Melendres # 1365 - Plaintitfs' Notice of Supp Auth - Depo Excerpts

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
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
PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES
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
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
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
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs submit the following supplemental

authorities pursuant to the Courts request of September 16, 2015:
1. Excerpts from transcript of Sept. 9, 2015 deposition of Sergeant Travis
Anglin, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. Excerpts from transcript of Sept. 8, 2015 deposition of Captain Steve
Bailey, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3. Excerpts from transcript of Sept. 16, 2015 deposition of Tim Casey,
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
4. Excerpts from transcript of Sept. 9, 2015 deposition of Chief Deputy
Gerard Sheridan, attached hereto as Exhibit D.
11
12
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 2015.
13
By: /s/ Michelle L. Morin
14
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
15
16
17
18
Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
19
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)
20
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
21
22
23
24
25
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26
27
28
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 18, 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.
6
7
/s/ Michelle L. Morin
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365-1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 23
EXHIBIT A
In The Matter Of:

Melendres v
Arpaio
Sergeant Travis Anglin

September 9, 2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters

2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85016
www.arizonacourtreporters.com
602.264.2230
Original File ta090915.txt
Min-U-Script

Sergeant Travis Anglin - September 9, 2015
34
1
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And if we could go to the flowchart-looking
pages starting at MELC199933, there are three of those.
They also have revision footers at the bottom.
receive these three revisions as well in your e-mail
exchanges with Mike Zullo --
Did you
A.
I did.
Q.
-- in December 2013?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
So you referred to a meeting and that's the
11
January 2nd, 2014, meeting?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
Who was at that meeting?
14
A.
Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, myself,
15
Captain Bailey, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy,
16
and Mr. Casey, and Dennis Montgomery was on
17
speakerphone.
18
MR. WOODS:
19
THE WITNESS:
20
21
22
Q.
When was this meeting?

January 2nd, 2014.
BY MS. MORIN:
So did you bring these documents
with you to the meeting?

A.
I brought one of these flowcharts, probably the
23
most recent revision, and I also brought information
24
that I had received or discovered through Open Source
25
about Dennis Montgomery.

602.264.2230

35
1
2
Q.
Did you circulate these documents prior to the
meeting to anyone?
A.
The sheriff had it.
Q.
And by "these documents," I mean all of these
5
6
7
timeline revisions and the matrix revisions.

A.
No, ma'am.
I believe I just brought one
version of this -- the flowchart.
Q.
Mm-hm.
A.
And I know the sheriff had that.
10
11
12
believe that I brought the spreadsheets to that meeting.

Q.
And when we say "spreadsheets," we are looking
at the documents with the Bates number MELC199917?
13
A.
I am.
14
Q.
Okay, just to be clear.
15
16
So did the sheriff already have the timeline

spreadsheets prior to the meeting?
17
MR. MASTERSON:
18
THE WITNESS:
19
MR. WALKER:
20
21
I don't
Q.
Foundation.
I don't know.
BY MS. MORIN:
Join.
Okay.
Did you ever circulate
those to him after?
22
A.
I don't believe that I did.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
I don't know the answer.
25
Q.
So if we look at the last page of the
Do you believe that someone did?

602.264.2230

36
1
flowchart, I'll call it, it says Revision 2.0 at the
bottom, Bates number 935.
Do you see that?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Is that the document that you brought to the
meeting?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
Okay.
And that's the document that you asked
Dennis Montgomery about on the phone?
A.
Correct.
10
Q.
And I see the top box in the middle says,
11
"G. Murray Snow, Federal Judge, Arpaio Case 07/22/2009."
12
Do you see that?
13
A.
I do.
14
Q.
Did you ask him about that box?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
And below that there is the Covington Burling
17
Law Firm 05/06/2010 box.
18
Sheriff Arpaio," and it has a case number in it.
19
It also says "Melendres versus
Do you see that?
20
A.
I do.
21
Q.
Did you ask him about that box?
22
A.
No, ma'am.
23
Q.
So did you wonder why and how these boxes are
24
25
on this document?
A.
I did.
602.264.2230

37
1
Q.
And how did that come up in the meeting?
A.
I asked in a general sense what information he
used to complete this form.
Q.
Okay.
And what did he say?
A.
He didn't give me an answer.
He would talk
around the answer.
an explanation as to how he could come up with this
information.
9
10
Q.
To my knowledge, he's never produced
Did anyone else at that meeting ask questions
about this document?
11
A.
Not that I recall.
12
Q.
Nobody wondered at that meeting how he got a
13
document with -- or how he created a document with these
14
names and these other references on it?
15
MR. WALKER:
16
MR. WOODS:
17
MR. MASTERSON:
18
THE WITNESS:
19
Q.
20
right.
21
Object to the form.

Foundation.
BY MS. MORIN:
Join.
I don't know.
Let me rephrase that.
You're
That was a bad question.

Nobody expressed during the meeting any
22
questions to Mr. Montgomery, "How did you get this
23
information," except you?
24
25
A.
Well, I know I asked the question, so I don't
know whether it was repeated by anybody else or not.

602.264.2230

38
1
Q.
Do you recall it being repeated by anyone?
A.
I don't.
Q.
Or did you -- do you recall other similar
inquiries, even if it wasn't a repetition of this
specific question, but inquiries about how did this
information come to be in Dennis Montgomery's
possession?
8
9
A.
What I can tell you that I remember Dennis
Montgomery saying in that meeting was repeating the --
10
basically the entire story about how he had been a
11
subcontractor for the CIA and going into details about
12
this computer that they would use to harvest
13
information.
14
CIA harvested information.
15
16
That was the general answer is that the
And we would say, well, how -- you know, how

did you get this?
17
Well, it was part of the information that was
18
harvested.
19
and that -- that's the only answer we ever got about it.
20
Q.
So he would always throw out that broad net
So is this -- just to make sure I'm clear, is
21
this flowchart thing the document that you have referred
22
to as the "matrix"?
23
A.
Probably, yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
Did Mike Zullo tell you anything about
these documents when he conveyed them to you or at any

602.264.2230

56
1
"Joe Arpaio Brief"?
A.
It likely is.
Q.
So do you see where it says, "Covington now
included" in the e-mail from David Webb to
Detective Mackiewicz and Mike Zullo?
A.
I do.
Q.
And it also says, "Seems ... the only people
not talking to the Judge G. Murray Snow was Sheriff
Arpaio and his attorney's"?
10
A.
I do.
11
Q.
Did you have an understanding of what that
12
meant?
13
MR. MASTERSON:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
MR. WALKER:
16
Q.
Form; foundation.
No.
Join.
BY MS. MORIN:
And Mike Zullo forwarded that to
17
you with the e-mail of -- with the text in his e-mail
18
saying "Update," right?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
20
Q.
What was your understanding of why he was --
21
what he was updating you about?
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
MR. WALKER:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
Foundation.
Join.
I received several of these
e-mails, it appears, on New Year's Day.

602.264.2230
Don't tell the

57
1
sheriff, but I wasn't spending a lot of my New Year's
holiday reviewing these documents.
that I had any question or, you know, curiosity about
these at the time I received them.
So I don't think
I'm -- I'm going to go off just a little bit,
if you don't mind, and tell you that on January 2nd,
after the meeting that we discussed earlier, was the
first opportunity I had to have a meeting with
Chief Sheridan, and it was then that I had the
10
opportunity to ask some questions about why I was being
11
given this information.
12
Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
Okay.
Maybe we should turn back
13
to the text messages, if you could, that's Exhibit 2079,
14
and I want to look at the fourth page, which is Bates
15
number 199516.
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
And do you see where Mike Zullo writes, "Hell,
18
I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if
19
we can prove this"?
20
A.
I do.
21
Q.
Do you have an understanding of what he was
22
talking about proving in that text?
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
MR. WALKER:
25
THE WITNESS:
Foundation.
Join.
It is my belief that Mike Zullo

602.264.2230

74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
that.
Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
When is the last time you were
aware of a payment going to Dennis Montgomery?

A.
Probably the week that I was there, so May 10th
to the 14th, thereabouts.

Q.
So at least through that time he was on the
payroll?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
So getting back to the meetings with
10
Sheriff Arpaio, in May 2014, you told the sheriff to
11
distance himself from Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery?
12
A.
I did.
13
Q.
And subsequently you were taken off the case?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
I want to go back to the January 2nd, 2014,
16
meeting.
Are you with me?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
So if you could, walk me through the start of
19
that meeting.
Like, you walk in the door.
20
that you mentioned are at the meeting.
21
there, if you could tell me what happened.
22
MR. WALKER:
23
THE WITNESS:
24
25
The people
Just starting
Form.
I'm afraid I can't really.
don't mind just telling you what I do remember.

Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
Sure.

602.264.2230

75
1
A.
I do remember introductions being made to some
parties because there were some people there that I had
not met.
Zullo giving some type of overview to the room about
Dennis Montgomery, that is, who he was and the general
briefing about the case and then he was called and put
on speakerphone.
8
9
10
Q.
I didn't know who they were.
I remember Mike
And he told his story, as you've described it,
to the monitor, and, to some extent today, on the

speakerphone, correct?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And what was -- so if we're walking through the
13
meeting, what was the response to him telling his story?
14
Was it interjected throughout or did people sort of
15
listen to him finish and then start in with their
16
questions?
17
MR. MASTERSON:
18
MR. WALKER:
19
MR. MASTERSON:
20
THE WITNESS:
Form --
Join.
-- foundation.
Mike Zullo spoke to Dennis
21
Montgomery on speakerphone.
I know I asked at least a
22
question or two and the sheriff spoke to him.
23
recall any of the other members -- of counsel or any of
24
the other members of the office having direct contact
25
with Montgomery over the phone.

602.264.2230
I don't

76
1
Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
What did the sheriff say?
A.
The only thing I specifically remember him
asking Montgomery was if all of this information is true
and that he had in fact taken items from the CIA that
proved that they were harvesting information illegally
from the U.S. public, why he hadn't been assassinated.
7
8
Q.
That's the only thing the sheriff said to him
during the whole --
A.
That's the only thing I remember him saying.
10
Q.
That you remember?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And this was with the matrix flowchart --
13
A.
Correct.
14
Q.
-- present in the room at the meeting?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
You said you don't recall if the
timeline spreadsheet was in the room as well?
18
A.
I don't believe it was.
19
Q.
Okay.
So what happened -- what else was said
20
to Dennis Montgomery?
21
You mentioned the sheriff's questions.
22
said to him?
23
A.
You've mentioned your questions.

What else was
I don't specifically recall anything else said
24
to him.
He just told us the story, and it's the same
25
story that if he were here today, he could tell in the

602.264.2230

77
1
same cadence, in the same tone, in the exact almost
word-for-word because he's told it so many times.
by that time, it's probably the third time I had heard
it, so I just remember going through that and having to
endure that story again.
Q.
And
So I want to ask you to look at your interview
transcript, and specifically I think you describe some
of what you said on pages 85, 86, 87, around that point
in the transcript?
10
A.
That's 3835, is that what that's going to be?
11
Q.
No, just page 85 of the transcript.
12
A.
Okay, I see it.
13
Q.
It has a monitor's Bates number at the bottom.
14
A.
Okay.
15
Q.
Yeah, just to give you some context, if you
16
Starting on page 85, ma'am?
want to look at page 85.
17
A.
Okay.
18
Q.
But I think your response about Mr. Montgomery
19
on the speakerphone is on page 86 --
20
A.
Okay.
21
Q.
-- which is WAI 18309.
22
23
MR. MASTERSON:
Are you going to ask questions
about what's contained in the interview transcript?
24
MS. MORIN:
Yes.
25
MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
I had an objection

602.264.2230

78
1
yesterday concerning use of the interview transcripts,
and I'll incorporate that objection here.
to state it all, but in essence, these interviews were
taken without regard for my client's due process rights.
The interviews, to an extent, were compelled, although
the Court said they had to show up but they didn't have
to answer questions.
by the monitors in that the monitors made threats to the
interviewees about if they did not answer questions,
10
MS. MORIN:
15
With all due respect,
Mr. Masterson, if you made an objection --
13
14
But in reality, they were coerced
that would be reported to the judge in fact --
11
12
I'm not going
MR. MASTERSON:
I'm going to let him answer the
question.
MS. MORIN:
I haven't asked a question.
If you
16
made an objection on the record, I'm happy for you to
17
incorporate your objection on the record.
18
MR. MASTERSON:
19
MS. MORIN:
20
21
I just want to --
You're testifying here and arguing,
and this isn't really the place for that.

MR. MASTERSON:
I'm not arguing.
I'm just
22
putting an objection on the record.
23
free to ask all the questions you want about the
24
interview.
25
And then you're
The interviews were coerced to the extent the

602.264.2230

79
1
monitors threatened the interviewees.
They threatened
to go to the Court and discuss questions that were not
asked.
status conference and the judge raised issues concerning
questions that at least for a short time were not asked
by an interviewee.
In fact, we did go to court one time for a
So the interviews were compelled.
They were
coerced.
ignored, and I do not think they should be utilized in
10
11
12
The due process rights of my clients were
this proceeding or at the evidentiary hearing.

Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
Were you coerced?
Thanks.
Or sorry.
Were you threatened by the monitor at your interview?
13
MR. WOODS:
Object to the form.
14
MR. WALKER:
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE WITNESS:
Join.
Foundation.
I felt that I was compelled to be
17
there, and if I did not participate that that could be
18
problematic for me.
19
Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
20
A.
Well, both by the sheriff's office, as well as
21
Compelled by whom?
the monitors.
22
Q.
As a condition of your employment?
23
A.
That's the way I felt, ma'am.
24
Q.
So at the interview you described what
25
Mr. Montgomery said on speakerphone, I think starting on

602.264.2230

80
1
page 86.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you said that it was the first time you
4
5
heard his voice at that point?

A.
I had heard his voice on video, I believe, but
actually speaking to him, that would be the first time I
heard his voice.
8
9
Q.
Okay.
And then Chief Anders asked you about
two documents at the top of page 87.
Do you see that?
10
And if you want to look at the page first, then I'll ask
11
you about this.
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And I believe you told the monitor that the
14
sheriff had copies of both of those documents on
15
page 88.
16
page 88, and then my question is, is that what you told
17
the monitor and do you have different -- a different
18
recollection now?
19
20
A.
So if you want to read through to the top of
And you're referring to what we're calling the
matrix as well as the spreadsheet?
21
Q.
Correct.
22
A.
I see what I told the monitors, and I can tell
23
you that I know that the sheriff had the matrix.
24
there was a subsequent sheet stapled to it or -- it
25
appears that I told the monitors that I thought he had

602.264.2230
If

81
1
that, so I --
Q.
You're not changing that --
A.
I'm not changing that.
Q.
-- testimony today?
A.
No.
I -- I have the picture in my mind's eye
of the matrix, so I know -- or excuse -- yes, of the
matrix, so I know he had that.
had that other spreadsheet.
ma'am.
10
He very well may have
I honestly don't remember,
It seems that I told the monitors that he did,
and I'm not recanting that statement.
11
Q.
12
questions.
13
mentioned the question that Sheriff Arpaio asked.
14
15
16
Okay.
All right.
And then you asked your
The attorneys didn't ask questions.
You've
Did anyone else at that meeting ask -- ask

questions of Dennis Montgomery?
A.
If the attorneys asked any questions
17
specifically, I don't remember it.
18
that were in the room that weren't attorneys were the
19
sheriff, Mike Zullo, Captain Bailey, and myself.
20
don't think Captain Bailey said anything.
21
had some conversations because he was the conduit
22
between Montgomery and everybody else, and, you know, I
23
think I tried to -- to get this information about these
24
documents that we've been discussing to no avail.
25
Q.
And the only people
Mike Zullo
So this was on the morning of January 2nd?

602.264.2230

82
1
A.
I believe so.
Q.
Do you remember about how long the meeting
3
4
lasted?
A.
I don't.
meeting.
would say.
Q.
I don't recall it being a very long
Maybe a half an hour, less than an hour, I
Did the meeting continue after you left the
meeting or did it end and everybody left?
A.
No, everybody left.
10
Q.
What happened in relation to this Seattle
11
12
investigation immediately after that meeting?

A.
Because the chief deputy wasn't in this
13
meeting, Captain Bailey and I waited for the chief
14
deputy at his office.
15
very specifically -- because I had gotten text messages
16
that had the name Judge Snow in it, and now there was
17
this matrix and these spreadsheets that say things like
18
Judge Snow.
19
of the other law firms or the people mentioned, I didn't
20
know who they were.
21
22
23
And when he arrived, I asked him
And obviously I knew who Holder was.
Any
So I asked the chief deputy specifically, are

you asking me to investigate a federal judge?
And he said in no uncertain terms am I to
24
investigate a federal judge or anything to do with the
25
birth certificate.
I was just investigating the

602.264.2230

83
1
2
3
allegations of the illegal harvesting.

Q.
So did he tell you to stop Dennis Montgomery
from investigating the federal judge?
A.
No.
Q.
But he knew that that information was on the
matrix when you spoke with him?
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
THE WITNESS:
Foundation.
Form; foundation.
I provided the chief
10
deputy with -- I don't know what I gave him, but I at
11
least showed him the matrix, and I also provided him the
12
"Playboy" article and the "New York Times" article and
13
the Wikipedia page of Dennis Montgomery.
14
my concern is if the idea of investigating a federal
15
judge wasn't concerning enough to me, doing it based on
16
somebody who the media titles the man who duped the
17
government for millions of dollars just made it even
18
more ludicrous.
19
information to him.
20
Q.
And that was
So I know I provided all that
BY MS. MORIN:
So you provided that to the
21
chief deputy during this meeting that you had with him
22
on January 2nd?
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And he told you, you, Travis Anglin, are not to
25
investigate a federal judge or the DOJ -- did you say

602.264.2230

127
1
returned back to Arizona a few times during the -- his
entire stay on that case.
Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
So starting when?
A.
He got there either in late October or
beginning of November of '13, and I don't believe he
returned until the beginning of January.
went on January 10th, I flew up there with Mackiewicz
and Zullo.
think that Brian returned more than twice from then
10
Because when I
They stayed when I returned, and I don't
until May when I came home with him.
11
Q.
And that was authorized by whom?
12
A.
That was ordered by Sheriff Arpaio.
13
Q.
Ordered by Sheriff Arpaio?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And so he went up in, you said, October or
16
November 2013?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And then do you know when he came back before
19
20
again departing in January 2014?

A.
He wasn't back at our January 2nd meeting, but
21
he departed with me on January 10th, so within that time
22
frame.
23
Q.
24
25
So sometime between January 2nd and
January 10th he returns to Arizona?

A.
Yes.
602.264.2230

154
1
incorrectly.
I don't want to --
A.
No, you're correct.
Q.
-- misrepresent.
A.
It was also in addition to the text messages
that I had received from Mike Zullo where he had
mentioned the judge.
7
8
Q.
Right.
So you showed those to Chief Sheridan
also?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
But not in the call with -- the conference call
11
with Montgomery?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
So my question, after recapping all that, is
14
why did you not bring up the Judge Snow allegation in
15
the matrix specifically during the January 2nd
16
conference call meeting?
17
to Chief Deputy Sheridan afterwards to raise that?
18
MR. MASTERSON:
19
THE WITNESS:
Why did you wait until talking
Form.
There were four attorneys in the
20
room and an elected official, and I didn't want to bring
21
up the conversation of investigating a federal judge in
22
that context, because if it progressed somewhere else, I
23
didn't want to hear the answer.
24
25
So I waited until I had a -- a private audience

with the chief deputy where I asked him in that tone,
602.264.2230

155
1
you're not asking me to investigate a federal judge, are
you?
would have been "yes" to ask to recuse myself from that
investigation.
guess, like I said, private audience than to bring it up
in front of everybody else.
Because that gave me an opportunity if the answer
Q.
So I waited until I had just a more, I
BY MS. MORIN:
Do you think that sharing
information about Sheriff Arpaio's investigation of --
hypothetically, of a federal judge, if that existed,
10
would affect your career at the sheriff's office?
11
MR. MASTERSON:
12
MR. WALKER:
13
THE WITNESS:
14
15
Form; foundation.
Join.
You threw me off with the
hypothetical question there.

Q.
BY MS. MORIN:
Well, I don't want to force you
16
to assume based on my question that -- that I'm telling
17
you what you testified to says anything.
18
that there is information in your possession,
19
hypothetically, that Sheriff Arpaio is investigating
20
Judge Snow or any other federal judge.
21
that sharing that information outside of the sheriff's
22
office would affect your career at the sheriff's office?
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
MR. WALKER:
25
THE WITNESS:
But let's say
Do you think
Form; foundation.
Join.
If I were, hypothetically or not,

602.264.2230

164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceedings

were taken before me; that the witness before testifying
was duly sworn by me to testify to the whole truth; that
the foregoing pages are a full, true, and accurate
record of the proceedings, all done to the best of my
skill and ability; that the proceedings were taken down
by me in shorthand and thereafter reduced to print under
my direction.
4
5
6
)
) ss.
)
7
8
I CERTIFY that I am in no way related to any

of the parties hereto, nor am I in any way interested in
the outcome hereof.
9
10
11
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
Review and signature was requested.

Review and signature was waived.
Review and signature not required.
12
13
14
I CERTIFY that I have complied with the

ethical obligations set forth in ACJA 7-206(F)(3) and
ACJA 7-206 J(1)(g)(1) and (2).
Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 13th day of
September, 2015.
15
16
17
18
___________________________________
KELLIE L. KONICKE, RPR
Certified Reporter
Arizona CR No. 50223
19
*
20
21
22
I CERTIFY that GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, has

complied with the ethical obligations set forth in ACJA
7-206 (J)(1)(g)(1) through (6).
23
24
25
_____________________________________
GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Registered Reporting Firm
Arizona RRF No. R1005
602.264.2230
EXHIBIT B
In The Matter Of:

Melendres v
Arpaio
Steve Bailey
September 8, 2015

602.264.2230
Original File SB090815.txt
Min-U-Script

Steve Bailey - September 8, 2015
336
1
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Can you tell me how Sheriff Arpaio expressed that.
A.
It was in the same meeting when I observed this.
It was slid to me.
And I said, that's nothing.
And the sheriff responded, you don't know.
And I said, I do know.
And, obviously, the case kept going, so that
was -- it was a very short exchange, but...
Q.
Okay.
When was that meeting?
10
A.
It -- it -- I believe it was after I was the PSB
11
commander.
12
Q.
Do you recall when it was?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Could it have been January 2nd of 2014?
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE WITNESS:
17
18
19
20
21
What month?
Foundation.
I -- I don't know.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Okay.
Where was the office -- the meeting that
included you and the sheriff?

A.
This particular meeting was in the executive
conference room of the fifth floor.
22
Q.
That's where the sheriff's office is?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Who else was present at the meeting?
25
A.
Sheriff.
Chief deputy.
I think -- there was a

602.264.2230

337
1
meeting with Mike Zullo in it and a couple of the -- of our
attorneys, but I don't remember which group it was.
3
4
Q.
Did Dennis Montgomery join that meeting at any
point in time?
A.
No.
Q.
Okay.
with this meeting.
8
9
10
Were you ever a part -- well, let's stick
Was this the first time you met with

Sheriff Arpaio concerning the Dennis Montgomery
investigation?
11
A.
12
little bit.
13
stay for the whole thing.
14
then -- and then left.
15
16
Q.
It wasn't really a meeting.
He walked in for a
In terms of his part, what I remember, he didn't

He walked in briefly with this and
After you expressed your concerns that Dennis
Montgomery was not reliable, did the investigation continue?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
After you -- at the point that you had the
19
conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan saying that you could
20
not in good conscience approve payments to Dennis Montgomery,
21
did payments to him continue?
22
A.
I believe so.
23
Q.
Did you continue to sign those approvals?
24
A.
I did not.
25
Q.
Do you know who did?

602.264.2230

344
1
Seattle investigation?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE WITNESS:
4
5
Q.
MR. MITCHELL:
THE WITNESS:
11
No.
You thought it was not an appropriate use of funds?

MR. MASTERSON:
10
Foundation.
BY MS. WANG:
Form.
Form.
Foundation.
Asked and answered.

That's accurate.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Okay.
Did you continue to sign those travel
expense approvals after reaching that conclusion?
12
A.
I don't believe I did.
13
Q.
Do you know what -- who started to approve them
14
after -- well, first let me ask you.
Did the travel continue
15
after you declined to sign those approvals?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Do you know who did do those approvals?
18
A.
I don't.
19
Q.
Do you recall a meeting on January 2nd, 2014,
20
about the Seattle investigation that included you,
21
Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Tim
22
Casey, Tom Liddy, Travis -- and Travis Anglin where Dennis
23
Montgomery was participating by telephone?
24
25
A.
I don't remember Montgomery being on the phone.
remember a meeting with some of those -- I think this is the

602.264.2230

345
1
meeting I was describing earlier potentially.
Did you say Mike Zullo?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yeah, I believe I do remember that one.
Q.
Okay.
And you don't remember Dennis Montgomery
participating in that meeting by telephone?
A.
I'm not saying he didn't.
I don't remember that.
Q.
Were you there for the entire meeting?
A.
As far as I know.
10
Q.
What was the purpose of that meeting?
11
A.
To -- I -- the -- that I remember, to evaluate how
12
credible this person was.
And I know Mike Zullo did a lot of
13
the talking in that -- in that meeting.
14
Q.
Did Judge Snow come up during that meeting?
15
A.
Not that I remember.
16
Q.
I'm going to show you a document that we will mark
17
Exhibit?
18
THE COURT REPORTER:
19
MS. WANG:
20
THE COURT REPORTER:
21
MS. WANG:
22
(Exhibit 2073 marked for identification.)
23
24
25
2073.
2073?
Yes.
Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
And I will tell you that Exhibit 2073 is a
collection of documents that the court-appointed monitor -Griffin & Associates Court Reporters
602.264.2230

394
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
)
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceedings were

taken before me; that the witness before testifying was duly
sworn by me to testify to the whole truth; that the foregoing
pages are a full, true, and accurate record of the
proceedings, all done to the best of my skill and ability;
that the proceedings were taken down by me in shorthand and
thereafter reduced to print under my direction.
I CERTIFY that I am in no way related to any of the
parties hereto, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome
hereof.
4
5
6
7
8
9
[X] Review and signature was requested.
10
[ ] Review and signature was waived.
11
[ ] Review and signature not required.
12
13
14
15
I CERTIFY that I have complied with the ethical

obligations set forth in ACJA 7-206(F)(3) and ACJA 7-206
J(1)(g)(1) and (2).
Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 10th day of
September, 2015.
16
____________________________
17
CATHY J. TAYLOR, RPR

Certified Reporter
Certificate No. 50111
18
19
20
21
22
7-206(J)(1)(g)(1) through (6).
23
24
25
_____________________________
602.264.2230
EXHIBIT C
In The Matter Of:

Melendres v
Arpaio
Timothy J. Casey
September 16, 2015

602.264.2230
Original File TC091615.txt
Min-U-Script

Timothy J. Casey - September 16, 2015
245
1
THE COURT:
I'm going to overrule the
objection and direct the witness to answer.
THE WITNESS:
I could have, but that's not a
solid -- that's not -- in my judgment, that's not a practice
to make, rewriting an opposing party's discovery request,
because that's the -- that's the problem with that.
BY MS. WANG:
8
9
Q.
So, in your view, it's -- setting aside not getting
into any communications with the client in this case, your
10
general practice as an attorney is to convey the other
11
party's document requests without elaboration?
12
A.
Generally that -- that is true.
I will -- I will
13
provide -- as a practical matter, I will provide follow-up
14
clarification if needed, but it's -- how I learned, it's very
15
dangerous for one advocate to summarize another advocate's
16
discovery.
17
the appropriate grounds.
18
Q.
If it's not clear, it ought to be objected to on

Otherwise, that's a problem.
And you don't know whether you followed your
19
general practice of not providing further instruction during
20
a pretrial discovery period in this case?
21
A.
I don't -- I don't remember that.
22
Q.
All right.
23
24
25
I'm going to change gears entirely.
This will be very brief.

Were you present at a meeting on
January 2nd, 2014, with John Masterson, Joe Popolizio,
602.264.2230

246
1
Sergeant Travis Anglin, Sheriff Arpaio, a posse member named
Mike Zullo, and Tom Liddy concerning a -- an MCSO
investigation involving a confidential informant in Seattle?
4
5
6
7
A.
I know I was -- I don't know the date, but I know I
attended one.
Q.
And do you recall whether the confidential
informant was on the telephone during that meeting?
8
9
MS. CLARK:
Objection.
Calls for
attorney-client privileged, confidential, and work product.
10
MS. WANG:
Well, if the confidential informant
11
were on the phone, it would affect the analysis of whether,
12
in fact, that conversation was privileged.
13
entitled to an answer on that.
14
15
So I think I'm
(An off-the-record conversation was held

between the witness and his counsel.)
16
THE WITNESS:
17
attended was there was no CI on the phone.
18
by whoever it was in the MCSO that was telling -- that was
19
telling everyone in the room what their process was, or
20
analysis or whatever.
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
23
24
25
Q.
My memory of the meeting I

It was a briefing
Were you there for the purpose of giving legal
advice?
A.
I -- don't know.
My -- my impression is what I can
just tell you.

602.264.2230

247
1
2
3
Q.
What was your impression as to whether you were
there to give legal advice?

A.
My impression was is that the sheriff wanted to
know from the lawyers in the room what we thought about the
information that was being provided by MCSO personnel about
this confidential informant.
Q.
Was he seeking legal advice as to the
investigation, or was he trying to get a sense of whether you
believed the informant was reliable?
10
A.
I don't know, because it was never really
11
explained.
12
13
MR. MASTERSON:
Foundation.
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
you this:
16
the MCSO?
17
A.
All right.
During that meeting -- well, let me ask
Do you know whether Mike Zullo is an employee of
I -- I mean, I heard the name.
I've read about
18
him, but I'm not sure I could spot him in a lineup.
19
don't know what his role is.
20
21
Q.
All right.
So I
Do you recall seeing any documents
during that meeting that mentioned Judge Snow's name?
22
A.
I do.
23
Q.
What do you recall about that?
24
A.
I remember seeing some sort of graphic.
25
Q.
Okay.
I'm going to hand you an exhibit that was

602.264.2230

248
1
already marked 2524.
2
3
MS. WANG:
yesterday, because --
4
5
6
I hope you still have this from
MR. MASTERSON:
I don't, but that's okay.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Mr. Casey, can you -- this is a declaration that I
filed with the Court in response to the opposition to
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan's motion to
disqualify the Court.
10
that it is under seal.
11
under seal.
12
court order either unsealing or denying the motion to seal.
13
14
The document indicates on its face

I will tell you that it is no longer
The motion to seal was -- well, there was a
Take a look at Exhibit F.

documents there.
There are two
One is in landscape --
15
A.
This thing.
16
Q.
-- orientation.
17
Correct.
18
So there's a document that contains a -- a
19
20
21
sort of a graphical -MS. CLARK:
Mine looks like it's different.
My F starts with --
22
MS. WANG:
23
MS. CLARK:
24
MS. WANG:
25
MS. CLARK:
Keep -- keep turning.

Keep going?
Keep going.
Okay.

602.264.2230

249
1
THE WITNESS:
MS. WANG:
MS. CLARK:
This is all part of F; right?
Yes.
Okay.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
So keep flipping.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
I think you're flipping the wrong direction.
A.
No, but I'm -- I'm looking at this.
Q.
Okay.
10
11
14
I'm sorry.
Okay.

12
13
Excuse me.
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Does -- do the materials that -- Exhibit F on my
15
declaration look like the documents you saw during that
16
17
A.
This thing identified as timeline looks familiar.
18
And I remember a color-coded chart of some sort that looked
19
like what you see here, that I'm pointing to at Bates label
20
MELC199934.
21
Q.
22
Was there a discussion of these documents during
that meeting?
23
24
25
MS. CLARK:
privilege.
Work product.
MS. WANG:
Objection.
Attorney-client
Confidentiality.
Your Honor, we discussed this

602.264.2230

250
1
Exhibit F to my declaration during the deposition of
Captain Bailey last week.
recollection is that there was not an objection to my
questions concerning what was said during that meeting on
January 2nd, 2014.
THE COURT:
Mr. Masterson was present.
My
I'll say, Ms. Clark, that I
haven't heard an objection from Mr. Masterson.
is proponing
has to establish that the privilege exists.
But whoever
-- whoever is the proponent of the privilege

I have not yet
10
heard anything from Mr. Casey which would implicate the
11
attorney-client privilege.
12
I'm saying what I understood his testimony to be -- that
13
Sheriff Arpaio had the attorneys there to ask them about what
14
they thought about the reliability of the informant.
15
does not strike me as solicitation of or the receipt of legal
16
advice.
17
To the extent that he said -- and
That
So you're the proponent of the privilege.
18
Unless you can tell me that it -- convince me that it does,
19
I'm going to overrule your objection and instruct the witness
20
to answer.
21
MS. CLARK:
Judge, the holder of the privilege
22
is the client represented by Mr. Masterson here today.
23
as I told you in the prefatory statement, if he doesn't
24
object, I'm assuming there's a waiver.
25
this is covered by client confidentiality under 1.6.
And
However, I do believe

602.264.2230
It's in

251
1
the course of representing the client that he's attending
these meetings.
an order, I'm instructing the witness not to answer.
4
5
It's confidential under ER 1.6.
THE COURT:
answer.
I'm directing the witness to
I'm overruling the client confidentiality objection.
THE WITNESS:
Again, I -- can you read --
reread that question for me?
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
And without
I think it was just was there discussion of these
10
documents at Exhibit F of my declaration during that
11
12
A.
I believe so.
13
Q.
Can you describe what you recall of that
14
discussion.
15
MS. CLARK:
Continuing objection.
16
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, you -- has the witness
17
been asked the question to whether he was providing his legal
18
advice, mental impressions, or legal analysis to his client?
19
In other words, if -- if the response to this
20
question is the witness says legal advice, mental
21
impressions, or legal analysis to his clients, if that is the
22
answer to this particular question, I'm going to object based
23
on privilege.
24
this witness yet.
25
I'm not sure that question's been asked of
MS. WANG:
Well, I did ask Mr. Casey whether

602.264.2230

252
1
he was there at the meeting to provide legal advice.
it was not clear.
Let me ask -- let me withdraw the pending
question and ask another question first.
BY MS. WANG:
He said
Q.
During the conversation about these documents at
Exhibit F of my declaration dated July 10th, 2015, did you
provide any legal advice?
A.
I, like the other lawyers in the room, including
10
some that are here today, offered our assessments of what we
11
heard.
12
I'm a lawyer.
13
about admissibility or anything.
14
talked about what we thought about what we heard.
15
Q.
Whether it's legal advice, I don't know to this day.

I don't remember being asked for any issue
I just remember that we all
Was there any discussion about whether any
16
particular action taken in the course of the investigation
17
was legal or not?
18
A.
What -- what was legal?
19
Q.
Whether any -- well, you understood that the
20
dis- -- there was discussion during the January 2nd, 2015,
21
meeting about -- sorry -- January 2nd, 2014, meeting, there
22
was discussion about an investigation by MCSO involving a
23
confidential informant; correct?
24
A.
Yes.
Generally, yeah.
25
Q.
During the discussion of that investigation, was

602.264.2230

253
1
your advice sought on whether any actions taken during that
investigation were lawful --
A.
I don't --
Q.
-- or not lawful?
A.
I don't believe that was ever asked.
Q.
Were you asked for your assessments about whether
the -- the informant was reliable?
A.
I believe we were asked that.
Q.
Did it involve any legal analysis or application of
10
11
your knowledge of the law?

A.
My experience as an attorney that tries cases and
12
deals with people, like -- kind of like what you are, but I'm
13
not sure about legal analysis applying law to facts.
14
sure about that.
15
16
17
Q.
I'm not
I don't think so.
You were being asked to assess his believability,
in other words?
A.
I will state for clarification, I don't believe the
18
time I was present that there was the CI on the telephone.
19
believe it was just a report by whoever it was, detectives or
20
whoever.
21
share our thoughts about the information being relayed.
22
Q.
But we were -- I think we were being offered to
And were you -- was your legal advice being sought?
23
I guess I'm just trying to get at whether --
24
A.
I --
25
Q.
-- you were bringing to bear any legal analysis to

602.264.2230

254
1
that situation or whether your opinion was being sought as an
observer of --
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
-- human behavior, whatever.
You mentioned yourself assessing witnesses on
the stand.
A.
I -- I cannot tell you.
You would have to ask the
10
client what their expectation were for having the lawyers
11
present.
12
exactly why.
13
Q.
I don't -- I -- it's -- to this day, I don't know
Captain Bailey testified in his deposition that he
14
believed that at least Mr. Popolizio was present, because
15
there was a claim made by the confidential informant that
16
Mr. Popolizio's law firm's e-mails had been hacked.
17
Do you recall that?
18
A.
I do.
19
Q.
All right.
That did not involve -- Mr. Popolizio
20
was not being asked for his legal opinion about anything, was
21
he?
22
A.
I -- I don't know what Joe was asked.
23
Joe was present.
24
Mr. Liddy.
25
Q.
I believe John was present.
I know that
And myself.
I don't know if James in my office was present.
All right.
So, Mr. Casey, I'll ask you again at

602.264.2230

255
1
this point.
Exhibit F of my declaration?
What was the discussion about the documents at
MS. CLARK:
I'm going to object based on
confidentiality and attorney-client privilege and work
product.
client asks you to attend a meeting as a lawyer, it is to
provide your legal analysis.
8
9
It's, I -- I think, fair to presume that if a
And I understand Mr. Masterson is not

objecting, but Mr. Liddy -- excuse me -- Mr. Casey has
10
obligations to his former clients, and I'm going to make that
11
objection and instruct him not to answer absent a Court
12
order.
13
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, actually, I am -- I am
14
objecting, because I think the testimony I just heard from
15
the witness is he's giving his impressions.
16
understand you tried to finagle it a little bit and ask him,
17
well, are you giving legal advice?
18
I'm giving an analysis possibly of a witness, although he's
19
telling us he doesn't recall the witness being on the phone.
20
And I -- and I
And his answer was, well,
But, in any event, he's there in connection
21
with litigation.
He's looking at documents.
And if he's
22
being asked for comments on documents, that's part of his
23
position as a representative, a legal representative of the
24
client.
25
being work product, at least, and probably attorney-client
And his statements, I think, are then privileged as

602.264.2230

256
1
privilege.
Possibly his legal analysis of what he has seen.
They're his impressions of what he has seen.
MS. WANG:
Mr. Casey testified that it was not
clear to him that he was being -- he was there for the
purpose of providing legal advice or analysis, and I don't
believe that on the testimony that we've heard the
conversation is privileged.
8
9
MS. CLARK:
I believe that's a legal
conclusion and for the judge to make.
10
MS. WANG:
I'm making my argument and --
11
MS. CLARK:
12
MS. WANG:
13
MS. CLARK:
I'm making mine.
14
THE COURT:
All right.
I'm making --- now seeking a ruling.
Here's how we're going
15
to proceed:
We're going to proceed on a
16
statement-by-statement basis, a question-by-question basis,
17
that -- to the extent that the witness is capable of
18
reconstructing the conversation.
19
that -- that the witness is entitled to a general presumption
20
that if he's asked to be there as an attorney, there is a --
21
there is some presumption that there is -- at least you have
22
to be careful about an attorney-client relationship.
23
law, as I understand it, and I believe it exists and the
24
Ninth Circuit is quite clear, that does not necessarily mean
25
that the attorney-client privilege exists.
I believe it is true

602.264.2230
But the

257
1
With respect to a conversation, the
attorney-client only exists -- the attorney-client privilege
only exists where legal advice of any kind is sought from a
professional legal advisor in his capacity as such.
communications relating to that purpose made in confidence by
a client are at the client's instance permanently protected
from disclosure.
8
9
And
So we are going to go forward to the extent

it's possible on a very specific basis.
I have not heard --
10
I will say, Mr. Masterson, Ms. Clark, I haven't heard
11
anything yet that necessarily implicates the attorney-client
12
privilege to cover the whole conversation.
13
reason to proceed with caution.
14
I have heard
And for that reason, I am going to require
15
you, Ms. Wang, to ask more specific questions about that
16
January 2nd meeting.
17
MS. WANG:
18
THE COURT:
19
Yes, Your Honor.

See if we can get to it any
better.
20
MS. WANG:
21
MS. CLARK:
Yes, Your Honor.

Judge, I'm continuing the
22
objection on confidentiality under ER 1.6.
23
can't --
24
25
THE COURT:
Mr. Casey
I'm overruling the objection on
confidentiality pursuant to ER 1.6.

602.264.2230

258
1
2
3
MS. CLARK:
Thank you, Judge.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Mr. Casey, at any point during the January 2nd,
2014, meeting, did you learn that the confidential informant
was offering information or making a claim or allegation that
there was a conspiracy between Judge Snow, the Attorney
General of the United States, or the Department of Justice
generally and the law firm of Covington & Burling that would
affect the sheriff?
10
MR. MASTERSON:
11
THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
14
THE WITNESS:
16
17
18
Am I instructed to answer, Your
Honor?
13
15
Form.
You are.
Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Who provided that information during the

A.
Well, first of all, I have to -- I don't know the
19
date.
20
like November of '13.
21
For some reason, I thought it was earlier than that,
Whoever was doing the speaking on the
22
telephone were relaying information -- was relaying
23
information about what the CI, the confidential informant,
24
claimed to have put together.
25
Q.
So your impression was that somebody was on the

602.264.2230

259
1
telephone conveying information on behalf of the confidential
informant but that it was not the confidential informant --
3
4
5
MR. MASTERSON:
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
-- himself?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE WITNESS:
remember.
Seattle calling in.
10
11
12
Form.
Form.
That's -- that's what I
I thought there were two MCSO employees up in
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
All right.
Do you know who the person on the phone
was?
13
A.
The names that you mentioned.
One of them, the --
14
with the Z.
15
Q.
Mike Zullo?
16
A.
Yeah.
17
Q.
All right.
18
A.
-- but --
19
Q.
What about Brian Mackiewicz?
20
A.
There were --
21
Q.
-- someone who was participating by telephone?
22
A.
I couldn't tell you, but I know there were two.
23
Q.
All right.
24
A.
Two employees.
25
Q.
What did the person on the telephone convey as far
That sounds familiar --
Is that possibly --

602.264.2230

260
1
as you remember about an alleged conspiracy between
Judge Snow, the Attorney General of the United States, the
Department of Justice, and the law firm of Covington &
Burling?
A.
Would you -- are you asking me for my impression --
Q.
No.
A.
-- or are you asking me --
Q.
I'm asking you --
A.
-- specifically --
10
Q.
-- for fuller information about what was conveyed
11
about that.
12
MR. MASTERSON:
13
THE WITNESS:
Form.
I will tell you in all sincerity
14
that the details are not clear.
15
clear.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
What was the conclusion?
18
19
MS. CLARK:
Again, just the continuing
objection, Judge, and the work product as well.
20
THE COURT:
21
THE WITNESS:
22
The conclusion is abundantly
Overruled.
Hogwash.
BY MS. WANG:
23
Q.
Who said it was hogwash?
24
A.
That was my conclusion.
25
And if I'm not mistaken,
every lawyer in the room reached that conclusion.

602.264.2230

261
1
Q.
Did anyone in the room not reach that conclusion?
MR. WALKER:
MR. MASTERSON:
THE WITNESS:
5
6
7
10
11
12
Q.
I don't know.
or not the information about that conspiracy was reliable?

BY MS. WANG:
Q.
You've mentioned already every lawyer in the room.
Every lawyer in the room said that it was hogwash.

15
16
I don't know.
Who in the room ventured an opinion as to whether
13
14
Join.
BY MS. WANG:
8
9
Foundation.
MS. CLARK:
Judge, we're renewing the
objection on all three bases.
17
THE COURT:
I'm not sure I understand the
18
question, and I want to be able to be very clear that I
19
understand the question and give everybody a chance to
20
object.
I don't understand the question.
21
MS. WANG:
22
pending question.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
25
Q.
Sure.
I'm not sure there was a
I apologize.
My question was, you mentioned that the -- every
lawyer in the room expressed the view that the allegation of

602.264.2230

262
1
2
the conspiracy was hogwash; is that right?

A.
That -- that was my description for my conclusion,
and I believe that was shared by the other lawyers in the
room.
Q.
All right.
So my question is, did any nonlawyer in
the room express a view as to whether the alleged
information -- the information about the alleged conspiracy
was accurate?
A.
Yes or no?
10
Q.
Yes, yes or no.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Who was that?
13
A.
My client.
14
Q.
And what was the view that he expressed?
15
16
Joe Arpaio.
MS. CLARK:
privilege.
THE COURT:
18
confidentiality objection.
19
Mr. Masterson.
20
to answer.
21
23
24
25
Well, I'm going to overrule the

The privilege belongs to
I don't hear an objection, so I'll direct him
MR. MASTERSON:
here.
Attorney-client
Confidentiality as well.
17
22
Objection, Judge.
Can we just wait a second
Can -(Stenographic record reviewed by
Mr. Masterson.)
MR. MASTERSON:
I'm going -- I'm going to

602.264.2230

263
1
raise the objection.
statement made by my clients, two lawyers, and I think the
assumption is that he is making this statement in order to
seek his attorney's counsel or advice regarding how to
proceed in a legal matter.
I think the question calls for a
THE COURT:
Do you know, I think that this
is -- I think this requires some careful consideration on my
part and a little bit more research than I've done.
is what I would propose.
So this
And it's going to dislocate,
10
perhaps, Mr. Casey and everybody else, but I think it's an
11
important enough question that I may not want to just fire
12
from the hip here.
13
It seems to me that there are several
14
different reasons why this conversation may not be privileged
15
at all.
16
thing is, I'm not sure that a statement made by
17
Sheriff Arpaio is privileged, but I think that Mr. Masterson
18
raises a good point.
19
expresses an opinion.
It depends on who was on the phone.
And the second
There are attorneys in a meeting.
He
20
I would like to look into that and in terms of
21
whether or not it's covered by the attorney-client privilege.
22
So what I intend to do, and what I'll invite the parties to
23
do, we're meeting Friday morning.
24
submissions or legal authority you want to put forward on
25
that question, I'll take a look at it and make the ruling.
If you have any

602.264.2230

264
1
But for now, I think in order to protect the privilege, I'm
going to tentatively sustain the objection, direct the
witness -- or sustain the objection.
won't answer it, but that he is going to be determinative on
who else -- I mean, if we can make a determination as to who
else was on the call.
present physically, if there's anybody there that might
destroy the privilege and/or I want to look into just
statements made by counsel -- or I'm sorry -- statements made
And so the witness
And I'm not sure who else was actually
10
by a client and whether or not it's up to the Court to
11
determine whether or not in the context that is seeking legal
12
advice.
13
MS. WANG:
14
May I ask the witness just -- I now realize I
15
told the witness who I understood to be at the meeting based
16
on prior deposition testimony by other witnesses.
17
to ask him what his recollection is as to who was present.
18
19
THE COURT:
All right, Your Honor.
I'd like
You may do so.
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
Who else was present, Mr. Casey, that you recall?
21
A.
I'm going to start off with the lawyers.
22
Popolizio and John Masterson from Jones Skelton.
23
Tom Liddy.
24
was present or not.
25
Chris -- I -- Christine Stutz was there.
Joe
Myself.
I don't remember if James Williams in my office

As to the lawyers, I don't know if

602.264.2230
I don't remember

265
1
that.
Jerry Sheridan was there.
Sheriff Arpaio was
there.
I believe Jack Mac- -- Jack MacIntyre was there.
There were other people that were there.
can't say with certainty, like Mr. Bailey, Steve Bailey.
don't know if the PIO person, Lisa Allen, was there.
Perhaps -- but I
But, I mean, it seemed to me that it was a
very full conference room.
about occurred in a conference room in his old building.
And I -- the meeting I'm thinking
10
Q.
At the Wells Fargo building?
11
A.
Yes.
12
13
14
It was a long conference room at one end of a
hallway.
Q.
Did you know everyone present?
THE COURT:
16
THE WITNESS:
17
been.
18
BY MS. WANG:
20
Were there people
unfamiliar to you there?
15
19
Q.
Well -There may -- there may have
Can you give me an estimate of the number of people
that you believe were present?
21
A.
As many as that are in this room.
22
Q.
And can you tell me how many people do you think
23
24
25
are in the room currently?

A.
Oh, 16.
MS. WANG:
All right.
Yes, Mr. Masterson's

602.264.2230

266
1
requesting we take a break as Mr. Popolizio's come to fill
in.
3
4
THE COURT:
We can, and we're off the record
for the deposition.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT:
I would appreciate counsel doing
an evaluation of their own ethical obligations under the
Title 3s to make sure that they are not going to end up
either as witnesses or that they don't have duties relating
10
to candor to the tribunal on my previous testimony or other
11
matters that they need to investigate and consider, because
12
I -- I do not want to go down the road and be in the middle
13
of this hearing and have you tell me for some reason -- and
14
I'm not trying to suggest that I think there's any
15
determination here.
16
want you to have to tell me for some reason that you believe
17
that your ethical obligations require you to withdraw.
I'm just raising this issue.
18
And is that clear?
19
MR. STEIN:
Your Honor, I'm sorry.
I don't
It's not
20
clear to me.
And I don't mean to be difficult, but -- I
21
understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you mean
22
by it.
23
greatly appreciate it.
And so if -- if you could be more specific, I would
24
THE COURT:
I'm not going to be more specific.
25
MR. STEIN:
Okay.

602.264.2230

267
1
THE COURT:
I think that -- well, I guess I
don't mind being more specific.
going to be more specific is because I don't want to suggest
that I made any determination, but as I'm sitting here -- let
me see if I've got -- I don't have the rules.
6
7
MS. CLARK:
Got 'em.
THE COURT:
Oh, you
Nah.
I have the federal rules.
don't have the state rules.
11
12
Oh, I have them, Judge.
have -- okay.
10
The reason I say I'm not
MS. CLARK:
Oh, I got them right here, Judge.
They're open to the 3s.
13
THE COURT:
We have candor toward the
14
tribunal.
15
the lawyer knows to be false.
16
client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material
17
evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the
18
lawyer shall take reasonable remedial" -- "remedial measures
19
including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal."
20
21
"A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that

If a lawyer" -- "the lawyer's
There's a number of state ethical opinions

that'll give guidance on that.
22
"A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other
23
than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that
24
the lawyer reasonably believes is false."
25
That's one that seems to me -- I don't

602.264.2230

268
1
remember exactly what previous testimony was, but I do
remember previous testimony regarding aspects of whether or
not this Court was ever the subject of an investigation by
the MCSO or if the MCSO ever knew of an investigation of
which this Court was the subject.
think, from Sheriff Arpaio, from Chief Deputy Sheridan, and
then there was a statement made under penalty of perjury by
Chief Arpaio.
And I received answers, I
It seems to me that counsel need to evaluate
10
that testimony in light of their own participation or what
11
they may have subsequently come to know to determine whether
12
or not they have a duty of candor toward the tribunal that
13
they have to fulfill.
14
to make that determination.
15
because I don't want you to be wrong.
16
17
MR. STEIN:
20
It's up to you
But I'm just raising it now,
May I respond to that, or would
you rather me not?
18
19
I'm not saying you do.
THE COURT:
if you wish.
I'm just -- you can respond to it
I'm just asking you to take it into account.

MR. STEIN:
Right.
I guess what my concern
21
is, we're sitting in a deposition, and that -- and, you know,
22
deputy -- and information gets presented through the course
23
of a deposition, but the Court hasn't sat through all the
24
depositions and --
25
THE COURT:
No, that's true.

602.264.2230

269
1
MR. STEIN:
-- this is the first witness, for
example, who has said that Chief Deputy Sheridan was at that
January 2nd meeting.
No other witness has said so.
THE COURT:
That's true.
MR. STEIN:
And so --
THE COURT:
That's why I raise that now,
because the hearing is going to start next week.
8
9
MR. STEIN:
Right.
So the basis for the
Court's concern about revising previous testimony is based in
10
part on the testimony that he was at that -- that -- I'm
11
concerned that the Court is forming impressions --
12
THE COURT:
Well --
13
MR. STEIN:
-- based upon hearing deposition.
14
THE COURT:
I'm not forming impressions, and
15
I'm perfectly capable of listening and will listen to all the
16
witnesses.
17
if, in fact, you feel like you have an obligation to
18
withdraw, because I want to know that now.
I'm raising things that I want you to consider
19
So I didn't know -- for example, I have no
20
basis to know or any basis to believe, Mr. Stein, that you
21
knew about this prior to my finding out about it.
22
I've raised it.
23
That's why
There's also -- and it has to do with -- with
24
lawyers as witnesses.
25
3 point area.
There's several others that are in the
Maybe that's not applicable either, and I'm

602.264.2230

270
1
not saying it is.
it is.
don't have any basis to believe that.
you.
was in the meeting, that Mr. Masterson was in the meeting,
that Mr. -- did you say Casey?
or Mr. Liddy was in the meeting.
But I think that you need to make such -- well, I

That was my reply to
But we've just had the witness say that Mr. Popolizio
8
9
I'm not saying I made a determination that
I think he said Mr. Casey --
So we've got some -- I guess Liddy was wrong.

We've got some lawyers here in the present action, and
10
there's now been a suggestion that they may be a witness to
11
something.
12
to call them.
13
got this hearing scheduled to start next week, I'm just
14
asking you, as lawyers, to consider that and to consider if
15
you feel like you have any obligation.
And they may not be a witness.

I'm not saying that's true.
16
No party may want

But because we've
If you do, I want to know about it so that we
17
can take appropriate steps and see if we have to postpone
18
this thing.
19
want to oblige any of you to violate what you think may be
20
your ethical obligations.
I don't want to postpone it, but I also don't
21
22
Since this is the first time I've heard this,

I thought I would raise it.
23
24
25
That's all, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN:
Fair enough.
THE COURT:
Mr. Woods?
I appreciate the
clarification.

602.264.2230

271
1
MR. WOODS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
On a
different topic, it's occurred to me today that Friday's
deposition of Christine Stutz and Monday's deposition of Tom
Liddy are going to be missing you.
to be missing you, when they believe that they have an
obligation to keep information confidential under 1.6, there
won't be a judge there to tell them that they have to abandon
that obligation.
that, I think they're under the obligation to keep
10
And because they're going
And until there's a judge here to tell them
information confidential under 1.6.
11
And I hate to think that we have to have
12
supervised depositions, but I note in the Liddy deposition it
13
will come up often, and the Stutz probably less often.
14
in the Liddy deposition, it's going to come up as many times
15
as it did today with Mr. Casey.
16
put it out there so we can decide how we're going to deal
17
with it.
18
THE COURT:
But
And I -- I just needed to
Well, when is -- Friday we have a
19
status conference.
20
would appreciate it if I wouldn't have to -- have to have it
21
here or if you could call me on the phone.
22
issues.
23
I'm available for part of Friday, but I
I'm aware of the
Monday I'm completely unavailable.
Depending
24
upon how I rule on the pending motion that relates to whether
25
or not privileges have been waived regarding advice or

602.264.2230

272
1
directions given concerning not disclosing the 1459 IDs,
there may be more depositions we have to notice up for
Tuesday.
going to be ruling on this.
So maybe we can take it up in that light.
But I am
And I -- and I haven't changed my direction,
Mr. Stein, to you or to anybody else that if you want to
provide me authority that would be of assistance to me in
deciding this question, then tell me.
ruling Friday morning.
But I will make a
And we may have to have Mr. Casey
10
back to answer these questions related to this meeting.
11
it is now, I've directed him not to answer, although I'm
12
still going to allow you to follow up when you come.
13
As
I may determine that based on who was at the
14
meeting there is no attorney-client privilege anyway.
15
Mr. Masterson may withdraw his -- his feeling about that.
16
don't know.
17
assuming I'm still going to hold that the meeting -- that I
18
still want to consider the question.
19
anybody else to put forward whatever information you can for
20
me by Friday morning, and I'll take a look at it.
21
But we're just going to go step by step,
I'm inviting you or
I'm really not available much of tomorrow.
22
you can get it to me by tomorrow night, I will read it
23
overnight and try and have some -- some ruling on it by the
24
morning.
If
25
Any other question, Mr. Stein?

602.264.2230

273
1
MR. STEIN:
MS. WANG:
No, thank you.

Your Honor, we -- we all have a lot
on our plates between now and Friday morning.
a list of authorities?
5
6
THE COURT:
Just -- and I would
prefer that.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Yes, you may.
May we submit
authorities.
Thank you.
I will read the list of
And, you know, develop whatever you want now
10
that you think might throw light on the privilege without me
11
requiring Mr. Casey to ask -- answer that last question.
12
13
14
MS. WANG:
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Mr. Casey --
15
16
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
Wait.
We were going to take a
little short break.
17
MS. WANG:
18
(Recess from 4:31 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.)
19
20
Oh, I'm sorry.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
All right.
Mr. Casey, let me continue asking you
21
some questions.
22
this and tee it up for the judge's ruling.
23
Okay.
We'll see if we can get anywhere further on
The documents that we just looked at,
24
Exhibit F of my declaration, were those -- were copies of
25
those handed around at this meeting?

602.264.2230

274
1
A.
I don't remember that, if there was one copy
circulated or if there were multiple copies.
remember.
Q.
Did you leave that meeting with a copy?
A.
I did not.
Q.
You've already testified that Sheriff Arpaio did
I don't
speak during that meeting; is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Without telling me what he said, was it your
10
understanding that he was seeking the legal advice of any of
11
the attorneys in the room when he spoke on the subject of the
12
confidential informant's allegation about a conspiracy?
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE WITNESS:
Foundation.
I don't know.
15
spoke towards the end, but I don't know.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
18
Q.
And I believe he
Did he speak after the attorneys in the room had
spoken?
19
A.
20
Q.
Did anyone other than Sheriff Arpaio and the
21
attorneys in the room speak on the subject of the allegation
22
concerning this conspiracy?
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
MS. CLARK:
25
Form.
Continuing objection on
confidentiality under ER 1.6.

602.264.2230

275
1
2
THE COURT:
overridden.
THE WITNESS:
remember.
BY MS. WANG:
6
7
8
9
Confidentiality obligation is
Q.
I don't -- I'm sorry.
I don't
You mentioned that there was one person on the
telephone; is that right?

A.
No.
I had the -- my memory of the meeting -- and I
thought it was earlier than January 14th, but my memory is
10
there were two people.
And my impression was they were
11
calling from out of state, and they were --
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
-- employees of MCSO.
14
Q.
Were they on a speakerphone in the room?
15
A.
They were.
16
Q.
And your impression was they were both employees of
17
MCSO?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Was your impression that those two people were
20
together in the same place or calling in from different
21
locations?
22
A.
My impression was they were in the same place.
23
Q.
Was that in Seattle?
24
A.
That's my impression, yeah.
25
Q.
All right.
602.264.2230

276
1
A.
I believe that's where they were calling from.
Q.
Okay.
3
4
Do you recall whether Sergeant Travis Anglin
was present?
A.
You know, the name -- I -- I'm familiar with the
name, but I don't -- I'm -- I'm sure I've met that person,
but I'm embarrassed to say if that person walked in, I
probably -- I might recognize the person but not match the
name.
9
10
11
12
13
Q.
All right.
You mentioned that you believe
Captain Bailey was present; is that right?

A.
I'm going off of my best memory, even though it was
what, a little over a year ago?

Q.
He -- I believe he was.
Do you recall whether Captain Bailey spoke on the
14
subject of an alleged conspiracy involving the Court and the
15
Department of Justice?
16
A.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
You mentioned that your recollection is that
Lisa Allen may have been there; is that right?
19
A.
She may have been there.
20
Q.
You testified earlier today that Lisa Allen is the
21
Yes.
head of MCSO's Public Information Office; is that right?
22
A.
That's my understanding, yes.
23
Q.
Is her job essentially to -- to do publicity for
24
25
the sheriff's office?

A.
Yes.
602.264.2230

277
1
Q.
Do you recall whether she spoke on the subject of
an alleged conspiracy involving the Court, the Department of
Justice, and the Covington & Burling law firm?
A.
I do not remember that.
I -- I have a general
memory that most of the MCSO people were quiet except for the
people talking on the phone.
7
8
Q.
Did you do anything in relation to the Seattle
investigation?
Do you understand what I mean when I say --
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
Okay.
Let me -- let me withdraw that.
12
Did you do anything relating to the alleged
13
conspiracy involving the Court, the Department of Justice,
14
and Covington & Burling after this meeting?
15
MS. CLARK:
16
privilege.
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
19
Q.
Confidential.
MS. CLARK:
I still have the objection based
on confidentiality and work product.

THE COURT:
23
THE WITNESS:
25
Work product.
revealing any attorney-client communications.
22
24
Attorney-client
Tell me to the extent you can answer that without
20
21
Objection.
Those are overruled.

Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
To the extent you can tell me without revealing

602.264.2230

278
1
attorney-client communications, what did you do to follow up?
MS. CLARK:
Just a continuing objection,
THE COURT:
On what basis?
MS. CLARK:
All three bases.
THE COURT:
They're all overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Judge.
I remember lawyers talking
amongst ourselves.
I can remember talking to, you know -- I
thought Jack MacIntyre was there.
I thought Jerry Sheridan
10
was there, but my memory is not perfect.
This thing was --
11
this thing was so ridiculous on its face in everything that I
12
heard, and I remember sharing with whoever I talked to that
13
the timeline, I could hire my son, that that information was
14
publicly available -- I believe was publicly available
15
information, and it had some sex appeal because supposedly
16
someone was monitoring Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's -- I think
17
Joe's telephone line.
18
But it -- it had nothing to it.
19
was out -- it was whacked is the best way I could describe it
20
to you to use kids' terms.
21
remember sharing.
22
BY MS. WANG:
23
24
25
Q.
It was -- but that's what I
At the time of this meeting, were you -- you were
co-counsel with Tom Liddy; correct?

A.
It was -- it
I was.
602.264.2230

279
1
2
3
4
Q.
Were you co-counsel with Mr. Masterson and
Mr. Popolizio?
A.
No, but they had the DOJ case that had very
overlapping.
Q.
Did you have a joint defense agreement?
A.
In principle, we certainly did.
Q.
It was the same client?
A.
Same client; same interests.
Q.
Well, did they -- in that case, at that time, the
10
defendants in this case were the sheriff -- well, withdrawn.
11
Did you receive any information during the
12
meeting -- let's call it the January 2nd meeting, even if
13
it -- you -- you don't recall the exact date.
14
convenience, will you agree that we're talking about this
15
meeting?
16
17
18
19
A.
But just for
I know I went to some meeting in which this
material was discussed.

Q.
Okay.
I just -- want -- I just want to shorthand
it as the January 2nd meeting.
20
During the January 2nd meeting, did you see
21
any information suggesting that the confidential informant
22
had accessed telephone records of -- telephone records or any
23
electronic communications of the Jones Hochuli -- Jones
24
Skelton Hochuli firm?
25
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Form.

602.264.2230

280
1
THE WITNESS:
I didn't see anything.
I heard
that there was representations that there was a duplication
of some sort of NSA/CIA data dump that this person had access
to, and that's where supposedly he got this information.
That's my memory.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Did you see any information or hear any information
during this meeting suggesting that telephone records or
other electronic communications of anyone at the law firm of
10
Covington & Burling had been accessed?
11
And feel free to refer to the document if that
12
helps you.
13
A.
I do remember there was something about the effect
14
of phone calls between -- you know, it wasn't Stan Young.
15
wasn't any of the lawyers that I had met, but, like, people
16
out of your DC office supposedly talking with Eric Holder or
17
Lanny Breuer.
18
worked for or used to work for Judge Snow supposedly
19
communicating with somebody.
20
details, but that's -- that's what I remember.
21
Q.
It
There was something about a clerk that either
And I don't remember the
Did you see any information that electronic
22
communications of any of those people you just described had
23
been somehow accessed, although they were private?
24
A.
I didn't see anything.
25
Q.
Did you hear that?

602.264.2230

281
1
A.
It -- I was left with the impression that somehow,
somewhere there was some data that connected phone calls
between people that supposedly did this.
Exhibit 2524 at Exhibit F, this -- this chart, this flowchart
that emanates from the DOJ.
was some telephonic connection, but we didn't see that.
we -- that's what was represented as supposedly -- supposedly
potentially available.
Q.
I'm looking at your
That somehow there was -- there

But
Did you hear any represent -- representation that
10
the confidential informant had access to the content of
11
electronic communications between any of the people you just
12
mentioned:
13
Burling's DC office?
14
A.
Judge Snow's law clerk; somebody at Covington &
I don't --
15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
THE WITNESS:
Form.
I don't remember that, and I
17
don't believe that got down to that nitty-gritty.
18
mostly that -- just to confirm that a call was placed from
19
this number and went to this number and lasted whatever
20
period of time.
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
It was
And just to be clear, your understanding, based on
23
what you heard at that meeting, was that the information had
24
been obtained somehow from the CIA or the NSA?
25
A.
That was my -- that's my memory, which raised

602.264.2230

282
1
questions about how did this CI obtain this information from
what I understood was a former employer?
3
4
Q.
Did you raise any concerns about that during this
meeting?
A.
I don't know if I did at the meeting.
Q.
Did there come a time when you did?
7
8
MS. CLARK:
Attorney-client privilege.
9
10
11
THE COURT:
Continuing objection, Judge.

Confidentiality.
Sustained.
Work product.
At least for now.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
I just want to circle back and make sure that I got
12
a full answer to my question whether -- to the extent you can
13
answer this question without revealing attorney-client
14
communications, what did you do after this meeting that
15
related to the alleged conspiracy?
16
MS. CLARK:
17
Confidentiality.
18
to raise privilege.
19
20
Objection on work product.
And I believe it would be for Mr. Popolizio
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Can I hear the question again,
Ms. Court Reporter.
21
(The requested record was read.)
22
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Well, the question
23
specifically is whether he can answer, so it would be yes or
24
no that -- without revealing any privileged communications.
25
So I'm going to wait, Your Honor.

602.264.2230

283
1
MS. CLARK:
I'm objecting --
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. CLARK:
-- on work product.
THE COURT:
I'm going to overrule the
objection.
It doesn't deal with his impressions.
with what he did.
allow him to answer the specific question asked.
It deals
So I'm going to overrule the objection and
THE WITNESS:
What was the question again?
(The requested record was read.)
10
THE WITNESS:
That's more than a yes or no.
11
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
MS. WANG:
13
THE COURT:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Yeah.
It is.
It is.
And am I -Therefore, on that basis, Your
16
Honor, I'll assert the -- I will assert -- I will object and
17
assert the attorney-client privilege work product and to the
18
extent that it asks for any mental impressions or legal
19
analysis.
20
THE COURT:
I will overrule the objection to
21
the extent it is based on the work product privilege, 1.6,
22
and anything Mr. Casey did that did not involve
23
communications with his client.
24
involve client communications, you should not answer the
25
question, Mr. Casey.
To the extent it would

602.264.2230

284
1
THE WITNESS:
I'm unable then to answer the
question, because my communications were to my client.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Did you do anything other than communicate with
your client after the meeting in relation to this alleged
conspiracy?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE WITNESS:
Form.
Yeah.
I remember the lawyers
talking, and I remember talking to my co-counsel.
10
a dead issue in my book.
It was worthless.
11
vindictive, and we would have no part of it.
12
BY MS. WANG:
And it was
It was
13
Q.
When you say "we," who do you mean?
14
A.
I said for the defense team, but I was talking
15
about myself and my law firm.
And my memory is, is that I
16
was joined in that by my co-counsel.
17
no use of this in any circumstances under any way.
18
it is, we want nothing to do with it.
There were going to be
19
Q.
How did you find out about the meeting?
20
A.
I -- I don't remember.
21
remember.
22
all gathered into a big room.
23
24
25
Q.
It was called.
Whatever
We probably -- I don't
It was summoned.
We showed up and
Did you -- were there -- did you attend any other
meetings at which this alleged conspiracy was discussed?

A.
I only remember one.
And nothing -- that one

602.264.2230

285
1
meeting was the first, and that was the last.
2
3
MS. WANG:
have for you.
All right.
I think that is all I
Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Who wants to question the witness?
MR. WALKER:
I have -- I have a few questions.
6
7
8
Thank you.
Mr. Walker?
MS. WANG:
10
THE COURT:
Let me move.
You know, before you start,
11
Mr. Walker, I just guess -- I think I need to give a little
12
more guidance on the Friday morning thing.
13
Although I will be interested if you have
14
authority that suggests that statements made by clients
15
during a meeting are possibly not subject to the privilege, I
16
think I'm inclined to give Sheriff Arpaio the benefit of the
17
doubt since he has so many attorneys here.
18
then is going to be given -- is going to be whether given the
19
identity and the number of persons that were present at the
20
meeting, whether the attorney-client privilege applies.
21
Everybody understand that?
22
MR. YOUNG:
The real issue
Okay.
Your Honor, if I can interpose a
23
question or an issue.
24
memories of various witnesses about who was at the meeting --
25
There may be differences in the
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.

602.264.2230

286
1
MR. YOUNG:
-- and those differences may,
depending on how we -- those differences may point to
different results on the issue --
THE COURT:
I see what you're saying.
MR. YOUNG:
-- whether the meeting is
THE COURT:
I see what you're saying.
privileged.
Maybe
we'll have to -- maybe I can't make the decision Friday
morning.
Maybe we'll just have to apply all of the testimony
10
that we have, and I'll consider it in its totality prior to
11
the beginning of the hearing.
12
we're obviously going to have to do some scheduling on
13
Friday.
14
which witnesses that you may be calling that were in that
15
meeting.
16
mean --
17
And if we need to do that,
I will try to make it -- if you will let me know
And I don't know whether waiver's an issue.
MR. YOUNG:
Well, it's not just witnesses, but
18
actually counsel for the sheriff have taken different
19
positions in different depositions with respect to that
20
meeting, or at least parts of that meeting, which is why we
21
have testimony about the content of the meeting from some
22
witnesses but not from Mr. Casey so far.
23
THE COURT:
24
25
We already have testimony about
this meeting from other witnesses?

MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.

602.264.2230

287
1
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Who has testified?

As far as I recall, Chief Deputy
Sheridan had some testimony on it.
meeting.
He did not recall the
Did not recall being at any such meeting.
And Sergeant Anglin also testified.
And Mr. Young is right.
I think -- I was not
present at the Anglin deposition, but I do believe there have
been different positions taken by defense counsel as to the
privilege issues.
10
MR. YOUNG:
Well, and then specifically
11
whether Mr. Montgomery was part of the conversation or not.
12
And I think for those witnesses who have -- or recall that
13
Mr. Montgomery was part of the conversation, there's been no
14
assertion of privilege to bar testimony about what was said
15
while he was in the conversation.
16
17
18
THE COURT:
waiver?
Well, then does that amount to
I guess I'd invite that question.

MS. WANG:
I think there may be waiver issues
19
as well, yes, but we would need to take a look at the
20
deposition transcripts.
21
THE COURT:
Well, it sounds to me like maybe I
22
better look at the totality of the circumstances before I
23
make any rulings.
24
25
MR. YOUNG:
Yeah.
The issue with Mr. Casey
may be because Mr. Montgomery was on the phone and -- and

602.264.2230

288
1
Mr. Casey had never met or --
THE COURT:
Well, I mean, I don't -- you
MR. YOUNG:
Yeah.
THE COURT:
-- I understand, but we're not
know --
going to characterize that now.
Let me see what the sworn testimony is, and
then you can try and characterize the sworn testimony.
we'll realize really what the whole totality of the issue is,
10
or if I can get actual descriptions of what the various
11
witnesses have said about it.
12
MR. POPOLIZIO:
But
Your Honor, in terms of -- of
13
defining who the various witnesses who have testified on this
14
issue in deposition, I heard Chief Sheridan and Travis
15
Anglin.
Were there any others?
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. WANG:
Those are the two I heard.

I think Captain Bailey also may
18
have testified on this.
I took that deposition and confess
19
that I do not have a clear memory, but I -- I do believe I
20
asked him about the meeting.
21
THE COURT:
All right.
22
MR. POPOLIZIO:
23
THE COURT:
Any -- any further issues on that?
24
All right.
Mr. Walker.
25
MR. WALKER:
Thank you.

602.264.2230

289
1
2
3
E X A M I N A T I O N
BY MR. WALKER:
Q.
Mr. Casey, you were lead counsel for the defense in
this case in the fall of 2009; correct?
MS. CLARK:
Again, I'm going to just go back
and refer to my prefatory statement, and the final portion of
which stated that if counsel for any of the defendants
questioned Mr. Casey, that I'm -- he -- I've instructed him
to presume that that counsel has conferred with their
10
respective client and that they are waiving the
11
attorney-client privilege that might be invoked otherwise for
12
the information that responds to that question which
13
Mr. Casey's being asked.
14
I hope that was clear as mud.
I'm sorry.
15
It's getting late, and I'm getting tired.
16
statement was he's going to presume there's been a waiver of
17
the privilege if he's questioned by defense counsel.
18
THE WITNESS:
19
MR. WALKER:
But my prefatory
Yes.
In response to Ms. Clark's
20
comments, that -- I will represent to you that in this
21
proceeding, I represent Maricopa County.
22
the sheriff.
23
BY MR. WALKER:
24
Q.
Do you understand that?
25
A.
I hear what you're saying.

602.264.2230
I do not represent
EXHIBIT D
Sheridan, Gerard - Vol. 4 9/15/2015 9:16:00 AM
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA
MELENDRES, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs.
)No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
)
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
)
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GERARD SHERIDAN
VOLUME IV
(Pages 355 to 685, inclusive)
Phoenix, Arizona
September 15, 2015
9:16 a.m.
REPORTED BY:
PAMELA A. GRIFFIN, RPR, CRR
Certified Reporter
Certificate No. 50010
PREPARED FOR:
CONDENSED/ASCII
(Certified Copy)
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres
Unsigned
Page -
and lack of performance flies in the face of his numerous
promises pledging to complete the work," et cetera.
Seems to me based on this e-mail that
Mike Zullo was still demanding work product from
Dennis Montgomery as of April 20th, 2015.
Did you know that that was happening?
MR. MASTERSON: Foundation.
THE WITNESS: I know that we had paid
Dennis Montgomery an awful lot of money, and he had
10
nothing to show for it, and that on occasion Mike would
11
contact him. Yes, I was aware of that.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
14
Q. And you're aware that Mike Zullo was doing that

up till April 20th of 2015?
15
MR. MASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
16
MR. WALKER: Join.
17
THE WITNESS: I don't recall when, but
18
obviously this e-mail gives me that date.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
21
Q. And -- okay.
Do you recall a meeting about the Seattle
22
investigation on or about January 2nd, 2014? And this
23
would have been with Travis Anglin, Tim Casey, Tom Liddy,
24
John Masterson, Joe Popolizio.
25
A. No.
Unsigned
Page 614
1
2
3
4
5
6
STATE OF ARIZONA
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA )
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceedings were
taken before me; that the witness before testifying was
duly sworn by me to testify to the whole truth; that the
foregoing pages are a full, true, and accurate record of
the proceedings, all done to the best of my skill and
ability; that the proceedings were taken down by me in
shorthand and thereafter reduced to print under my
direction.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I CERTIFY that I am in no way related to any of

the parties hereto, nor am I in any way interested in the
outcome hereof.
[X] Review and signature was requested.
[ ] Review and signature was waived.
[ ] Review and signature not required.
I CERTIFY that I have complied with the ethical
obligations set forth in ACJA 7-206(F)(3) and ACJA 7-206
J(1)(g)(1) and (2).
Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this [!DATE] day of
[!MONTH], 2015.
15
16
17
18
19
_____________________________ ______
PAMELA A. GRIFFIN, RPR, CRR
Certified Reporter
Arizona CR No. 50010
*
20
21
22
23
24
25

7-206 (J)(1)(g)(1) through (6).
_____________________________________
Unsigned
Page 685

Melendres # 1365 - Plaintitfs' Notice of Supp Auth - Depo Excerpts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 # 1365 - Plaintitfs' Notice of Supp Auth - Depo Excerpts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 4

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 4

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs submit the following supplemental

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 2015.

By: /s/ Michelle L. Morin

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 4

I hereby certify that on September 18, 2015 I electronically transmitted the

/s/ Michelle L. Morin

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365-1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 23

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365-1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 23

In The Matter Of:

Sergeant Travis Anglin

Griffin & Associates Court Reporters

Original File ta090915.txt

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365-1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 23

And if we could go to the flowchart-looking

pages starting at MELC199933, there are three of those.

They also have revision footers at the bottom.

receive these three revisions as well in your e-mail

exchanges with Mike Zullo --

So you referred to a meeting and that's the

January 2nd, 2014, meeting?

Who was at that meeting?

Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, myself,

Captain Bailey, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy,

and Mr. Casey, and Dennis Montgomery was on

When was this meeting?

So did you bring these documents

with you to the meeting?

I brought one of these flowcharts, probably the

most recent revision, and I also brought information

that I had received or discovered through Open Source

about Dennis Montgomery.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1365-1 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 23

Did you circulate these documents prior to the

The sheriff had it.

And by "these documents," I mean all of these

timeline revisions and the matrix revisions.

I believe I just brought one

version of this -- the flowchart.

And I know the sheriff had that.

believe that I brought the spreadsheets to that meeting.

And when we say "spreadsheets," we are looking

at the documents with the Bates number MELC199917?

Okay, just to be clear.

So did the sheriff already have the timeline

Did you ever circulate