riots to los angeles county jail today just six days short of five years rights april twentieth or twenty first in the year two thousand there is evidence in the record see if they wouldn't occur and the information that the jail had was twofold one the population of the facility which this happened up in saugus was a much greater mexican american than african american and in the right it's basically what happened is that mexican americans beat the dickens out of the black inmates at the facility and afterwards the jail system investigated thoroughly what happened in these rock riots the point here is that the point that i'm making by saying those two things is is this the purpose of the p l r exhaustion requirement are met want to do that and i just sent a letter to secretary rumsfeld and i properly exhaustion it depends on the circumstances are you still working at the festival aren't most of these plaintiffs weren't there any more people the county jail system is a wa station much more than it is a place that can find people convicted well that's most let's start out with people who are still in the jail people are still the people who are still in the jail or part of the bail case and after they were out of the jail they then filed their grievances i think that both classes of plaintiffs that is those who are in the jail to which you just referred judge fletcher and those who are out one way or another satisfy the requirement because the requirement is to give the jail an opportunity but rather what the requirement has the general sense of up is to do it in a specific way well i don't think that means that the people have to do it in that way oh six prisons is a fifteen day filing requirement obviously that doesn't apply because and that and actually i think a more direct and better answer to your original question is  this shirt pocket doesn't get the say that but if you don't do it the way he prescribed do it then you've exhausted all your of the eligible remedies i don't think you have to use the one that we give you i just don't see where that w satisfy that on facts here by showing through the evidence that's in the record but the jail was on notice before the riots occurred that something was going to happen that something was going to happen to black inmates at the hands of hispanic  court twenty a j statement to make it easy and readily available to the court of that when i get back to my office today and find that i think is that position and he indicated with some hesitation and some resistance as i recall was unconstitutional right i disagree with that respectfully my disdain for cases a little bit different than that i read it over the weekend one of my friends perked eisler actually got that ruling from the supreme court my understanding of that case is that it was brought up to stop the segregation not between mexican americans that african americans would stop the second geishas of african americans upon their entering into various facilities for the purposes of screening of see were suitable place what would be for them and what the court said was yes discrimination applies within the prison system but it applies with the cabbie at a level of heightened scrutiny has to be given to that to get the prison system has the ability to do that so i don't read the ruling as the primitive leesburg scrutiny applies to racial segregation in the prison system in california yes and ironically the l a county jail system refuses segregated inmates so with the only county jail system does is the flipside of what the state system was during the years one of our arguments in a district court before judge cooper was that the county jail system should in fact keep hispanic and black inma thinking now and wish that in response to judge based question my recollection is that deposition at that the capital indicated there was noticed before the first occurrence but my recollection is not that there was notice that it was going to happen again i i would like i'm going to address the cap authority issue  support of the summary judgment motions in that establish that he received information secondhand and only after the disturbances occurred he was the criminal investigator who showed up to consistent with the other evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion which was that the notice and members of the department and again members of the department there is no nexus either in the summary judgment motion below or in the briefs in  recollection is that the documents that the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion were not admissible to which we prepared and filed lengthy you'd have an entry objections which are in the record and in any event getting back the evidence was was that they got a tip on that on the twenty fourth that something might happen very quickly and they tried to do the best they could to prevent it and as soon as they put the place on lockdown minutes later a disturbance occurred and they tried their best and these are members of the department again these are not even that the individual defendants in the in this case they weren't there when the disturbance started so there's a there's ok this is march show up by the end of june doggone it or you're going to be dismissed and in the order of the order of less that the plaintiffs who claim that the dependents have been hiding information from them that's absolutely not true record page one seventy six the over all the booking records that we had with regard to all of these plaintiffs we turned it over to them which had all their last known addresses long before the co feb twenty fourth and we turn it over and they still had until june to show up for deposition and they simply did not so and in the court's order which said show up by june it noted the fact that the plaintiff's counsel had neighbor had had represented to the were and vice versa and how to keep in contact with each other we brought up the fact that under the rule california rules of professional responsibility there's an affirmative obligation to maintain contact and communicate with your clients and one of the finest perspective it really is doesn't not matter whether it was the plaintiffs fault or the plaintiffs councils fall along the short of it is is that really everybody here was seeking a million dollars each and we were entitled to defend ourselves against these claims and after six i'm sorry about nine months of trying to take depositions with getting nothing then we then i don't believe that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to impose the ruling that it did and sounds as though you are human maybe even though you might not have an obligation you did the best you could with the information you have to tell him and how to find his own clients absolutely your honor and in fact i'd like to bring up one specific issue which is the lead the lead issue where the accusation  we received the information as to where mr leach came from from plaintiffs themselves there was a there was a joint discovery plan in the first step of the joint discovery plan was for the plaintiffs to tell the defendants where they were and what not and with them to do but they never did so i don't know why  regular summary judgment without some help from the lawyers and i don't think we've got enough help from you know this is to me it's very difficult for us to get into this record without citation at every point on anything that you think is important to be accurate and so on  so i'm stuck with the briefs that were filed i apologize to the court of the court finds them fishing as it does but there isn't anything that i'm able to do about that at the present point i'm stuck with those with those briefs  you have to tell us where you are not all of them do that we end up getting stuck with that it's not because of any negligence on our part of this one client whose case which is that we've been trying to find him since last time or he's on parole it well i'm not going to characterize it like that i have an obligation and zealously to represent the clients who mine here representing us so i'm not going to make that concession because i don't think it's warranted to make that concession do i think the judge threw for something irrational by the force not i can't and i won't say that i'm stuck with the record my happen is not the best record it's one of the worst records i've ever had and i'd be an idiot as i stand here and say something different than that i thought about the dismissal of the three who would not answer the questions on their position same  what happened here and what i'm hearing in the defense argument is that while these individual plaintiffs meaning the ones of the sheriff are responsible and therefore sure voc is responsible flipside pocket isn't responsible because he didn't have actual knowledge he had constructive knowledge of the fact that these disturbances arise would take place and he also knew very well that he refused to  surrogate within the jails doesn't really cut it because when one racial group is having hostilities with another there's a valid basis that would meet the heightened scrutiny standard for segregated among those three between those two groups group versus