Você está na página 1de 29

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 19

1
2
3
4
5

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)


cwang@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

6
7
8
9
10

Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys


for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15
16
17

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,


et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

18
19
20

v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants(s).

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

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

COMBINED PROPOSED
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
FOR CONTINUED CONTEMPT
HEARING

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 2 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:


Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
asegura@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)


pdodson@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-5996
Facsimile: (202) 778-5996

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)


alai@law.uci.edu
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)


jcastillo@maldef.org
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)


syoung@cov.com
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
mmorin@cov.com
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
hbyun@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)


talbarran@cov.com
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
lpedley@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 3 of 19

Pursuant to this Courts oral order regarding a pretrial statement of issues and

documents, Plaintiffs submit the following statements of all parties and alleged non-

party contemnors, as received as of the time of this submission:

I.

Statement of Issues for Continued Contempt Hearing

A.

Plaintiffs intend to present evidence regarding the following topics during the

7
8
9

Plaintiffs Issues.

continued contempt hearing:


1. The three grounds of charged civil contempt in the February 12, 2015 Order to
Show Cause;

10

2. Any defenses to be raised by Defendants or individuals charged with contempt,

11

including any claim that violations of the preliminary injunction were based on

12

advice of counsel;

13

3. As bearing on the remedies for any contempt, the extent to which Sheriff

14

Arpaios or Chief Deputy Sheridans admitted contempt or any other MCSO

15

employees contempt of this courts orders was knowing and willful;

16
17

4. As bearing on injunctive remedies for any contempt and the state of mind issues
described in Paragraph 3 above, the following issues:

18

a. the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, or any other

19

MCSO employee instigated, allowed, or encouraged an investigation of

20

the Court in order to improperly resist the Courts orders and/or this

21

contempt proceeding;

22

b. the extent to which MCSO failed to retain adequate documentation of its

23

activities to presently identify all those who were detained in violation of

24

the Courts preliminary injunction, including outside of the Human

25

Smuggling Unit, and to ensure proper tracking and disposition of

26

property of members of the Plaintiff class;

27
28

c. Defendants continued non-compliance with orders to produce required


documents to both the Court-appointed Monitor team and to Plaintiffs,
1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 4 of 19

including seized identification documents that may belong to Plaintiffs

class members and documents relevant to the issues in this hearing;

3
4

5. Deficiencies in MCSOs internal affairs investigation processes and


accountability systems;

6. The method and scope of adequate compensation for all victims of MCSOs

violation of the preliminary injunction, see e.g., Intl Union, United Mine

Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (citing United States v. Mine

Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)), including a process for providing

notice to and determining claims for compensation by victims.

10

B.

Defendants Issues.

11

1. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated a

12

specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated December

13

23, 2011.

14

2. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Chief Deputy Gerald

15

Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

16

dated December 23, 2011.

17

3. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that former Executive Chief

18

Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

19

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

20

4. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Deputy Chief John

21

Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

22

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

23

5. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Lieutenant Joe Sousa

24

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

25

December 23, 2011.

26

6. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio

27

violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction dated

28

December 23, 2011.


2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 5 of 19

7. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy

Gerald Sheridan violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

8. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that former Executive

Chief Brian Sands violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

9. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John

Jack MacIntyre violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011.

10

10. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe

11

Sousa violated a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary Injunction

12

dated December 23, 2011.

13

11. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio violated

14

any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of this matter in

15

2012.

16

12. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Chief Deputy Gerald

17

Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the

18

trial of this matter in 2012.

19

13. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Deputy Chief John

20

Jack MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior

21

to the trial of this matter in 2012.

22

14. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Lieutenant Joe Sousa

23

violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial of this

24

matter in 2012.

25

15. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Sheriff

26

Arpaio violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the trial

27

of this matter in 2012.

28

16. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Chief
3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 6 of 19

Deputy Gerald Sheridan violated any specific and definite discovery obligations

prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

17. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Deputy

Chief John Jack MacIntyre violated any specific and definite discovery

obligations prior to the trial of this matter in 2012.

18. Whether Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lieutenant

Joe Sousa violated any specific and definite discovery obligations prior to the

trial of this matter in 2012.

19. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Sheriff Arpaio acted in

10

derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14, 2014

11

Orders.

12

20. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Chief Deputy Gerald

13

Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts

14

May 14, 2014 Orders.

15

21. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Deputy Chief John

16

Jack MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

17

Courts May 14, 2014 Orders.

18

22. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in establishing that Lieutenant Joe Sousa

19

acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14,

20

2014 Orders.

21

23. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sheriff Arpaio

22

acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts May 14,

23

2014 Orders.

24

24. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chief Deputy

25

Gerald Sheridan acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

26

Courts May 14, 2014 Orders.

27

25. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Chief John

28

Jack MacIntyre acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this


4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 7 of 19

Courts May 14, 2014 Orders.

26. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lieutenant Joe

Sousa acted in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this Courts

May 14, 2014 Orders.

27. Whether any violations of a specific and definite provision of the Preliminary

Injunction dated December 23, 2011, were intentional.

28. Whether any violations of specific and definite discovery obligations prior to

the trial of this matter in 2012 were intentional.

29. Whether any actions in derogation of a specific and definite provision of this

10

Courts May 14, 2014 Orders were intentional.

11

30. Whether Plaintiffs can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any violation of

12

this Courts specific and definite Orders occurred after May 28, 2013.

13

31. Defendants contend that any evidence on remedies for any contempt to be

14

determined by the Court is premature and should not be permitted by the Court

15

at this stage in the proceedings.

16

32. Defendants contend that the Seattle investigation is irrelevant to any finding

17

of contempt and that the inquiry into the Seattle investigation impinges on

18

Defendant Arpaios constitutional rights. Further, nothing alleged by Plaintiffs

19

with respect to the Seattle investigation, even if taken as true, is unlawful.

20

Plaintiffs cannot show the violation of any specific and definite Order of the

21

Court caused by any aspect of the allegations they set forth related to the

22

Seattle investigation.

23

33. As to state of mind issues, the following:

24

34. The monumental efforts made by Defendants and MCSO to comply with this

25

Courts Orders including, but not limited to, massive policy updates, changes,

26

and the training required to bring MCSO personnel current on all such new and

27

revised policies.

28

35. The extraordinary efforts made by MCSO personnel to investigate the


5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 8 of 19

Armendariz matter in a reasonable, timely, and appropriate fashion and to

keep the Court-appointed monitors apprised at each stage of the investigation.

36. The extensive and continued efforts to comply with this Courts Orders and to

provide information to the monitors, both voluntarily and by request, through

the date of this proceeding.

37. Compliance with the appropriate standard of care with respect to internal affairs

investigations.

38. The defense of advice of counsel.

39. Whether, under the United States Supreme Courts decision in McMillian v.

10

Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), and applicable Arizona law, any liability

11

can be imputed to Defendant Maricopa County based on the matters at issue in

12

this proceeding.

13

40. Whether, if the Court finds that there was no substantial basis for Plaintiffs

14

refusal to stipulate to dismissal of any of individual alleged contemnors, such

15

individual(s) are entitled to recover from Plaintiffs their attorneys fees.

16

C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnor Sands Issues.

17

1. Whether Plaintiffs have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chief

18

Sands failed to take reasonable steps to ensure distribution of the Courts

19

December 23, 2011, Preliminary Injunction ruling to MCSO personnel.

20
21

2. Whether Chief Sands substantially complied with his obligation to disseminate


the Courts Preliminary Injunction Order.

22

3. Whether other factors, such as Chief Sands retirement and his cooperation with

23

the Monitors investigation preclude or mitigate a finding of contempt against

24

him.

25

4. Whether a finding of civil contempt against retired Chief Sands represents the

26

least possible power necessary to enforce the Courts interest in adherence to its

27

orders.

28
6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 9 of 19

5. Whether any monetary award against Chief Sands would be a criminal sanction

requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully failed to comply

with the Courts order.

6. To the extent a monetary sanction is compensatory, whether Plaintiffs have

proven actual injuries and a causal connection between Chief Sands actions

and their damages.

7. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Chief Sands are barred by res judicata.

8. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Chief Sands are barred by laches.

II.

Plaintiffs Amendments to Proposed Exhibit List

10

Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with an amended exhibit list, omitting the

11

following previously listed exhibits which Plaintiffs do not expect to introduce during

12

the continued contempt hearing: PX 2, 3-13, 15, 18-27, 31, 73, 106, 108, 120-123, 129,

13

175, 183, 194, 2077, 2216, 2217, 2229-2231, 2253-2254, 2286, 2288, 2293, 2500,

14

2518, 2524, 2532, 2539, 2547, 2558, 2568, 2573, 2709-2713, 2768-2769, 2783, 2793,

15

2800, 2801, 2804, 2809-2814, 2824, 2845-2847.

16

III.

Proposed Stipulations

17

A.

18

The parties have reached agreement to introduce by deposition transcript certain

19
20

Plaintiffs Proposed Stipulations

testimony of Rollie Seebert.


The parties have been unable to agree on any other proposed stipulations at this

21

time. Plaintiffs have proposed the following stipulations, which have not been agreed

22

to by Defendants:

23

1. The parties to this Order to Show Cause proceeding stipulate that there is no

24

factual basis for the alleged communications and other events depicted in

25

Exhibit 2072 (MELC199917-199935), including communications alleged in

26

those documents to have occurred among Judge Snow, his former law clerk, the

27

United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, the United States Department

28

of Justice, and Covington & Burling.


7

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 10 of 19

2. Admission of other exhibits designated by Plaintiffs. A revised proposed list of

stipulated exhibits as of Oct. 12, 2015 is attached. The County and Retired

Chief Executive Sands have agreed to stipulate to certain exhibits, but Sheriff

Arpaio has not agreed to stipulate to any exhibits at this time.

The Parties are further engaged in ongoing discussions about a proposed

process for compensating victims of MCSOs violation of the preliminary injunction to

determine if there are aspects of the process on which they can agree. To the extent the

Parties cannot reach agreement on any issues, they anticipate providing briefing to the

Court setting forth their respective positions with supporting affidavits, if any.

10

Plaintiffs have also been in discussions with the U.S. Department of Homeland

11

Security (DHS) in regards to the subpoena served on DHS on February 26, 2015 for

12

documents related to the identification of victims. They expect DHS will provide

13

responsive documents very soon.

14

B.

15

As noted by Plaintiffs, the parties have reached an agreement to introduce

16

deposition testimony of witness Rollie Seebert.

17
18

Defendants Proposed Stipulations.

Defendants proposed the following stipulation, which was not agreed to by


Plaintiffs:

19

1. The information provided by Mr. [Dennis] Montgomery is not credible and the

20

entire Montgomery investigation is not relevant to any of the issues in dispute

21

in the contempt proceeding. Defendants further offered to stipulate that they

22

would not seek to introduce any evidence concerning the Montgomery

23

investigation at the contempt hearings.

24
25
26
27

IV.

Proposed Limits and Deadlines for Presentation of Evidence.


A. Plaintiffs Proposals.
1. Plaintiffs expect the witness order to proceed as follows, following
completion of testimony by Sgt. Tennyson: Capt. Bailey, Mr. Vogel,

28
8

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 11 of 19

Chief Olson, Det. Mackiewicz, Mr. Zullo, Ruben Garcia, Lt. Jakowinicz,

and PI victim(s) including Mr. David Soto Gonzalez.

2. If permitted by the Court, the United States intends to call an expert

witness to testify about possible remedies to address deficiencies in

MCSOs internal accountability systems, following the completion of fact

witness testimony. Plaintiffs join the DOJs request to submit expert

testimony.

3. Lt. Joseph Sousa. Direct examination will encompass the following

subjects: Scope and causes of violations of preliminary injunction order;

10

witnesss understanding of preliminary injunction orders requirements;

11

documentation of violations of preliminary injunction order; adequacy of

12

MCSOs internal investigations into Armendariz spin-off matters.

13

Plaintiffs anticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with

14

additional time as needed for redirect.

15

4. Sgt. Tennyson. Direct examination will encompass the following

16

subjects: MCSOs general training, policies, and practices relating to

17

internal investigations; adequacy of MCSOs internal accountability

18

systems to address issues relevant to this litigation and the Plaintiff class;

19

conflicts of interest in internal investigations; adequacy of MCSOs

20

internal investigations into Armendariz spin-off and HSU matters;

21

MCSOs investigations and responses to discovery of identification

22

documents; and adequacy of MCSOs internal investigations on matters

23

relating to individuals involved in the Seattle investigation. Plaintiffs

24

anticipate using 3 hours for the direct examination, with additional time

25

as needed for redirect.

26

5. Capt. Steve Bailey. Direct examination will encompass the following

27

subjects: MCSOs general policies and practices relating to internal

28

investigations; adequacy of MCSOs internal accountability systems to


9

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 12 of 19

address complaints of race discrimination or illegal detentions relevant to

this litigation; conflicts of interest in assignment of Capt. Bailey to

command of Professional Standards Bureau (PSB); adequacy of any

MCSO efforts to locate victims of violations of the preliminary injunction

order; adequacy of MCSOs internal investigations into Armendariz

spin-off matters; MCSO PSBs investigations and responses to discovery

of identification documents belonging to apparent members of the

Plaintiff Class, and related communications with the Court-appointed

Monitor Team; communications with individuals charged with civil

10

contempt relating to the Seattle investigation and propriety/legality of

11

funding sources for that investigation. Plaintiffs anticipate using 6 hours

12

for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

13

6. Mr. Vogel. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:

14

MCSO's internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over

15

Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011

16

preliminary injunction, and the MCSO's process for performing such

17

investigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO

18

policy have occurred. Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct

19

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

20

7. Chief Olson. Direct examination will encompass the following subjects:

21

MCSOs internal investigations into (1) the failures of supervision over

22

Deputy Armendariz and (2) the violation of the December 23, 2011

23

preliminary injunction; the MCSOs process for performing such

24

investigations and making decisions as to whether violations of MCSO

25

policy have occurred; and conflicts of interest in internal investigations.

26

Plaintiffs anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with

27

additional time as needed for redirect.

28
10

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 13 of 19

8. Plaintiffs expect to submit updated estimates for the direct examinations

of Mr. Mike Zullo and Det. Brian Mackiewicz upon review of discovery

received pursuant to their subpoenas of Mr. Zullo and the depositions of

Mr. Zullo and Det. Mackiewicz. The direct examinations of Sgt. Anglin,

Mr. Zullo, and Det. Mackiewicz will encompass the so-called Seattle

investigation, including the extent to which Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy

Sheridan, or any other MCSO employee instigated, allowed or

encouraged an investigation, through the actions of Posseman Mike Zullo

and MCSO confidential informant Dennis Montgomery, into Judge Snow

10

in order to resist Judge Snows orders and/or this contempt proceeding.

11

At this time, Plaintiffs estimate using 90 minutes for the direct

12

examination of Sgt. Anglin, 2 hours for the direct examination of Det.

13

Mackiewicz, and 2-2.5 hours for the direct examination of Mr. Zullo, with

14

additional time as needed for redirect.

15

9. Plaintiffs expect to present testimony of up to 2 class members harmed by

16

MCSOs violations of the preliminary injunction, including Mr. David

17

Soto Gonzalez. Due to the challenges of locating class members affected

18

by MCSOs violations based on incomplete information, identification of

19

class members who can testify is ongoing. Plaintiffs estimate using 30

20

minutes to 1 hour for the direct examination of class members.

21

10. Ruben Garcia. Direct examination will encompass the following

22

subjects: IA case 11-22 and underlying events. Plaintiffs anticipate using

23

45 minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for

24

redirect.

25

11. Lt. Jakowinicz. Plaintiffs expect to call Lt. Jakowinicz for the purpose of

26

authenticating documents for admission. Plaintiffs anticipate using 15

27

minutes for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for

28

redirect.
11

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 14 of 19

B. Defendants Proposals.

Defendants identify the following witnesses tentatively to be called:

1. Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan: Direct examination may encompass some or all

of the following subjects: Ethical and legal standards to which MCSO deputies

are held and the consequences of their failure to comply with those standards;

MCSOs commitment and extensive efforts to achieve compliance with this

Courts orders; training provided by the United States for MCSO deputies

engaged in law enforcement activities under the 287(g) program, and its effects

on the practices of MCSO; MCSO procedures and practices related to

10

investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau;

11

investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts

12

that came to light in the wake of his death; parameters of the Seattle

13

investigation and efforts to ensure no investigation of Judge Snow was

14

conducted; handling of the 1400+ identification documents surfaced by Sgt.

15

Jonathan Knapp; efforts to identify and gather video recordings of traffic stops

16

conducted by MCSO deputies, and the results of those efforts; and interactions

17

with the Monitor Team and assessment of the Monitor Teams involvement in

18

the internal affairs of MCSO. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct

19

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

20

2. Tom Liddy. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following

21

subjects: Events occurring prior to May 14, 2014 relating to the identification

22

and gathering of video recordings of traffic stops conducted by MCSO deputies,

23

plans for what was to be done with said video recordings once they had been

24

gathered, and further steps taken after direction with regard to same from the

25

Court in the May 14, 2014 hearing. Defendants anticipate using one hour for

26

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

27

3. Captain Steve Bailey. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

28

following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to investigations


12

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 15 of 19

conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; investigations

into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out of facts that came to

light in the wake of his death; handling of the 1400+ identification documents

surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp and communications with legal counsel and

the Monitor Team regarding same. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for the

direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

4. Chief Mike Olson. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to investigations

conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in

10

dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations

11

where high-level command staff are named as principals. Defendants anticipate

12

using one hour for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for

13

redirect.

14

5. Sgt. Stephen Fax. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

15

following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to investigations

16

conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; his experience in

17

dealing with Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau investigations,

18

including investigations into matters concerning Charlie Armendariz arising out

19

of facts that came to light in the wake of his death, and other investigations

20

made the subject of Plaintiffs case-in-chief in which he was involved; his

21

participation in a meeting in July of 2015 regarding the 1400+ identification

22

documents surfaced by Sgt. Jonathan Knapp. Defendants anticipate using 4

23

hours for the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

24

6. Mike Zullo. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the following

25

subjects: Parameters of the Seattle investigation; his receipt and

26

understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any

27

investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and

28

assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by


13

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 16 of 19

him during the Seattle investigation. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

7. Captain Stephanie Molina. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

the following subjects: MCSO procedures and practices related to

investigations conducted by Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Bureau; her

knowledge of and participation in specific PSB investigations during her tenure

as the head of PSB. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

8. Cpt. Russ Skinner. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

10

following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with

11

this Courts orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct

12

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

13

9. Cpt. Larry Farnsworth. Direct examination may encompass some or all of the

14

following subjects: The extensive efforts of MCSO to achieve compliance with

15

this Courts orders. Defendants anticipate using 3 hours for the direct

16

examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

17

10. Detective Brian Mackiewicz. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

18

the following subjects: Parameters of the Seattle investigation; his receipt and

19

understanding of instructions regarding the prohibition on pursuit of any

20

investigation of matters concerning Judge Snow; his observations and

21

assessments of Dennis Montgomery and the quality of information provided by

22

him during the Seattle investigation. Defendants anticipate using 2 hours for

23

the direct examination, with additional time as needed for redirect.

24

11. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. Direct examination may encompass some or all of

25

the following subjects: MCSOs commitment and extensive efforts to achieve

26

compliance with this Courts orders; interactions with the Monitor Team and

27

assessment of the Monitor Teams involvement in the internal affairs of MCSO.

28

Defendants anticipate using 90 minutes for the direct examination, with


14

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 17 of 19

1
2

additional time as needed for redirect.


Since this proceeding is ongoing, and Plaintiffs continue to modify their list of

witnesses and exhibits, Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this list of

witnesses as deemed necessary through the close of Plaintiffs case. Defendants

reserve the right to offer all exhibits listed by Plaintiffs regardless of whether

withdrawn. Defendants will supplement this list of exhibits as this matter progresses

toward Defendants case-in-chief.

Defendants intend to retain and call all necessary expert witnesses to testify as

to all issues relevant to this Courts determinations and to any possible remedies that

10

may be considered by the Court and to any additional injunctive relief to be considered

11

by the Court.

12
13

C. Alleged Non-Party Contemnors Sands Proposals.


1. Chief Sands requests that the Court set a deadline of October 9, 2015, for

14

Plaintiffs to complete their liability case on the alleged failure to disseminate

15

the Courts Preliminary Injunction Order.

16

2. Chief Sands requests that the Court impose time limits for the examination of

17

each witness. If the parties cannot agree to a time limit for a particular witness,

18

each party shall submit a proposed time limit and the Court shall choose which

19

limit applies.

20

3. Chief Sands does not presently intend to call any additional witnesses.

21

However, he may testify if new testimony is elicited on issues relevant to the

22

charge against him. His testimony may address his understanding of the

23

preliminary injunction order, communications he had with others concerning

24

the order, and the steps he took to ensure compliance with the order.

25
26
27
28
15

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 18 of 19

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October, 2015.

By: /s/ Stanley Young

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)


Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project

4
5
6

Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona

7
8

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)


Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP

10
11
12
13
14

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)


Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462 Filed 10/12/15 Page 19 of 19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 12, 2015 I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

caused the attached document to be served via the CM/ECF System on all counsel of

record

/s/ Stanley Young

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 10


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
PLAINTIFFS OCT. 12, 2015 PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
____ Preliminary Injunction ______ TRO

Non-Jury Trial _____ Jury Trial

X Evidentiary Hearing
Case Number CV-07-2513- PHX

Judge Code GMS

Date September 24, 2015

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al. vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.


X

Plaintiff/Petitioner

Defendant/Respondent

** This proposed stipulation does not list exhibits that have already been admitted into evidence.
Exh.
Description
No.
69
MCSO Memorandum to Bailey re determining if any HSU Members
removed property/evident for training purposes (MELC006122-123)
152
MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings
1000
Courts exhibit, MELC028130-MELC028159
2001

2010

MCSO Memorandum from Commander Shaw to


Captain Skinner dated 8/5/2015 re July 21, 2015
Site Visit Request and MCSO Policy GC-17
dated 9/5/2014 Employee Disciplinary Procedure (MELC416241MELC416261)
MCSO PSB Background Packet IA 2015-0021 (MELC288144MELC288558)

2011
2017

MCSO IA #2015-0357 (MELC209485-MELC209686)


MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation IA 2014-0570
(MELC161088-MELC161171)

2019

MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly


Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/3/2014
(MELC005297-MELC005300)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain
Bailey re Weekly Status Reports on IA's 20140221/0295 dated 8/15/2014 (MELC010833 MELC010837)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Kratzer to Captain
Bailey re Weekly Status Report for IA 2014-0221
dated 12/23/2014 (MELC034352 MELC034355)
MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 295, Transcribed Interview Dep.
C. Lopez dated 6/17/2014 (MELC227064-ELC227070)

2020

2022

2031

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 2 of 10

Exh.
No.
2050

2051

2052

2053

2054

2055

2056

2057

2058

2059

Description
MCSO Memorandum from Deputy Cosme to Captain Bailey re
Video/Audio re Melendres Court Order dated 5/21/2014
(MELC098062-MELC098110)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Seagraves (on behalf of Captain
Bailey) to Chief Lopez re Video/Audio re Melendres Court Order
dated 5/21/2014 (MELC004088)
Email chain: From Steve Bailey re "Fwd: Video/Audio Recordings
Response CV-07_2513-PHX-GMS" dated 5/19/2014
(MELC829381-MELC829383)
Email from Steve Bailey to Monitor Team re "Status Update of
DVDs and Investigation" dated 6/9/2014 (MELC004999MELC005000)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0253/0221/0295 dated 6/27/2014
(MELC005304-MELC005313)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/25/2014
(MELC005918-MELC005921)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/18/2014
(MELC005599-MELC005598)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/11/2014
(MELC005335-MELC005340)
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Hoggatt to Captain Bailey re Weekly
Status Reports on IA's 2014-0221/0295 dated 7/3/2014
(MELC005297-MELC005300)
MCSO HSU Criminal Inquiry IA 2014-0541 (MELC224936MELC224940)

2060

Email from Mike Hall to Linda Walters and Steve Bailey re


"Arriago, Luciano" dated 7/15/2014 (MELC005924-MELC005926)

2063

Documents from IA 2014-0544 (MELC160117-MELC160171)

2064

MCSO PSB Administrative Investigation, Documents from IA


2014-0570 (MELC161088-MELC161114)

2068

Documents from IA 14-0564 (MELC160986-MELC161056)

2069

MCSO Memorandum from Lt Munley to Captain Bailey re Weekly


Status Report for IA 2014-0221/0295 dated 9/5/2014
(MELC011654-MELC011656)
2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 3 of 10

Exh.
No.
2071

2073

2075

2076
2080

2081
2084

2085
2088
2089

2090
2092

2094
2104

Description
Email from Tim Casey, forwarding his 12/23/2011 email, re
Melendres Order on Summary Judgment dated 11/6/2014
(CaseySub 000050-CaseySub 000053)
MCSO Seattle Investigation (Exemplars of documents produced to
the Monitor on April 27, 2014 and contained on one external hard
drive)
Meeting request from CD Sheridan to Anglin re Conference Call-Lt. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey dated
4/28/2014 (MELC198504)
MCSO PSB Inappropriate Conduct, Employee: Brian Mackiewicz,
CIA 2015-0055 (MELC258950-54, MELC258960)
Case 2:07-0513-GMS Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al Exhibit FJoe Arpaio Brief, Timeline/Charts re Montgomery Investigation
(Dkt. No. 1166, filed on 7/10/15) (MELC199917-35)
Confidential Informant File dated 12/6/2013 (MELC198428-30)
Memorandum from Lee AnnBohn to Captain Russ Skinner re
Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 59 (records
associated with expenses related to the Seattle and Grissom
Investigations) dated 6/12/2015 (MELC233532-34)
Document created to keep track of various expenditures
(MELC199632-33)
Email from Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo attaching rejection
letters dated 4/13/2014 (MELC202291-302)
Outlook invite from Sheridan Gerard to Anglin Travis re Conference
Call - Lit. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey
scheduled for April 28, 2014 at 4PM (MELC199340)
Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a
subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 (MELC202222-24)
Collection of memos, e.g. 1) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from
Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Investigative Trip
to Seattle WA; 2) January 16, 2014 Memorandum from Travis
Anglin to Captain Steven Bailey re Investigative Trip to Seattle, WA
scheduled for 1/23-1/26/14; 3) January 21, 2014 Memorandum from
Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information
Payment; 4) January 24, 2014 Memorandum from Brian
Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin re Confidential Information Payment
(MELC198474-94)
Case summary (MELC199506-12)
Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0547
(MELC160761-985)
3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 4 of 10

Exh.
No.
2106
2112
2115
2218
2219
2220
2221
2223

2224

2225

2226
2227

2228
2232
2233

2234
2235

Description
Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0567
(MELC158915-37)
Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0581
(MELC208295-370)
Findings of MCSO IA 2014-0576
(MELC208221-66)
MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0542 (MELC-IA01116111303)
MCSO IA Administrative Investigation 14-0543 (MELC209720209970)
MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA #2014-0543
(MELC211517-211586)
MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report A 14-0543 Attachments
dated 4/6/2015 (MELC210440-210607)
Letter from Lee Ann Bohn to Don Vogel re assistance in conduction
administrative investigations for MCSO dated 12/18/2014
(DV000280-281)
Letter from Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre to Don Vogel re Privilege
Log on Production Request for IA Investigation dated 1/20/2015
(DV000515)
Email from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel cc: Liddy Thomas,
Newton Brandon, Cari Shehorn, Jill Lafornara re final report content
dated 2/4/2015 (MELC1397163-165)
Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re investigation
completion date dated 2/27/2015 (DV000139-141)
Letter from Michele Iafrate to Don Vogel RE: Arpaio, et al. adv.
Melendres, et al. U.S. District Court Case No: CV07-02513PHXGMS dated 3/2/2015 (DV000381-82)
Email from Don Vogel to Chief Sheridan re Palmer emails on
training scenarios dated 3/2/2015 (DV000142)
Email from Don Vogel to Lee Stein re Palmer emails dated
3/16/2015 (DV000155)
Email from Don Vogel to Sharon Kiyler FW: Melendres v. Arpaio:
Sousa-Palmer E-mail and Privilege Log. Attachments: Sousa-Palmer
email 1.19.12; Privilege Log-2 2015-2-27 dated 3/23/2015
(DV000209)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 report dated
3/20/2015; attachments included (DV000172)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0542 dated
3/31/2015 (DV000171)
4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 5 of 10

Exh.
No.
2237
2239
2240

2241

Description
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re final report 14-0543
dated 4/6/2015 (DV000167)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re 14-0543 with
Supplemental IA 14-0543 dated 4/8/2015 (DV000164)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re identification of policy
violations to be considered. Attachment includes Complaint form
dated 4/10/2015 (DV000162)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate re copies of both 14-0542
and 14-0543 dated 4/10/2015 (DV000178)

2242

Email from Don Vogel to Mike Olson re admin paperwork dated


4/13/2015 (DV000157)

2247

Email from Don Vogel to Tiffani Shaw re Information Needed dated


4/29/2015 (DV000181)
Email from Don Vogel to Michele Lafrate, Fred Petti re Items
disclosed to MCSO dated 7/26/2015 (DV000173-74)
Email from David Webb to 1tick@earthlin.net-PROJECT dated
6/29/2014 (MELC202132)

2248
2256
2257

2258
2259
2261
2262
2263

2264

2265
2266

Email from David Webb to 1tick@earthlink.net copying


detmack@gmail.com- Lanny Breuer dated 9/10/2014
(MELC199997)
Email from David Webb to "Mike" RE: Work dated 10/30/2014
(MELC202283)
Email from David Webb RE:DC dated 11/2/2014 (MELC198252)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to "Brian Deputy Dogg Mackiewicz"
Re: DC dated 11/3/2014 (MELC198251-59)
Email from David Welch to "Mike" re Judge dated 11/5/2014
(MELC199984-85)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Larry Klayman copying Michael
Zullo, David Webb, and Dina James Re: DC dated 11/7/2014
(MELC202173-75)
MCSO Memo from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Captain Russ
Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 56 dated
6/9/2015 (MELC233029-31)
Letter from J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas Drake dated 11/13/2014
(MELC198190-91)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Michael Zullo FW: Response
dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198226)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 6 of 10

Exh.
No.
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2527
2559D
2559F
2707

2719
2720

Description
Email from Mike to detmack@gmail.com - Re: Oz dated 12/9/2014
(MELC202048)
Email from Mike to David Webb RE: CIA Names dated 1/20/2015
(MELC202170)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Lawsuit dated 1/22/2015
(MELC200001-03)
Email from David Webb to Mike RE: Klayman dated 1/28/2015
(MELC202233)
Email from David Webb to Mike re: Work dated 2/2/2015
(MELC202285-89)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Blue Cross dated
2/5/2015 (MELC202159-62)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: No Work dated 2/11/2015
(MELC201828)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Arpaio dated 2/27/2015
(MELC202148)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/3/2015
(MELC202131)
Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Re: Progress dated 3/4/2015
(MELC202254-55
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015
(MELC202055-56)
Email from David Webb to Mike Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015
(MELC202249-50)
Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Zullo copying David Webb and
Dennis Re: 2nd Request dated 4/20/2015 (MELC202142-45)
Email from Carmen Hernandez to Travis Anglin re Investigative
travel dated 2/3/2014 (MELC198515)
Employee Grievance Response to Sousa on 14-542 and Written
Reprimand on 14-542 dated 6/1/2015 (MELC-IA13635)
Pre-Determination Hearing Worksheet on Sousa in 14-542 dated
5/15/2015 (MELC-IA013680-MELC-IA013683)
MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report by Don Vogel,
containing information used during Sheridan's name-clearing
hearing dated 4/6/2012 (MELC-IA020592-IA020733)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Timeline
dated 8/24/2014 (MELC1287446)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Brian Mackiewicz Fwd: Summary
dated 8/27/2014(MELC1287419 - MELC1287444)
6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 7 of 10

Exh.
No.
2726
2753

2754

2757

2758

2759

2760

2767
2770

2772
2780
2781

2782
2784

Description
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to 1tick@earthlink.net Re: Elmers
case summary dated 9/4/2014 (MELC1292689 - MELC1292714)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Dave Munley Re:
Weekly Status Report dated 7/31/2014 (MELC006421MELC006423)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:
Weekly Status Report dated 8/8/2014 (MELC010335MELC010337)
Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax
Re: Documenting all personnel in HSU by year
and identifying the chain of command dated
6/21/2014 (MELC010882-MELC010883)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt re:
Weekly Status Report dated 8/22/2014 (MELC010898MELC010900)
Memorandum to Captain Steve Bailey from Lt. Todd Hoggatt Re:
Weekly Status Report dated 8/29/2014 (MELC011158MELC011160)
Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Stephen Fax
Re: Timeline for Ramon Charley Armendariz
dated 8/1/2014 (MELC011630-MELC011647)
MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #14-0451
(MELC158124-MELC158541)
Email from Peter Metzler to James Alger, Gerard
Funk, Jerry Scott, Chris Quattrini, Mark Parks,
Anthony Cruz, Sterling Bridges, Rudy Acosta,
Cesar Brodman, Walter Duncanson, Jeremy Blain dated 3/19/2014
(MELC158540-MELC158541)
MCSO Professional Standards Bureau IA # 2014-0546 dated
11/12/2014 (MELC158578-MELC158624)
Email from Kim Seagraves to James Sparman Re:
Mac dated 7/29/2015 (MELC417466)
Email from Kim Seagraves to Steve Bailey re
Brian Mackiewicz dated 5/11/2015
(MELC417533)
MCSO Administrative Investigation IA#14-0580 dated 11/26/2014
(MELC676786-MELC676814)
Letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Hickley
Leonisio Abreu Re: Complaint
#070002391430501 dated 11/14/2014
(MELC680167-MELC680377)
7

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 8 of 10

Exh.
No.
2790

Description

2851

MCSO Operational Manual dated 2/18/2015


(MELC1396796-MELC1396813)
MCSO Investigative Report IA# 2015-0022 dated
5/23/2015 (MELC288559-MELC288574)
Memorandum to S. Bailey from K. Seagraves Re:
Action Plan - Reference to allegation of Anabolic
Steroids purchase(s) made by Deputies Brian
Mackiewicz and James Kempher dated 3/26/2015
(MELC186297-MELC186300)
Revised Call Signs dated 11/22/2013
(MELC112957)
Freedom Friday YouTube page print - "Mike Zullo Does LIVE
Q&A on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups" dated June 14, 2015
Email from David Tennyson to Dave Zebro Re: Report Request
dated 4/27/2015 (MELC1397053)
Spreadsheet of traffic stops (1 of 2) (MELC413860)

2852
2853

Spreadsheet of traffic stops (2 of 2) (MELC413861)


HSU 2011 Master Log

2854

HSU 2012 Master Log

2855

HSU 2013 Master Log

2794
2799

2820
2823
2843

2860
2893
2895
2897
2900

2901
2902
2903

Partial video of IA 14-547 stop dated 3/7/2012


Interview of Mary Ann McKessey with David Tennyson re Case #
2015-0034 dated 3/27/2015 (MELC186200-MELC186266)
Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph
Sousa dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013638)
Excerpt of PX 2559 - Written Reprimand in 14-0542 for Joseph
Sousa (Crossed Out) dated 5/18/2015 (MELC-IA013679)
Departmental Report: Occurance Location: Multiple / Maricopa
County Victim: Multiple Occurance Type: Computer Tampering /
Identity Theft (MELC185195-MELC185370)
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike Re: Updated Rev 3A dated
9/21/2014 (MELC202277)
MCSO Memo to Clint Doyle from Brian Mackiewicz Re:
Investigative Trip dated 11/30/2013 (MELC199821)
Record of Informant and MCSO Memo from Clint Doyle to Brian
Mackiewicz re: Confidential informant payment dated 12/6/2013
(MELC198431-MELC198432)
8

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 9 of 10

Exh.
No.
2904
2905
2906

2907

2908

2909

2910

2911

2912

2913

2914

2915
2917
2918
2919
2920

Description
Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Jenise Moreno Re: Confidential
dated 1/9/2014 (MELC1386579)
MCSO Property and Evidence Report dated 11/19/2014
(MELC266600)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 8/12/2014 (MELC198465MELC198466)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 8/27/2014 (MELC198467MELC198468)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 7/24/2014 (MELC198463MELC198464)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 7/24/2014 (MELC198461MELC198462)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 6/25/2014 (MELC198457MELC198458)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 6/9/2014 (MELC198455MELC198446)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 5/19/2014 (MELC198453MELC198454)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 5/16/2014 (MELC198451MELC198452)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 4/16/2014 (MELC198449MELC198450)
MCSO Memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Mackiewicz re:
Confidential Informant Payment dated 3/29/2014 (MELC198448)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 1: "Joe Arpaio
Brief" Timeline dated 1/1/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 2: "Arpaio
Brief" Schematic dated 1/1/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 3:
"Whisleblower Chronicles" (CIA Chronicles)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 4: "Names of
People Involved" dated 2/17/2014
9

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1462-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 10 of 10

Exh.
No.
2921

2922
2923
2924

2925
2926
2927

Description
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 5: "Check List
for Elmer" (Check List for Dennis) dated
3/27/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 6: "List 2" dated
3/27/2014
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 7: "DOJ / Arpaio
Timeline" dated 12/4/2013
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 8: "Project
Courier" Hispanic Businesses in AZ (1 examplar
photo of a 113 page document)
Excerpt of PX 2082 - Document 9: "Cover" dated
7/27/2014
MCSO Special Investigation Division Interview with Confidential
Informant #1437 dated 9/6/2013 (MELC184916 - MELC185029)
MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #13-0000, Interview
Confidential Informant dated 12/14/2013 (MELC185036 MELC185144)

10