & Burling.

Dan Pochoda for plaintiffs, ACLU of

Paul Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the

United States, plaintiffs intervenor.

Good morning, Judge.

Good morning, Your Honor.

on behalf of Maricopa County.

Good morning, Your Honor.

making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Michelle Morin, and Lauren Pedley for plaintiffs, of

and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.

v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued evidentiary hearing.

Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/29/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Good morning, Judge.

specially appearing on behalf of Chief Gerard Sheridan.

Good morning, Judge.

representing Brian Sands.