data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/192af/192af53cade7b328ebdf0cac7f4dd472e28e989d" alt="Round and around and around she goes..."
Continue reading Discovery Hangups Seem to Have Been Settled in Today’s Hearing in LA Catholic Worker, LA CAN, v. City of L.A., Central City East Association
The careful reader will note that the HPOA continues to violate the plain language of the California Public Records Act by converting the original MS Word documents into PDFs before handing them over. In fact, the metadata suggests that it was Joe Mariani who was personally responsible for this outlawry, or at least it was probably done on his computer. Joe, you don’t have to follow orders that require you to break the law, you know. You can just refuse. In fact, the HPOA’s own whistleblower policy encourages you “to report any action or suspected action taken within the Corporation that is illegal, fraudulent or in violation of any adopted policy of the Corporation.” Come on, Joe! Be a mensch, drop a dime!
Continue reading Hundreds of Newly Obtained Documents: CHC and HPOA Board Minutes 2007-2015 and Joint Security Committee Minutes 2008-2015
However, there’s also been some action in the LA Catholic Worker/LACAN v. City of LA/CCEA case. You may recall that the plaintiffs called for a hearing on January 11, 2016 over a motion to compel the City of Los Angeles to stop being so damned recalcitrant about handing over discovery material, and everybody seems super-tense about everything and mad at one another in a way that one doesn’t usually see with actual professional lawyers. Anyway, yesterday the plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum of law in support of their motion to compel, which makes for some interesting reading in the run-up to the hearing on the 11th.
TL;DR is that the plaintiffs accuse the City of LA of abusing the rule requiring parties to “meet and confer” over discovery matters by providing irrelevant material and so on in order to run out the clock on discovery. I’m convinced by their arguments, but obviously I’m biased. There’s also a hyper-meta discussion on whether the fact that an attorney directs the discovery process makes the documents used to coordinate the process into privileged attorney work-product. I’m sure I missed all the fine points, but I’m definitely convinced. These people will claim privilege for anything. Shameless. Find curated selections from the pleading after the break.
Continue reading Quick Updates on Two Federal Lawsuits
I only have this little snippet of the email chain, so I don’t yet know the favor Kerry was asking nor the outcome of the ask. I have requests out for the rest, though, and I’ll provide new information as it comes in. I will say that I’d prefer that the LAPD would be concerned more with the reality of not being in the pocket of a private developer than the perception of it, but maybe that’s idealistic. And I’d say that the fact that Kerry Morrison even felt free to ask him for anything on behalf of CIM shows that probably the LAPD essentially is already “…in the pocket of a private developer.” Why did she think that asking him would yield results if similar requests in the past hadn’t already worked? My collection of BID/LAPD emails is presently too fragmentary to allow the drawing of many solid conclusions, but the amount of it that has to do with real estate is surprising.
So if Peter Zarcone is worried about creating a perception of LAPD being in the pocket of a private developer, maybe the best thing would be to have his subordinates stop acting like they’re in the pocket of the entire freaking real estate industry. Maybe the best thing to do when he receives what’s almost surely an improper request from Kerry Morrison is to tell her that it’s not the job of the police to facilitate the real estate industry’s criminality, or even its non-criminal daily business. Maybe that would be more effective. Read full transcripts after the break if you don’t like PDFs:
Continue reading Kerry Morrison Evidently Solicited Some Favor in October 2014 from LAPD on Behalf of Outlaw Developer CIM Group, Peter Zarcone and Deputy Chief Terry Hara Concerned to Avoid “[Creating] a Perception of [LAPD] Being in the Pocket of a Private Developer”
The City of LA, in this pleading, asked for an extension of fewer than 30 days, which evidently is granted automatically. With this motion the City is due to respond by January 19, 2016.
On the other hand, the Fashion District BID, in this pleading, with the concurrence (stipulation) of the plaintiffs, asked for more than 30 days to respond. Evidently this requires the approval of the court, so they have to give reasons:
Continue reading Street Vending Lawsuit Defendants City of LA and Fashion District BID File Requests in Federal Court Yesterday Asking for Extension to January to Respond to Initial Complaint, FDBID and Plaintiffs Intend Attempt to Resolve Informally