I reported a couple weeks ago about the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to hold the City of LA in contempt for failing to produce discovery documents. The order scheduling the hearing also required the plaintiffs to submit pleadings today outlining the status of the discovery requests and also detailing how much in fees and costs they were asking for. Those documents were filed tonight around 6:30 p.m. and I have them for you here:
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Sanctions
- Declaration of Shayla Myers in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Sanctions
- Supplemental Declaration of Catherine Sweetser in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Sanctions
Shayla Myers’s declaration has multiple goodies in the exhibits, including a full transcript of the deposition of LAPD Information Technologist LeShon Frierson, in which he revealed for the first time in February that the LAPD does in fact use an email archiving product called GWAVA Retain, which, notably, allows keyword searches across mailboxes, something which the City had wrongly denied was possible. I speculated about this issue in December 2015, so it was a treat to find out that they had this capability, and it’s a treat now to read the actual words of LeShon Frierson describing the software and how it’s used. There are beaucoup emails in there too between Myers and Ronald Whitaker, who’s representing the City. It’s fascinating if, like me, you just can’t resist reading other people’s correspondence.
The plaintiffs’ reply is also good reading. After describing in great detail what the City’s done wrong (an awful lot of stuff) and citing authorities on how bad it is (very, very bad), the plaintiffs get to ask for what they want the judge to do. And it’s a doozy. Not only do they ask for north of $46,000, but they ask the court to actually declare facts to be true as a punishment. I had no idea that that could be done, but I guess it makes sense. Courts have to punish people effectively if they delay or distort the course of justice. It’s like the exclusionary rule in reverse. In addition to requesting that facts be entered as true, they also ask the court to enter default judgement against the City. I’m no lawyer, but I’m guessing that’s a grand gesture and no one really expects it to happen. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, though. Here are the facts they’re asking for:
The court should enter some or all of the following facts as true:
a. The City was aware of the Central City East Association’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of homeless people’s unattended property in the Downtown Industrial District; and
b. City policymakers at the highest levels, including at the City Attorney’s office, City Clerk’s office, Chief Administrative Office, and the Mayor’s office, encouraged the specific policies and procedures used by CCEA between 2011 and 2014 to handle homeless people’s unattended property; and
c. LAPD officers had a custom, policy, or practice of requesting that LADID officers seize unattended property.
Unfortunately I can’t make the hearing on Monday, but if you want to go, it’s going to be in Room 690 of the Roybal Federal Courthouse at 11 a.m. Happy hunting!
