Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1

James S. Muller, Bar No. 126071 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER 2 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010-2015 3 Telephone: ~ 13J 381-3299 Fax: (213{3 1- 581 4 jamesmul erlaw@sbcglobal.net
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6 7

JJ

"'

{"")
or--

a r"''f")
:..;:: :-n

-·i.x ;,:,.

.. r--:l:
,-. :

.-.-.·

,- >' ~-;-;

c
G)
rv

~~ '.'' ,,.; CJl

,..>--f---; :))

)::1...

~~ ; ..1

( )

(/l ( ) ---~

::-;::
-..

''"C)

;~n
-C
~~,

CJl
rv

~

-,
I fT1
0

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
II
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LOS 14 ANGELES SHERIFF'S, and DbES 1
THROUGH 10,
15
Defendants.
16

No. GV 10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS (EIGHTH AND
F42OuU.Rs.TcE. E§N19T8H3 AMENDMENT)

17

18

19 Plaintiff allege as follows:

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

1. The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (civil rights). Venue lies in the

23 Central District of California, the judicial district in which the claim arose,

24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1392(b).

25

26

INTRODUCTION

27

2. This is an action for money damages against defendants and arises

28 out of a mass beating at Men's Central Jail on August 25, 2008. Plaintiff, along

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2

with fifteen to thirty other jail inmates, either refused to leave their cells in protest

2 of the earlier beating of another inmate or were not given a chance to leave.

3 Defendants' extracted plaintiff, along with other "high power" module inmates,

4 with such extreme and excessive force that eight inmates had to be hospitalized

5 for injuries which included several concussions, a fractured leg, a fractured arm

6 and an orbital fracture, a nasal fracture, and seizures. Plaintiff and the other

7 inmates were beaten 3 weeks after Deputy Juan Escalante, who worked in the

8 "high power" module was killed outside his home in Cypress Park. Prior to the

9 beatings jail deputies told inmates that they were going to beat or kill Hispanic

10 gang members because they (wrongly) believed that a jail inmate had placed a hit

II on Deputy Escalante. (This theory appears to have been incorrect as the men

12 arrested for Deputy Escalante's death are believed to have mistaken him for a

13 rival gang member.)

14

PARTIES

15

3. PlaintiffHeriberto Rodriguez is a competent adult. He was at all

16 times relevant hereto a resident of the County of Los Angeles, California.

17

4. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ("COUNTY") is a county

18 operating pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

19

5. Defendant LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

20 ("SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT") is a local government entity created under the

21 laws of the state of California and an agency of defendant COUNTY. The

22 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT is responsible for operating the Los Angeles County

23 jail facilities, including promulgating policies and procedures at those facilities.

24

6. Defendant*.

25

7. Defendants whose names and identities are unknown are sued herein

26 under the names Does 1 to 10 (hereinafter "Does"). Plaintiff is informed and

27 believes and on that basis alleges that the Doe defendants are responsible in some

28 manner for the damages and injuries hereinafter complained of. Plaintiff will

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3

amend this complaint and give notice to the Doe defendants upon learning of

2 their names and capacities.

3

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all

4 times herein mentioned, each defendant was the agent, servant and employee of

5 the other defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency

6 and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal and

7 employer. At all times herein, defendants, and each of them, were acting under

8 the color of state law.

9

l o

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

II

EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.

12

CONSTITUTION- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

13

9. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8,

14 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

15 herein.

16

10. On August 25,2008 plaintiff was an inmate at Men's Central Jail in

17 Module 3300, Cell B-10. On that date, inmates refused to leave their cells in

18 protest of the beating of another inmate. A cell extraction team in full riot gear

19 came to plaintiffs cell. Plaintifflaid on the floor of his cell and did not respond

20 to deputy commands and covered himself with a mattress. Deputies fired

21 projectiles at his ankles and legs which struck him three to six times. Deputies

22 then entered plaintiff's cell and began to kick him all over his body as he was laid

23 prone on the floor of his cell. One deputy pulled plaintiff's shirt tight around his

24 neck and began to choke him. Deputies kicked and punched plaintiff until he

25 was choked into unconsciousness. Plaintiff was then literally shocked back to

26 consciousness by the use of a Taser. Deputies continued to apply the Taser until

27 its entire charge was extinguished. The deputies then used the fully charged

28 Taser to shock plaintiff on his testicles, armpits, back, buttocks, and the backs of

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4

his knees. One of the deputies had his knee on plaintiffs right elbow and

2 applied pressure in what plaintiff perceived was an attempt to break his arm.

3 Towards the end of the beating a deputy clubbed plaintiff in the head with a

4 flashlight which opened up a bloody wound.

5

11. Plaintiff sues for violations to the Eighth Amendment to the United

6 States Constitution by defendants who subjected plaintiff to brutal and gratuitous

7 force which was unnecessary for any legitimate penal interest and amounted to

8 punishment.

9

12. Plaintiff sues for violations to the Fourteenth Amendment to the

10 United States Constitution right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force

11 and punishment, and the Fomieenth Amendment right to due process of law.

12

13. Plaintiff and those acting on his behalf attempted to exhaust

13 administrative remedies, however, defendants refused to take or respond to the

14 complaints and the complaints of others who were injured during the mass

15 beatings of August 25, 2008 and also threatened at least one victim who tried to

16 complain.

17

14. At all times herein mentioned, the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

18 and the SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT authorized and ratified the wrongful acts of

19 the individual defendants. The individual defendants' wrongful conduct was the

20 result of policies, practices and customs of the aforementioned defendants to

21 subject persons to outrageous and unreasonable seizures and dehumanizing abuse

22 and to coverup incidents of excessive force by its deputies. Furthermore,

23 plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated as a proximate result of the

24 aforementioned defendants' deliberate indifference in the training and

25 supervision of its officers. Defendants are also liable for the failure to train their

26 employees where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the

27 rights of inmates, such as plaintiff with whom those employees are likely to come

28 into contact.

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5

15. The defendants acted in reckless disregard for plaintiffs rights

2 constituting willful violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

3 Constitution of the United States.

4

16. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

5 acts, plaintiff has been hurt and injured in his health, strength, activity and

6 nervous system, including the breaking of a tablespoon-sized piece of his skull,

7 all of which have caused and continue to cause him great mental, physical and

8 nervous pain and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and anguish.

9

17. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants acted in reckless

I 0 and callous disregard for the constitutional rights of plaintiff. The wrongful acts

II were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting the award of

12 punitive damages against each individual defendant (but not the entity

13 defendants, which are immune from such damages) in an amount adequate to

14 punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.

15

PRAYER

16

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

17

(a) Compensatory general and special damages according to proof;

18

(b) Exemplary and/or punitive damages against the individual defendants,

19 according to proof;

20

(c) Reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation as provided for by

21 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and whatever other provision oflaw may be applicable;

22

(d) Costs of suit necessarily incurred herein; and,

23

(e) Such further relief as the court deems just or proper.

24
Dated: August 25, 2010
25
26
27

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER

By~/~

·

James S. Muller

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Andrew J. Wistrich. The case number on all documents filed with the Comi should read as follows:
CVlO- 6342 CBM (AJWx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).
Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

[X] Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012

U Southern Division

U Eastern Division

411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053

3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134

Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV-18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7

Name & Address: James S. Muller, Bar No. 126071 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 900 I0-2015 Telephone: (213) 381-3299; Fax (213) 381-3581

HERBIERTO RODRIGUEZ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER

PLAINTIFF(S)
v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S, and DOES I THROUGH I0,
IJEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

M must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint 0

amended complaint

[J counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, James S. Muller 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2015

, whose address is . If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

2 Dated: rr:: _ _ __:_/·:!:I_•:c:_U____:::·_;·roc:._'_ _ _ __

Clerk. U.S. District Court

j Use 60 dc~;w !/the defendant is the United .)'fates or a United ,)'tales agency, or is em qfficer or employee <?(the United /)'fates. Allowed
60 days by Rule 12(a)(3)/.

CV-OIA {12/07)

SUMMONS

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you arc representing yourself D) 1-Icrbicrto Rodriguez

DEFENDANTS County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriffs, and DOES I through 10

(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. lfyou are representing yourself, provide same.)
James S. Muller, Bar No. 126071, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2015 (213) 381-3299

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JlJRISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

0 l U.S. Government Plaintiff

!i6'3 Federal Question (U.S.
Government Not a Party)

Ill CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES- For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

Citizen of This State

PTF DEF OJ OJ Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in this State

PTF DEF 04 04

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant 0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State of Parties in Item III)

02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05 of Business in Another State

Citiz.en or Subject of a Foreign Country D 3 D 3 Foreign Nation

06 06

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X m one box only.)

fi'1 Original

0 2 Removed from [J 3 Remanded from

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or Reopened

0 5 Transferred from another district (specify):

0 6 Multi- 0 7 Appeal to District

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

V. REQUESTim IN COMPLAINT .JURY DRMANJ): 0 Yes i!fNo (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.Jl. 23: 0 Yes ti'No

tiMONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT:$ According to proof

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Excessive Force and Denial of Medical Care
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Pl.ace .an X in one box only.)

OT!{ER.STATVT!JS.
0400 State Reapportionment 0410 Antitrust 0430 Banks and Banking 0450 Commerce/lCC
Rates/etc. 0460 Deportation [J 470 Racketeer lnnuenced
and Corrupt Organizations [] 480 Consumer Credit 0490 Cable/Sat TV 0810 Selective Service 0 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange LJ 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC3410 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 891 Agricultural Act CJ 892 Economic Stabilization Act [] 893 Enviromnental Matters CJ 894 Energy Allocation Act [] 895 Freedom oflnfo. Act 0900 Appeal of Fee Detennination Under Equal Access to Justice [] 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

Insurance
Negotiable Instrument Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment Medicare Act Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Veterans) Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits Stockholders' Suits Other Contract Contract Product
Tort Product Liability All Other Real Property

Airplane Airplane Product Liability Assault, Libel & Slander fed. Employers' Liability Marine Marine Product Liability Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle Product Liability Other Personal Injury PersonallnjuryMed Malpractice Personal injuryProduct Liability Asbestos Personal
Other Immigration Actions

Voting Employment I-Iousing/Accommodations Welfare American with Disabilities Employment American with DisabilitiesOther Other Civil Rights

Other Food & Drug Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC
881 Liquor Laws R.R. & Truck Airline Regs Occupational Safety /Health 0 690 Other

Labor/Mgmt. Relations Labor/Mgmt Reporting & Disclosure Act Railway Labor Act Other Labor Litigation Empl. Ret. Inc.
Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) IRS-Third Party 26
usc 7609

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case Number: AVI'Im COMPLETING THE FRONT SJDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE Tim INFORMATION REQUESTEn BELOW.

CV- 71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVEn SHEET

Pagel of2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 1 Filed 08/25/10 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII{a). IDENTICAL CASES: l-Ias this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? 0 No rifYes If yes, list case number(s): _,c~~V " - ' I " 0 " ' - 0 " " ' 2 ' " 5 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ri"No VIII(b). HE LATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case?

0 Yes

If yes, list case number(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Civil cases arc deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
0 B Call for detennination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or 0 C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or 0 D Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following infonnation, use an additional sheet if necessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides 0 Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).

County in this District:*
Los Angeles

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides [] Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item (e).

County in this District:"'
Los Angeles

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note· Inland condemnation cases~ , use the location of the tract of land involved

County in this District:"'

California County outside of this District; State, if other than Califomia; or Foreign Country

Los Angeles

*Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: Inland condemnation cases usc the location of the tract of Ia ·nvolved

Notice to CounscVParties: The CV-71

tvil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings

or other papers as required by law. This fi , approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3- I is not filed

but is used by the Clerk ofthe Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet (For more detailed instructions, sec separate instructions sheet.)

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

861

HIA

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the

pmgram. (42 U.S.C. J935FF(b))

862

IlL

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

(30 U.S.C. 923)

863

DJWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

863

DIWW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security

Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16oft he Social Security

Act, as amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended {42

U.S.C. (g))

CV~71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of2

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:823

1 James S. Muller, Bar No. 126071 · LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER
2 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010-2015
3 Telephone: (213) 381-3299 Fax: (213) 3'81-3'581
4 jamesmullerlaw@sbcglobal.net
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
.~. [•SEP_!6 2011

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UFORNIA

BY

DEPOTY

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ 11 CJUAARNLOCSAFRLLOORSESSA1 NECRHICEKZ,NaUndNEZ, 12 JUAN TRINIDAD
Plaintiffs,
vs.
15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S
16 ~tb~~b~f.~J~~8~~E~
17 BLASNEl\.. JUSTIN BRAVO ENRIQUE CANO ALEJANDRO
18 HERNANDEZ CASTANON, CAPT. DANIEL CRUZ.,}VAN
19 DDEELLGAATODROR, JE.'t1DEERMMOOAYN~ ARTHUR 20 DI~-t JRT' ADOLPH ES UEDAA
MICt1AEL FRAZIER.,._A TONiv 21 GALINDO ARMANuO
GONZALEZ NICHOLAS 22 GRAHAM, JAVIER GUZMAN J.
HILL, B. JACKSON, M. JUAREZt
23 ~Jtik~~E~h~~j~~~~&\r:
24 MMccNGIRCAHTOTLAAN~lJOSGt11T'1. J. MENDOZA, 25 A. MONTES, 1v1ATTHEW 26 NONOHWEOMTUNSY~BSLGATK. ME AOTRTLANDOS,
CARLOS OKTEGA R. 27 PATTERSON, J. PUGA, FRANK
QUINTANA, A. RIVERA,
28

No. CV 10-6342 CBM(AJWx)
!f:l~~~~~~~~~~~fNT FOR
DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS (EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; CAL. CIV. CODE§ 52.1;

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:824

1 G. RODRIGUEZ,...@RIAN RUIZ, JOSEPH SANFOKV CLAYTON
2 STELTERVMATTHEW THOMAS, HECTOR AZOUEZ SGT.
3 KELLEY WASHINGTON and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
4
Defendants.
5

6

7

8 Plaintiffs allege as follows:

9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10

1. The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

11 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (civil rights). As plaintiffs' state

12 law claims arise out of a common nucleus of facts, the court has jurisdiction over

13 them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Venue lies in the

14 Central District of California, the judicial district in which the claim arose,

15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1392(b).

16

17

INTRODUCTION

18

2. This is an action for money damages against defendants and arises

19 out of a mass beating at Men's Central Jail on August 25, 2008. Plaintiffs, along

20 with fifteen to thirty other jail inmates, either refused to leave their cells in protest

21 of the earlier beating of another inmate or were not given a chance to leave.

22 Defendants extracted plaintiffs, along with other "high power" module inmates,

23 with such extreme and excessive force that eight inmates had to be hospitalized

24 for injuries which included a fractured leg, a fractured arm, an orbital fracture, a

25 fractured skull, a fractured hand, a fractured ankle, a nasal fracture, head trauma

26 and seizures. Plaintiffs and the other inmates were beaten three weeks after

27 Deputy Juan Escalante, who worked in the "high power" module was killed

28 outside his home in Cypress Park. Prior to the beatings jail deputies told inmates

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:825

1 that they were going to beat or kill Hispanic gang members because they 2 (wrongly) believed that a jail inmate had placed a hit on Deputy Escalante. (This 3 theory appears to have been incorrect as the men arrested for Deputy Escalante's

4 death are believed to have mistaken him for a rival gang member.)

5

PARTIES

6

3. Plaintiffs HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS FLORES, ERICK

7 NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD are competent

8 adults. At all times relevant hereto they were residents of the County of Los

9 Angeles, California.

10

4. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ("COUNTY") is a county

11 operating pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

12

5. Defendant LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ("LASD")

13 is a local government entity created under the laws of the state of California and

14 an agency of defendant COUNTY. The LASD is responsible for operating the 15 Los Angeles County jail facilities, including promulgating policies and

16 procedures at those facilities.

17

6. Defendant CAPT. DANIEL CRUZ was a supervisor and a member

18 of the LASD and at all times herein mentioned acted under the color of law.

19

7. Defendant LT. CHRISTOPHER BLASNEK was a supervisor and a

20 member of the LASD and at all times herein mentioned acted under the color of

21 law.

22

8. Defendant SGT. MATT ONHEMUS was a supervisor and a member

23 of the LASD and defendants CLAYTON STELTER, ANDREW LYONS,

24 FRANK QUINTANA, JUSTIN BRAVO, JAVIER GUZMAN, HERMAN

25 DELGADO, ADRIAN RUIZ, CARLOS ORTEGA, ARMANDO GONZALEZ,

26 were members of the LASD and part of the Red Extraction Team who extracted

27 plaintiff CARLOS FLORES and at all times herein mentioned acted under the

28 color of law.

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:826

1

9. Defendants SGT. MICHEL McGRATTAN, FRANCISCO

2 ALONSO, ADOLPH ESQUEDA, ANTONIO GALINDO, ALEJANDRO

3 HERNANDEZ CASTANON, MATTHEW NOWOTNY, CLAYTON STELTER,

4 MATTHEW THOMAS, JOSEPH SANFORD were members of the LASD and

··· 5 part of the Red Extraction Team who extracted plaintiffs HERIBERTO

6 RODRIGUEZ, JUAN SANCHEZ and ERICK NUNEZ and at all times herein

7 mentioned acted under the color of law.

8

10. Defendants SGT. KELLEY WASHINGTON, MICHAEL FRAZIER,

9 BLAKE ORLANDOS, NICHOLAS GRAHAM, ENRIQUE CANO, ARTHUR

10 DIAZ, JR., IVAN DELATORRE, HECTOR VAZQUEZ, JOHN McNICHOLAS

11 were members of the LASD and part of the Green Extraction Team who

12 extracted plaintiff JUAN TRINIDAD and at all times herein mentioned acted

13 under the color of law.

14

11. Defendants SGT. J. MENDOZA #292923, J. DEMOOY, R.

15 PATTERSON, A. MONTES, M. LOCKHART, F. QUINTANA, G.

16 RODRIGUEZ, J. PUGA, B. JACKSON, M. JUAREZ, J. HILL, #517819, R.

17 LANGARCIA, A. RIVERA, were members of the LASD and part of the

18 Emergency Response Team #2 and at all times herein mentioned acted under the

19 color oflaw.

20

12. Defendants whose names and identities are unknown are sued herein

21 under the names Does 1 to 10 (hereinafter "Does"). Plaintiffs are informed and

22 believe and on that basis allege that the Doe defendants are responsible in some

23 manner for the damages and injuries hereinafter complained of. Plaintiffs will

24 amend this complaint and give notice to the Doe defendants upon learning of

25 their names and capacities.

26

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all

27 times herein mentioned, each defendant was the agent, servant and employee of

28 the other defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:827

1 and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal and

2 employer. At all times herein, defendants, and each ofthem, were acting under

3 the color of state law.

4

14. The claims of plaintiffs CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN

5 CARLOS SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD were tolled by the timely filing of

6 an action, based upon the same set of facts, in the Superior Court of California.

7

15. Plaintiffs CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS

8 SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD have complied with the requirements of Cal.

9 Gov't Code§ 910 which are prerequisite to filing a claim against a governmental

10 entity under state law.

11

12

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.

14

CONSTITUTION- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

15

(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

16

16. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 11,

17 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

18 herein.

19

17. On August 25, 2008 plaintiffs were inmates at Men's Central Jail.

20 On that date, inmates refused to leave their cells in protest of the beating of

21 another inmate. A cell extraction team in full riot gear came to plaintiffs' cells.

22

18. PlaintiffHERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ laid on the floor of his cell and

23 did not respond to deputy commands, instead covering himself with a mattress.

24 Deputies fired projectiles at his ankles and legs which struck him three to six

25 times. Deputies then entered plaintiffs cell and began to kick him all over his

26 body as he was laid prone on the floor of his cell. One deputy pulled plaintiffs

27 shirt tight around his neck and began to choke him. Deputies kicked and

28 punched plaintiff until he was choked into unconsciousness. Plaintiff was then

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:828

1 literally shocked back to consciousness by the use of a Taser. Deputies continued

2 to apply the Taser until its entire charge was extinguished. The deputies then

3 used the fully charged Taser to shock plaintiff on his testicles, armpits, back,

4 buttocks, and the backs of his knees. One of the deputies had his knee on

5 plaintiffs right elbow and applied pressure in what plaintiff perceived was an

6 attempt to break his arm. Towards the end of the beating a deputy clubbed

7 plaintiff in the head with a flashlight which opened up a bloody wound.

8

19. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

9 acts, plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has been hurt and injured in his health, strength,

10 activity and nervous system, including, the fracturing of a tablespoon-sized

11 piece of his skull, all of which have caused and continue to cause him great

12 mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety,

13 distress and anguish.

14

20. Plaintiff CARLOS FLORES was incarcerated in Cell# 4 of A Row in

15 the 3300 module. An extraction team of approximately ten Doe defendant

16 deputies and one or more Doe defendant supervisors approached plaintiffs cell.

17 Doe defendant deputies fired several rubber bullets at plaintiff and he fell to the

18 floor. After plaintiff fell to the floor two to three Doe defendant deputies entered

19 his cell and picked him up. These Doe defendant deputies held plaintiff and

20 pinned his arms to his sides as two to three other Doe defendant deputies took

21 turns beating him in the head and face with flashlights until he lost consciousness.

22 He regained consciousness when he was shocked awake by a Taser. Plaintiff

23 then was repeatedly beaten until he again lost consciousness. His next memory

24 was waking up in an emergency room.

25

21. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

26 acts, plaintiff FLORES has been hurt and injured in his health, strength, activity

27 and nervous system, including, seizures, a fractured sinus bone and multiple

28 fractures to the right eye socket, which required placement of metal plate, all

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:829

1 of which have caused and continue to cause him great mental, physical and

2 nervous pain and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and anguish.

3

22. Plaintiff ERICK NUNEZ was incarcerated in Cell# 4 ofB Row in

4 the 3300 module. An extraction team stopped at his cell, doused him with

5 pepper spray and fired what he believes were 40mm less lethal rounds at him. A

6 stinger grenade was then thrown into his cell. Four to five Doe defendant

7 deputies entered his cell and despite the fact that he was not resisting, beat him,

8 including kicks to his upper body and head and use of a Taser on his legs. At

9 some point during the beating he lost consciousness.

10

23. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

11 acts, plaintiffNUNEZ has been hurt and injured in his health, strength, activity

12 and nervous system, including, a fractured ankle, all of which have caused and

13 continue to cause him great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering,

14 humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and anguish.

15

24. Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ believes that he was

16 incarcerated in Cell# 12 of A Row in the 3300 module. An extraction team

17 stopped at his cell and began firing less lethal weapons into his cell. Doe

18 defendant deputies entered his cell and repeatedly kicked him in the head and

19 face as he lay on the floor of his cell. Plaintiff was not fighting. Plaintiff was

20 repeatedly Tasered. He heard and felt what sounded like a flashlight repeatedly

21 striking his left leg. Plaintiff lost consciousness three times, once in his cell, once

22 just outside his cell and once in the dining hall which he was dragged to.

23

25. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

24 acts, plaintiff SANCHEZ has been hurt and injured in his health, strength, activity

25 and nervous system, including, a fractured leg, scars on his face, all of which

26 have caused and continue to cause him great mental, physical and nervous pain

27 and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and anguish.

28

26. Plaintiff JUAN TRINIDAD believes that he was incarcerated in Cell

-7-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:830

1 # 23 of A Row in the 3300 module. An extraction team came to his cell.

2 TRINIDAD was beaten unmercifully both before and after he was handcuffed by

3 Doe defendant deputies.

4

27. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

5 acts, plaintiff TRINIDAD has been hurt and injured in his health, strength,

6 activity and nervous system, including, two fractured ankles and a fractured

7 hand, all of which have caused and continue to cause him great mental, physical

8 and nervous pain and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and

9 anguish.

10

28. Defendant supervisors encouraged, knew or were deliberately

11 indifferent to the violations of plaintiffs' rights. At some point during the

12 beatings of plaintiffs a Doe defendant supervisor was heard telling deputies that

13 none of the inmates should be able to walk when they left their cells.

14

29. Plaintiffs sue for violations to the Eighth Amendment to the United

15 States Constitution by defendants who subjected plaintiffs to brutal and gratuitous

16 force which was unnecessary for any legitimate penal interest and amounted to

17 punishment.

18

30. Plaintiffs sue for violations to the Fourteenth Amendment to the

19 United States Constitution right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force

20 and punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.

21

31. At all times herein mentioned, the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

22 and the SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT authorized and ratified the wrongful acts of

23 the individual defendants. The individual defendants' wrongful conduct was the

24 result of policies, practices and customs of the aforementioned defendants to

25 subject persons to outrageous and unreasonable seizures and dehumanizing abuse

26 and to coverup incidents of excessive force by its deputies. Furthermore,

27 plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated as a proximate result of the

28 aforementioned defendants' deliberate indifference in the training and

-8-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:831

1 supervision of its officers. Defendants are also liable for the failure to train their

2 employees where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the

3 rights of inmates, such as plaintiff with whom those employees are likely to come

4 into contact.

5

32. The defendants acted in reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights

6 constituting willful violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

7 Constitution of the United States

8

33. Plaintiffs and those acting on their behalf attempted to exhaust

9 administrative remedies, however, defendants refused to take or respond to the

1o complaints and the complaints of others who were injured during the mass

11 beatings of August 25, 2008 and also threatened at least one victim who tried to

12 complain.

13

34. The defendants acted in reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights

14 constituting willful violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

15 Constitution of the United States.

16

35. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants acted in reckless

17 and callous disregard for the constitutional rights of plaintiff. The wrongful acts

18 were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting the award of

19 punitive damages against each individual defendant (but not the entity

20 defendants, which are immune from such damages) in an amount adequate to

21 punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.

22

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE

24

EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.

25

CONSTITUTION- 42 U.S.C. § 1983

26

(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

27

36. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 32,

28 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:832

1 herein.

2

37. The defendants, by their conduct, violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth

3 Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to their health, safety and

4 medical care.

5

38. Defendants COUNTY, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S

6 DEPARTMENT and DOE County employees violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth

7 Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to their health, safety and

8 medical care and by not treating them for their injuries or providing them with

9 minimum medical care.

10

39. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' foregoing wrongful

11 acts, plaintiffs have been hurt and injured in their nervous system, all of which

12 have caused and continue to cause them great mental, physical and nervous pain

13 and suffering, humiliation, hardship, anxiety, distress and anguish.

14

40. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants acted in reckless

15 and callous disregard for the constitutional rights of plaintiff. The wrongful acts

16 were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting the award of

17 punitive damages against each individual defendant (but not the entity

18 defendants, which are immune from such damages) in an amount adequate to

19 punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.

20

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21

EXCESSIVE FORCE

22

THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION

23

(Civil Code Section 52.1)

24

(FLORES, SANCHEZ, NUNEZ & TRINIDAD AGAINST ALL

25

DEFENDANTS)

26

41. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 37,

27 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

28 herein.

-10-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:833

1

42. The defendants, by their conduct, interfered by threats, intimidation,

2 or coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with

3 the exercise or enjoyment of plaintiffs' rights as secured by the Eighth and

4 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or laws of the United

5 States, and of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the State of

6 California, including the right to be free from excessive force.

7

43. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants were guilty of

8 oppression, fraud or malice so that, plaintiffs, in addition to the actual damages,

9 may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the
1o defendants.

11

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE

13

THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION

14

(Civil Code Section 52.1)

15

(FLORES, SANCHEZ, NUNEZ & TRINIDAD AGAINST ALL

16

DEFENDANTS)

17

44. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 40,

18 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

19 herein.

20

45. The defendants, by their conduct, interfered by threats, intimidation,

21 or coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with

22 plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to their

23 health, safety and medical care.

24

46. Defendants COUNTY, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S

25 DEPARTMENT and DOE County employees violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth

26 Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to their health, safety and

27 medical care and by not treating them for their injuries or providing them with

28 minimum medical care.

-11-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:834

1

47. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants were guilty of

2 oppression, fraud or malice so that, plaintiffs, in addition to the actual damages,

3 may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the

4 defendants.

5

6

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

8

(FLORES, SANCHEZ, NUNEZ & TRINIDAD AGAINST ALL

9

DEFENDANTS)

10

11

48. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 44,

12 inclusive, of this Complaint as though each allegation was set forth at length

13 herein.

14

49. The defendants, by their conduct, did intend to and did cause a

15 harmful contact to plaintiffs.

16

50. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants were guilty of

17 oppression, fraud or malice so that, plaintiffs, in addition to the actual damages,

18 may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the

19 defendants.

20

21

PRAYER

22

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

23

(a) Compensatory general and special damages according to proof;

24

(b) Exemplary and/or punitive damages against the individual defendants,

25 according to proof;

26

(c) Reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation as provided for by

27 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 and whatever other provision oflaw

28 may be applicable;

-12-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 76 Filed 09/26/11 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:835

1

(d) Costs of suit necessarily incurred herein; and,

2

(e) Such further relief as the court deems just or proper.

3
Dated: August 25,2011
4

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER

5

By ____~/;~~~~~a~m~e~s~S~.~~ul~k~r________

6

James S. Muller

Attorney for Plaintiffs
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2491

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

)

12 13 14

HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD,

) )

No. CV 10-6342 CBM(AJWx)

)

)

)

15

Plaintiffs,

16

vs.

17

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S

18 DEPARTMENT, et al.,

19

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND ENTER JUDGMENT BUT GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ALTERNATIVE TO IMPOSE OTHER LESSER SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

)

)

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2492

1

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’

2 Answer and Enter Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Impose Other Lesser

3 Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence. [Docket No. 170.]

4

Included in Defendant Hernan Delgado’s Opposition is a Request for

5 Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Sum of $3,875 for Frivolous Motion.

6 [Docket Nos. 172, 173.]

7

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

8

Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos

9 Sanchez, and Juan Trinidad (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are former or current

10 inmates of the Los Angeles County (the “County”) Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”).

11 The First Amended Complaint alleges that the deputies of the County’s Sheriff’s

12 Department physically beat them on August 25, 2008, in violation of, inter alia,

13 their federal constitutional rights. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 1-2.)

14 [Docket No. 5.] Plaintiffs allegedly suffered severe injuries as a result of the

15 beating, which they claim was in response to a protest of about fifteen to thirty

16 MCJ inmates refusing to leave their cells. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24.)

17 A. LASD Videotape Policy

18

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) video operators are provided

19 separate training by the LASD and are required to follow the LASD’s Custody

20 Division Video Policy. (Kaye Decl. ¶ 6, Exs. B-D.) The Policy states that the

21 purpose of the video recording is “[t]o ensure accurate records regarding tactical

22 operations and injury allegations.” (Id. , Ex. A at 4.) The Policy states that “the

23 entire extraction/removal” should be recorded and that the operator should

24 “immediately respond[] to the incident location, prior to the deployment of the

25 extraction team, and begin[] filming . . . the inmates’ behavior prior to, during, and

26 after the extraction/removal, including transportation to another location.” (Id. at

27 9.) The filming should include “the actual extraction/removal.” (Id.)

28

2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2493

1

The Policy also provides instructions for the chain of custody. Upon

2 completion of filming, the video operator “gives the videotape(s) to the watch

3 commander,” who is required to “secure[] . . . the original videotape in the watch

4 commander’s safe.” (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. A at 4, 9.) The watch commander is responsible

5 for reviewing the complete video recordings, copying the recording for other

6 units, and securing the recordings until such time as they are “permanently stored”

7 by the administrative staff of the unit. (Id.)

8 B. Videos In This Case

9

On November 20, 2008, approximately three months after the incident at

10 issue, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a letter to the LASD Internal Affairs Bureau

11 requesting the preservation of “all evidence related to the [extractions] including .

12 . . [v]ideo and audio recordings . . . .” (Muller Decl. ¶ 22, Ex. E.) The letter

13 stated, “Please do not destroy or tape over or reuse the tape recordings requested.

14 They may be vital evidence in determining the facts . . . . We shall view any loss

15 of evidence with regard to the INCIDENT as an intentional destruction of material

16 evidence . . . .” (Id.)

17

Defendants produced 41 videos in response to requests for production.

18 (Muller Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs contend that many of the videos were duplicates.

19 (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.)

20

II. LEGAL STANDARD

21

Spoliation is “the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the

22 failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably

23 foreseeable litigation.” Marceau v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 618 F. Supp. 2d

24 1127, 1174 n.18 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,

25 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir.1999)). When a party intentionally or negligently

26 breaches its duty to preserve potentially discoverable evidence, it constitutes

27 spoliation and justifies sanctions. Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503, 519

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2494

1 (D.N.J. 2008). A district court has inherent authority to impose sanctions based

2 on the spoliation of relevant evidence including entering judgment, imposing issue

3 and evidence sanctions, and giving adverse inference instructions to the jury.

4 Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

5 v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995). Sanctions are

6 appropriate when there is evidence that the spoliation “threatens the integrity of

7 [the c]ourt.” Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335

8 (D.N.J. 2004).

9 10 11 12 13 Id.

Spoliation sanctions serve a remedial function by leveling the playing field or restoring the prejudiced party to the position it would have been without spoliation. They also serve a punitive function, by punishing the spoliator for its actions, and a deterrent function, by sending a clear message to other potential litigants that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and will be dealt with appropriately if need be.

14

Courts consider five factors when deciding whether to impose the harsh

15 sanction of dismissal: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of

16 litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

17 party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

18 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Leon, 464 F.3d at 958

19 (citation omitted). The district court need not make explicit findings regarding

20 each of these factors, but a finding of “willfulness, fault, or bad faith” is required

21 for dismissal to be proper. Id. (citations omitted). Additionally, the district court

22 must consider “less severe alternatives” than outright dismissal. Id.

23

III. DISCUSSION

24 A. Whether There Was Spoliation of Evidence

25

1. Whether the Produced Videos Amount to Spoliation of Evidence

26

First, Plaintiffs complain that the 41 videos produced during discovery are

27 insufficient and violate Defendant LASD’s policies for videotaping cell

28

4

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2495

1 extractions because they show the extraction process only from a distance and are

2 frequently obstructed by other police officers. Plaintiffs argue that these

3 deficiencies were intentional to hide constitutional violations. The Court finds

4 that these potential deficiencies in filmmaking are not destruction, alteration, or a

5 failure to preserve evidence, and the deficient filmmaking alone does not amount

6 to spoliation. Instead, the noted deficiencies are evidence to be weighed by a jury.

7

2. Whether the “Missing Videos” Amount to Spoliation of Evidence

8

Second, Plaintiffs complain that specific videos were not produced despite

9 orders compelling their production. Plaintiffs note that LASD employees can be

10 seen in the videos provided videotaping inside the cells or from closer vantage

11 points. (Muller Decl. ¶¶ 13-18, 21, Ex. B; Kaye Decl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs argue that

12 these videos would more likely show the alleged unconstitutional behavior.

13 Plaintiffs also note that no videos have been provided for some extractions of

14 specific individuals at issue, and it is clear from the videos provided that there

15 were at least three individuals videotaping the extractions, but that for many

16 specific extractions, only one vantage-point has been provided. (Id.) Plaintiffs

17 again argue that these omitted videos were intentionally destroyed or withheld.

18

The Court finds that the fact that these videos clearly existed and are now

19 “missing” is evidence of spoliation. The Court then turns to what sanction is

20 proper for this spoliation.

21 B. Leon Factors for Consideration of Harsh Sanctions

22

1. Whether There Was Willfulness, Fault, or Bad Faith

23

“A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party

24 has ‘some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation

25 before they were destroyed.’” Leon, 464 F.3d at 959. The evidence is clear here

26 that Defendants had notice that the videos were potentially relevant, even before

27 litigation began, because of their policy and because of the letter sent to

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2496

1 Defendants requesting them to preserve all videos. The fact that the extractions

2 resulted in severe injuries suggests litigation was likely and that Defendants

3 potentially faced liability, which created an incentive to preserve all videos.

4 Moreover, as a large law enforcement agency, LASD is very aware of the need to

5 preserve this type of evidence for litigation, and its officers are well trained to do

6 so. It appears from the videos that the allegedly missing videos were recorded in

7 close proximity to the inmates’ cells and were pointed inside the cells during the

8 extractions.

9

The Court finds that the combination of the notice given to the Defendants,

10 their own video preservation policy, and the fact that videos are clearly missing is

11 sufficient under the law to establish willfulness.1

12

2. Other Leon Factors

13

Of the other Leon factors, there is a public interest in resolving this

14 litigation quickly and the Court does have a need to manage its docket efficiently.

15 This case was filed in 2010 and has been delayed numerous times because of

16 litigation disputes. Withholding videos prejudices Plaintiffs. Each of these favors

17 a strong sanction. The remaining factors, however, strongly favor a less severe

18 sanction than default judgment. Public policy favors disposition of cases on their

19 merits and less drastic sanctions are available.

20 C. The Court’s Sanction

21

The Court orders as a sanction for the spoliation of evidence that the jury

22

23 1 Defendants request that Plaintiffs’ expert witness on this issue, Steve Martin, be stricken on

the grounds that “Defendants had no awareness of Mr. Martin’s involvement in this action, and
24 Mr. Martin has neither produced a Rule 25 report or been subject to deposition.” (Opposition at

25

11:22-24.) Mr. Martin, a former correctional officer, submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion describing the purpose of videotaping extractions and offering his opinions of

26 what might be in the “missing” videotapes taken by individuals seen in produced videos. The
Court finds that it was improper for Plaintiffs to introduce this testimony without first disclosing

27 the expert witness to Defendants and allowing Defendants to conduct discovery as to the

witness. The Court therefore does not consider it for purposes of this Motion, but the testimony
28 may be used for future purposes if procedure is properly followed.

6

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2497

1 receive a curative instruction stating that the Defendants had an affirmative duty to

2 video record what occurred during the extractions and to preserve the videos, but

3 that certain videos once existed and now are missing or destroyed. Additionally

4 Defendants are precluded from offering any evidence about the reasons for, or the

5 circumstances surrounding, their destruction or loss of the video evidence. The

6 Court also makes a finding to be used for all purposes that Defendants violated

7 their own video preservation policy.

8

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for harsher sanctions such as a finding

9 of a violation of rights. Such findings are better left to the jury to decide.

10 D. Defendant Hernan Delgado’s Opposition and Request for Monetary

11

Sanctions

12

Defendant Hernan Delgado, a former LASD deputy, filed a separate

13 opposition from the other Defendants and argues that Plaintiff has presented no

14 evidence that Mr. Delgado ever had possession or control over any videos.

15 Plaintiffs do not identify any specific conduct on the part of Mr. Delgado. Mr.

16 Delgado asks for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,875 for his counsel’s

17 time defending this motion.

18

The Court DENIES Delgado’s request for sanctions because the actions of

19 the individual and County Defendants are inextricably intertwined. When the duty

20 to preserve the video evidence arose, Defendant Delgado was an employee of

21 LASD and, in that capacity, was represented by LASD’s counsel, including those

22 individuals who received the preservation letters that were sent by Plaintiffs’

23 counsel. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing what happened to the “missing”

24 videos, so it is possible that the videos were destroyed or not preserved before Mr.

25 Delgado left LASD and obtained separate counsel.

26

The Court finds that Mr. Delgado’s arguments would be quite persuasive if

27 the Court were entering judgment against him as a sanction, but the Court has

28

7

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 202 Filed 02/25/13 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2498

1 elected a less severe and non-dispositive sanction. The Court therefore DENIES

2 Mr. Delgado’s request for sanctions.

3

IV. CONCLUSION

4

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer and

5 Enter Judgment but GRANTS Plaintiff’s Alternative to Impose Other Lesser

6 Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and orders the sanction described above.

7 The Court DENIES Defendant Delgado’s Request for Sanctions.

8

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 DATED: February 25, 2013 12 13

___________________________________ CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 261 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:4943

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

Title

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles et al

Date July 12, 2013

Present: The Honorable

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

Yolanda Skipper Deputy Clerk

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

n/a

n/a Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Defendants:
n/a

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING MOTION FOR JOINDER, AND GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

There are two motions for summary judgment before the Court. Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and certain individual Defendants move separately from certain individual Defendants. [Docket Nos. 214, 219.] (collectively, “Motions.”)

The Court GRANTS Defendant Hernan Delgado’s Motion for Joinder in Reply to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 247.] The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Admit the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence Report. [Doc. No. 223.]

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs bring causes of action for (1) violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) denial of medical care in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (3) excessive force, threats, intimidation, and coercion in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; (4) denial of medical care in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; and (5) assault and battery. The Court addresses the first (1) and fifth (5) causes of action against all Defendants and the third (3) cause of action against individual Defendants.

I. The Motions are DENIED as to Supervisor Defendants. There are genuine issues of material fact raised by the admissible and relevant evidence provided by Defendants and Plaintiffs as to the excessive force used and their entitlement to qualified immunity for Defendants Cruz, Blasnek, Washington, McGrattan, and Ohnemus.

A.
CV-90 (10/08)

Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact whether Defendants Cruz and Blasnek authorized, explicitly or implicitly, the use of unreasonable or inappropriate force against multiple Plaintiffs.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 261 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:4944

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

Title

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles et al

Date July 12, 2013

B. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact whether Defendant Washington authorized, explicitly or implicitly, the use of unreasonable or inappropriate force, the use of Tasers, and less-lethal weapons in the cell of Plaintiff Trinidad.
C. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact whether Defendant McGrattan and Ohnemus authorized, explicitly or implicitly, the use of unreasonable or inappropriate force, the use of Tasers, and less-lethal weapons in the cells of multiple Plaintiffs.
2. The Motions are DENIED as to Deputy Defendants. There are genuine issues of material fact raised by the admissible and relevant evidence provided by Defendants and Plaintiffs as to the excessive force used and their entitlement to qualified immunity for Deputy Defendants:
A. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendants Ortega and Gonzalez used excessive force in the form of Tasers and less-lethal weapons in the cells of multiple Plaintiffs.
B. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendants Delatorre, Diaz, Galindo, Nowotny, Ruiz, Sanford, and Stelter used excessive force through their use of less-lethal weapons against multiple Defendants.
C. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputies Vazquez and McNichols used excessive force through their use of Tasers against Plaintiff Trinidad.
D. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputies Frazier, Orlandos, Graham, and Cano used excessive force through their use of physical force against Plaintiff Trinidad.
E. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputies Alonso and Castanon used excessive force through their use of physical force against Plaintiff Nunez.
F. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputy Esqueda used excessive force through his use of physical force against Plaintiff Rodriguez.
G. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputies Alonso and Thomas used excessive force through their use of physical force against multiple Plaintiffs.
H. Defendants and Plaintiffs provide evidence that raises genuine issues of material fact as whether Defendant Deputies Delgado, Lyons, Bravo, and Guzman used excessive force through their use of less lethal weapons and physical force against Plaintiff Flores.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 261 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:4945

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

Title

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles et al

Date July 12, 2013

3. There are genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to Plaintiff’s Monell claim. Defendant stated that it has formal policies and training protocols to deal with excessive force claims. Plaintiff’s evidence in the form of the Citizen’s Commission Against Jail Violence report, the number of lawsuits filed alleging excessive force, and other admissible and relevant evidence raises a genuine issue as to whether there is a custom or policy of excessive force. The Motion is DENIED as to the Monell claim.
4. The County of Los Angeles and LASD are immune from liability as to Plaintiff’s state law causes of action three (3) and five (5) – this Court has previously Ordered in its decision on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that these claims are dismissed only as to the County and LASD. The Motions are DENIED as to causes of action three (3) and five (5) against only the public entity defendants because they are moot.
5. Plaintiff’s California Civil Code § 52.1 claims can withstand summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact as to Defendants’ use of excessive force and entitlement to qualified immunity. The Motions are DENIED as to the § 52.1 causes of action.
The Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

00 : 00 YS

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:6314

1 JAMES S. MULLER (No. 126071)

E-mail: jamesmullerlaw@att.net 2 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER 3 225 East Broadway, Suite 107F
Glendale, California 91205

4 Telephone: (818) 536-7922 Fax: (818) 536-7499
5

6

RONALD O. KAYE (No.145051) E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com

7 DAVID S. McLANE (No. 124952) KEVIN LaHUE (No. 237556)
8 CAITLIN S. WEISBERG (No. 262779)

9

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230

10 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone: (626) 844-7660
11 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 HERBIERTO RODRIGUEZ,

) CASE NO. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

18 CARLOS FLORES, ERICK

)

NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS

) [Hon. Conseulo B. Marshall]

19 SANCHEZ and JUAN TRINIDAD, )

20

) PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF

21

Plaintiffs,

) CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW )

22

vs.

)

23
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 24 LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S

) Date: ) Time: ) Place:

August 19, 2013 2:00 P.M. Roybal - 840

25 DEPARTMENT,

)

)

26

Defendants.

)

27 ____________________________ )

28

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:6315

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I.
3
4

CONTENTIONS OF FACT. ............................................................................ 1 A. Statement of the Case. .............................................................................. 1

5

B. Supervision of the August 25, 2008 Extraction........................................4

6
C. Defendant Captain Cruz & Pattern & Practice—Monell Evidence..........5

7

1 Pleadings. ............................................................................................. 7

8

2. Personal Injuries Sustained; Itemized Statement of Special

Damages & Plaintiffs’Age...................................................................7

9

3. Doctrine of Res Ipse Loquitur. ............................................................ 8

10

4. Laws and Regulations Violated By Defendants. ................................. 8

5. Punitive/Exemplary Damages. ............................................................ 8
11

12 II. CONTENTIONS OF LAW. ..............................................................................8

13

A. This Court Has Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs' Lawsuit................................8

14

15

B. Actions For All Constitutional Violations Are Redressable Under

42 U.S.C. §1983. ....................................................................................... 9

16

1. Under Color of Law. ........................................................................... 9

17

2. Defendants’ Conduct Violated the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. ..................................................................................... 10

18

a) Eighth Amendment Violations .................................................... 10

19

b) Fourteenth Amendment Violations ............................................. 12

c) Passive Officer/Supervisor Liability - Failure to

20

Prevent Misconduct. .................................................................... 13

21

d) The Supervisor Defendants Are Liable for Their Ratification

22

of the Excessive Force and Their Failure to Supervise,

Discipline, and Control Their Subordinates’ Use of Excessive

23

Force Before and After August 25, 2008.....................................14

24

e) The County of Los Angeles and the LASD Are Liable for

Customs and Practices Which Were a Cause of Their

25

Subordinates’ Use of Excessive Force on August 25, 2008........16

26

f) The Individual Defendants Can Also Be Held Liable Under

Cal. Civil Code Section 52.1. ...................................................... 20

27

g) Compensatory Damages Are Recoverable For All Detriment

28

Proximately Resulting To Plaintiffs From the Violations of

Their Rights................................................................................... 23

i

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:6316

1

2

3. Punitive Damages. ................................................................................ 24

4. Attorney Fees May be Awarded to Plaintiffs Or His Attorneys In a

3

Section 1983 Action and in an Action Pursuant to Cal. Civil

4

Code §52.1............................................................................................24

a) Section 1983....................................................................................24

5

b) Cal. Civil Code Section 52.1 .......................................................... 25

6

c) A Timely Demand For A Jury Was Made In Conformity With

Rule 38, Federal Rules Of Civil

7

Procedure And Local Rules 3.4.10. ................................................ 26

8

d) Attorney Fees..................................................................................26

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:6317

1

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

3

FEDERAL CASES

4
Aguilar v. City of South Gate 5 No. 12-10669-ODW, 2013 WL 300914 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013) ................... 22

6 al-Kidd v. Ashcroft 7 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d on other grounds, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 8 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) ....................................................................................... 14

9 Antelope v. George 211 F.Supp. 657 (D. Ind. 1962).......................................................................... 24
10

11 Barsamian v. City of Kingsburg 597 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................. 22
12

13 Bates v. Arata No. 05-3383-SI, 2008 WL 820578 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008).......................... 23
14

15

Beck v. City of Pittsburgh 89 F.3d 966 (3d Cir. 1996) ................................................................................. 17

16

Black v. Stephens 17 662 F.2d 181 (3rd Cir. 1981)................................................................................ 9

18
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange 19 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 15

20
Burlington v. Dague 21 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638 (1992) ........................................................... 25, 26

22 Carlson v. Green 23 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468 (1978) ................................................................... 24

24 Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company 25 1999 WL 33227443 (N.D. Cal. 1999)................................................................ 26

26 City of Canton v. Harris 27 489 U.S. 378 (1989) ........................................................................................... 17

28

iii

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:6318

1 City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik 2 485 U.S. 112 (1988) ........................................................................................... 16

3 Cole v. Doe Officers of City of Emeryville Police Dept. 4 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................. 23
5 Conn v. City of Reno 572 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 17
6
7 Craver v. Allbee 324 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2009)....................................................................... 12
8
9 Crommie v. California Public Utilities Commission 840 F.Supp. 719 (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff'd sub nom, Mangold v. California
10 Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995)............................... 26

11 Culbertson v. Leland 12 528 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1975) .............................................................................. 24

13 Daley v. Harber 14 234 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Mass. 2002)................................................................... 23

15 Donovan v. Reinhold 16 433 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1970) .............................................................................. 24

17 Fadhl v. City and County of San Francisco 18 859 F.2d 649 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 26

19 Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer 783 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1986) ............................................................................... 18
20

21 Fuller v. City of Oakland 47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 17
22

23 Gibson v. County of Washoe 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 12

24

25

Gill v. Manuel 488 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1973) .............................................................................. 24

26
Graham v. Connor 27 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) ........................................................... 9, 12

28

iv

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:6319

1 Harris v. Chapman 2 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 11

3 Hensley v. Eckerhart

4

461 U.S. 424 (1983) ........................................................................................... 25

5 Hudson v. McMillian 503 U.S. 1 (1992) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
6

7 Jenkins v. Arnett 424 F.2d 1228 (4th Cir. 1970) ............................................................................ 24
8
9 Kerr v. City of Chicago 424 F.2d 1134 (7th Cir. 1970) ...................................................................... 10, 24
10
Knapps v. City of Oakland 11 647 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................. 22
12
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States 13 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 14

14
Larez v. City of Los Angeles 15 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1991) .................................................................. 14, 15, 17

16 Lolli v. County of Orange 17 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 12

18 Lucas v. City of Boston 19 No. 07-CV-10979-DPW, 2009 WL 1844288 (D. Mass. June 19, 2009)........... 22

20 Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission 21 67 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 25

22 Marshall v. Sawyer 23 301 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1962) .............................................................................. 10

24 McRorie v. Shimoda

25

795 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1986) ........................................................................ 19, 20

26 Molina v. Richardson 578 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1978) .............................................................................. 24
27

28 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York 436 U.S. 658 (1978) ........................................................................... 5, 16, 17, 18

v

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:6320

1 Monroe v. Pape 2 365 U.S. 473, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961) ............................................................. 8, 9, 10

3 Morgan v. Woessner

4

997 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 24

5 Morrow v. Dillard 580 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1978) ............................................................................ 25
6

7 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. 390 U.S. 400 (1968) ........................................................................................... 25
8
9 Nolan v. Krajcik 384 F. Supp. 2d 447 (2005) ................................................................................ 23
10
Reinhardt v. Santa Clara County 11 No. C05-05143, 2006 WL 3147691 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2006).......................... 23
12
Richardson v. City of Antioch 13 722 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................. 22

14
Schwenk v. Hartford 15 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.2000) ............................................................................. 10

16 Skrtich v. Thornton 17 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).......................................................................... 11

18 Smith v. Wade 19 461 U.S. 30 (1983) ............................................................................................. 24

20 Spell v. McDaniel 21 824 F.2d 1380 (4th Cir. 1987)...................................................................... 17, 18

22 Stanford Daily v. Zurcher

23 550 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 436 U.S. 547, 98 S.Ct. 1970 (1978) ............................................................................................... 24

24

25

Starr v. Baca 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 14, 15

26
Stengel v. Belcher 27 522 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................ 9

28

vi

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:6321

1 United States v. Koon 2 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 13

3 Watkins v. City of Oakland

4

145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.1998) ....................................................................... 15, 16

5 Whitley v. Albers 475 U.S. 312 (1986) ........................................................................................... 11
6

7 Wilkins v. Gaddy 130 S.Ct. 1175 (2010) ........................................................................................ 10
8
9 Wing v. Asarco Incorporated 114 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 26
10
Wright v. City of Canton 11 138 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 2001) .............................................................. 17
12
OTHER CASES
13
14 Coalition for L.A. County Planning, etc. Interest v. Board of Supervisors 76 Cal.App.3d 241 (1977) .................................................................................. 26
15
Commonwealth v. Adams 16 416 Mass. 558 (1993) ......................................................................................... 22
17
Gatto v. County of Sonoma 18 98 Cal.App.4th 744 (2002)................................................................................. 25

19
Gillan v. City of San Marino 20 147 Cal. App. 4th 1033 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) .................................................... 22

21 Jones v. Kmart Corp. 22 17 Cal.4th 329 (1998)................................................................................... 25, 22

23 Ketchum v. Moses 24 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)................................................................................. 25, 26

25 Longval v. Comm’r of Correction 26 404 Mass. 325 (1989) ......................................................................................... 21

27 Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Blake 28 417 Mass. 467 (1994) ......................................................................................... 21

vii

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:6322

1 Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. 2 47 Mass. App. Ct. 86 (1999) .............................................................................. 22

3 Venegas v. County of Los Angeles 4 104 Cal.App.4th 936 (2002)............................................................................... 25

5 Venegas v. County of Los Angeles 32 Cal. 4th 820 ............................................................................................. 20, 22
6

7 Whitworth v. City of Sonoma No. A103342, 2004 WL 2106606 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2004)..................... 21
8

9

FEDERAL STATUTES

10 28 U.S.C. §1343(4).................................................................................................... 8

11 28 U.S.C. §1367......................................................................................................... 9

12 42 U.S.C. §1983................................................................................................. 1, 7, 9

13
42 U.S.C. §1988....................................................................................................... 24
14

15

OTHER STATUTES

16 Cal. Civil Code §52.1 .......................................................................................passim

17 Civil Code §52.1(g) ................................................................................................. 25
18
RULES
19
Rule 38, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure ............................................................. 26
20
21 Rules 3.4.10, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure ..................................................... 26

22

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

23 Eighth Amendment.................................................................................... 1, 7, 10, 11
24
Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................................. 1, 7, 12, 23
25
26 Fourth Amendment................................................................................12, 13, 22, 23
27 United States Constitution ......................................................................................... 8

28

viii

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:6323

1 I. CONTENTIONS OF FACT.

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

3
This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Cal.

4
Civil Code Section 52.1 for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
5
Plaintiffs Carlos Flores and Heriberto Eddie Rodriguez sue for violations of their
6
Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force. Plaintiffs Erik
7
Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez and JuanTrinidad sue for violations of their Eighth
8
Amendment rights to be free from unnecessary force amounting to “cruel and
9

unusual punishment.”
10

11

Plaintiffs and other inmates were brutally extracted from their cells on

12 August 25, 2008 after they raucously protested the vicious beating of a non-

13 Plaintiff, Jonathan Fajardo. Mr. Fajardo, a 5’8”, 150 pound detainee housed the

14 3100/3300 tier of MCJ, was viciously beaten with boots, fists and a flashlight by

15 Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies in front of the other

16 detainees/inmates on the tier. He was bound by waist chains and handcuffed, and

17 regardless of his pleas for mercy, and the verbal protests of the other detainees, the

18 beating continued.

19

Prior to this event, deputies at MCJ routinely engaged in unreasonable force

20 with impunity, not provoked by violence by the detainees, with little if any fear of

21 accountability. During August of 2008, however, the animosity by the deputies at

22 MCJ against the Latino detainees was particularly high due to the murder deputy

23 Juan Escalante - a deputy assigned to MCJ. The tension during this period resulted

24 in repeated acts of excessive force perpetrated by deputies against detainees.

25

The brutal beating of Fajardo triggered the mass protest by Plaintiff and the

26 other detainees and inmates on the 3100/3300 tiers. A large portion of the inmates

27 decided to not leave their cells, thereby forcing the LASD deputies to engage in

28
extraction procedures in order to physically remove the inmates from their cells.

1

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:6324

1

Prior to the extraction, teams were formed from jail personnel from

2 throughout the LASD jail system. The extraction teams participated in a briefing to

3 decide a plan of action. The Incident Commander/Lieutenant and Captain of

4 MCJ—Defendants Blasnek and Cruz—participated in the briefing.

5

In violation of LASD policy the extraction teams did not verbally negotiate

6 with the inmates. Captain Cruz ignored the negotiation policy because believed it

7 was futile to negotiate with inmates whom he considered Southsider gang

8 affiliates. As a result of this out-of-policy decision by Captain Cruz, the extraction

9
teams prepared to take the inmates out of their cells by force.
10
At the outset of each extraction, the inmates were instructed to cuff up.
11
Some, like Plaintiff Nunez, were instructed to cuff up or “you’ll get hurt,”
12
foreshadowing the punishment to come. Others were explicitly threatened by
13
Defendants, with comments like “You’re gonna get fucked up. It’s gonna hurt.”
14
For each inmate who was violently extracted, the inmate did not cuff up.
15
Prior to entering the cells, the sergeants/team leaders (Defendants
16

17 McGratten, Washington, and Ohnemus) instructed the extraction teams to utilize

18 less lethal weapons against the inmates—shooting 40 mm Arwen single rubber

19 bullet single rubber rounds—into the cells. Defendants also detonated multiple

20 stingball grenades in some extractions. Without a visible weapon in the hands of

21 the inmates, it was contrary to LASD policy to shoot a single projectile 40 mm

22 Arwen round because of the severity of the impact. No inmate was ever seen with

23 a weapon in his possession after the extraction, let alone in his hand prior to the

24 deputies entering the cell to perform the extraction. After the shooting of the 40

25 mm Arwen round, the Sergeant/team leaders instructed the extraction teams to

26 throw the less lethal weapon of the stingball concussion grenade into the cells. The

27 grenades immobilized the inmates, including the Plaintiffs, causing them to “black 28 out.”

2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:6325

1

While the inmates were incapacitated by the stingball grenades, the sergeant

2 /team leaders ordered two shield deputies and two capture deputies into the cells of

3 the inmates. These deputies, all of whom were dressed in body armor and two of
4 whom were carrying shields, rushed inside the cells, pressed the inmates with their
5 shields, and immediately overcame the inmates by knocking them to the ground.
6 The goal of this technique was to prevent the inmates from engaging in any 7 resistance, and it was successful. As a result of the overwhelming force used 8 against the inmates, there was no resistance against the deputies who entered the
9
plaintiffs’, or any of the other inmates’, cells. Rather, the deputies uniformly
10
engaged in a brutal attack of the inmates, with boots, fists, knees, and more than
11
likely the blunt force of another object, to inmates who were completely
12
immobilized by the less lethal weapons and who did not defend themselves.
13
In addition, deputies were instructed by the sergeants/team leaders, and
14
uniformly applied the Taser to the Plaintiffs’ bodies in the drive stun mode to
15
cause pain. In most extractions, the Taser was used repeatedly over several
16
17 minutes, during periods when the inmates were already immobilized and/or 18 handcuffed. The use of the Taser in the drive stun mode causes intense pain and
19 does not cause Electro Muscular Disruption (temporary paralysis) of the inmate.
20 The Taser policy clearly limits the device to controlling “assaultive/high risks
21 persons.” In the absence of active aggression, especially when the inmate is prone
22 and subject to the hands-on control of multiple officers, the use of the Taser has

23 limited tactical utility (incapacitation or EMD) but does become a ready and

24 convenient instrumentality to inflict intense pain on the subject inmate.

25

The extractions ended with inmates being dragged or pulled out of their cells

26 and taken away. For Plaintiff Sanchez, a video recording shows him being Tasered,

27 screaming, in the hallway outside the cell while being held down by at least five 28 deputies. Then, within several seconds, the video shows Sanchez being dragged

3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:6326

1 down the hallway, handcuffed, by his shirt because he is clearly unable to stand up

2 on his own.

3

The use of repeated hard impact strikes, particularly to the heads and faces

4 of the Plaintiffs, by Defendant deputies in all five cell extractions in the absence of

5 actions that were life threatening or presented an immediate threat of serious

6 bodily injury by the Plaintiffs, constituted extreme and needless force resulting in

7 serious injuries to all five Plaintiffs. The number, nature, and extent of injuries to

8 any one of the five Plaintiffs provides evidence that force was used by detention

9
officers that exceeded the tactical objective of control. However, the cumulative
10
number, nature, extent and commonality of injuries sustained by all five Plaintiffs,
11
and Plaintiffs’ screams of pain that can be heard in the videos, strongly supports
12
the conclusion that defendants’ goal was to inflict corporal punishment against the
13
inmates, rather than to gain control of the inmates.
14
B. SUPERVISION OF THE AUGUST 25, 2008 EXTRACTION
15

16

The team leader/sergeants—Defendants Washington, McGrattan,

17 Ohnemus—were present outside the cells of each of the Plaintiffs’ extractions

18 when force was used against the Plaintiffs. In addition, Defendants Captain Cruz

19 and Lieutenant, then Incident Commander, Blasnek participated in the briefing of

20 the deputies which set the plan of action for the extractions, and were present for

21 many of the actual extractions where force was used.

22

While the above referenced acts of brutality and the needless infliction of

23 pain were committed against Plaintiffs, none of the command officials on the scene

24 during the course of the cell extractions intervened in any manner to exercise direct 25 supervision of Defendant deputies as they applied excessive force. The LASD 26 Defendant supervisory officials present during the extraction willfully disregarded 27 and failed to act upon observable and objective evidence that their subordinate 28 Defendant deputies subjected the five Plaintiffs to needless physical injuries and

4

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:6327

1 pain. By failing to intervene, the LASD Defendant supervisors permitted and

2 sanctioned the use of unreasonable force in the absence of actions by the Plaintiffs

3 that were life threatening or constituted an immediate threat of serious bodily harm

4 to detention personnel.

5

When applications of force occur in which head strikes are repeatedly used

6 by officers, supervising administrators should be alarmed, and as such,

7 immediately prompt an investigation of the particularized circumstances for the

8 use of such tactics. No such investigation by the defendant supervising authority
9
occurred in this matter. As part of any investigation, LASD supervisors are
10
required to review the videotape footage depicting the use of force used by the
11
deputies during the extraction. Such videotaping of the actual conduct inside the
12
cell was required during the extractions. The actual video footage of Plaintiffs’
13
extractions reveals a collective and absolute failure to capture useable footage
14
across the five separate planned extractions with multiple video operators available
15
to record officer activity/tactics inside the cells. Further, those videos that did
16

17 appear to be taken from a vantage point where the use of force inside the cells

18 could be viewed are curiously not available for review.

19

The Defendant supervisors investigation into these extractions constituted a

20 mere recitation of boilerplate officer statements and never made any reference

21 whatsoever to the flawed video footage. There were no references to the

22 extraordinary level of head injuries, fractures, etc. There was no attempt to

23 establish exactly how the inmates were resisting, as might justify such injuries.

24 There is no evidence that defendants Cruz or Blasnek were questioned regarding

25 their failure to witness any strikes, punches, or kicks.

26

C. DEFENDANT CAPTAIN CRUZ & PATTERN & PRACTICE—MONELL

27

EVIDENCE

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:6328

1

Defendant Captain Cruz participated in the extractions of the inmates on the

2 3100/3300 tiers of MCJ on August 25, 2008. At the time of the incident, there was

3 a culture perpetuated by Defendant Captain Cruz where excessive force was

4 readily used against inmates by deputies at MCJ.

5

Specifically, Captain Cruz would verbally encourage use of force by

6 repeatedly and openly making light and joking with the deputies about force, and

7 not recognizing that a deputy had engaged in excessive force against an inmate

8 when it was brought to his attention.

9
In addition, Captain Cruz promoted the practice of incomplete and
10
ineffective investigation into deputy misconduct and allegations of excessive force.
11
Correspondingly, he also failed to have use of force incidents and complaints
12
against deputies investigated, at times leading to the expiration of the statute of
13
limitations such that the deputy could not be disciplined.
14
Regardless of the high level of use of force in the preceding years — where
15
only .6% of the force incidents at MCJ were found unreasonable—in 2009 Captain
16

17 Cruz failed to recommend any deputy be given remedial training and education

18 through the performance mentoring program. The use of force cases at MCJ

19 produced in the instant case for 2005 to 2011 reveals that only .2% of the force

20 incidents were found to be unreasonable.

21

In September of 2012, the Los Angeles County Commission on Jail

22 Violence found that for many years, including the time of the extraction at issue,

23 conduct by the upper levels of supervision—the senior leaders of the LASD—

24 through its implementation of policy and inaction allowed use of force against

25 inmates to go unabated.

26

This sense of impunity by the deputies at MCJ with regard to use of force

27 stems from a disciplinary system which failed to take steps to ensure discipline of 28 deputies who engaged in use of force because of the untimely processing of use of

6

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:6329

1 force packages. This practice was in conjunction with a systemic failure to engage

2 in adequate investigations of force, such as having no requirement that all the

3 percipient witnesses to an incident make statements within a defined time period,

4 and not preventing deputies from collaborating with each other to describe force

5 incidents.

6

1. Pleadings.

7
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is brought under the federal Civil
8
Rights Act of 1871, Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Cal. Civil Code §52.1.
9
The first claim for relief, pursuant to Section 1983, is against Defendants for
10
violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Flores and Rodriguez sue for violations
11
of their Fourteenth Amendment to be free from the use of excessive force.
12

Plaintiffs Nunez, Sanchez and Trinidad sue for violations of their Eighth
13

14 Amendment rights to be free from gratuitous force amounting to punishment.

15 Plaintiffs sue for damages resulting from the violations of their rights.

16

The third claim for relief, pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §52.1, is against

17 defendants for violating Plaintiff Flores’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

18 and Plaintiffs Nunez’s, Flores’, Sanchez’s and Trinidad’s rights under the Eighth

19 Amendment. Plaintiffs sue for damages resulting from the violations of their rights.

20

The fifth claim for relief is an assault and battery claim against all

21 Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs Nunez, Flores, Sanchez and Trinidad. Plaintiffs

22 sue for damages resulting therefrom.

23

2. Personal Injuries Sustained; Itemized Statement of Special

24

Damages & Plaintiffs’Age.

25

Plaintiffs incurred no medical expenses since all treatment they have

26 received has been in custody. Plaintiffs also make no claim for lost income.

27

All five Plaintiffs suffered from head trauma and numerous hematomas,

28 lacerations and abrasions as a result of the beatings.

7

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:6330

1

Plaintiff Carlos Flores, age 29, suffered a fractured eye orbit, fractured nose

2 and concussion and loss of consciousness.

3

Plaintiff Juan Sanchez, age 30, suffered a fractured nose and fractured left

4 ankle and loss of consciousness.

5

Plaintiff Erik Nunez, age 29, suffered a fractured left ankle and loss of

6 consciousness.

7

Plaintiff Juan Trinidad, age 37, suffered a fractured lumbar spine, a

8 fractured right hand, a concussion and loss of consciousness.

9
Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez, age 33, suffered a concussion and loss of
10
consciousness, and a head laceration requiring repair.
11
3. Doctrine of Res Ipse Loquitur.
12

Not Applicable.
13

14

4. Laws and Regulations Violated By Defendants.

15

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

16

5. Punitive/Exemplary Damages.

17

Facts relied upon to support claim for punitive and exemplary damages

18 against defendants are included in the Statement of the Case, above.

19 II. CONTENTIONS OF LAW.

20

A. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT.

21
Plaintiffs’ action is brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42
22
U.S.C. §1983 and §1988) to redress a deprivation under color of state law of a
23
right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
24
States. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 473, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961).
25

Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ action resides in this Court by virtue of 28
26

27 U.S.C. §1343(4), which confers original jurisdiction upon United States District

28 Courts of any civil action authorized by or to be commenced by any person

8

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:6331

1

(4) To recover damages . . . under any Act of Congress providing for the

2 protection of civil rights . . . .

3

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

5

B. ACTIONS FOR ALL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ARE

6

REDRESSABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983.

7

Police abuse of the civil rights or liberty of any person within the jurisdiction

8 of the United States will give rise to an action under the Federal Civil Rights Act

9 of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1983), which provides as follows:

10

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,

11 or usage, of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to

12 be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction

13 thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

14
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in

15
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any
16
Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
17
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [Emphasis supplied.]
18
See, e..g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) (action
19

for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. §1983).
20

21

1. Under Color of Law.

22

A person is acting under color of law whenever his action is undertaken by

23 virtue of and because clothed with authority conferred on him by the State.

24 Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 184, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961); Black v. Stephens,

25 662 F.2d 181 (3rd Cir. 1981) (police officer held to have acted under color of law

26 when, dressed in police academy windbreaker, and on duty, he investigated

27 plaintiff’s vehicle in belief he was intoxicated or in need of help); Stengel v.

28 Belcher, 522 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1975) (off-duty officer equipped with service

9

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:6332

1 revolver and can of mace which he was required to use to prevent crime whenever

2 he observed such activity, whether on or off-duty, held to be acting under color of

3 law); see Kerr v. City of Chicago, 424 F.2d 1134, 1141 (7th Cir. 1970) (approving

4 instruction found in Section 92.08 of Devitt & Blackmar).

5

Conduct is under color of law whether or not permitted, and indeed, even if

6 proscribed by the law or constitution of the State; the test being only whether the

7 conduct occurred when the officer acted under authority granted him by the State.

8 Monroe v. Pape, supra, 167 U.S. at 184; Marshall v. Sawyer, 301 F.2d 639, 646

9
(9th Cir. 1962).
10
2.
11

Defendants’ Conduct Violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

12

a) Eighth Amendment Violations

13
Plaintiffs Sanchez, Nunez and Trinidad had been convicted of crimes at the
14
time of the incident, therefore, the Eighth Amendment standard for use of force
15
applies to their claims.
16
A use of force against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment
17

18 when it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Whether a use of force

19 constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ is gauged against ‘the evolving

20 standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Schwenk v.

21 Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503

22 U.S. 1, 8 (1992)). Although de minimis use of physical force is insufficient to

23 prove an Eighth Amendment violation, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, a prison guard’s use

24 of force violates the Eighth Amendment when the guard acts maliciously for the

25 purpose of causing harm whether or not significant injury is evident. See Wilkins

26 v. Gaddy, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 -1179 (2010) (“An inmate who is gratuitously

27 beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim

28 merely because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.”) To

10

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:6333

1 determine if an application of force was applied maliciously and sadistically to

2 cause harm, a variety of factors are considered including the need for the

3 application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force

4 used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts

5 made to temper the severity of a forceful response." Hudson, at 7-8; see also
6 Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321; Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 505 (11th Cir. 1996).
7 From consideration of such factors, "inferences may be drawn as to whether the
8 use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary, or instead evinced such
9
wantonness with respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a
10
knowing willingness that it occur." Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321 (quoting Johnson, 481
11
F.2d at 1033)
12
The “malicious and sadistic” standard applies when prison guards “use force
13
to keep order . . . [w]hether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption.”
14
Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321–22 (1986). In
15
Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002) the Eleventh Circuit
16
17 specifically found in the context of a cell extraction, force used after a prisoner was
18 no longer resisting and incapacitated by electric shock would support an Eighth
19 Amendment violation (and a denial of qualified immunity for a violation under

20 those circumstances). “The use of force must stop when the need for it to maintain

21 or restore discipline no longer exists.” Id. at 13.

22

As argued above, in Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact, Defendants’ use of force

23 against all Plaintiffs was malicious and sadistic, and for the purpose of causing

24 harm. Plaintiffs never actively resisted the extractions and once the extraction

25 teams took them to the ground they were incapacitated and presented no threat to

26 Defendants.

27

28

11

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:6334

1

b) Fourteenth Amendment Violations

2

Plaintiffs Flores and Rodriguez were pretrial detainees at the time of the

3 extractions. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process rights protect pretrial
4 detainees from excessive force that amounts to punishment. Gibson v. County of
5 Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit has held that “the
6
Fourth Amendment sets the ‘applicable constitutional limitations' for considering
7
claims of excessive force during pretrial detention.” Id. (quoting Pierce v.
8
Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996); Craver v. Allbee, 324 F.
9
App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2009); Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir.
10
2003).
11
Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims of pretrial
12
detainees are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness
13
14 standard. “[T]he reasonableness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective
15 one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light
16 of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying

17 intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397; Lolli, 351 F.3d at

18 415. In considering a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim, the court is to

19 balance “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth

20 Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.”

21 Graham, supra.

22

The standard is an objective one and does not depend upon the subjective

23 beliefs of the deputies. The Court, in Graham made clear that an officer's good

24 intentions will not "make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional." 25 Id. 490 U.S. at 397. As argued above, in Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact, 26 Defendants’ use of force against Plaintiffs Flores and Rodriguez was unreasonable. 27 Plaintiffs never actively resisted the extractions and once the extraction teams took
28

12

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:6335

1 them to the ground they were incapacitated and presented no threat to the

2 defendants.

3

c) Passive Officer/Supervisor Liability - Failure to

4

Prevent Misconduct.

5

Deputy Defendants and supervisor Defendants who stood by and watched

6 their fellow officers use force are also liable for the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights.

7 When it comes to violations of civil rights, "police officers have a duty to intercede

8 when their fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other

9 citizen." United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994), judgment

10 aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996). As the Ninth

11 Circuit has held:

12

“[T]he constitutional right violated by the passive defendant is

13

analytically the same as the right violated by the person who strikes the

14

blows. Thus an officer who failed to intercede when his colleagues were

depriving a victim of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from

15

unreasonable force in the course of an arrest would, like his colleagues, be

16

responsible for subjecting the victim to a deprivation of his Fourth

Amendment rights.”

17

18

Each of the individual deputy Defendants personally witnessed the excessive

19 force that occurred inside Plaintiffs’ cells and those who did not enter the cells

20 nevertheless encouraged, facilitated, and failed to abort the excessive force that

21 occurred therein.

22

Supervisor Defendants Washington, McGrattan, and Ohnemus were

23 extraction team leaders who personally directed and/or ratified all of the uses of

24 force that occurred during the extractions. They were present during each of the 25 extractions and witnessed the excessive force that occurred inside the Plaintiffs’ 26 cells. Thus, although it is undisputed that these supervisors did not carry out any of 27 the force with their own hands, they directly participated in the use of force and 28 failed to abort the excessive force carried out by the deputies.

13

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:6336

1

Supervisor Defendant Cruz, the captain and unit commander of MCJ at the

2 time, and supervisor Defendant Blasnek, the incident commander for the

3 extractions and a lieutenant at MCJ, planned the extractions and were present

4 during at least some of the extractions at issue in this case, including several of

5 Plaintiffs’ extractions. Accordingly, they were in a position to observe and

6 condone the excessive force used against Plaintiffs.

7

d) The Supervisor Defendants Are Liable for Their

8

Ratification of the Excessive Force and Their Failure

9

to Supervise, Discipline, and Control Their

Subordinates’ Use of Excessive Force Before and

10

After August 25, 2008.

11

Supervisory liability may upon “culpable action[s] or inaction” of the

12 supervisor that caused or contributed to the constitutional violation. Larez v. City

13 of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991); see Kwai Fun Wong v. United

14
States, 373 F.3d 952, 966 (9th Cir. 2004).

15
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has held that supervisors may be liable under

16

the following circumstances, where direct participation in the violation is absent:

17

“(1) for setting in motion a series of acts by others, or knowingly

18

refusing to terminate a series of acts by others, which they knew or

19

reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict constitutional

injury; (2) for culpable action or inaction in training, supervision, or control

20

of subordinates; (3) for acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation by

21

subordinates; or (4) for conduct that shows a “reckless or callous

22

indifference to the rights of others.”

23

al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 963, 965, 974 n.23 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d

24 on other grounds, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (quoting Larez, 946 25 F.2d at 646). (A plaintiff may prevail by presenting evidence of the supervisor 26 defendants’ “knowledge of” and “acquiescence in” their subordinates’ pattern of 27 unconstitutional conduct.) Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011).
28

14

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:6337

1

In a series of Ninth Circuit cases before Starr, the Court has consistently

2 held that supervisors are liable in their individual capacity if they fail to adequately

3 discipline or supervise subordinates in relation to misconduct. In so doing, the

4 supervisor “set[s] in motion a series of acts by others, or knowingly refuse[s] to

5 terminate a series of acts by others, which he knew or reasonably should have
6 known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Blankenhorn v. City
7 of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 485 (9th Cir. 2007); Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145
8 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.1998); Larez, 946 F.2d at 646.
9
In Larez, the plaintiff presented evidence that the supervisor personally
10
denied plaintiff’s excessive force complaint against the subordinate officer
11
defendants (prior to the initiation of the lawsuit), thereby ratifying their conduct.
12
Larez, 946 F.2d at 646. The plaintiff also presented statistical evidence showing
13
that it was “almost impossible for a police officer to suffer discipline as a result of
14
a complaint lodged by a citizen.” Id. at 635. Based on this evidence, the court
15
upheld the jury’s verdict that the supervisor “condoned, ratified, and encouraged
16
17 excessive use of force” among the officers he supervised, and thereby caused the
18 plaintiff’s constitutional violations. Id. at 646; see also Blankenhorn, 845 F.3d at
19 485-86 (discussing Larez).

20

In Watkins, the supervisor signed a report dismissing the plaintiff’s

21 complaint despite evidence in the report that the subordinate officer defendant used

22 excessive force and “evidence of [the subordinate officer’s] involvement in other

23 [similar] incidents, and apparently without ascertaining whether the circumstances

24 of those cases required some ameliorative action to avoid or reduce serious injuries

25 to individuals.” Watkins, 145 F.3d at 1093. The plaintiff also presented evidence

26 that, despite numerous previous instances of uses of force resulting in injury, the

27 vast majority of which were determined by the police department to be justified 28 during the internal use of force review, the supervisor failed to establish procedures

15

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 25 of 36 Page ID #:6338

1 governing the type of force used by the subordinate officer. Id. at 1091, 93

2 (emphasis added). Based on this evidence, the court affirmed the district court’s

3 denial of the defendant supervisor’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1093.

4

In this case, supervisory Defendants Cruz, Blasnek, McGratten, Washington,

5 and Ohnemus were the Defendants responsible for the August 25, 2008 extractions

6 and were responsible, more broadly, for supervising the conduct of the LASD

7 employees operating the jail. These Defendants are similarly responsible for the

8 systematic failures in the investigation of incidents of force in the jails; the absence

9
of supervision or discipline in relation to excessive force; inadequate training; and

10
the culture of violence that developed in the jails that is discussed supra with

11
respect to the liability of the County and the LASD. Because they are the

12
individuals who condoned and perpetuated the LASD’s custom and practice of
13

excessive force, they are individually liable for their deliberate indifference to the
14

rights of plaintiffs and other detainees in the jail.
15

16

e) The County of Los Angeles and the LASD Are Liable for Customs and Practices Which Were a Cause of

17

Their Subordinates’ Use of Excessive Force on August

18

25, 2008.

19

Section 1983 liability of a local governing body lies only when “action

20 pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.”

21 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Regardless

22 of formal policies, Monell liability may be established by a custom and practice of

23 excessive force. Section 1983 liability may be imposed on municipalities and local

24 government units when there is a “widespread practice that, although not 25 authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is ‘so permanent and well 26 settled as to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law.’” City of St. 27 Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & 28 Co., 398 U.S. 144, 167-68 (1970)); Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658,

16

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:6339

1 691 (1978). The ‘custom or usage’ in question will be attributed to the government

2 body when the “duration and frequency of the practices warrants a finding of either

3 actual or constructive knowledge by the . . . governing body . . . that the practices

4 have become customary among its employees.” Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380,

5 1387 (4th Cir. 1987).

6

There are also several related forms of Monell liability. First, local

7 government entities are liable for the failure to act (i.e., promulgate a policy,

8 provide training or impose supervision) where the “inadequacy [of the existing

9
practice is obvious and] so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights,
10
that the policymaker . . . can reasonably be said to have been deliberately
11
indifferent to the [plaintiff's rights].” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390
12
(1989); Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1064 (9th Cir. 2009). Similarly,
13
Monell liability may be established where a local government entity ratifies its
14
employees’ unconstitutional acts by failing in the investigation and punishment of
15
allegations of unconstitutional conduct. Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522,
16

17 1535 (9th Cir. 1995); Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, 973 (3d Cir. 1996);

18 Wright v. City of Canton, 138 F. Supp. 2d 955, 966 (N.D. Ohio 2001).

19

It has long been the case that interrelated evidence regarding a prevalence of

20 force incidents, inadequate or biased investigations, lax supervision and

21 intervention, and/or infrequent or non-existent discipline forms the basis for

22 Monell liability based on a “widespread practice” of excessive force in violation of

23 “official” policy. Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991)

24 (affirming liability of city for custom and practice of excessive force based on

25 evidence of incidents of excessive force combined with flawed and inadequate

26 investigations and absence of discipline or other remedial measures); see also Beck

27 v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, 969-70, 973-74 (3d Cir. 1996) (reversing district 28 court’s judgment as a matter of law on Monell claim against city based on evidence

17

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:6340

1 of six similar complaints of excessive force over a three year period against a

2 particular officer, none of which were sustained by the police department, and

3 evidence that only 3.4% of excessive force complaints were sustained during
4 review process); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1387 (4th Cir. 1987)
5 (“[Plaintiff’s] evidence was sufficient to [prove] widespread uses of excessive
6 force by members of the City's police department had occurred and were known to 7 [the] Police Chief . . . and his duly authorized subordinates who shared authority 8 and responsibility for supervision and discipline of police officers engaged in such
9
conduct; that [they] however condoned such practices by deliberate cover-up,
10
disregard and positive encouragement, causing the practices to continue as an
11
established custom or usage”); Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 328 (2d
12
Cir. 1986) (“We have no doubt that, in the context of a theory that the City [was
13
deliberately indifferent in the supervision of] its officers in their use of force, the
14
evidence that a number of claims of police brutality had been made by other
15
persons against the City, together with evidence as to the City's treatment of these
16
17 claims, was relevant. Whether or not the claims had validity, the very assertion of a 18 number of such claims put the City on notice that there was a possibility that its
19 police officers had used excessive force. . . [I]f the City's efforts to evaluate the
20 claims were so superficial as to suggest that its official attitude was one of
21 indifference to the truth of the claim, such an attitude would bespeak an
22 indifference to the rights asserted in those claims.”).

23

Here, the evidence supports Monell liability against the County and the

24 LASD under several different theories.

25

The evidence is that out of thousands of incidents of reported force by

26 LASD employees against jail detainees, including hundreds of incidents of

27 “significant” force, exactly 5 of those 2938 incidents (.002) were deemed by the 28 LASD to have involved any level of unreasonable force. The rest were approved,

18

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:6341

1 i.e., ratified, by LASD supervisors and therefore did not lead to any discipline or

2 training.

3

Further, as discussed above, Commander Robert Olmsted and Sister Patricia

4 Bartlett, percipient witnesses to the treatment of detainees at the Men’s Central Jail

5 during the years preceding and following the incident, unequivocally described a
6 culture of violence, where excessive force was uniformly perpetrated by deputies
7 against detainees. Ultimately, when Captain Cruz, the commanding officer of the
8 jail was apprised of any violence, he either ignored it, or worse, promoted it as an
9
effective form of discipline.
10
In addition, this incident is striking in the brutality and extensiveness of the
11
excessive force deployed on August 25, 2008, combined with the LASD’s failure
12
to acknowledge the violations and take appropriate remedial action. A single
13
incident in which there was a widespread use of excessive force may also establish
14
liability against an entity. McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1986). In
15
McRorie, a single prison inmate filed an excessive force claim based on brutality
16
17 that occurred during a shakedown in the prison. The plaintiff alleged that twenty-
18 eight other inmates were injured during the same incident. The Ninth Circuit
19 reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the warden of

20 the prison and the prison’s administrator, in their individual and official capacities,

21 based on his allegations regarding the shakedown. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit

22 stated:

23

McRorie alleges that guards seriously injured him and twenty-eight other

24 prisoners during the shakedown and that [the deputy who injured him] was acting

25 under orders of his superiors. If proved, these acts reflect a “disposition to

26 disregard human life and safety so prevalent as to be ... policy or custom.” . . .

27 Policy or custom may be inferred if, after the shakedown, the prison officials took 28 no steps to reprimand or discharge the guards, or if they otherwise failed to admit

19

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:6342

1 the guards’ conduct was in error. Id. at 784 (quoting Grandstaff v. City of Borger,

2 767 F.2d 161, 171 (5th Cir.1985) and citing Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, 777

3 F.2d 1436, 1443 (11th Cir. 1985)).

4

In this case, the deputy Defendants used force that seriously injured

5 Plaintiffs and twenty other detainees during the incident on August 25, 2008, while

6 the supervisors leading the extractions, and investigating the extractions, who

7 solely adopted the deputies rote use of force reports and had no reliable video

8 footage to review, found absolutely no error after the fact. Thus, the facts of this

9
case alone, based on the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, show Defendants’

10
“disposition to disregard human life and safety” that was so prevalent and

11
pervasive that it establishes the LASD’s and the County’s policy or custom of

12

excessive force.

13

f) THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS CAN ALSO BE

14

HELD LIABLE UNDER CAL. CIVIL CODE

15

SECTION 52.1.

16

Cal. Civil Code §52.1, provides for a cause of action for damages when “a

17 person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats,

18 intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or

19 coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights
20 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by
21 the Constitution or laws of this state….” §52.1(a) and (b). Venegas v. County of
22
Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th 820, 841-844 (2004) (interpreting §52.1 according to its
23
“unambiguous” plain language, and rejecting additional requirements not in the
24
text of the statute).
25
The acts alleged by Plaintiffs—brutal beatings resulting in severe injuries—
26
constitute “threats, intimidation, or coercion” within the meaning of the statute.
27
“‘Threat’ . . . involves the intentional exertion of pressure to make another fearful
28
or apprehensive of injury or harm. . . . ‘Intimidation’ involves putting in fear for
20

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 30 of 36 Page ID #:6343

1 purpose of compelling or deterring conduct. . . . [Coercion is] the application to

2 another of such force, either physical or moral, as to constrain him to do against his

3 will something he would not otherwise have done.” Planned Parenthood League of
4 Mass., Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, 474 (1994) (adopting the trial court’s
5 definitions of the three terms for purposes of that case) (citations and quotations
6 omitted); Whitworth v. City of Sonoma, No. A103342, 2004 WL 2106606, at *5-7 7 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2004) (reviewing the meaning of “threats, intimidation, or 8 coercion” with reference to Massachusetts cases).
9
Cases which discuss the meaning of these terms make clear that whatever
10
other facts would establish “threats, intimidation or coercion,” physical
11
confrontation and use of force certainly qualify. “Clearly, intimidation or coercion
12
may be accomplished by violence. Similarly, threats may be accompanied by
13
violence or may promise violence. But violence, or the threat of violence, is not a
14
prerequisite to stating a cause of action based on the Bane Act . . . . [A]ctual or
15
potential physical confrontations involving threat of harm are sufficient.”
16
17 Whitworth, 2004 WL 2106606, at *6-7 (internal quotation marks omitted, 18 emphasis added); Planned Parenthood, 417 Mass. at 474-76 (affirming use of
19 objective reasonable person standard for “threats, fear, or coercion” element and
20 lower court’s determination that physical confrontation even without violence was
21 sufficient to “instill fear and concern for personal safety in a reasonable person”);
22 Longval v. Comm’r of Correction, 404 Mass. 325, 333 (1989) (distinguishing

23 violations involving “physical confrontation accompanied by a threat of harm”

24 from procedural due process violation at issue in that case).

25

Consistent with this obvious conclusion, §52.1 and MCRA claims based on

26 violations of individuals’ rights under the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth

27 Amendments, including excessive force, have been recognized in numerous cases, 28 where there is no “separate” threat, intimidation, or coercion or “independent”

21

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 31 of 36 Page ID #:6344
1 right subject to interference. See Venegas II, 32 Cal. 4th 820 (reversing trial court’s
2 dismissal of plaintiffs’ §52.1 claim because allegations of unreasonable search and 3 seizure constituted misconduct prohibited by the statute); Jones, 17 Cal. 4th 329 4 (1998) (implicitly recognizing §52.1 claim based on excessive force and 5 unreasonable search, if carried out by state actors); Commonwealth v. Adams, 416 6 Mass. 558 (1993) (affirming MCRA liability based on excessive force by police 7 officers during lawful arrest); Gillan v. City of San Marino, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1033 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming judgment following jury trial on §52.1 claim
9
alleging Fourth Amendment violation based on arrest without probable cause);
10
Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 86, 92-93 (1999)
11
(noting that “arrests and detention of the plaintiffs by police were intrinsically
12
coercive and, thus, sufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ burden” of establishing
13
“threats, intimidation or coercion.”); see also Aguilar v. City of South Gate, No.
14
12-10669-ODW, 2013 WL 300914, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013) (holding that
15
conduct of the Defendants alleged in complaint—“aggressive, hyped-up police
16
17 officers acting with disregard for the fragile nature of a potentially suicidal young 18 man”—were sufficient to state 52.1 claim based on excessive force); Richardson v. 19 City of Antioch, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1147-48 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (denying motion 20 for summary judgment on Fourth Amendment claim because evidence showed that 21 “the illegal entry and arrest of KC were made in the context of continuing coercive 22 behavior by the police officers”); Knapps v. City of Oakland, 647 F. Supp. 2d
23 1129, 1168 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (finding, following bench trial, that plaintiff proved
24 violation of Section 52.1 premised on violation of Fourth Amendment right to be
25 free from unlawful search and seizure); Barsamian v. City of Kingsburg, 597 F.
26 Supp. 2d 1054, 1064-67 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (denying defendant’s motion summary
27 judgment on plaintiff’s 52.1 claim premised on unreasonable seizure); Lucas v. 28 City of Boston, No. 07-CV-10979-DPW, 2009 WL 1844288, at *12 (D. Mass. June
22

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 32 of 36 Page ID #:6345

1 19, 2009) (“In the instant case, there can be no question that Plaintiffs’

2 constitutional claims—based on allegations that the Defendant Officers forced

3 entry, used excessive force, and pressured Mrs. Lucas to sign the search consent

4 form—satisfy the MCRA’s requirement of “threats, intimidation or coercion.”);

5 Bates v. Arata, No. 05-3383-SI, 2008 WL 820578, at *26-27 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26,

6 2008) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on 52.1 claim based on

7 excessive force); Reinhardt v. Santa Clara County, No. C05-05143, 2006 WL
8 3147691, at *7-9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
9
52.1 claims based on wrongful arrest); Cole v. Doe Officers of City of Emeryville
10
Police Dept., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (denying defendant’s
11
motion for summary judgment because “[u]se of law enforcement authority to
12
effectuate a stop, detention (including use of handcuffs), and search can constitute
13
interference [with the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights] by ‘threat [],
14
intimidation, or coercion’ if the officer lacks probable cause to initiate the stop,
15
maintain the detention, and continue a search”); Nolan v. Krajcik, 384 F. Supp. 2d
16
17 447 (2005) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s MCRA claim based on
18 excessive force); Daley v. Harber, 234 F. Supp. 2d 27, 32 (D. Mass. 2002)

19 (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s MCRA claim based on arrest without

20 probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

21

The excessive forced used by the Defendant deputies, and encouraged or

22 allowed by the Defendant supervisors, establishes Eighth and Fourteenth

23 Amendment violations cognizable under §52.1.

24

g) Compensatory Damages Are Recoverable For All

25

Detriment Proximately Resulting To Plaintiffs From the Violations of Their Rights.

26
Compensatory damages which may be awarded under Section 1983 are not
27

limited to out-of-pocket pecuniary loss, but may include compensation for any
28

detriment which is the natural or proximate consequence of the officer’s

23

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 33 of 36 Page ID #:6346

1 misconduct, Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding

2 $90,000 in compensatory damages for wrongful detention); Kerr v. City of

3 Chicago, 424 F.2d 1134, 1139-40 (7th Cir. 1970), such as pain and suffering,

4 Jenkins v. Arnett, 424 F.2d 1228, 1233 (4th Cir. 1970), and emotional and mental

5 distress. Donovan v. Reinhold, 433 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1970); Antelope v. George,

6 211 F.Supp. 657 (D. Ind. 1962) (tort against plaintiff’s person not prerequisite to

7 recovery for mental suffering); Culbertson v. Leland, 528 F.2d 426, 428 (9th Cir.

8 1975).
9
3. Punitive Damages.
10
Punitive damages may be recovered in a §1983 action not only for conduct
11
shown to be inspired by evil motive or intent, but also when involving reckless or
12
callous indifference to federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461
13
14 U.S. 30, 56 (1983); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 22, 100 S.Ct. 1468 (1978).

15

Personal animosity toward a plaintiff is not a prerequisite for awarding

16 punitive damages. Gill v. Manuel, 488 F.2d 799, 801 (9th Cir. 1973), and neither

17 is an award of compensatory damages. Gill v. Manuel, supra, 488 F.2d at p.802.

18

4. Attorney Fees May be Awarded to Plaintiffs Or Attorneys In a

Section 1983 Action and in an Action Pursuant to Cal. Civil

19

Code §52.1.

20
a) Section 1983
21
Plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorney fees in a §1983 suit pursuant to
22
Title 42 U.S.C. §1988. Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, 550 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir.
23
24 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 436 U.S. 547, 98 S.Ct. 1970 (1978); Molina v.

25 Richardson, 578 F.2d 846, 854 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Morrow v. Dillard, 580

26 F.2d 1284, 1300 (5th Cir. 1978).

27

Although recovery of attorney fees is discretionary with the trial court, it

28 should be awarded unless extraordinary reasons appear which would render such

24

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 34 of 36 Page ID #:6347

1 award unjust. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968);

2 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).

3

Further, as a result of City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct.

4 2638 (1992), multipliers are rare under federal law. However, if state law calls for

5 a multiplier, federal courts should award a multiplier. Mangold v. California

6 Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995).

7

b) Cal. Civil Code Section 52.1

8
Plaintiff is also entitled to fees under Civil Code §52.1(g). Jones v. Kmart
9
Corp., 17 Cal.4th 329, 331 (1998) (Civil Code §52.1); Venegas v. County of Los
10
Angeles, 104 Cal.App.4th 936 (2002) (Civil Code §52.1); Gatto v. County of
11
Sonoma, 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 750 (2002) (Civil Code §52.1).
12

In Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001), the California Supreme
13

14 Court reaffirmed that, under California law, a multiplier should be awarded to

15 compensate for contingent risk. A multiplier is necessary in contingent-fee cases

16 to “bring financial incentives for attorneys enforcing important constitutional rights

17 into line with the incentives for claims other attorneys undertake which are paid on

18 a fee-for-service basis.” Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1133. “A lawyer who both bears

19 the risk of not being paid and provides legal services is not receiving the fair

20 market value of his work if he is paid only for the second of these functions.”

21 Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th. at 1133. “A contingent fee must be higher than a fee for the

22 same legal services paid as they are performed. The contingent fee compensates

23 the lawyer not only for the legal services he renders but for the loan of those

24 services.” Id. at 1132 (internal citation omitted; emphasis added). “A lawyer who 25 both bears the risk of not being paid and provides legal services is not receiving the 26 fair market value of his work if he is paid only for the second of those functions.” 27 Id. at 1133 (internal citation omitted).
28

25

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:6348

1

Before Dague, the Ninth Circuit approved 2.0 multipliers and suggested

2 such multipliers were appropriate in contingent fee cases. Fadhl v. City and

3 County of San Francisco, 859 F.2d 649, 650 (9th Cir. 1988) (“contingent fees that

4 yield approximately two times the ordinary hourly rate for time expended is the

5 return expected by lawyers in the relevant market”). The pre-Dague federal law is

6 California law, and thus Fadhl is strong authority for 2.0 multipliers. Multipliers

7 of 2.0 were recently approved in Wing v. Asarco Incorporated, 114 F.3d 986, 988

8 (9th Cir. 1997) (multiplier of 2.0 approved under California law); Crommie v.

9
California Public Utilities Commission, 840 F.Supp. 719 (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff'd
10
sub nom, Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470 (9th
11
Cir. 1995) (multiplier of 2.0 approved under California law); Chabner v. United of
12
Omaha Life Insurance Company, 1999 WL 33227443 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (Judge
13
Patel awards a multiplier of 2.0 under the same California civil rights fee-shifting
14
statute); and Coalition for L.A. County Planning, etc. Interest v. Board of
15

Supervisors, 76 Cal.App.3d 241, 251 (1977) (multiplier of 2.0 approved).
16

17

c) A TIMELY DEMAND FOR A JURY WAS MADE

IN CONFORMITY WITH RULE 38, FEDERAL

18

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LOCAL

19

RULES 3.4.10.

20

d) ATTORNEYS’ FEES.

21

Plaintiffs agree to a reservation of the Court’s jurisdiction for the

22 purpose of determining after trial whether to award attorney fees to the prevailing

23 party and if so, the amount thereof.

24

25 DATED: July 26, 2013
26
27
28

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. MULLER
By /s/ James S. Muller JAMES S. MULLER Attorney for Plaintiffs

26

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 36 of 36 Page ID #:6349

1 DATED: July 26, 2013
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP By /s/ Ronald O. Kaye RONALD O. KAYE Attorney for Plaintiffs
27

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:6391

1 SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP GILBERT M. NISHIMURA (SBN 57905)
2 gnishimura@snw-law.com J. EDWIN RATHBUN, JR. (SBN 221804)
3 erathbun@snw-law.com 605 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 900
4 Los Angeles, California 90015 Tel.: (213) 481-2869 | Fax: (213) 481-2871
5
Attorneys for Defendant, Hernan Delgado
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, et al.

Case No.: CV-10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

12
Plaintiffs,

13

14

vs.

15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

16
Defendants.
17

DEFENDANT HERNAN DELGADO’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW

Final PTC: August 19, 2013

Trial:

September 17, 2013

18

19

TO THE HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES

20 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

21 OF RECORD:

22

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant, HERNAN DELGADO

23 (“Delgado” or “the named Defendant”) hereby submits the following

24 Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, pursuant to Local Rule 16-4:

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:6392

1 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND

2

DEFENSES

3

A. Alleged Facts

4

Plaintiffs claim their civil rights were violated during a serial cell extraction

5 that took place on August 25, 2008 at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail.

6 Delgado participated in only one of the five plaintiff extractions (Carlos Flores).

7

Flores was housed on module 3300, Baker row, cell four. He is a multiple-

8 convicted felon and admitted associate of the Southsiders prison gang. Flores

9 acknowledged throwing pieces of broken porcelain at deputies as they prepared for

10 the extraction of Baker row. One of the pieces hit a sergeant or captain.

11

The LASD supervisor of this extraction team, Sgt. Matthew Ohnemus, gave

12 Flores numerous orders to submit to handcuffing before deputies entered the cell.

13 Consistent with the Southsiders gang’s rules and requirements, Flores did not

14 submit. Flores acknowledged that had he done so he would have been subject to

15 retaliation by fellow Southside gang members.

16

Like the other inmates, Flores stood his jail mattress up vertically and hid

17 behind it in the corner of the cell. Deputy personnel used a variety of tactics to get

18 Flores to submit to handcuffing before they entered the cell, such as 40 mm

19 projectiles and sting balls. Delgado did not deploy or participate in any of these

20 tactics. Flores continued to refuse to come out, so deputies entered the cell.

21

Upon entering Flores’ cell, additional orders were given for him to give up.

22 However, he refused. Deputy personnel (not including Delgado) took Flores to the

23 ground when Flores refused to give up. While on the ground, Flores assaulted the

24 deputies by trying to push up off the ground and flailing his elbows back towards

25 the deputies while kicking back at them. Because of Flores’ assaultive/high-risk

26 behavior, Delgado struck Flores 5-6 times on his back with a closed fist. Delgado

27 did not use anything other than a closed fist to strike Flores and did not strike

28 Flores anywhere other than his back.

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:6393

1

Flores continued to fight and resist the deputies’ efforts to subdue him and

2 kept his hands tucked underneath his body while on the ground. When it became

3 clear that the orders given to Flores to submit were being ignored, Sgt. Ohnemus

4 directed Delgado to tase Flores. Delgado followed his Sergeant’s order and 5 applied the taser in the “drive stun” mode1 to Flores’ right shoulder. The taser

6 application was effective and Flores stopped his assaultive behavior and was

7 handcuffed. He was then taken out of his cell and given medical treatment.

8 Delgado did not participate in taking Flores out of the cell and did not have any

9 role in the videotaping of the extraction.

10

B. Summary of Key Evidence in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Claims

11

Defendant’s key evidence in defense of the case will be Delgado’s

12 testimony, testimony of other team members that extracted Flores, including Sgt.

13 Ohnemus, as well as expert witnesses Commander (Ret.) Gil Jurado and Dr.

14 Martin Shoji.

15

C. Summary Statement of Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses

16

and Key Evidence in Support

17

1. Second Affirmative Defense - Comparative Fault

18

(a) Factual Basis:

19

The damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Second Amended

20 Complaint were not caused by the fault, carelessness, negligence or wrongful

21 conduct on the part of the named Defendant, but it any such fault, careless, or

22 negligence is found to exist, any recovery or reward of damages must be

23 diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to Plaintiffs.

24

(b) Elements:

25

In actions for injury to person or property, the contributory

26 negligence of the person injured in person or property shall not bar recovery, but

27

28 1 The “drive stun” application of the taser entails applying the prongs directly onto the suspect, as opposed to use of the “dart mode”, which involves firing small darts attached by wires to the taser.
-3-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:6394

1 the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of

2 negligence attributable to the person recovery. Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 532 P.2d

3 1226, 1243 (Cal. 1975).

4

(c) Key Evidence:

5

Testimony of Plaintiffs and Defendants.

6

2. Fourth Affirmative Defense – Failure to Mitigate Damages

7

(a) Factual Basis:

8

Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.

9

(b) Elements:

10

The plaintiffs have a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate

11 damages. See Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions: Civil §5.3 (2007)

12

(c) Key Evidence:

13

Testimony of the Plaintiffs and Dr. Kent Shoji.

14

3. Seventh Affirmative Defense – California Govt. Code §820.2,

15

et. seq.

16

(a) Factual Basis:

17

Any and all acts of the named Defendant which allegedly

18 caused the injury at the time and place set forth in the Second Amended Complaint

19 were in the exercise of discretion vested in him and therefore there is no liability

20 pursuant to California Government Code §820.2, et. seq.

21

(b) Elements:

22

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is

23 not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission

24 was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such

25 discretion is abused. California Government Code §820.2, et. seq.

26

(c) Key Evidence:

27

Testimony of the named Defendant and police practices/use of

28 force expert witnesses.

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:6395

1

4. Twelfth Affirmative Defense – Qualified Immunity

2

(a) Factual Basis:

3

The named Defendant claims protection for his actions under

4 the theory of qualified immunity.

5

(b) Elements:

6

By virtue of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States

7 Constitution, states and state employees acting in their official capacities are not

8 subject to suit under 42 USC § 1983 and 1985. Will v. Michigan Department of

9 State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001);

10 Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir 2009).

11

(c) Key Evidence:

12

Testimony of the named Defendant and police practices/use of

13 force expert witnesses.

14

5. Fourteenth Affirmative Defense – Sheriff’s Deputies Are

15

Immune State Officials

16

(a) Factual Basis:

17

Sheriff’s deputies are immune state officials if state laws and

18 judicial interpretations establish that their acts were on behalf of the state when

19 enforcing its laws and protecting the public welfare.

20

(b) Elements:

21

Sheriff’s deputies are immune state officials if state laws and

22 judicial interpretations establish that their acts were on behalf of the state when

23 enforcing its laws and protecting the public welfare. McMillan v. Monroe County,

24 Alabama, 520 U.S. 781, 791-792 (1997); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001);

25 Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

(c) Key Evidence:

27

Testimony of the named Defendant and police practices/use of

28 force expert witnesses.

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 297 Filed 07/29/13 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:6396

1

D. Identification of Anticipated Evidentiary Issues

2

There are a number of anticipated evidentiary issues. Plaintiffs filed six

3 motions in limine and Defendants filed 13 motions that fully address these issues.

4

E. Identification of Any Issues Of Law

5

One possible issue of law will be whether “threats, intimidation, or

6 coercion” that is separate and distinct from the alleged underlying constitutional

7 violation, pursuant to California Civil Code §52.1.

8

Additionally, the individual Defendants who used force at the direction of

9 their Sergeant (including Delgado) are appealing the Court’s denial of summary

10 judgment/adjudication on the grounds of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs have filed

11 a motion for clarification, pursuant to Chuman v. Wright.

12 2. BIFURCATION OF ISSUES

13

Defendants seek to bifurcate the Monell claim from the claims against the

14 individual deputies (see Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1).

15 3. JURY TRIAL

16

Defendant has requested a trial by jury in his answer.

17 4. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

18

Defendant is not making a claim for attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs claim they

19 are entitled to attorneys fees, pursuant to their California Civil Code §52.1 claim.

20 Defendants claim any applicable fees are governed by the Prison Reform Litigation

21 Act.

22 5. ABANDONMENT OF ISSUES

23

Defendant has abandoned the affirmative defenses not listed herein.

24

25 Dated: July 29, 2013

SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP

26

By: /s/

.

27

J. EDWIN RATHBUN, JR.

28

Attorneys for Defendant Hernan Delgado

-6-

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:11805

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

15

CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS

16 SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD,

No. CV 10-6342 CBM(AJWx) JUDGMENT [JS-6]

17

18

19

vs.

Plaintiffs,

20 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et 21 al.,

22

Defendants.

23

24

This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, the Honorable

25 Consuelo B. Marshall, presiding. The issues having been duly tried, the jury having

26 duly rendered its verdict, and the Defendants named below having been found

27 liable,

28

JUDGMENT

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:11806

1

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

2

Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez

3

1. That Judment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against

4

Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant

5

Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco

6

Alonso, Deputy Clayton Stelter, Deputy Joseph Sanford and Deputy

7

Alejandro Hernandez-Castanon, for violating Plaintiff Heriberto

8

Rodriguez’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive force

9

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to recover jointly and severally the sum of

10

$90,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

11

2. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against

12

Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover punitive damages, in the sum of

13

$15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

14

3. That is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against Defendant

15

Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover punitive damages, in the sum

16

of $12,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

17

4. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez from

18

Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover punitive damages, in

19

the sum of $10,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

20

and

21

5. That Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny,

22

Antonio Galindo, Adolph Esqueda and Matthew Thomas against Plaintiff

23

Heriberto Rodriguez for the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

24

25

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez

26

1. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez

27

against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant

28

Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco

JUDGMENT

2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:11807

1

Alonso, Deputy Adolph Esqueda, Deputy Matthew Thomas, Deputy

2

Joseph Sanford and Deputy Alejandro Hernandez-Castanon, for violating

3

Plaintiff Carlos Sanchez’s Eighth Amendment right not to be subjected to

4

cruel and unusual punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California

5

Civil Code §52.1 (excluding the County of Los Angeles on California

6

Civil Code §52.1), to recover jointly and severally the sum of

7

$200,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

8

2. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against

9

Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover punitive damages, in the sum of

10

$15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

11

3. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against

12

Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover punitive damages,

13

in the sum of $12,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by

14

law;

15

4. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against

16

Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover punitive damages, in

17

the sum of $10,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

18

and

19

5. That Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny,

20

Antonio Galindo and Clayton Stelter against Plaintiff Juan Carlos

21

Sanchez for the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code §52.1 claims.

22

23

Plaintiff Erick Nunez

24

1. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against

25

Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant

26

Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco

27

Alonso, Deputy Matthew Thomas, Deputy Clayton Stelter, Deputy

28

Joseph Sanford and Deputy Alejandro Hernandez-Castanon, for violating

JUDGMENT

3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:11808

1

Plaintiff Erick Nunez’s Eighth Amendment right not to be subjected to

2

cruel and unusual punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California

3

Civil Code §52.1 (excluding the County of Los Angeles on California

4

Civil Code §52.1), to recover jointly and severally the sum of

5

$100,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

6

2. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against

7

Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover punitive damages, in the sum of

8

$15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

9

3. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against

10

Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover punitive damages,

11

in the sum of $12,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by

12

law;

13

4. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against

14

Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover punitive damages, in

15

the sum of $10,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

16

and

17

5. That Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny,

18

Antonio Galindo and Adolph Esqueda against Plaintiff Erick Nunez for

19

the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code §52.1 claims.

20

21

Plaintiff Carlos Flores

22

1. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against

23

Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant

24

Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Matthew Onhemus, Deputy Andrew

25

Lyons, Deputy Javier Guzman, Deputy Hernan Delgado, and Deputy

26

Justin Bravo, for violating Plaintiff Carlos Flores’ Eighth Amendment

27

right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under 42

28

U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code §52.1 (excluding the County of

JUDGMENT

4

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:11809

1

Los Angeles on California Civil Code §52.1), to recover jointly and

2

severally the sum of $200,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate

3

provided by law;

4

2. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against

5

Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover punitive damages, in the sum of

6

$15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

7

3. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against

8

Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover punitive

9

damages, in the sum of $12,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate

10

provided by law;

11

4. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against

12

Defendant Sergeant Matthew Onhemus, to recover punitive damages, in

13

the sum of $30,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

14

5. That Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Carlos Ortega, Adrian

15

Ruiz and Clayton Stelter against Plaintiff Carlos Flores; and

16

6. That Judgment is entered as a matter of law under FRCP Rule 50 in

17

favor of Defendant Armando Gonzalez against Plaintiff Carlos Flores.

18

19

Plaintiff Juan Trinidad

20

1. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against

21

Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant

22

Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Kelley Washington, Deputy Michael

23

Frazier, Deputy Blake Orlandos, Deputy Nicholas Graham, and Deputy

24

Hector Vazquez, for violating Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez’s Eighth

25

Amendment right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment

26

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code §52.1 (excluding the

27

County of Los Angeles on California Civil Code §52.1), to recover

28

jointly and severally the sum of $150,000.00, with interest thereon at

JUDGMENT

5

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 626 Filed 02/05/14 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:11810

1

the rate provided by law;

2

2. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against

3

Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover punitive damages, in the sum of

4

$15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by law;

5

3. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against

6

Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover punitive

7

damages, in the sum of $12,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate

8

provided by law;

9

4. That Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against

10

Defendant Sergeant Kelley Wahshington, to recover punitive damages,

11

in the sum of $15,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate provided by

12

law; and

13

5. That Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Ivan Delatorre, Arthur

14

Diaz, Jr., Enrique Cano and John McNicholas against Plaintiff Juan

15

Trinidad.

16

17

Any motion for attorney’s fees or application to tax costs shall be filed in

18 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules following

19 the entry of Judgment by the Court.

20

21

22 DATED: February 5, 2014 23 24

By______________________________________ HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL United States District Judge

25

26

27

28

JUDGMENT

6

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:14611

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12

HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CAROLOS FLORES, ERICK

CASE NO. 10-6342-CBM (AJWx)

NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS 13 SANCHEZ and JUAN TRINIDAD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

14

Plaintiffs,

MOTIONS (1) FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) MOTION

15

LIM

TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS TO MOVING DEFENDANTAS AND

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS AFTER

17

Defendants.

RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED

18

IMMUNITY APPEALS;(3) TO ) VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES;

19

and (4) FOR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A).

20

21

Before the Court are four post-trial motions filed by Defendants:

22

1. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

50(b) ("JMOL"). (Docket No. 637.) 23
2. Motion to Vacate Judgment and for New Trial ("Motion to Vacate").

24

(Docket No. 638.)

25

3. Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages or Remittitur or New Trial on

26

Punitive Damages ("Punitive Damages Motion"). (Docket No. 640.)

27

4. Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) ("59(a) Motion"). (Docket No. 639.)

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:14612

2 denied Defendants’ Motion to Vacate, 59(a) Motion, and Punitive Damages

3 Motion from the bench with written orders to follow. (Docket No. 672.) Upon

4 consideration of the papers and arguments submitted, the Court also denies

5 Defendants’ JMOL. The below order addresses each of Defendants’ post-trial

6 motions in turn.

7

I. JURISDICTION

8

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

9 1343(3), and 1367.

10

II. FACTUAL OVERVIEW

11

Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos

12 Sanchez, and Juan Trinidad (collectively "Plaintiffs") are former or current

13 inmates of the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail ("MCJ"). Plaintiffs filed

14 this suit against numerous Defendants including the County of Los Angeles (the

15 "County"), Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department ("LASD"), and LASD supervisors

16 and deputies on August 25, 2010 (collectively, "Defendants"). (Docket No. 1.) In

17 their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the deputies of LASD physically beat them

18 with the purpose to harm, thereby violating their right to be free from excessive

19 force under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Second Amended

20 Complaint ("SAC") at 1-2.) (Docket No. 76.)

21

A month-long jury trial commenced on October 1, 2013. (Docket No. 487.)

22 The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs against twenty of the

23 individual defendants on November 7, 2013. (Docket No. 569.) The Court

24 entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on February 6, 2014. (Docket No.

25 626.)

26

III. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

27

Prior to trial, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment

28 asserting qualified immunity on behalf of all individual defendants. (Docket No.

2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:14613

2 (Docket No. 261.) On July 23, 2013, moving Defendants Daniel Cruz,

3 Christopher Blasnek, Matthew Onhemus, Michel McGrattan, and Kelley

4 Washington (for purposes of this Order, the "Appellant Defendants") filed a

5 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Qualified Immunity. (Docket No.

6 290.) The Ninth Circuit ordered the Defendants either to dismiss their

7 interlocutory appeal or to show cause as to why the interlocutory appeal should

8 not be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Id. at 2. ("A review of the record

9 suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because an order

10 denying qualified immunity on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact

11 exists is not a final, immediately appealable order. . . Within 21 days after the date

12 of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show

13 cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.") (Rodriguez v.

14 County ofLos Angeles, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56292, Docket No. 3). On the

15 same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion and asked this Court to certify Appellant

16 Defendants’ appeal as frivolous under Chuman v. Wright. (Docket No. 293.) The

17 Court denied Plaintiffs’ Chuman motion. (Docket No. 356.)

18

Defendants then filed an "emergency motion" under Circuit Rule 27-3 for

19 an immediate stay of proceedings, including a stay of the trial. (Rodriguez, Ninth

20 Circuit Case No. 13-56292, Docket No. 7.) This motion was denied by the

21 Circuit. (See Rodriguez, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56292, Docket No. 8.) Less

22 than a month later, with the Appellant Defendants’ appeal pending, this Court

23 proceeded to trial for all Defendants on Plaintiffs’ state and federal claims.’

24 (Docket No. 487) At the conclusion of trial, the Court submitted the case to the

25 jury pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal. (Docket No. 566.) On

26 November 7, 2013, the jury reached a verdict. (Docket No. 569.)

27

A few weeks later, on December 5, 2013, the Ninth Circuit discharged its

28 Only Plaintiffs’ federal claims were the subject of the summary judgment appeal.

3

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:14614

2 and issued an order advising the parties that the jurisdictional issue did "not

3 appear suitable for summary disposition" and providing a briefing schedule set for

4 January and February 2014. (Rodriguez, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56292, 5 Docket No. 9.)

6

On February 6, 2014, this Court entered Judgment based on the jury’s

7 verdict. Defendants filed the current four post-trial motions on March 17, 2014.

8 (Docket Nos. 637-630.), and the Circuit vacated the earlier scheduling order for

9 the Appellant Defendants’ appeal pending the resolution of these motions.

10 (Rodriguez, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56292, Docket No. 14.) Defendants’ post-

11 trial motions are addressed in turn below.

12

IV. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

13

A. STANDARD OF LAW

14

When a motion for judgment as a matter of law is made after a verdict was

15 returned, "the [C]ourt may. . . (A) allow the judgment to stand; (B) order a new

16 trial, or (C) direct entry ofjudgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(1).

17 "Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the evidence presented at trial

18 permits only one reasonable conclusion." Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., 19 Inc., 575 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548

20 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008)). Thus, "[a] motion for judgment as a matter of

21 law is properly granted only if no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving

22 party’s favor." Torres, 548 F.3d at 1205 (quoting El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 23 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)). The jury’s verdict, however, must be upheld if it is

24 supported by substantial evidence, which "is evidence adequate to support the

25 jury’s conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion from the

26 same evidence." Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified School Dist., 251 F.3d 1222,

27 1227 (9th Cir. 2001). A court must view the evidence in the light most favorable 28

4

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:14615

_ ---- ___ ---- ______
I2 548 F.3d at 1205-06. A court may not separately make credibility determinations
3 or weigh the evidence. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150,
4 147 L. Ed. 2d 105, 121, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000).

5

The law of the case doctrine generally precludes a court from

6 "reconsidering an issue that already has been decided by the same court, or a

7 higher court in the identical case." United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876

8 (9th Cir. 1997). Courts, exercising their discretion, may depart from the law of the

9 case where: "1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change

10 in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4)

11 other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise

12 II result." Id.

13

B. ANALYSIS

14

Defendants raise six arguments for judgment as a matter of law:

15

1. Plaintiffs failed to prove California Civil Code § 52.1 claims because

16

Plaintiffs did not prove that they were subject to "threats, intimidation,

17

and coercion" separate from their Eighth Amendment Claims.

18

2. Supervisory Defendants cannot be liable for their subordinates’ alleged use of excessive force under § 52.1 pursuant to Gov.Code §820.8

19

3. Supervisory Defendants are immune for discretionary acts under §820.8

20

4. Defendants who only used directed force cannot be held liable under

21

§1983 or §52.1

22

5. Individual Defendants who did not prevail at trial are entitled to

qualified immunity.

23

6. The evidence did not establish that the excessive force was caused by

24

any policy or custom to establish Monell liability against Defendant

25

County of Los Angeles.

26

Most of Defendant’s arguments were argued and decided by this Court

27 earlier in this litigation. The Court finds none of Defendants’ arguments sufficient

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:14616

flJfl’.’.’.di ’JX A" VV.

2

1. Plaintiffs did not fail to prove their § 52.1 claims.

3

Section 52.1 provides a right to relief when someone "interferes by threats,

4 intimidation, or coercion.. . with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or 5 individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of

6 the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of [California]." Cal. Gov’t Code §

7 52.1. To prevail on a § 52.1 claim, a plaintiff must therefore prove (1) a violation

8 of a constitutional or statutory right (2) by intimidation, threats or coercion.

9 Venegas v. Cnly. ofLos Angeles, 153 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 1242, 63 Cal. Rptr. 741,

10 750(2007).

11

Defendants take the position that a California Civil Code § 52.1 claim can

12 only survive if the plaintiff proves "threats, intimidation, or coercion" separate and

13 apart from whatever constitutional violation is at issue in the case. See Rodriguez 14 v. City ofFresno, 819 F. Supp. 2d 937, 953 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that under §

15 52.1, "the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference

16 with a separate constitutional or statutory right" and "it is not sufficient that the

17 right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was

18 applied"). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to prove liability under

19 California Civil Code § 52.1 because Plaintiffs did not prove that they were

20 subject to "threats, intimidation, and coercion" separate from their Eighth

21 Amendment Claims.

22

a) Section 52.1 does not require that Plaintiffs prove

2"

"threats, intimidation, or coercion" distinct from their Eighth Amendment claims in this case.

24

The Ninth Circuit recently held that liability under § 52.1 can be based on

25 the same facts as an underlying constitutional violation. Chaudhiy v. City ofLos 26 Angeles, _F.3d, 2014 WL 2030195, at *6 (9th Cir. May 19,2014).

27 However, prior to this decision, district courts were split on whether or not 28

6

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:14617

1

- - .,

o .--

A - _.L... - - -,---.,,

____..

2 separate and distinct from a constitutional violation. Defendants argue, based on

3 the district court split, that some district courts have held that a § 52.1 claim is

4 only proper when a plaintiff shows "threats, intimidation, or coercion"

5 independent from the Constitutional violation (such as excessive force or wrongful

6 detention) itself. See, e.g., Williams v. County ofRiverside, No. EDCV 13-0 1954

7 DDP (DTBx), 2014 WL 1095909 at *2.3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014).

8

Defendants principally rely on Shoyoye v. CnIy. of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.

9 App. 4th 947, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (2012). In Shoyoye, the plaintiff was

10 wrongfully detained because of a clerical error. Id. at 951. The evidence at trial

11 showed that "none of the county employees" had wrongfully detained the plaintiff

12 "with actual or presumed knowledge that he should have been released." Id. at 13 961. The Shoyoye court distinguished cases where an officer’s conduct "became 14 intentionally coercive and wrongful, i.e. a knowing and blameworthy interference

15 with the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights" and where the "coercion was not carried

16 out in order to effect a knowing interference with [a plaintiff’s] constitutional 17 rights." Id. at 959-62. The court held that where coercion is inherent in the

18 constitutional violation alleged (there, an over-detention), a plaintiff must show

19 intent or knowledge to meet § 52.1’s requirement of threats, intimidation, or 20 coercion. Id. at 959.

21

This Court, guided by recent Ninth Circuit and district court case law, does

22 not read Shoyoye to require a separate showing of coercion in § 52.1 claims. This

23 Court agrees with other courts holding that the relative distinction for purposes of

24 a §52.1 claim is between intentional and unintentional conduct, and that Shoyoye 25 applies only when the constitutional violation is unintentional. See Bass v. City of 26 Fremont, 2013 WL 891090, *5..6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013) (finding that Shoyoye 27 applies where the constitutional violation was brought about solely "by human

28 error rather than intentional conduct"); MH. v. Cnty. ofAlameda, 1 1-CV-02868

7

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:14618

2 purposes of the Bane Act is between intentional and unintentional conduct, and..

3 Shoyoye applies only when the conduct is unintentional"); Holland v. City of San

4 Francisco, No. C10-2603 TEH, 2013 WL 968295 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12 2013)

5 (distinguishing Shoyoye on the basis that here the harms alleged were "brought

6 about by intentional conduct" that "may reasonably [be] perceived as threatening,

7 intimidation, or coercive").

8

The Court’s reading of Shoyoye abides by California Supreme Court and

9 Court of Appeals precedent. See Venegas v. County ofLos Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th

10 820, 827, 843, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692, 694, 708 (2004)(permitting a §52.1 claim to

11 proceed where the coercive conduct was based on the constitutional violation

12 itself); Bender v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 217 Cal. App. 4th 968, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d

13 204 (2013) (rejecting a broad interpretation of Shoyoye that requires a plaintiff

14 show "threats, intimidation, or coercion" independent from a violation of the

15 federal constitution). Furthermore, the extremely broad reading of Shoyoye that

16 Defendants advocate for would perversely preclude any § 52.1 claim in which the

17 underlying constitutional violation involved "threats, intimidation, or coercion"

18 and would run contrary to the plain language of the statute. Bass, 2013 WL 19 891090, at *5 (noting that a broad reading of Shoyoye "is contrary to the plain

20 language of [§ 52.1], which specifically provides for a civil action based on

21 interference with a right ’by threats, intimidation, or coercion").

22

Therefore, this Court finds that § 52.1 does not require a showing of

23 "threats, intimidation, or coercion" separate and distinct from an underlying

24 constitutional violation. See Chaudhry, F.3d, 2014 WL 2030195, at *6.

25

26

27

28

8

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:14619

b) Plaintiffs met § 52.l’s _requirement of "threats,

2

acted knowingly and intentionally AA IIIILI4 LLJII I

"S "P" "1wJI"

PJJ jJI V

’

3

Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial demonstrated that Supervisory Defendants saw

or heard Plaintiffs being beaten and knowingly and intentionally permitted the use

of unconstitutional force. The evidence at trial also established that the deputy

6 Defendants engaged in malicious conduct with the intent to harm. Defendants’

conduct, therefore, was not determined to be the result of human error as in

8 Shoyoye. The jury found that Defendants acted with the intent to cause pain and thereby found Eighth Amendment violations and also sufficient "threats,

10 intimidation, or coercion" to support state law §52.1 violations. (See Docket Nos.

11 595, 597, 599, 601.) Relief under Civil Code section 52.1 does not require a

12 plaintiff to show the defendant acted with discriminatory animus or intent.

13 O’Toole v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 4th 488, 502 (2006)). In the case in 14 front of this Court, Plaintiffs not only proved up "threats, intimidation, or

15 coercion," but also proved animus and intent. Based on the evidence presented at

16 trial, Plaintiffs did not fail to prove liability under California Civil Code § 52.1.

17 See Venegas, 32 Cal. 4th at 841-43; Bender, 217 Cal. App. 4th 968.

1 Q

2. Supervisory Defendants are not entitled to immunity for

10

subordinates’ use of excessive force under Gov’t Code

19

§820.8.

20

California Government Code § 820.8 states that "a public employee is not

21 liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person." Cal. Gov’t

22 Code § 820.8. The statute further states that "[n]othing in this section exonerates a

23 public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his own negligent

24 or wrongful act or omission." Id.

25

Defendants argue that the Supervisory Defendants (Blasnek, Cruz,

26 McGrattan, Onhemus, and Washington) cannot be liable for their subordinates’

27 alleged use of excessive force under § 52.1 pursuant to § 820.8. However, each of

28 the Supervisory Defendants was found liable for her own actions under § 52. 1,

9

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:14620

I I

.1

1

1.

2 (See Docket Nos. 592-601 (verdict forms).) Therefore immunity under § 820.8

3 does not apply. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,744 (9th Cir. 1978) ("California

4 law expressly imposes liability on a public employee for his own act or

5 omission"); Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.1998)

6 (holding that a superior "can be held liable in his individual capacity if he

7 participated in the deprivation of [a plaintiff’s] constitutional rights."); McKay v.

8 City ofHayward, 2013 WL 2605782, at * 14 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2013) ("[T]he

9 failure to intervene in another officer’s use of excessive force is an independent

10 omission, and not a claim immunized by California Government Code § 820.8.").

11

The Supervisory Defendants were held liable for their own wrongful acts

12 and omissions and are therefore not entitled to immunity under § 820.8.

13 Therefore, these Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

14

3. Supervisory Defendants’ are not entitled to immunity

15

for discretionary acts under Gov. Code §820.2

16

California Government Code § 820.2 provides that "a public employee is

17 not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or

18 omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vest in him, whether or

19 not such discretion be abused." Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2. Defendants argue that

20 the Supervisory Defendants are entitled to immunity from civil liability under §

21 820.2 because their conduct was discretionary in nature.

22

The Supervisory Defendants were found liable for their direction of the cell

23 extractions, not simply for a discretionary policy decision. Plaintiffs presented

24 evidence at trial that Supervising Defendants not only decided to conduct the cell

25 extractions but also witnessed and allowed their subordinates to violate Plaintiffs’

26 rights by using excessive force. Plaintiffs’ evidence showed that all of the

27 Supervising Defendants either saw or heard Plaintiffs being beaten and that they

28 saw the injuries caused by these beatings. Accordingly, Supervisory Defendants’

10

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:14621

-

.. .

.

2 Code § 820.2. Johnson v. State of California, 69 Cal. 2d 782, 787-93, 73 Cal.

3 Rptr. 240, 244-248 (1968) (finding that while basic policy decisions are

4 considered an exercise of discretion, implementation of those decisions should be

5 construed as "ministerial" and therefore not within the scope of immunity); State 6 Dept. of State Hospitals v. Super. Ct., 220 Cal. App. 4th 1503, 1515, 163 Cal.

7 Rptr. 3d 770, 781 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2013) ("Public entities and employees enjoy

8 statutory immunity for discretionary policy decisions, but do not have immunity

9 for ministerial administrative acts."), reh g denied (Nov. 18, 2013), review granted

10 and opinion superseded sub nom., 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657 (Cal. 2014).

11

Defendants’ acts were not discretionary. The Supervisory Defendants are

12 not entitled to immunity under California Government Code § 820.2.

13

4. Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of

14

law because they only used "directed force."

15

Defendants argue that those defendants who only used force as directed by

16 their supervisors - Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado - are entitled to

17 judgment as a matter of law because there was a legitimate penological purpose

18 for their actions. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs resisted cell extractions, and this

19 necessitated use of the Tasers by the Defendants.

20

At trial, the jury found that the deputies engaged in malicious conduct with

21 intent to harm, including using Tasers on sensitive body parts and on unconscious

22 individuals. These findings support Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims. See

23 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 165, 112 S. Ct. 995, 999 24 (1992) (holding that malicious or sadistic use of force with intent to harm violates

25 the Eighth Amendment); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 89 L.

26 Ed. 2d 251, 261-62, 106 S. Ct. 1078, 1084-1085 (1986) (finding that, in the

27 context of a prison disturbance, an Eighth Amendment violation turns on "whether

28 force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or

11

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:14622

2 proved that Defendants acted without a legitimate purpose; therefore, they are not

3 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

4

5. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

5

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore

6 cannot be held liable as a matter of law. However, Defendants may only be

7 entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the defendant did not violate the plaintiff’s

8 constitutional rights, or (2) the constitutional right at issue was not "clearly

9 established" at the time of the violation. Whitley at 335, 341.

10

For a constitutional right to be "clearly established," the "contours of the

11 right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

12 what he is doing violates [a constitutional] right." Anderson v. Creighton, 483

13 U.S. 635, 640, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 531, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987); see also 14 Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) ("The

15 linchpin of qualified immunity is the reasonableness of the official’s conduct").

16 The Supreme Court has held that there need not be identical factual precedent for

17 an act to be "clearly established." See Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119,

18 1128 (9th Cir. 2011 )(" [the Circuit has] never required a prior case on all fours

19 prohibiting that particular manifestation of unconstitutional conduct to find a right

20 clearly established") (internal quotation omitted). Where defendants lack a

21 "legitimate question" regarding whether or not their actions would violate a

22 constitutional right, qualified immunity must be denied. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 658

23 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535, n. 12, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 431, n.12,

24 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2820, n.12 (1995)).

25

This Court finds that, as a matter of law, none of the Defendants are entitled

26 to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs proved at trial that Defendants knowingly

27 violated the law. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 89 L. Ed. 2d 271 9 278, 28

12

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:14623

2 shield from liability ’all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

3 violate the law."). Officers have been on notice since at least 1992 that

4 intentionally harming a prisoner without a permissible purpose violates the Eighth

5 Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156

6 (1992). As in similar cases involving intent and malice "[t]he facts of this case do

7 not fall in the ’hazy border between excessive and acceptable force’ as a legal

8 matter." See Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1127- 28 (9th Cir. 2011),

9 cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1032 (2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

10 Therefore, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

11

a) Defendants Cruz and Blasnek are not entitled to

12

qualified immunity as a matter of law.

13

Defendants argue that it was not "clearly established" that Defendants Cruz

14 and Blasnek should have intervened in the cell extractions, and therefore they are

15 entitled to qualified immunity. (JMOL at 14-15). However, it is established law

16 that officers have a duty to intercede when a fellow officer violates the

17 constitutional rights of a citizen. Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.

18 1995) (holding that "a prison official can violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment 19 rights by failing to intervene"); Knapps v. City of Oakland, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1129,

20 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("A reasonable officer could not have reasonably but

21 mistakenly believed that he had no duty to intervene to stop another officer in their

22 immediate presence from inflicting excessive force on a subject when they could

23 have prevented it."). At trial, Plaintiffs provided evidence showing that

24 Defendants Cruz and Blasnek saw or heard Plaintiffs being beaten and were in a

25 position to intercede and prevent excessive force as it occurred. Furthermore,

26 Plaintiffs provided evidence that Defendants Cruz and Blasnek approved the use

27 of weapons against Plaintiffs. There is no qualified immunity where Defendants’

28 actions would reasonably lead to the malicious and sadistic treatment of inmates.

13

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:14624

2 supervisor can be liable under section 1983 if he set[s] in motion a series of acts

3 by others ..., which he knew or reasonably should have known, would cause others

4 to inflict the constitutional injury.") (Internal quotations omitted). Therefore, there

5 was sufficient evidence to show that Cruz and Blasnek had an opportunity to

6 intervene and can be held liable for their failure to intervene.

7

b) Sergeants McGrattan, Ohnemus, and Washington

8

are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

9

Defendants argue that Sergeants McGrattan, Ohnemus, and Washington are

10 entitled to qualified immunity for having directed the use of force during the

11 course of Plaintiffs’ cell extractions in response to Plaintiffs’ refusal to comply

12 with instructions. Sergeants McGratten, Ohnemus, and Washington directed the

13 deployment of stinger rounds and stingball grenades, the entry of shield and

14 capture deputies into Plaintiffs’ cells, and the use Tasers.

15

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the level of force used

16 surpassed what was necessary to gain control of the situation, and force was used

17 when Plaintiffs were not resisting and after they were incapacitated (i.e.

18 unconscious, limp, or restrained). With respect to these Defendants, the evidence

19 at trial showed that they directed this excessive force and encouraged their

20 subordinates’ use of force with the intent to harm.

21

Accordingly, the Court finds that Sergeants McGrattan, Ohnemus, and

22 Washington are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See

23 Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6.

24

c) The deputies who were directed to deploy a taser

25

are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

26

Defendants argue that the law regarding use of a Taser was not "clearly

27 established" at the time of the constitutional violation, and therefore Defendants 28

14

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:14625

2 16:8-10).

3

The evidence presented at trial proved that Defendants Sanford, Vazquez,

4 and Delgado deployed Tasers at sensitive body parts and for unnecessary amounts

5 of time in a fashion intended to cause pain. 2 Defendants cite recent cases granting

6 qualified immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser

7 usage was not "clearly established." However, the cases cited are distinguishable

8 because, in those cases, the officers were not using Tasers with the purpose of

9 inflicting pain. E.g. Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc);

10 Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court finds that the

11 evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendants violated clearly

12 established law by maliciously using a Taser as an instrument to inflict harm and

13 corporal punishment. See Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994)

14 (holding that "[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that

15 the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict

16 injury."). The Court therefore finds that Defendants Sanford, Vazquez, and

17 Delgado are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law for their directed

18 use of Tasers.

19

d) Defendants Alonso, Bravo, Frazier, Graham,

20

Orlandos, Thomas, Guzman, Lyons, and Esqueda are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of

law.

21

22

Defendants Alonso, Bravo, Frazier, Graham, Orlandos, Thomas, Guzman,

23 Lyons, and Esqueda argue they entitled to qualified immunity because their

24 actions did not violate clearly established law "with respect to the force which

25 may be used during encounters inside a single man cell, with an uncooperative and

26 combative inmate in the middle of a large scale jail disturbance." (MSJ at 19:11-

27

28

2 Two other Defendants who used Tasers, Galindo and McNicholas, prevailed at trial and were not found liable for constitutional violations.

15

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:14626

- -,

1(4

,

:.-. ... AL, AS..., S

.
.V1" SASS 1d.tJ.LAS1 1.JS 14

1L4IJ%# ’.515 1415 .115134 I..’

2 prohibiting that particular manifestation of unconstitutional conduct" to find a

3 "clearly established" constitutional violation. See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1128; see

4 also Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 535, n. 12.

5

Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the jury found that the

6 kicks, punches, knee strikes, and other uses of force by defendant deputies were

7 excessive and executed intentionally to cause pain. This proved that these

8 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7-10.

9 The Court therefore finds that Defendants Alonso, Bravo, Frazier, Graham,

10 Orlandos, Thomas, Guzman, Lyons, and Esqueda are not entitled to qualified

11 immunity as a matter of law.

12

6. Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of

13

law as to Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the County of Los Angeles.

14

To recover against a public entity defendant under § 1983, a plaintiff must

15 prove either (1) an explicit wrongful government policy pronouncement or (2) a

16 pattern of wrongful acts by governmental officials which are "so permanent and

17 well-settled as to constitute an (unspoken) ’custom or usage’ with the force of

18 law." Monellv. Dep’t of Soc. Sen’s. of City ofNew York, 436 U.S. 658, 69091, 56

19 L. Ed. 2d 611, 635, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978). Defendants argue that Plaintiff

20 failed to prove that the County’s policies caused the constitutional deprivations.

21

Plaintiffs met their burden of proof to establish a Monell claim. The

22 evidence at trial proved that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department tolerated the

23 use of unconstitutional force at Men’s Central Jail ("MCJ"), and gave deputies and

24 supervisors license to use excessive force without fear of discipline. Plaintiffs

25 provided evidence that Captain Cruz, a policy maker, perpetuated a culture where

26 excessive force was encouraged, openly joked with the deputies about force, and

27 promoted the practice of incomplete and ineffective investigations into deputy 28

16

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:14627

4:’4.1_.

._- T1 I T!

2 were also offered and received into evidence. The Jury had the benefit of all of

3 the evidence at trial and found that there was a strong enough pattern of wrongful

4 acts by governmental officials to show that unconstitutional conduct was "so

5 permanent and well-settled as to constitute an (unspoken) ’custom or usage’ with

6 the force of law." Id. at 690.

7

The Court therefore finds that Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a

8 matter of law on Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the County of Los Angeles.

9

V. MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS TO MOVING

DEFENDANTS AND FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS

10 AFTER RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

11

APPEALS

On July 23, 2013, Appellant Defendants filed a Notice of Interlocutory

12

13 Appeal of Denial of Qualified Immunity. (Docket No. 290.) This appeal is

14 pending. (Rodriguez, Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56292, Docket No. 14.)

15 Appellant Defendants move to vacate this Court’s Judgment, arguing that their

16 notice of interlocutory appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction.

17

A. STANDARD OF LAW

A court may provide relief from a final judgment if the judgment is void.

18

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). "Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), a litigant may attack a

20 judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Wages v. IRS, 915

21 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534,

22 162 L. Ed. 2d 480, 494, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2649 (2005) (noting that Rule 60(b)(4)

23 "preserves parties’ opportunity to obtain vacatur ofajudgment that is void for

24 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction").

Appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a 25 26 denial of qualified immunity when the question involves a matter of law. See
Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 528 (holding that a district court’s denial of a claim of 27 28 qualified immunity is an appealable "final decision" within the meaning of 28

17

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:14628

-

--------’,----

1

2 Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1996). But, "[w]here the district court

3 denies immunity on the basis that material facts are in dispute, [appellate courts]

4 generally lack jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal." Collins, 110 F.3d

5 at 1370; see also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 307, 132 L. Ed. 2d 238, 243,

6 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2153 (1995). "If an interlocutory claim is immediately

7 appealable, its filing divests the district court ofjurisdiction to proceed with trial."

8 Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).

9 However, in the context of an interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity, if

10 a district court finds that defendants’ claim is frivolous or has been waived and

11 certifies such in writing, the district court maintains jurisdiction. Id. at 105.

12

B. ANALYSIS

13

1. The Court Retained Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. §

1983 Claims Against Appellant-Defendants 14

Defendants argue that their interlocutory appeal divested the Court of

15

16 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Appellant Defendants

17 because their claim was immediately appealable and the Court denied Plaintiffs’

18 request to certify Defendants’ appeal as frivolous. Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105.

However, Defendants’ claim was not immediately appealable. The Court’s 19 20 pretrial summary judgment order denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary

21 Judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the individual

22 defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. (See Docket No. 261.) "An order

23 denying qualified immunity on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact

24 exists is not a final, immediately appealable order." Maropulos v. County of Los

Angeles, 560 F.3d 974, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319-20). 25
The Court finds that it retained jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 26 27 1983 claims against Appellant Defendants.

28 18

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:14629
2. The Court Retained Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ. Code §

2

An appeal "divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the

3 case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459

4 U.S. 56, 58, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225, 228, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982). Defendants argue

5 that Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 claims are involved in the appeal because

6 they, like the § 1983 claims, require finding a violation of constitutional rights. 3

7 Defendants conclude that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ.

8 Code § 52.1 claims against Appellant Defendants.

9

California Civil Code § 52.1 claims are not subject to qualified immunity.

10 See e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th Cir. 2009) ("California law

11 is. . . clear that qualified immunity of the kind applied to actions brought under 42

12 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to actions brought under [Cal. Civil Code § 52.1].");

13 Venegas, 153 Cal. App. 4th at 1248 (holding that qualified immunity under § 1983

14 does not apply to actions brought under § 52.1). Defendants appeal the Court’s

15 denial of qualified immunity and therefore the Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 claims are

16 not implicated in the appeal.

17

The Court finds that it had jurisdiction to proceed to trial on Plaintiffs’ Cal.

18 Civ. Code § 52.1 claims against Appellant Defendants.

19

3. The Court Retained Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983

20

and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 Claims Against Non-Appellant Defendants

21

Defendants argue that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

22 California Civil Code § 52.1 claims even as to the non-appellant defendants

23 because "the issue of whether non-Appellant Defendants used excessive force is

24 also an issue embraced by the interlocutory qualified immunity appeal." (Motion

25 to Vacate at 10:3-5.) However, there is no pending appeal pertaining to any

26 Defendants based on §51.2 or non-appealing Defendants. Therefore, the Court

27
California Civil Code § 52.1 "permits an individual to sue for damages where his or her constitutional rights are
W. violated." City of Simi Valley v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1077, 1085 (2003).

19

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:14630

I

I

-.

--

1

-

-

2

4. Plaintiffs’ Request for the Court to Rule Nunc Pro Tune that

3

Appellant Defendants’ Appeal is Frivolous under Chuman V. Wright is Granted.

4

Plaintiffs request for the Court to certify the Appellant Defendants’

5 interlocutory appeal as frivolous nunc pro tunc, as of August 19, 2013. (Docket

6 No. 653 at 12-14.)

7

Under Chuman, the district court is automatically divested ofjurisdiction

8 following an interlocutory appeal unless the court finds that defendants’ claim is

9 frivolous or has been waived and certifies such in writing. Chuman, 960 at 105.

10 At the pretrial conference, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to certify

11 Defendants’ appeal as frivolous under Chuman. (Docket Nos. 356, 293.)

12

During summary judgment proceedings, this Court denied Defendants’

13 motions for summary judgment and found "genuine issues of material fact" as to

14 Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. (Docket. No. 261 at 1-3.)

15 Plaintiffs’ legal theories were based on Defendants’ intent to inflict pain and

16 corporal punishment and willfully failure to intervene in other officers’ excessive

17 force. These theories arose from clearly established constitutional violations

18 which, if proven, would disqualify a defendant from qualified immunity

19 protections. Hope v. Peizer, 536 U.S. 730, 738, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666, 677, 122 S. Ct.

20 2508, 2514 (2002); Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1285 (9th Cir. 2001). In

21 its summary judgment order, this Court found evidence establishing a factual

22 dispute as to whether or not Defendants were liable under Plaintiffs’ legal

23 theoriesand, similarly, a factual dispute regarding whether or not Defendants

24 should be entitled to qualified immunity. Because the Court’s denial of qualified

25 immunity was based on a factual dispute requiring resolution by a trier of fact;

26 there was no "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court’s

27 denial of summary judgment should therefore not have been subject to an

28 interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 319-20 (holding that a

20

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:14631

2 district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether

3 or not the pretrial record sets forth a ’genuine’ issue of fact for trial."); see also 4 Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013)

5 (holding that Ninth Circuit "jurisdiction over [summary judgment] appeals is

6 limited: we may review only the district court’s legal conclusion that an officer is

7 not entitled to qualified immunity.") In holding that qualified immunity is not

8 immediately appealable where the decision is based on a genuine issue of material

9 fact, the Supreme Court anticipated cases precisely like the one now before this

10 Court. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 316 ("Many constitutional tort cases...

11 involve factual controversies about, for example, intentcontroversies that,

12 before trial, may seem nebulous.") Such cases are not immediately appealable.

13

After further analysis and consideration, the Court finds the Appellate

14 Defendants’ appeal was frivolous and wholly without merit. Therefore, the Court

15 grants Plaintiffs’ request and certifies Appellant Defendants’ appeal "frivolous"

16 under Chuman.

17

VII. VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

18

A. FACTS RELATING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

19

For those Defendants that the jury found liable for conduct that was

20 malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard for the rights of one or more of the

21 Plaintiffs, the jury was given the opportunity to determine the propriety of and the

22 amount of punitive damages. (Docket No. 602.) The parties presented evidence

23 regarding the propriety of punitive damages under § 1983, including evidence of

24 Defendants’ ability to pay punitive damages awards, to the jury. (Docket No. 612.)

25 After arguments were heard and evidence was presented, the jury returned a

26 verdict imposing punitive damages against five individual Defendants in the

27 following amounts: (1) Ret. Capt. Daniel Cruz - $75,000; (2) Lt. Christopher 28

21

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:14632

-

S.

\..’/

.LVJS..JI (.l.LA4i

4.J ’J,JSJ’.J, kT)

LVLULI1 VV

2 Onhemus - $30,000; and (5) Sgt. Kelley Washington - $15,000. (Docket No. 606

3 [Redacted Special Verdict Form - Punitive Damages].)

4

Defendants Cruz, Blasnek, McGrattan, Onhemus, and Washington filed a

5 Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages or Alternatively for Remittitur or New Trial

6 on Punitive Damages ("Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages"). (Docket No. 640.)

7

VIII. STANDARD OF LAW

8

"The Court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues -

9 and to any party - as follows: (A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new

10 trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court...." Fed. R.

11 Civ. P. 59(a)(1). "A trial court may grant a new trial.., to prevent a miscarriage of

12 justice... ." Tortu v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 556 F.3d 1075, 1087

13 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) provides for

14 relief from a final judgment if it is void. This rule "preserves parties’ opportunity

15 to obtain vacatur of a judgment that is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

16 . . ." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005).

17

IX. ANALYSIS

18

Defendants raise two arguments supporting their request to vacate punitive

19 damages. First, Defendants contend that this Court was stripped of jurisdiction

20 over Plaintiffs’ § 1983 Claims. Second, Defendants contend that the amount of

21 punitive damages was excessive in relation to Defendants’ ability to pay. Neither

22 argument is persuasive.

23

1. The Court was not divested of jurisdiction following Defendants’

Notice of Appeal

24

Defendants argue that the trial in this case was conducted without

25

26 jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court’s Judgment is without effect and the punitive

27 damages awarded are void. (Docket No. 640 at 4-8.) Based on the legal analysis

28 discussed earlier in this order, see supra, P.IV, this Court retained jurisdiction

22

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:14633

-

-

Em ---- ’-- J ’t’f’_’

2 Defendants’ appeal as "frivolous." Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105.

3

2. The Punitive Damages Against Defendants Were Not Excessive

4

A "jury may award punitive damages under Section 1983 either when a

5 defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a

6 reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others." Davis v.

7 Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir.1991). An award that is "grossly

8 excessive" violates the Due Process Clause because it denies individuals fair

9 notice of the penalty to which his conduct could expose her. BMW v. Gore, 517

10 U.S. 559, 574, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 825-826, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 1598 (1995). To

11 determine the constitutionality of an award of punitive damages, a court must refer

12 to the three BMW guideposts: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s

13 misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the

14 plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the

15 punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or

16 imposed in comparable cases. Bains LLC v. Arco Prods. Co, 405 F.3d 764, 775

17 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing BMW, 517 U.S. at 574-75). Defendants’ Punitive Damages

18 Motion fails to show that the punitive damage awards are unconstitutionally

19 excessive.

20

Defendants argue that the punitive damages awarded exceed Defendants’

21 ability to pay, and therefore the awards are excessive. This is not persuasive. Pac.

22 Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hasli, 499 U.S. 1, 22, 113 L. Ed. 2d 1, 22, 111 S. Ct. 1032,

23 1045 (199 1) (holding that in determining punitive damages, "the factfinder must

24 be guided by more than the defendant’s net worth"). In fact, Defendants’ ability to

25 pay is a factor that is given relatively low importance when compared to other

26 BMW guideposts. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 733 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir.

27 2013)reh’gen bane granted, 11 -17484, 2014 WL 801419 (9th Cir. 2014)(holding

28 that "[p]erhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive

23

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:14634

2 Defendants offer no further arguments to show that the punitive damage awards

3 are excessive.

4

As persuasively argued in Plaintiffs’ Opposition brief, each of the BIvJJ’V

5 factors favors finding that the punitive damages awarded in this case are

6 reasonable. First, the Defendants’ conduct was found to be reprehensible

7 (Defendants acted maliciously and directed actions which broke bones, caused

8 blunt head trauma, and inflicted other physical harm upon Plaintiffs). Second,

9 there was no major disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the

10 plaintiff and the punitive damages award (the combined punitive damages

11 awarded ($210,000) represented a fraction of the $740,000 awarded as

12 compensatory damages). And, third, there is no marked difference between the

13 punitive damages awarded by the jury and the penalties authorized in comparable

14 cases (Plaintiffs cite several cases authorizing more or similar punitive damage

15 awards in comparable cases).

16

In the Punitive Damages Motion, as was done at trial, Defendants provide

17 single-page declarations listing general monthly "income," monthly "expenses,"

18 total "assets," and total "liabilities." (See Declarations attached to Defendants’

19 Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages (Docket Nos. 640, Exhs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)), and

20 argue that these figures demonstrate that the punitive damages are

21 disproportionate to each individuals’ net worth. Defendants argue that under

22 California law, punitive damage "awards generally are not allowed to exceed 10

23 percent of the net worth of the defendant." Michelson v. Hamada, 29 Cal. App.

24 4th 1566, 1596, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343, 359 (1994). This is unpersuasive for two

25 reasons. First, California law does not apply because punitive damages in this

26 case were awarded under federal law. Second, "a California court may set aside a

27 punitive damage award only where the award ’appears excessive, or ... is so

28 grossly disproportionate as to raise a presumption that it is the result of passion or

24

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:14635

1 Il nreiudice"

2 1994) (citing Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389,

3 399, 582 P.2d 980, 990 (1978)). The California "passion and prejudice’ standard

4 does not occur in a vacuum, but is measured against the identical criteria utilized 5 by the jury: reprehensibility of defendant’s misdeeds, the ratio between the

6 compensatory and punitive damages, and the ratio between the damages and the

7 defendant’s net worth." Id. at 1360 (citing Las Palmas Assoc. v. Las Palmas Ctr.,

8 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 323 (1991)). Attrial, Defendants provided evidence of their

9 net worth and, after considering this evidence, the jury awarded punitive damages.

10 With full consideration of the Defendants’ evidence and arguments in the Punitive

11 Damages Motion, and the evidence underlying Defendants’ liability, the Court

12 finds that the jury’s award of punitive damages was reasonable.

13

Further, under federal law, a jury may consider the ability of a Defendant to

14 pay the award to determine whether an award is reasonable. Tri-Tron Intern. v. 15 Velto, 525 F.2d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1975) (finding that "ability to pay is of some

16 importance"). The Court entered a special jury instruction guiding the jury as to

17 this law. (Docket No. 602 (instructing the jury "any award you impose may not

18 exceed the Defendant’s ability to pay.").) Defendants failed to prove that the

19 punitive damage awards exceeded the Defendants’ abilities to pay despite

20 providing evidence to the jury about Defendants’ net worth. A new trial is thus

21 not necessary to "prevent a miscarriage ofjustice." Tortu, 556 F.3d at 1087.

22 Defendants’ Punitive Damages Motion is DENIED.

23

X. NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A)

24

XI. JURY BIAS CLAIM

25

Defendants brought their Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59(a) on

26 the grounds that Juror No. 5 was impliedly biased. Juror No. 5 was questioned on

27 the third and final day of voir dire. (See Docket Nos. 487-489; Motion for New

28 Trial at 1.) During his questioning, Juror No. 5 disclosed the following

25

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:14636

1 associations that could create conflicts:

2

His mother is law professor and former federal prosecutor Laurie

3

Levenson. (Motion for New Trial at 2:8-9.)

4

He is "close family friends" with Richard Drooyan, the head of the

5

LAPD Police Commission. (Id., Exh. R at 5:25, 6:1, 8:21-25.)

6

He is "very close friends" with Obie Anthony, a wrongfully convicted

7

former-inmate who is not a party to this lawsuit. (Id., Exh. R at 6:1-4,

8

8:9-15.)

9

His mother is a "friend" of Ronald Kaye, Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id., Exh.

10

RatS:15-20.)

11

Also during initial questioning, Juror No. 5 stated that he does not have any

12 bias against law enforcement officers and felt "that their testimony lies in the same

13 kind of footing that anyone else’s does." (Id., Exh. R at 6:16-19.) Juror No. 5

14 also stated that he had not formed any opinions about the parties or attorneys that

15 would affect his ability to serve on the jury. (Id., Exh. Rat 18:24-25.) Juror No.

16 5 indicated that he did not recognize any of the potential witness’ names when

17 they were read by the Court. Following the completion of vior dire, Juror No. 5

18 was selected to serve on the jury. (See Docket No. 489.)

19

The next day, in a written note to the Court, Juror No. 5 made known that

20 he had forgotten to disclose that his father is an entertainment law attorney and the

21 Vice President of the ACLU. (Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for New Trial

22 Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 59(a) ("Opp’n"), Exh. B at 10:20-23.) The Court

23 questioned Juror No. 5 outside the presence of the rest of the jury regarding his

24 note. (See Docket No. 505.) When asked why he did not disclose his father’s

25 position at the ACLU during voir dire, Juror No. 5 explained that he had forgotten

26 to mention it because his father primarily works within entertainment law and

27 most of the time he does not work with the ACLU. (Opp’n, Exh. B at 9:18-25.)

28 No questions had been asked about the ACLU at vior dire.

26

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:14637

2 5’s ContinuedService" filed and requested that Juror No. 5 be excused for implied

3 bias. (Docket No. 495.) Upon considering Defendants’ request, the Court found

4 no actual or implied bias with respect to Juror No. 5 and thus no proper basis to

5 challenge Juror No. 5 for cause. Defendants unsuccessfully raised the issue of

6 Juror No. S’s bias several more times during trial. (See Docket Nos. 500, 502,

7 553, and 557.) Defendants raise the same issue again.

8

XII. STANDARD OF LAW

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a motion for new trial to be

10 granted "for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted

11 in actions at law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). In ruling on a motion for a new trial,

12 "[t]he judge can weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses, and

13 need not view the evidence from the perspective most favorable to the prevailing

14 party." Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371

15 (9th Cir. 1987). Courts have granted new trials based on findings of implied bias.

16 See, e.g., Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding implied bias and

17 holding that no "criminal defendant might lawfully be convicted by a jury tainted

18 by implied bias").

19

XIII. ANALYSIS

20

Defendants raise two arguments to support their request for a new trial on

21 the basis of juror bias. First, Defendants argue that Juror No. 5 was impliedly

22 biased because he had personal relationships with individuals who had personal

23 and professional stakes in the outcome of this trial. Second, Defendants argue that

24 Juror No. 5 was impliedly biased because he withheld information during voir dire

25 that would have constituted a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The Court

26 does not find either argument persuasive.

27

28

27

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:14638
1. Juror No. S’s Personal Relationships Do Not Support a Finding

2

A court may presume bias when there is a "potential for substantial

3 emotional involvement, adversely affecting impartiality" inherent in certain

4 relationships. Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir. 1990). A court may

5 also presume bias "in those extreme circumstances where the relationship between

6 a prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly

7 unlikely that the average person could remain impartial in his deliberations under

8 the circumstances." Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2007). Neither

9 is the case here.

10

There is no evidence that Juror No. 5 had any connections to this litigation.

11 There were no "extraordinary" circumstances justifying a finding of implied bias.

12 See Dyer, 151 F.3d at 981 ("In extraordinary cases, courts may presume bias

13 based on circumstance."). Defendants contend that Juror No. 5 had an interest in a

14 Plaintiffs’ verdict because his parents have public positions criticizing the

15 Sheriff’s Department. (See Motion for New Trial at 11-13.). However, there is

16 simply no evidence that either Juror No. 5 or his parents had any interest in the

17 outcome the litigation. C.f Dyer, 151 F.3d at 982.

18

The Court finds that Juror No. 5’s relationships do not demonstrate implied

19 bias. See United States v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding no

20 implied bias where no direct relationship between the juror and the case existed).

21

2. Juror No. 5’s Omissions During Voir Dire Do Not Support a

Finding of Implied Bias

22

To justify a new trial based on a juror’s responses in voir dire, a party must

23

24 demonstrate that the juror failed to answer a material question honestly and that a

25 correct response would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause. See

McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556, 78 L. Ed. 2d 26 27 663, 671, 104 S. Ct. 845, 850 (1984) (finding no implied bias where ajuror

28 mistakenly but honestly responded to voir dire questioning); see also Dyer, 151

28

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:14639

,,

_. ._.__1__.____1_._._..__

2 intentionally lied during voir dire "materially and repeatedly in response to

3 legitimate inquiries about her background").

4

Defendants argue that Juror No. 5 intentionally omitted that his father is a

5 prominent litigator and the Vice-President of the ACLU. (59(a) Motion at 9:27-

6 28-10:1-4.) However, facts suggest that Juror No. 5’s omission was the result of

7 inadvertence and not dishonesty. Juror No. 5 was never asked about his father’s

8 profession or associations. In fact, Juror No. 5 voluntarily brought his father’s

9 association with the ACLU to this Court’s attention. There is no evidence that

10 Juror No. 5’s father is actually involved with ACLU investigations or litigation.

11 Moreover, neither party argues that the ACLU was ever mentioned in the presence

12 of the jury, and the excerpts of the CCJV Report approved by the Court do not

13 reference the ACLU (see Dkt. Nos. 362 & 449). The only potential witness listed

14 who was associated with the ACLU never testified at trial nor was that witness’

15 association with the ACLU mentioned in the presence of the jury. Therefore,

16 Juror No. S’s father’s connection to the ACLU would not have provided a valid

17 basis for a challenge for cause at vior dire.

18

An honest omission during voir dire that would not have provided a valid

19 basis for a challenge for cause is not grounds for a new trial. See McDonough,

20 464 U.S. at 555 ("To invalidate the result of a three-week trial because of a juror’s

21 mistaken, though honest response to a question is to insist on something closer to

22 perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give.") Therefore, the

23 Court finds that Juror No. 5’s failure to disclose his father’s associations during

24 voir dire does not support a finding of implied juror bias or a basis for a new trial.

25 /-

26 /-

27 /-

28

29

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 693 Filed 05/29/14 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:14640
XIV. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Vacate 2 3 Judgment and for New Trial, Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(a), and Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages or Remittitur or New Trial on 4
Punitive Damages .are DENIED. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

DATED: May 29, 2014 7

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 750 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:15391

1

DAVID D. LAWRENCE, State Bar No. 123039 dlawrence@lbaclaw.com

2

JIN S. CHOI, State Bar No. 180270 jchoi@lbaclaw.com

3

DANIEL S. CHA, State Bar No. 260256 dcha@lbaclaw.com

4

LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200

5

Glendale, California 91210-1219 Telephone No. (818) 545-1925

6 Facsimile No. (818) 545-1937

7

Attorneys for Defendants County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek, Matthew Onhemus,

8

Michel McGrattan, Kelley Washington, Clayton Stelter, Justin Bravo, Francisco Alonso, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Michael Frazier, Joseph Sanford, Hector

9

Vazquez, Nicholas Graham, Blake Orlandos, Matthew Thomas, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, and Adolph Esqueda

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, et al., ) Case No. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

14

Plaintiffs,

) )

15

16

vs.

)

) ) )

DEFENDANTS’ THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

17 18

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

) (NINTH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO.

) )

14-55374) AS TO DOCKET NO. 747

)

19

Defendants.

) )

20

)

21

22 TO THE CLERK OF COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF

23 RECORD:

24

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants County of Los Angeles, Daniel

25 Cruz, Christopher Blasnek, Matthew Onhemus, Michel McGrattan, Kelley

26 Washington, Clayton Stelter (as against Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nunez only), Justin

27 Bravo, Francisco Alonso, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Michael Frazier, Joseph

28 Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Nicholas Graham, Blake Orlandos, Matthew Thomas,

1

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 750 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:15392

1 Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, and Hernan Delgado previously

2 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the

3 Judgment entered on February 6, 2014 (Docket No. 626).

4

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek,

5 Matthew Onhemus, Michel McGrattan, Kelley Washington, Clayton Stelter (as

6 against Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nunez only), Justin Bravo, Francisco Alonso,

7 Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Michael Frazier, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez,

8 Nicholas Graham, Blake Orlandos, Matthew Thomas, Javier Guzman, Andrew

9 Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, and Hernan Delgado also previously appealed to the

10 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order entered April

11 11, 2014 (Docket No. 672), Order entered April 17, 2014 (Docket No. 676), and the

12 Order Denying Defendants’ Motions (1) For Judgment As A Matter Of Law; (2)

13 Motion To Vacate Judgment As To Moving Defendants And For A New Trial For

14 These Defendants After Resolution Of Interlocutory Qualified Immunity Appeals;

15 (3) To Vacate Punitive Damages; and (4) For A New Trial Pursuant To F.R.C.P.

16 59(A), entered on May 29, 2014 (Docket No. 693).

17

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek,

18 Matthew Onhemus, Michel McGrattan, Kelley Washington, Clayton Stelter (as

19 against Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nunez only), Justin Bravo, Francisco Alonso,

20 Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Michael Frazier, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez,

21 Nicholas Graham, Blake Orlandos, Matthew Thomas, Javier Guzman, Andrew

22 Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, and Hernan Delgado also previously appealed to the

23 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order granting

24 Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, entered on December 29, 2014 (Docket Nos.

25 719-720).

26

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek,

27 Matthew Onhemus, Michel McGrattan, Kelley Washington, Clayton Stelter (as

28 against Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nunez only), Justin Bravo, Francisco Alonso,

2

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 750 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:15393

1 Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Michael Frazier, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez,

2 Nicholas Graham, Blake Orlandos, Matthew Thomas, Javier Guzman, Andrew

3 Lyons, and Adolph Esqueda further hereby appeal to the United States Court of

4 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order denying Defendants’ Motion for

5 Relief from the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro., Rule 60(b)(6), entered

6 on May 29, 2015 (Docket No. 747).

7

8

9 Dated: June 26, 2015

LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC

10

11

By /s/ Jin S. Choi

12

Jin S. Choi

Attorneys for Defendants

13

County of Los Angeles, et al.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 751 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:15394

1 SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP GILBERT M. NISHIMURA (SBN 57905)
2 gnishimura@snw-law.com
3 ANDREW C. PONGRACZ (SBN 258554) apongracz@snw-law.com
4 605 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 900
5 Los Angeles, California 90015
6 Tel.: (213) 481-2869 Fax: (213) 481-2871
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, et al., ) Case No. CV 10-6342 CBM (AJWx)

11

)

Plaintiffs,

)

12

)

13

vs.

) ) )

DEFENDANT DELGADO’S AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

14

) (NINTH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO.

15

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

) )

14-55374) AS TO DOCKET NO. 747

)

16

Defendants.

)

)

17

)

18

19 TO THE CLERK OF COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF

20 RECORD:

21

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Hernan Delgado previously

22 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the

23 Judgment entered on February 6, 2014 (Docket No. 626).

24

In addition, Defendant Hernan Delgado previously appealed to the United

25 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order entered April 11, 2014

26 (Docket No. 672), Order entered April 17, 2014 (Docket No. 676), and the Order

27 Denying Defendants’ Motions (1) For Judgment As A Matter Of Law; (2) Motion

28

1 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 751 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:15395

1 To Vacate Judgment As To Moving Defendants And For A New Trial For These

2 Defendants After Resolution Of Interlocutory Qualified Immunity Appeals; (3) To

3 Vacate Punitive Damages; and (4) For A New Trial Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

4 Rule 59(A), entered on May 29, 2014 (Docket No. 693).

5

In addition, Defendant Delgado previously appealed to the United States

6 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for

7 attorney’s fees, entered on December 29, 2014 (Docket Nos. 719-720).

8

In addition, Defendant Delgado hereby appeals to the United States Court of

9 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Relief

10 from the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro., Rule 60(b)(6), entered on May 29,

11 2015 (Docket No. 747).

12

13
14 Dated: June 26, 2015

SEKI, NISHIMURA & WASTASE, LLP

15

16

17

By /s/ Andrew C. Pongracz

Andrew C. Pongracz

18

Attorneys for Defendant Hernan Delgado

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 60 Page ID #:20452

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ; CARLOS FLORES; JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ; ERICK NUNEZ; JUAN TRINIDAD,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants,
and
DANIEL CRUZ; MATTHEW ONHEMUS; CLAYTON STELTER; JUSTIN BRAVO; HERMAN DELGADO; ADRIAN RUIZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; FRANCISCO ALONSO; CHRISTOPHER BLASNEK; MICHEL MCGRATTAN; KELLEY WASHINGTON; ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ CASTANON; ARTHUR DIAZ, JR.; MICHAEL FRAZIER; ANTONIO GALINDO; ARMANDO GONZALEZ; MATTHEW NOWOTNY; JOSEPH SANFORD; HECTOR VAZQUEZ; IVAN DELATORRE; JOHN MCNICHOLAS,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13-56292
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06342-
CBM-AJW

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 60 Page ID #:20453

2

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ; CARLOS FLORES; JUAN TRINIDAD; JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ; ERICK NUNEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; DANIEL CRUZ; CHRISTOPHER BLASNEK; MATTHEW ONHEMUS; MICHEL MCGRATTAN; KELLEY WASHINGTON; CLAYTON STELTER; JUSTIN BRAVO; FRANCISCO ALONSO; ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ CASTANON; MICHAEL FRAZIER; JOSEPH SANFORD; HECTOR VAZQUEZ; NICHOLAS GRAHAM; BLAKE ORLANDOS; MATTHEW THOMAS; JAVIER GUZMAN; ANDREW LYONS; ADOLPH ESQUEDA; HERMAN DELGADO,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-55374
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06342-
CBM-AJW
OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 31, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed May 30, 2018

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 3 of 60 Page ID #:20454

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

3

Before: William A. Fletcher and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Sarah Evans Barker,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher

SUMMARY**

Prisoner Civil Rights
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial, award of compensatory and punitive damages, and award of attorney’s fees in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by five prisoners who were severely injured during the course of cell extractions at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail.
The panel first denied appellants’ request to vacate the final judgment on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction to go to trial during the pendency of appellants’ interlocutory appeal from a prior qualified immunity ruling. The panel held that although the district court failed to certify pursuant to Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992), that the interlocutory appeal was frivolous, any error was harmless.

* The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, sitting by designation.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 4 of 60 Page ID #:20455

4

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

Addressing the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that a reasonable fear of retaliation made the grievance system effectively unavailable for appellees, and that appellants failed to carry their burden of proof showing otherwise.

The panel held that the district court did not err by denying appellants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion, based on qualified immunity, for judgment as a matter of law. The panel held that there was abundant evidence presented to the jury that appellants inflicted severe injuries on appellees while they were not resisting, and even while they were unconscious. A jury could reasonably reject appellants’ argument that they acted reasonably and instead determine that the force was not part of a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. The panel therefore rejected appellants’ sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the jury’s finding of a constitutional violation.

The panel also found unpersuasive appellants’ arguments that the law regarding their conduct was not clearly established. Addressing the liability of the deputy appellants, the panel held that no reasonable deputy in appellants’ position would have believed that beating a prisoner to the point of serious injury, unconsciousness, or hospitalization solely to cause him pain was constitutionally permissible. The panel rejected the argument that the limits on the proper use of tasers were still unclear as of 2008, stating that once a jury has determined on the basis of sufficient evidence that prison officials maliciously and sadistically used more than de minimis force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency, and thus the Eighth Amendment, always are violated.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 5 of 60 Page ID #:20456

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

5

The panel held that the supervisor appellants—the sergeants who directed the extraction teams and their superiors—were not entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that to the extent that these appellants stood by and observed the extractions but knowingly refused to terminate the deputies’ unconstitutional acts, they were individually liable. The panel determined that ample evidence—including appellants’ own testimony—supported the conclusion that appellants directed and observed most of the extraction teams. The panel held that although it was unclear whether Captain Cruz directly observed all of the extractions, a jury could reasonably find the requisite causal connection to hold Cruz liable for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates.

The panel rejected the argument that the supervisors had immunity under state law and therefore could not be held liable under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1. The panel first held that California Civil Code § 820.2 does not shield government employees who use excessive force in carrying out their duties and that § 820.8 was inapplicable because appellees did not rely on vicarious liability. The panel concluded that in excessive force cases, including Eighth Amendment cases, § 52.1 does not require proof of coercion beyond that inherent in the underlying violation. Because appellees provided evidence sufficient to support a finding that they were subjected to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, they necessarily provided evidence sufficient to support a finding of a violation of their rights under the Bane Act.

The panel held that the record amply supported the jury’s verdict and the district court’s ruling of municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York,

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 6 of 60 Page ID #:20457

6

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The panel held that there was substantial evidence of repeated constitutional violations, of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department awareness of those violations, and of its failure to take any remedial action. The panel concluded that legal precedent permitted the jury to infer that the Sheriff’s Department had adopted a custom or practice of condoning excessive force and that this culture of violence and impunity proximately caused the injuries inflicted on appellees.

The panel held that the record did not require a finding of implied juror bias that allegedly arose from the professional activities of a juror’s parents and the juror’s personal friendships with other individuals having some involvement with the prison system. The panel upheld the award of $210,000 in punitive damages award against the supervisory appellants, stating that the appellees proved egregious, even shocking, abuses of power. The panel further noted that the punitive damages awarded to each appellee, considered individually or together, were all far less than appellees’ compensatory damages.

Addressing appellants’ claims of trial errors, the panel held that the district court acted within its broad discretion in declining to bifurcate the Monell claim and in excluding, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, evidence of appellees’ felony convictions and their gang membership. The panel further found no error in the district court’s jury instructions and determined that the district court reasonably denied the application to compel live testimony for four appellees and non-party inmates.

The panel affirmed the district court’s attorney’s fee award of $5,378,174.66. The panel held that the fee limit

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 7 of 60 Page ID #:20458

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

7

provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply to attorney’s fees incurred in litigation under California Civil Code § 52.1. Finally, the panel found no fault in the district court’s decision to apply a 2.0 multiplier, given the financial risk assumed by appellees’ counsel, the difficulty of representing prisoners in an excessive force action against high-ranking jail officials who engage in aggressive opposition, and the opportunity costs that the years-long litigation in this case required. The panel noted that the district court had considered the burden to California’s taxpayers that the fee award would represent, and found that the award was justified given the factors described above and the importance of civil rights suits in protecting the public against abuses at the hands of large or politically powerful defendants.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 8 of 60 Page ID #:20459

8

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

COUNSEL

David D. Lawrence (argued) and Jin S. Choi, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi P.C., Glendale, California; Andrew C. Pongracz, Seki Nishimura & Watase LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellants.

Caitlin S. Weisberg (argued), Barrett S. Litt, and Ronald O. Kaye, Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt LLP, Pasadena, California; James S. Muller, Offices of James S. Muller, Glendale, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

OPINION
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
In 2008, corrections staff at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail performed “cell extractions” in two highsecurity units in the course of quelling a disturbance. Appellees, five prisoners in the jail, were severely injured during the extractions. They brought suit in federal district court, alleging that appellants violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a month-long trial, a jury found nineteen Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) employees and the County of Los Angeles liable for appellees’ injuries under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or California Civil Code § 52.1, or both. The jury awarded $740,000 in compensatory damages and $210,000 in punitive damages. The court awarded more than $5 million in attorney’s fees.
We affirm.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 9 of 60 Page ID #:20460

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

9

I. Background

A. Factual History

Because this appeal follows a jury verdict in appellees’ favor, we relate the facts in the light most favorable to them. See Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1064 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

1. Cell Extractions

On August 25, 2008, there was a disturbance in Modules 3100 and 3300 of the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail, two high-security units in which prisoners were housed in single-person cells. Prisoners in the units lit fires, flooded toilets, shattered sinks, and threw shards of porcelain. Appellees described the disturbance as a “protest,” organized in response to repeated uses of excessive force by jail officials. Appellants described it as a “riot.” The district court instructed the parties to use the term “incident” in front of the jury.

To restore order, appellant Captain Daniel Cruz, unit commander, and appellant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, incident commander, planned a series of cell extractions. Under the stated terms of the plan, prisoners would have an opportunity to “cuff up” and leave their cells voluntarily. Prisoners who refused to cuff up would be forcibly extracted. Four LASD sergeants would lead four separate extraction teams of several deputies, with each deputy on a team having an assigned role. “Shield deputies,” covered with protective gear and carrying a shield, would enter first to pin the prisoner against a wall or to knock him to the ground. “Capture deputies” would follow close behind to restrain the

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 10 of 60 Page ID #:20461

10

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

prisoner. In the event that these deputies were unable to subdue a prisoner, “taser deputies” would administer electric shocks in “stun mode” until the prisoner was subdued. Official LASD policy required extraction teams to use the “lowest possible level” of force to “overcome only that level of resistance confronting the team.” Extraction teams were prohibited from using force to punish prisoners. Appellees were among those who were forcibly extracted.

Appellee Carlos Flores testified that, prior to his own extraction, he could hear cell extractions occurring in other cells. “[P]eople were crying out in pain, telling the deputies to stop. And I could hear the punching and kicking. And I could hear boots stomping. I could hear the deputies sometimes laughing.” When deputies approached Flores’s cell, “they were all wearing ski masks, I couldn’t see their faces.” A deputy shot into Flores’s cell with a 40 mm “block gun,” but Flores was not hit because he was protecting himself with his mattress. Deputies then threw one or two concussion grenades into Flores’s cell. They entered the cell, and one deputy used his shield to push Flores down onto his back. Five or six deputies then landed on top of Flores and the deputy. Several deputies held Flores down while others punched and kicked him in his face, head, and body. Deputies took turns, alternating between hitting and tasing him. “I could feel them stomping on my legs, trying to twist my leg.” As one deputy was hitting Flores, “he was just telling me, ‘Mother-Fucker. Mother-Fucker.’ ” “[T]hey were telling me to stop resisting, and . . . I was trying to say, ‘I’m not resisting.’ ” “[T]hat’s . . . a thing that the deputies do at the jail . . . . [T]hey’ll beat inmates and say ‘Stop resisting, stop resisting.’ But it’s like they know you’re not resisting. . . . They just want to beat you up.” After one of the tasers quit working, a deputy used the butt of the taser to hit

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 11 of 60 Page ID #:20462

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

11

Flores in the face and head. The repeated blows from fists, boots, and the taser broke Flores’s nose and eye socket. “The last thing I felt before I woke up in the hospital room . . . was the whole right side of my face, just I felt the bone break because he . . . kept hitting me in the same spot.” “It was the worst thing I ever felt. . . It was so painful that I just blacked out from the pain.” In the hospital afterwards, “the doctor explained to me that my nose had been broken pretty bad and that he had to go in there and . . . cut off a piece of some cartilage in order to move the bone back in place or something like that.” “[H]e explained to me . . . how my cheek bone holds my eye into place, and . . . the fracture to my . . . cheek bone had kind of like made my eye sunk down out of the socket. So he had to go in there and . . . put . . . two metal plates or something, and some screws, and . . . basically put my . . . eye socket back together. So that way, . . . my eye is not hanging at an odd angle out of my face.”

Appellee Juan Carlos Sanchez testified that before his extraction began a deputy appeared on his tier and stated, “You guys are going to get your ass beat.” When an extraction team came to Sanchez’s cell, a deputy shot at him with the block gun. He was not hit because he was protecting himself with his mattress. Deputies then threw a concussion grenade that exploded between his legs. Deputies entered the cell and threw Sanchez onto the floor on his stomach. A deputy handcuffed him with his hands behind his back. That deputy began “socking me in my face, punching me in my face, just punching me.” Sanchez was struck in the face until he bled. Other deputies then came into the cell. “[T]hey come in and started kicking me, stomping me out, . . . just jumping on my legs.” They broke Sanchez’s left ankle. Deputies told Sanchez to “stop fighting,” but “I wasn’t fighting.” Deputies later told him to “stop resisting,” even

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 12 of 60 Page ID #:20463

12

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

though he was not resisting. Sanchez was dragged out of the cell unconscious. Sanchez regained consciousness outside the cell, still handcuffed and lying on his stomach. Now outside the cell, deputies kicked Sanchez in the face and tased him repeatedly. They pulled down his pants and “tasered me on my butt.” At the hospital afterwards, doctors put permanent metal pins in Sanchez’s broken ankle. Sanchez was in a wheelchair for three to four months, and was not able to walk without crutches or a walker for eight or nine months. At the time of trial four years later, Sanchez still walked with a limp. Sanchez had received a large “gash” above his right eye. The gash had healed by the time of trial, but it was “always tingling.” Sanchez’s right eye was swollen shut for two weeks. At the time of trial, vision in that eye was blurred.

Appellee Erik Nunez testified that before entering his cell deputies shot him four or five times with large rubber or wooden bullets from a block gun. They then threw a concussion grenade into the cell. When they came into the cell, they pushed Nunez to the floor. Nunez “immediately . . . began feeling blows.” Deputies kicked him with “hard boot[s]” on his face, back, and sides. Deputies hit Nunez with their fists and jumped on his back. Nunez tried to cover his head to protect himself, but deputies grabbed his arms and continued to beat him. “I heard them saying . . . the whole time I was on the floor, ‘Stop resisting’ until the moment I came out of the cell.” Nunez testified that this was typical: “[Y]ou always hear them say, ‘Stop resisting,” and [inmates] are not even resisting. . . . That’s their justification.” Deputies tased Nunez repeatedly. “I kept getting tasered, and I was hoping that I would pass out. But . . . it was like . . . I would come right back to it with the taser.” “[A]fter the first tase, I was already out of it, . . . and then he just kept tasing

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 13 of 60 Page ID #:20464

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

13

and tasing me.” “This guy, he’s laughing, the guy that’s tasing me. He grabbed it, and he put it . . . [b]etween my butt cheeks, and he’s tasing me, and he’s laughing.” On a scale of one to ten, Nunez rated his pain at eleven. The tasing left marks on Nunez’s skin—“[b]lack marks, like wounds, like two holes, like burn marks, like burned skin.”

Appellee Juan Trinidad testified that he heard other cell extractions before deputies came to his cell. “You could hear all the pain. People are screaming and everything else.” “[Y]ou hear the same thing as usual, ‘Stop resisting,’ and they keep beating [the inmates].” “I already figured I’m going to get hurt. I’m going to get hurt real bad.” Before entering Trinidad’s cell, deputies shot into the cell ten or more balls filled with pepper spray. Deputies then shot into the cell with a block gun. One of the bullets from the block gun broke Trinidad’s right hand; one hit him directly in the chest; and one ricocheted and hit him in the shoulder. Deputies then threw a concussion grenade into the cell. Before deputies entered his cell, Trinidad heard a female deputy say, “Well, get that mother fucker.” When the deputies entered the cell, Trinidad lay face down on his mattress, trying to protect himself by “hid[ing] my face in between the floor and the table.” Deputies “ran in and they start beating me. One jumped on my back and the other one just started hitting me, and they start tasing me.” “[O]ne was trying to break my ankle.” Approximately five deputies were on top of Trinidad. One deputy was twisting his already-broken right hand and tasing him. Another deputy “was twisting my ankles.” “They told me to stop resisting . . . . I was not [resisting] because one deputy . . . had my right hand and he’s twisting. . . . I can’t resist.” Trinidad heard a deputy say, “The battery’s going dead. Give me another taser.” After Trinidad was handcuffed, deputies continued to beat and tase

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 14 of 60 Page ID #:20465

14

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

him. He faded in and out of consciousness throughout the extraction. On a scale of one to ten, Trinidad rated the pain from the taser a ten. Trinidad’s back was broken in several places. He was transported to the hospital in a neck brace, where he was treated for head, hand, and back injuries.

Appellee Heriberto Rodriguez testified that when deputies came to his cell, he was sitting on his toilet holding his mattress in front of him for protection. Deputies used a block gun to fire four shots, hitting his ankles. They then threw a concussion grenade into the cell. When deputies came into the cell, they yanked the mattress away and hit Rodriguez twice in the face. Rodriguez wears glasses. He put his hands to his face and dropped to the floor. When Rodriguez was face down on the cell floor, someone was hitting his head. A deputy pulled his hand away from his face and twisted his arm. “He was trying to snap it like a broomstick. . . . [H]e was saying things like, ‘You mother fucker. You mother fucker.’ ” “I was watching my elbow bending in an awkward position. I’ve never seen it bend that way.” At the time of trial, four years later, Rodriguez’s elbow would not extend to a straight and locked position. Deputies handcuffed Rodriguez and continued to beat him. “Someone dropped a knee or a leg or something on my back. I was still being hit on the back of my head.” He was told to “stop fighting,” even though he was already handcuffed and was not struggling. Rodriguez was tased repeatedly, “in my armpits, my fingertips, the back of my neck . . . . I was tasered my legs [sic], and the bottom of my feet.” Rodriguez testified further, “I was laying down cuffed, and I felt something probing my anus. And [the taser] pushed, it pushed, and it went down, and then it pushed, and then it was just a jolt.” It went to “the part between the testicles and the anus[.]” On a scale of 1 to 100, Rodriguez rated his pain from the taser a 100.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 15 of 60 Page ID #:20466

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

15

2. Missing Videotapes

LASD policy required staff to videotape cell extractions in their entirety and to preserve the videotapes afterwards. During discovery in this case, appellants produced forty-one videotapes of the cell extractions. These videotapes show almost none of the activity that took place inside the cells. Expert witness Steve Martin reviewed all of the videotapes produced by appellants, looking for the “hard-impact strikes” described by appellants in their post-extraction reports and by appellees. “Remarkably,” Martin testified, the videotapes showed “not a single [hard-impact] strike[.]” “[N]ot a single one of those hundred-plus strikes was captured on video.” On the audio of many of the videotapes, deputies can be heard saying “stop fighting.” However, none of the videotapes that were produced in discovery shows the inmates at the time this is being said, making it impossible to see whether the inmates were, in fact, fighting.

Appellees’ evidence at trial showed that deputies took at least five videotapes of cell extractions that were not produced in discovery. Appellees’ evidence showed that those videotapes were taken in a manner that would likely have shown the actual beatings and tasing of the inmates. For example, one of the videotapes that was produced was taken during the extraction of appellee Nunez. The videotape shows another deputy videotaping Nunez’s extraction from a vantage point that would likely have shown him being beaten and tased, and that would likely have shown whether he was fighting or resisting at the time. That videotape was not produced by appellants.

At trial, appellants denied “intentionally destroy[ing], misplac[ing], or eras[ing]” the missing videotapes. But

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 16 of 60 Page ID #:20467

16

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

appellants provided no explanation for why those videotapes, and only those videotapes, were missing.

B. Procedural History

Appellees brought suit against twenty-eight individual defendants and the County of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code § 52.1. Appellees Flores, Sanchez, Nunez, and Trinidad contended that the cell extractions violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellee Rodriguez, who at the time of the cell extraction was a pre-trial detainee, brought suit under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983).

1. Jury Instructions

The same jury instructions were used for all five appellees, and the parties do not distinguish among them on appeal. After the trial in this case, the Supreme Court clarified that “the appropriate standard for a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim [under the Fourteenth Amendment] is solely an objective one.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). In contrast, a convicted prisoner’s excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment requires a subjective inquiry into “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). The jury instructions for appellee Rodriguez’s Fourteenth Amendment claim erroneously required him, as a pretrial detainee, to prove both the objective unreasonableness of the appellants’ force (that “defendants used excessive and unnecessary force

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 17 of 60 Page ID #:20468

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

17

under all of the circumstances”) and appellants’ subjective intent (that “defendants acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm”). Because Rodriguez did not argue that this instruction was erroneous, the argument is forfeited. See Castro, 833 F.3d at1071–72. In any event, the error was harmless because Rodriguez prevailed at trial despite having to prove the additional subjective element. Cf. Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2477; Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the Eighth Amendment’s subjective inquiry involves a “heightened standard” that “necessarily involves a more culpable mental state than that required for excessive force claims arising under the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable seizures restriction”).

2. Interlocutory Appeal and Chuman motion

Prior to trial, appellants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motions. The extraction team supervisors, the “taser deputies,” and some of the “shield” and “capture deputies” filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity even assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the appellees. We issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed under Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 307 (1995).

While the interlocutory appeal was pending in our court, appellees moved in the district court to certify the interlocutory appeal as frivolous under Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the Chuman motion during the pendency of the appeal, and denied the motion on that ground. Then, while the appeal was still

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 18 of 60 Page ID #:20469

18

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

pending and over appellants’ objection, the district court ordered that the case proceed to trial on all claims against all defendants. Appellants filed an emergency motion for a stay in our court, which we denied. The case then went to trial.

3. Jury Selection

During and immediately following jury selection, appellants contended that Juror Number 5 (“S.M.”) was impliedly biased and should be excused for cause. During voir dire, S.M. stated that his mother was a law professor. He stated further that he had family and personal friends who were engaged in activities related to challenging conditions in Los Angeles County jails or who had had negative experiences with law enforcement. One of his friends was general counsel to the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence (“CCJV”) formed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. He described the friend only as the “head of the Los Angeles Police Commission.” A CCJV report was later introduced at trial to support Monell liability. There is no evidence that S.M. was aware during voir dire of any connection between his friend and the CCJV report that would be used at trial. S.M. later testified that he had not known that the friend was involved in the CCJV, and that he had not spoken with the friend about “any jail-related commissions.” S.M. was also a friend of an exoneree whom appellees’ counsel’s firm represented. At voir dire, S.M. told the court that he was not sure whether that friend was pursuing a civil case and, if so, who was representing the friend. S.M. also told the court he thought his mother was a friend of appellees’ counsel. Appellees’ counsel informed the court that he had at most a professional relationship with S.M.’s mother. Appellees had already used all of their

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 19 of 60 Page ID #:20470

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

19

peremptory challenges. Their counsel moved to excuse S.M. for cause. The court denied the motion.

The next day, after he had been seated on the jury, S.M. submitted a note to the judge stating that his father was currently vice-president of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and had previously served as president. S.M. explained that he had forgotten the connection during voir dire because his father’s “primary work” was in entertainment law, and because his father spent comparatively little time doing pro bono work for the ACLU Foundation. In response to questioning, S.M. stated that he and his family members had discussed “issues of jail inmates” during the previous six months and that he and his family members agreed that prisoners “certainly need[] protection of their civil rights and constitutional rights . . . despite the fact they are incarcerated.” S.M. stated, however, that he was not sure whether any of these discussions concerned abuses on the part of LASD, and stated that his father had not talked to him about litigation related to prisoners’ rights. Appellants again moved to excuse S.M. for cause. The court again denied the motion. S.M. became the jury foreperson.

Later, near the time that the case was submitted to the jury, S.M.’s mother wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times advocating for civilian oversight of LASD, in part because of the conditions in the county jails. Appellants again moved to remove S.M. from the jury. The court denied the motion.

4. Trial

With respect to individual liability, appellees’ testimony at trial is summarized above. Non-party inmates testified to having been subjected to similar treatment during their cell

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 20 of 60 Page ID #:20471

20

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

extractions. Appellants testified that their use of force was justified under the circumstances, given the violent behavior of appellees and their fellow inmates prior to the extractions as well as the risks involved in extracting high security inmates.

With respect to county liability, appellees presented evidence that the county had a custom or policy of ignoring excessive force used by jail officials, thereby creating a jail culture that proximately caused the beatings and tasing to which appellees were subjected. Appellees submitted the report, mentioned above, by the CCJV. The CCJV report concluded, with respect to the Men’s Central Jail, that “senior management failed to investigate the excessive use of force problems” at the jail; that “[s]everal key department leaders ignored deputy aggression and discouraged discipline” at the jail; and that senior jail officials had not taken steps to investigate approximately one hundred use-of-force allegations. The report recounted Department-wide deficiencies in practices and policies governing use of force, excessive force investigations, and discipline for using excessive force. Appellees presented testimony from appellant Cruz’s former supervisor, Commander Robert Olmsted. Olmsted testified that he had investigated use-offorce incidents at the jail and had found a major increase in such incidents during Cruz’s tenure. Olmstead’s investigation uncovered problems in investigating and reporting use-of-force incidents, and in approval of uses of force. Olmstead concluded that Cruz had “condone[d]” his deputies’ excessive force by investigating force incidents improperly or not at all. Appellees also presented evidence that dozens of use-of-force incidents were omitted from the LASD reporting system, including all of the use-of-force incidents at issue in this case.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 21 of 60 Page ID #:20472

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

21

After a month-long trial, the jury returned verdicts against nineteen LASD officers and the County of Los Angeles. The jury awarded $740,000 in compensatory damages and $210,000 in punitive damages.

Appellants moved for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and to vacate the judgment and punitive damages award. The district court denied the motions and entered judgment in the amounts awarded by the jury. It also awarded appellees $5,378,174.66 in attorney’s fees. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

A. Lack of Chuman Certification

Appellants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to go to trial while the interlocutory appeal was pending in our court, and they ask us therefore to vacate the final judgment resulting from this trial. We review de novo the existence of the district court’s jurisdiction and review for clear error any underlying factual determinations. U.S. ex rel. Lindenthal v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 61 F.3d 1402, 1407 (9th Cir. 1995).

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The “divestiture of jurisdiction rule is not based upon statutory provisions or the rules of civil or criminal procedure. Instead, it is a judge made rule originally devised in the context of civil appeals to avoid confusion or waste of

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 22 of 60 Page ID #:20473

22

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time.” United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 850 (9th Cir. 1984). Though Griggs referred to the “divestiture rule” as jurisdictional, the Supreme Court has since made clear that “[o]nly Congress may determine a lower federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Services of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452 (2004)). Accordingly, “jurisdictional” rules derived from sources other than Congress are more accurately characterized as “mandatory claim-processing rules” that may be applied in a “less stern” manner than true jurisdictional rules. Id. Consistent with this Supreme Court guidance, we have created an exception to the “divestiture rule.” Recognizing the importance of avoiding uncertainty and waste, but concerned that the appeals process might be abused to run up an adversary’s costs or to delay trial, we have authorized the district court to go forward in appropriate cases by certifying that an appeal is frivolous or waived. See, e.g., Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105 (qualified immunity); United States v. LaMere, 951 F.2d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 1991) (double jeopardy); Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 851 (separation of powers). “In the absence of such certification,” however, “the district court is automatically divested” of its authority “to proceed with trial pending appeal.” Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105.

Unlike defects in constitutional or statutory jurisdiction, which deprive a court of the power to act and thus void actions taken while jurisdiction was lacking, see, e.g., U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76–77 (1988), an error in following our circuit’s divestiture procedure does not entirely eliminate the authority of the district court to hear a case. We have “decline[d] to apply the divestiture rule in a slavish manner that ignores the

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 23 of 60 Page ID #:20474

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

23

reality of what happened in the trial court.” United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this pragmatic approach, we have in other contexts applied harmless error analysis to district courts’ errors in following our divestiture procedures. Hickey, 580 F.3d at 927 (finding error harmless where “Hickey’s interlocutory appeal was ultimately a losing one”); Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 851 (finding that the district court erred in finding the appeal frivolous and proceeding with the case, but noting that there would be little point in forcing the district court to repeat actions taken in the interim). Because this logic applies equally to qualified immunity appeals, we conclude that the actions taken in the district court in violation of Chuman require reversal only if the error was prejudicial.

We do not ignore the significance of the error of proceeding to trial in this case while the interlocutory appeal was pending. Cf. Hickey, 580 F.3d at 927 (admonishing district courts that divestiture errors can waste tremendous time and resources, particularly where a case goes to trial); Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 850–51 (noting that proceeding to trial before an appellate court has ruled can cause a litigant irreparable harm). Unlike in Hickey and Claiborne, where the district court had conducted only pre-trial proceedings during the relevant time period, see Hickey, 580 F.3d at 927; Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 851, the district court in this case went to trial. We nonetheless conclude that the error was harmless here as well.

We begin with the premise that “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Johnson, 515 U.S. at

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 24 of 60 Page ID #:20475

24

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

319–20. We may exercise jurisdiction over issues that do not require resolution of factual disputes, including in cases where officers argue that they have qualified immunity, assuming the facts most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 833–34, 836 (9th Cir. 2013); Johnson v. Cty. of L.A., 340 F.3d 787, 791 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e have jurisdiction . . . even when the determination of qualified immunity depends upon disputed issues of material fact so long as we assume the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party to be correct.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Here, during the pendency of the qualified immunity appeal, we issued a show cause order inviting appellants to identify the issues, if any, over which we had jurisdiction. Appellants’ response failed to identify issues over which we would have had jurisdiction. Instead, appellants either relied on disputed facts or made conclusory assertions insufficient to show that they had a colorable claim to qualified immunity even if all inferences were drawn in appellees’ favor. For example, appellants Blasnek and Cruz argued that they “did not participate in any of Plaintiffs’ cell extractions and played no part in the manner in which their extractions were carried out.” (Emphasis added.) Appellees, however, presented evidence (and ultimately proved) that Cruz and Blasnek did play a part in the manner in which the extractions were carried out, both by directly observing the extractions and choosing not to intervene and by creating a jail culture in which uses of excessive force went unpunished.

Appellants thus failed to show cause why we should not have dismissed the interlocutory appeal of the immunity ruling by the district court for lack of jurisdiction, though the trial started before we issued a ruling to that effect. Though

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 25 of 60 Page ID #:20476

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

25

we initially concluded that the jurisdictional issue was not suitable for summary disposition, further review reveals that appellants’ interlocutory appeal was frivolous. It is thus clear that the district court’s error was harmless.

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Appellants further contend that appellees failed to exhaust administrative remedies at the Men’s Central Jail. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner may not file suit challenging conditions in a correctional facility unless he or she has exhausted administrative remedies at the facility. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2476 (noting that the PLRA “applies to both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners”). However, a prisoner is excused from the exhaustion requirement in circumstances where administrative remedies are effectively unavailable, including circumstances in which a prisoner has reason to fear retaliation for reporting an incident. McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2015). In order for a fear of retaliation to excuse the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, the prisoner must show that (1) “he actually believed prison officials would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance”; and (2) “a reasonable prisoner of ordinary firmness would have believed that the prison official’s action communicated a threat not to use the prison’s grievance procedure and that the threatened retaliation was of sufficient severity to deter a reasonable prisoner from filing a grievance.” Id. The district court found that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to appellees because they “reasonably believed that they would suffer additional physical force if they complained.”

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 26 of 60 Page ID #:20477

26

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

Pursuant to our then-existing precedent, the district court considered the appellants’ PLRA exhaustion argument on an unenumerated motion to dismiss, but only after requiring appellees to submit evidence “as to why they did not comply with the [applicable] administrative remedy scheme.” In our subsequent en banc decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), we clarified that a factbased failure-to-exhaust defense should be asserted in a summary judgment motion. But where, as here, “it is clear that the district court considered evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision, we construe the district court’s order as a grant of summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015).

We agree with the district court.

Appellees submitted declarations in the district court describing the reasons they feared retaliation for filing grievances arising out of the cell extractions. All appellees emphasized the extreme brutality with which they were beaten and tased. See Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that where a prisoner had been denied grievance forms, threatened with retaliation by multiple prison officials, including a captain and the warden, and eventually attacked in his cell, “[t]he attack itself may have transformed the remedies from available to unavailable, for an ordinary prisoner in Kaba’s shoes.”). Each of them then gave reasons why they individually feared retaliation if they filed grievances.

Appellee Flores filed a declaration recounting that he had turned in a complaint to a nurse at the jail medical ward. The same day, a sergeant came to his cell to deliver a warning.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 27 of 60 Page ID #:20478

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

27

She alluded to appellee Nunez, whom deputies had earlier released into the exercise yard with rival gang members. Nunez had been badly beaten and assaulted with razor blades. The sergeant warned, “[T]hat’s how rats are treated when they lie about my deputies.” The sergeant also claimed that she had the power to have him charged with another crime. She concluded, “[F]or your own good, I’m going to forget you turned in this complaint. Keep your mouth shut.”

Appellee Sanchez filed a declaration recounting that a deputy had threatened him as he rode in an ambulance to the hospital after the cell extraction. The deputy warned him “not to say shit” about the beatings, threatening that he would be “dealt with” on his return to jail if he talked.

Appellee Nunez filed a declaration recounting that he was housed in a unit where it was impossible to obtain a complaint form without requesting it from a deputy who had been involved in the cell extractions or who was a colleague of such a deputy. Nunez stated that deputies not involved in the cell extractions had told him he was “lucky” that they had not been on duty, implying that they would have beaten him even more severely. He also stated that appellee Flores had told him about the sergeant’s threatening visit, during which she had referred to the earlier deputy-instigated violence against Nunez.

Appellee Trinidad filed a declaration recounting that he, like Nunez, was housed in a unit where it was impossible to obtain a complaint form without requesting it from a deputy who had been involved in the cell extractions or who was a colleague of such a deputy. Trinidad stated that he knew from his personal experience that other inmates had been beaten for filing grievances and that he had heard that anyone

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 28 of 60 Page ID #:20479

28

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

who complained about the beating that occurred during the cell extractions would face retaliation.

Appellee Rodriguez filed a declaration recounting that he was housed on the third floor of the jail, where some of the beatings and tasings had taken place. He stated that guards on that floor had developed a “gang-like culture” that included intimidation and retaliation for filing grievances. He submitted an article published in the Los Angeles Times reporting that the LASD had initiated termination proceedings against six third-floor deputies, who were part of what officials had described as an “aggressive group,” and a “clique” with “certain gang-like characteristics.” Using public records, the Times had confirmed that third-floor deputies had been involved in many more use-of-force incidents against prisoners than deputies on other floors.

Because appellants demonstrated that appellees had failed to use available remedies, the appellees were required to produce evidence that “there [was] something in [their] particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). If the appellees in this case had alleged only general and unsubstantiated fears about possible retaliation, as appellants claim, we would hold that they had not exhausted their administrative remedies. See McBride, 807 F.3d at 987–88. The record reflects, however, that the appellees provided factual statements supporting an actual and objectively reasonable fear of retaliation for filing grievances. Accordingly, the ultimate burden of proof remained with the appellants to show that administrative remedies were available. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The district court did not clearly err in finding that a reasonable fear of

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 29 of 60 Page ID #:20480

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

29

retaliation made the grievance system effectively unavailable for appellees, and that appellants did not carry their burden of proof. See id. at 1171 (factual findings reviewed for clear error).

C. Immunity under Federal and State Law

1. Qualified Immunity under Federal Law

Qualified immunity under federal law protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions. When properly applied, it protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.” Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2017).

Appellants have challenged the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on two grounds. First, in their motions for summary judgment, appellants invoked qualified immunity based on the record then before the district court. Those motions are now moot. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 30 of 60 Page ID #:20481

30

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

180, 183–84 (2011); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Second, appellants argue that the district court erred in denying their Rule 50(b) motion, based on qualified immunity, for judgment as a matter of law. Because the jury found for appellees on their excessive force claims, we “construe the trial evidence in the light most favorable to [appellees] in determining whether [their] rights were clearly established.” Morales v. Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2017). “Further, unlike a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, we must defer to the facts as they were reasonably found by the jury . . . .” A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 459 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept the jury’s findings of fact, “including the [appellants’] subjective intent,” unless the appellants demonstrate that those findings were unsupported by the evidence. Id. at 458–59. But while “only the jury can decide the disputed factual issues, . . . only the judge can decide whether the right was clearly established once the factual issues are resolved.” Morales, 873 F.3d at 823.

An Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force “ultimately turns on ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986)). Accordingly, the jury here was instructed that it had to find that (1) appellants “used excessive and unnecessary force under all of the circumstances”; (2) appellants “acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm”; and (3) “the acts of the [appellants] caused harm to the [appellees].” As we explained above, Rodriguez has forfeited any argument

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 31 of 60 Page ID #:20482

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

31

that his claim should have been analyzed under the more lenient, purely objective, due process standard.

Appellants argue that their use of force was justified by the appellees’ resistance. In effect, they attack the jury’s finding that they violated the Eighth Amendment by acting “maliciously and sadistically.” This argument is meritless. As noted above, there was abundant evidence presented to the jury that appellants inflicted severe injuries on appellees while they were not resisting, and even while they were unconscious. A jury could reasonably reject appellants’ argument that they acted reasonably and instead determine that this force was not part of a “good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. We therefore reject appellants’ sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the jury’s finding of a constitutional violation.

Appellants also argue that the law regarding their conduct was not clearly established. Though we do “not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam) (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam)). “[T]he focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that [the officer’s] conduct was unlawful.” Id. (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)). Though we defer to the jury’s reasonable view of the facts, “the ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.” Morales, 873 F.3d at 821.

Appellants offer a variety of arguments, based on their respective roles in the incident, that the law regarding their conduct was not clearly established. None is persuasive.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 32 of 60 Page ID #:20483

32

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

a. Deputies

The deputy appellants—Deputies Alonso, Bravo, Frazier, Graham, Orlandos, Thomas, Guzman, Lyons, Esqueda, Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado—argue that the law was not clearly established as to their use of force during the cell extractions.

We have recognized that Hudson’s “good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline” standard, 503 U.S. at 6, sets forth the clearly established law regarding an Eighth Amendment excessive force violation “in the context of quelling a prison disturbance,” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). Appellants offer only a conclusory statement that the law was not clearly established as to the appropriate use of force within the context of a prison disturbance. Accepting the jury’s finding of appellants’ malicious and sadistic intent, see Morales, 873 F.3d at 823, and construing the record in the light most favorable to the appellees, we disagree.

Analogous Supreme Court and circuit cases decided well before 2008 gave these deputies notice that the malicious and sadistic use of force in responding to a prison disturbance violated the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Hudson, 504 U.S. at 4 (holding that officers violated the Eighth Amendment where one officer “punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while [another officer] held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind”). In Martinez, for instance, the plaintiff claimed that he had covered his cell door with a bed sheet in order to prevent pepper spray fumes from entering the cell during a prison disturbance. 323 F.3d at 1180. Under the plaintiff’s version of events, “after he told the officers the sheet would be removed when the fumes were

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 33 of 60 Page ID #:20484

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

33

gone, the officers fired two plastic bullets from a gas gun and one taser cartridge into the cell,” with one bullet striking him. Id. “Once the officers entered the cell, they pushed him into a seated position, and tasered him twice on his left arm, despite his lack of resistance.” Id. Officers continued striking the plaintiff while he was restrained and eventually dragged him out of the cell. Id. We concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to show an Eighth Amendment violation and that the officers had violated clearly established law. Id. at 1183–85.

Given these precedents, no reasonable officer in appellants’ positions would have believed that beating a prisoner to the point of serious injury, unconsciousness, or hospitalization solely to cause him pain was constitutionally permissible.

b. Deputies Using Tasers

As we have just explained, existing precedent was sufficient to place beyond debate the question whether the use of more than de minimis force “maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm” violated the Eighth Amendment under the circumstances here. The deputies who used tasers—Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado— nonetheless contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law governing the use of tasers was not clearly established in 2008. We disagree.

“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994). This statement applies

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 34 of 60 Page ID #:20485

34

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

with particular strength in the context of the Eighth Amendment. A plaintiff cannot prove an Eighth Amendment violation without showing that force was employed “maliciously and sadistically” for the purpose of causing harm. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.)).

Even if particularized notice, specific to tasers, were needed at the time Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado acted, see Mendoza, 27 F.3d at 1362, controlling circuit and Supreme Court case law provided it. We observed in 1988 that the taser is a “painful and dangerous device” and that “[a] legitimate prison policy of carrying tasers to enforce discipline and security would not warrant their use when unnecessary or ‘for the sole purpose of punishment or the infliction of pain.’ ” Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 336 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1270 (7th Cir. 1984), and Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir. 1979)); see also Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that, as of May 2008, it was clearly established that taser shocks constituted “non-trivial force” for Fourth Amendment purposes); Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 478–79 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that it was clearly unconstitutional in 2006 to tase prisoners maliciously and sadistically in the circumstances alleged); Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442, 448–49 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that malicious and sadistic use of a taser on a pretrial detainee’s breast and inner thigh was not de minimus force and was clearly unconstitutional in 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010); Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that using “stun guns” on nonviolent prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment). The Supreme Court has long disapproved of

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 35 of 60 Page ID #:20486

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

35

the use of electric shocks purely to inflict pain, beginning with its denunciation of the famous “Tucker telephone,” a device that, like the tasers in this case, was “used to administer electrical shocks to various sensitive parts of an inmate’s body.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 & n.5 (1978); see also Hudson, 503 U.S. at 14 (1992) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (suggesting that an electric shock inflicted as punishment would violate the Constitution); id. at 26 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (same).

Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado argue that limits on the proper use of tasers were still unclear as of 2008, relying on two Fourth Amendment cases decided after the cell extractions at issue in this case: Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010). Mattos and Bryan clarified the circumstances under which taser use would violate the Fourth Amendment and granted qualified immunity to the officers who acted without the benefit of this clarification. See Mattos, 661 F.3d at 448; Bryan, 630 F.3d at 833.

However, the deputies’ argument fails to acknowledge the respective standards for Fourth and Eighth Amendment violations. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397–98 (1989); Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. We determine whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated by assessing the objective reasonableness of the force used, balancing the degree of intrusion against the government’s interest. Gravelet-Blondin, 728 F.3d at 1090. “Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary . . . Fourth Amendment analysis.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996); see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 399. By contrast, subjective intent is critical in an Eighth Amendment analysis. More than de minimis force applied for

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 36 of 60 Page ID #:20487

36

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

no good faith law enforcement purpose violates the Eighth Amendment. See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21 (1986) (holding that whether an officer used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment “ultimately turns on ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” (quoting Johnson, 481 F.2d at 1033)). Objective reasonableness may inform the Eighth Amendment inquiry, providing evidence of good faith or of malice. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. But once a jury has determined on the basis of sufficient evidence that “prison officials maliciously and sadistically use[d] [more than de minimis] force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency,” and thus the Eighth Amendment, “always are violated.” Id. at 9. Here, the evidence amply supported the jury’s finding that the deputies acted maliciously and sadistically.

c. Supervisors

The supervisor appellants—the sergeants who directed the extraction teams (Sergeants McGratten, Ohnemus, and Washington) and their superiors (Captain Cruz and Lieutenant Blasnek)—argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. They contend that they did not violate clearly established law because their actions were justified by the nature of the pre-extraction disturbance and the appellees’ resistance. As explained above, the deputies’ actions violated clearly established law. The question specific to the supervisors is whether they are individually liable for those constitutional violations under principles of supervisory liability. We conclude that they are.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 37 of 60 Page ID #:20488

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

37

A supervisory official is liable under § 1983 so long as “there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1242–43 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). “The requisite causal connection can be established . . . by setting in motion a series of acts by others or by knowingly refus[ing] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the supervisor] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207–08 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in original). Thus, a supervisor may “be liable in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Keates, 883 F.3d at 1243 (quoting Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208).

Sergeants McGrattan, Ohnemus, and Washington concede that they were personally present and directed the deputies’ use of force against appellees. Even assuming that their presence and direction of the extraction teams does not constitute “personal involvement,” there is a “sufficient causal connection” to establish the sergeants’ supervisory liability for their “own culpable action or inaction in the . . . supervision [and] control of” the deputies. Keates, 883 F.3d at 1242–43 (citation omitted).

We do not accept appellants’ argument that the nature of the pre-extraction disturbance, standing alone, justified the supervisors’ inaction. Long before the incident in question, the Supreme Court established that government officials

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 38 of 60 Page ID #:20489

38

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

violate the Eighth Amendment when they use malicious and sadistic force in the course of quelling a prison disturbance, even one that “indisputably poses significant risks to the safety of inmates and prison staff.” See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21.

To the extent that appellants Cruz and Blasnek stood by and observed the extractions but “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate” the deputies’ unconstitutional acts, Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207 (citation omitted), they are individually liable for the same reasons as Sergeants McGrattan, Ohnemus, and Washington. Ample evidence—including appellants’ own testimony—supports the conclusion that appellants Cruz and Blasnek directed and observed most of the extraction teams. For example, there was evidence that appellant Blasnek “observe[d] each extraction.” Appellant Cruz was shown on video observing Trinidad’s, Sanchez’s, and Flores’s extractions.

It is not clear from the record before us that appellant Cruz directly observed Nunez’s and Rodriguez’s extractions. Assuming without deciding that Cruz did not observe these extractions, the jury could still have reasonably found the “requisite causal connection” to hold Cruz liable for his “own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207–08 (citations omitted). The jury could have concluded from evidence in the record, including Olmstead’s testimony, that Cruz knowingly participated in creating and maintaining a culture of impunity for officers’ use of unconstitutionally excessive force, thereby “setting in motion a series of acts by” his subordinates that Cruz “knew or reasonably should have known would cause” the violations of appellees’ Eighth Amendment rights. Id. (citations omitted). The jury could

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 39 of 60 Page ID #:20490

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

39

also reasonably have concluded that in disabling or failing to follow procedures used to identify uses of excessive force, and in ensuring that violators escaped punishment, Cruz created an environment where the mechanisms for supervision and control over the use of force operated ineffectively and sometimes not at all. Thus, the jury could also reasonably conclude that Cruz’s “inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates” provided a basis for supervisory liability. Id. at 1208 (citation omitted).

2. Immunity under State Law

Finally, the supervisors argue that they have immunity under state law. They argue that they cannot be held liable under California Civil Code § 52.1 because California Civil Code § 820.2 shields them from liability for discretionary acts and California Civil Code § 820.8 renders them immune from vicarious liability. We disagree. First, § 820.2 does not shield from liability government employees who use excessive force in carrying out their duties. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 487 (9th Cir. 2007). Second, § 820.8 is inapplicable because, as just explained, appellees do not rely on vicarious liability, but, rather, rely on the supervisors’ culpable action or inaction that proximately caused their injuries.

D. California Civil Code § 52.1

The district court entered judgment in favor of appellees Flores, Nunez, Sanchez and Trinidad under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, on their cruel and unusual punishment claims under the Eighth Amendment. (As noted above, supra Section I.B, appellee Rodriguez, a pre-trial detainee, brought a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 40 of 60 Page ID #:20491

40

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

rather than an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim.) In relevant part, § 52.1 provides a cause of action for interference or attempted interference “by threat, intimidation, or coercion” with the “exercise or enjoyment” of rights under the federal Constitution. Appellants argue that § 52.1 required appellees to prove that appellants threatened, intimidated, or coerced appellees in some manner beyond the coercion inherent in the Eighth Amendment excessive force violation. In advancing this argument, appellants misread § 52.1 and California case law.

The most recent California Supreme Court case interpreting the Bane Act is Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (Venegas II), 87 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2004), in which two plaintiffs alleged that sheriff’s deputies violated the Act when they searched plaintiffs’ home without a warrant and without consent, arrested one of the plaintiffs based on evidence obtained during the warrantless search, and detained the other for two hours. Plaintiffs did not allege threats, intimidation, or coercion separate from, or in addition to, the conduct that constituted the violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See id. at 3–4. Without extended analysis, the California Supreme Court held that “plaintiffs adequately stated a cause of action under Section 52.1.” Id. at 14. The Court’s holding in Venegas II had been prefigured in Jones v. Kmart Corp., 949 P.2d 941 (Cal. 1998), in which KMart employees pursued, seized, struggled with, and handcuffed Jones, a suspected shoplifter. The California Supreme Court held that no cause of action had been stated under § 52.1 because the KMart employees were not state actors. Id. at 943–44. But the Court noted that Jones’s rights under § 52.1 might have been “put in jeopardy . . . if [the] defendants had called the police and then coercively interfered with Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights when he attempted to exercise

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 41 of 60 Page ID #:20492

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

41

them against the police.” Id. at 944 (emphasis added). In neither Venegas II nor Jones did the California Supreme Court hold that § 52.1 requires threats, intimidation, or coercion beyond that inherent in the constitutional violation itself.

Appellants rely on two California Court of Appeal cases decided after Venegas II—Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947 (2012), and Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal. App. 4th 41 (2015)—to support their argument that § 52.1 requires threats, intimidation, or coercion beyond that inherent in the underlying constitutional violation. Neither case supports their argument, as is shown by two more California Court of Appeal cases—Bender v. County of Los Angeles, 217 Cal. App. 4th 968 (2013), and Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco, 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 (2017).

In Shoyoye, because of a negligent clerical error, the plaintiff was held in the county jail for about sixteen days beyond the date he should have been released. 203 Cal. App. 4th at 951–53. The Court of Appeal held that the negligent act did not give rise to a cause of action under § 52.1. Id. at 959. It distinguished Venegas II:

The coercion [in holding Shoyoye in jail for sixteen days beyond his release date] was not carried out in order to effect a knowing interference with Shoyoye’s constitutional rights. This is in stark contrast to Venegas II, for example, in which the evidence presented could support a finding that the probable cause that initially existed to justify stopping the plaintiffs eroded at some point, such that

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 42 of 60 Page ID #:20493

42

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

the officers’ conduct became intentionally coercive and wrongful, i.e., a knowing and blameworthy interference with the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Id. at 961.

In Allen, police officers arrested homeless people and seized their tents, sleeping bags, tarps, and personal items pursuant to a Sacramento anti-camping ordinance. 234 Cal. App. 4th at 48–51. Relying on Shoyoye, the Court of Appeal concluded that no cause of action had been stated under § 52.1, even if the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 69. It wrote:

There are two distinct elements for a section 52.1 cause of action. A plaintiff must show (1) intentional interference or attempted interference with a state or federal constitutional or legal right, and (2) the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.

. . .

Similar to Shoyoye, this case involves an allegedly unlawful arrest but no alleged coercion beyond the coercion inherent in any arrest. . . . Consistent with Shoyoye, we conclude a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not satisfy both elements of section 52.1.

Id. at 67, 69.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 43 of 60 Page ID #:20494

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

43

Bender was decided after Shoyoye but before Allen. The plaintiff in Bender was granted a judgment under § 52.1 after presenting evidence at trial that he had been subjected to excessive force in the course of his arrest. 217 Cal. App. 4th at 972–75. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Id. at 981. Because of Bender, the Court of Appeal in Allen was careful to limit its holding by noting that excessive force had not been alleged. It wrote:

We begin by noting what plaintiffs do not assert. The first amended complaint does not allege the use of excessive or unreasonable force by the police, and plaintiffs do not contend on appeal that this is an excessive force case.

Allen, 234 Cal. App. 4th at 66.

The facts in Bender are remarkably similar to the facts in the case before us. Plaintiff Bender was an African-American apartment manager who had questioned two sheriff’s deputies when they arrested two African-American tenants of the apartment. Bender, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 972. As in the case before us, the defendants in Bender were deputies employed by the LASD. Id. at 971. The deputies beat the plaintiff until he was unconscious. Id. at 973. Most strikingly, deputies yelled “stop fighting” as they were beating Bender even though he was not fighting or resisting. Id. at 975.

The Court of Appeal wrote:

Deputy Chavez ran around the patrol car and he and Deputy Sorrow slammed plaintiff to the ground. Plaintiff was in handcuffs, so

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 44 of 60 Page ID #:20495

44

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

he could not break the fall and went down on his face. Deputies Sorrow and Chavez started “kneeing and kicking and beating him while he was on the ground.” Deputy Sorrow was kicking him in the arms and ribs. Plaintiff was kicked in the side eight to 10 times, and “there was what felt like a knee in the back of my neck, pressing my face to the ground. And while I was being held there by the back of my neck, I was being struck on the top, back part of my head.” . . .

During the beating, Deputy Sorrow said, “F—ing [N word] lover, you’re getting what you deserved.” Even though plaintiff at no time attempted to fight or struggle with the deputies, Deputy Sorrow yelled, “Stop fighting.” . . . After the beating stopped, plaintiff “thought it was over with, and I opened my eyes and I was sprayed across both of my eyes, and then it was sprayed up to my nostrils and sprayed up my nose. And when I opened my mouth to breath, it was pressed against my lips and sprayed into my mouth.” Plaintiff lost consciousness.

Id. at 973. The Court of Appeal distinguished Shoyoye based on the fact that, unlike in Shoyoye, the deputies had used excessive force: “Where, as here, an arrest is unlawful and excessive force is applied in making the arrest, there has been coercion ‘independent from the coercion inherent in the wrongful detention itself’ (Shoyoye)—a violation of the Bane Act.” Id. at 978 (emphasis in the original) (citation omitted);

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 45 of 60 Page ID #:20496

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

45

see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting this sentence from Bender).

In Cornell, the Court of Appeal recently confirmed “that the use of excessive force can be enough to satisfy the [Bane Act’s] ‘threat, intimidation or coercion’ element.” 17 Cal. App. 5th at 799. The Court of Appeal explicitly rejected the argument that appellants advance here, explaining that the text of the Bane Act does not require “that the offending ‘threat, intimidation or coercion’ be ‘independent’ from the constitutional violation alleged.” Id. at 800. Rather, the court explained, in the context of an unlawful arrest, “the egregiousness required by Section 52.1 is tested by whether the circumstances indicate the arresting officer had a specific intent to violate the arrestee’s right to freedom from unreasonable seizure.” Id. at 801–02.

Finally, this analysis is consistent with our recent decision in Reese v. County of Sacramento, where we addressed a Bane Act claim premised on an alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force violation. — F.3d —, 2018 WL 1902416, at *6–7 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2018). We rejected a similar argument based on Shoyoye, reasoning that Cornell’s interpretation of the Bane Act was consistent with the statutory language and the California Supreme Court’s decisions. Id. at *8–9. We therefore held that “the Bane Act does not require the ‘threat, intimidation or coercion’ element of the claim to be transactionally independent from the constitutional violation alleged,” but rather a showing of the defendant’s specific intent to violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at *8.

We conclude from these decisions that in excessive force cases, including Eighth Amendment cases, § 52.1 does not

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 46 of 60 Page ID #:20497

46

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

require proof of coercion beyond that inherent in the underlying violation. Because appellees Flores, Nunez, Sanchez and Trinidad provided evidence sufficient to support a finding that they were subjected to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, they necessarily provided evidence sufficient to support a finding of a violation of their rights under § 52.1.

E. Monell Liability

Appellants argue that appellees’ evidence was insufficient to support municipal liability, and that the district court therefore erred in denying appellants’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on appellees’ Monell claim. We review de novo the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law. We will uphold the jury’s verdict “if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion.” Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002)).

A local government is liable for an injury under § 1983 under three possible theories. See Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Castro, 833 F.3d 1060. First, a local government may be liable if “execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflict[ed] the injury.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Second, a local government can fail to train employees in a manner that amounts to “deliberate indifference” to a constitutional right, such that “the need for more or different training is so

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 47 of 60 Page ID #:20498

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

47

obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989). Third, a local government may be held liable if “the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with final policy-making authority or such an official ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.” Gravelet-Blondin, 728 F.3d at 1097 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We have recognized that a § 1983 plaintiff may prove the second type of Monell liability, deliberate indifference, through evidence of a “failure to investigate and discipline employees in the face of widespread constitutional violations.” Hunter v. Cty. of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1234 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, it is sufficient under our case law to prove a “custom” of encouraging excessive force to provide evidence that personnel have been permitted to use force with impunity. Id. at 1233 (“We have long recognized that a custom or practice can be inferred from widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Larez, 946 F.2d at 647 (“[T]here was evidence of a departmental policy or custom of resorting to the use of excessive force. The jury properly could find such policy or custom from the failure of Gates to take any remedial steps after the violations.”); McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780, 784 (9th Cir. 1986) (“McRorie alleges that guards seriously injured him and twenty-eight other prisoners during the shakedown and that Sergeant Dunn was acting under orders of his superiors. If proved, these acts reflect a [policy or custom].”); see also Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 48 of 60 Page ID #:20499

48

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

F.3d 1010, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a plaintiff could present “a failure-to-discipline Monell theory” based on evidence “that the City had a policy or custom of failing to investigate and discipline officers who had allegedly committed prior instances of excessive force”).

Appellees presented substantial evidence to show that the LASD had a custom of ignoring or condoning excessive force, and that this custom proximately caused the beatings at issue here. That evidence included the CCJV report; Olmstead’s testimony; evidence that LASD had not used their force-tracking system to monitor force used against many prisoners, including appellees; and evidence that supervisory staff had observed the practices proved at trial but had done nothing. In declining to grant judgment as a matter of law to appellants on this issue, the district court ruled that the LASD had tolerated excessive force at the jail and had created an atmosphere of wanton violence and impunity. The court wrote that within the jail itself, “Captain Cruz . . . perpetuated a culture where excessive force was encouraged, openly joked with the deputies about force, and promoted the practice of incomplete and ineffective investigations into deputy misconduct.”

The record amply supports the jury’s verdict and the district court’s ruling. There was substantial evidence of repeated constitutional violations, of LASD’s awareness of those violations, and of LASD’s failure to take any remedial action. Our precedents permitted the jury to infer that LASD had adopted a custom or practice of condoning excessive force and that this culture of violence and impunity proximately caused the injuries inflicted on appellees. See Hunter, 652 F.3d at 1233–34.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 49 of 60 Page ID #:20500

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

49

F. Juror Bias

Appellants argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to excuse Juror Number 5 (“S.M.”) and later denying a motion for a new trial based on S.M.’s service on the jury. We disagree.

We review a district court’s implied bias determination de novo but review the court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations for clear error. Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Riley v. Payne, 352 F.3d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 2003). We review denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass’n, 112 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 1997).

“The Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil litigants a right to an impartial jury.” Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521, 528 (2014). We have held that a juror was “actually biased” where the juror’s answers in voir dire indicated that he or she cannot decide the case impartially. United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000). In “extraordinary” circumstances, we have also found “implied bias.” Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527–28 (9th Cir. 1990). Implied bias is found “in those extreme situations ‘where the relationship between a prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly unlikely that the average person could remain impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances.’ ” Fields, 503 F.3d at 770 (quoting Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 527). We have recognized that implied bias can be found “where the juror is apprised of such prejudicial information about the defendant that the court deems it highly unlikely that he can exercise independent judgment even if the juror states he

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 50 of 60 Page ID #:20501

50

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

will,” Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 528, or “where repeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury,” Fields, 503 F.3d at 770 (citing Dyer, 151 F.3d at 982).

We have cautioned that courts assessing implied bias “should hesitate before formulating categories of relationships which bar jurors from serving in certain types of trials.” Id. at 772 (quoting Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 527)). For example, “[w]e will not presume bias merely because a juror works in law enforcement or is a federal government employee.” Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 529. Otherwise, our doctrine of implied bias would not be limited to “extreme situations,” Fields, 503 F.3d at 770, but would instead extend to “the summary exclusion for cause of NAACP members from cases seeking the enforcement of civil rights statutes, Moral Majority activists from pornography cases, Catholics from cases involving abortion clinic protests, members of NOW from sex discrimination cases, and subscribers to Consumer Reports from cases involving products liability claims,” Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 528 (quoting United States v. Salamone, 800 F.2d 1216, 1225 (3d Cir. 1986)).

We have found implied bias based on a juror’s employment only where it has been accompanied by additional factors. In United States v. Allsup, 566 F.2d 68, 71–72 (9th Cir. 1977), we held that two jurors were impliedly biased in a bank robbery trial where they worked for a different branch of the bank that had been robbed. We attributed this result to “[t]he employment relationship coupled with a reasonable apprehension of violence by bank robbers.” Id. In a subsequent en banc opinion, we noted the limits of Allsup’s holding, explaining that “[t]he implied bias that we found in Allsup was based on the jurors’ direct

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 51 of 60 Page ID #:20502

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

51

relationship with the victim and their own vulnerability to the same type of conduct for which the accused bank robbers were on trial.” Fields, 503 F.3d at 773. By contrast, in Tinsley, we declined to infer bias on the basis of a juror’s employment, “even where closely related to the substance of the case.” 895 F.2d at 529 (finding no implied bias in a rape case that turned on credibility, even though the juror had professionally counseled a different rape survivor for a year and a half and had testified at trial that that survivor was credible).

We have been similarly hesitant to find implied bias based solely on the experiences of a juror’s relatives. Thus, while “we have recognized that bias may be implied where close relatives of a juror ‘have been personally involved in a situation involving a similar fact pattern,’ we have never done so when the juror was honest on voir dire.” Fields, 503 F.3d at 773 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 528).

Here, appellants argue that S.M. was impliedly biased due to a combination of the professional activities of his parents and his personal friendships with other individuals who had some involvement with the prison system.

This record does not require a finding of implied bias. The ACLU affiliation of S.M.’s father does not, standing alone, give rise to an inference of bias. Bias is even less likely here than in Tinsley, since S.M. was not himself affiliated with the ACLU. See United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that juror’s daughter-in-law’s employment with the company from whom Olano was accused of taking kickbacks did not imply bias); Salamone, 800 F.2d at 1226 (absent additional evidence of

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 52 of 60 Page ID #:20503

52

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

bias, “no juror may be excluded for cause on the basis of his or her membership in an organization that adheres to a particular view”).

Though the organizations with which S.M.’s family and friends were associated had some remote connections to this particular case, S.M. was not a member in these organizations and was unaware of their involvement in activities tied to this case. The ACLU had only an indirect relationship with the litigation and that relationship does not appear to have been known to S.M. Further, S.M. was unaware that his friend’s organization, the CCJV, had prepared a report that would be presented as evidence in the case. Finally, S.M. also made clear that he did not know whether the LASD had committed any of the kinds of abuses that his family opposed.

Nor does the timing of the op-ed article published in the Los Angeles Times by S.M.’s mother near the end of the trial require us to find implied bias. S.M.’s mother’s publicly expressed opinion on civilian oversight of LASD does not implicate our case law involving “close relatives of a juror [that] ‘have been personally involved in a situation, involving a similar fact pattern,’ ” Fields, 503 F.3d at 773 (quoting Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 528)), nor does it present a new type of “extreme” situation giving rise to implied bias. An innocent explanation for the article’s timing appears in its first two sentences: “It is time to seriously consider a civilian oversight board for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider such a proposal next week.” (Emphasis added.) The remainder of the article is devoted largely to the virtues of civic participation. The article alludes to problems in Los Angeles’s jails only in general terms and does not mention

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 53 of 60 Page ID #:20504

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

53

excessive force or the Men’s Central Jail. This is not enough to overcome the presumption that S.M. complied with the court’s instructions not to talk about the case with others and to avoid reading about subjects related to the case. See Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73 (1979), abrogated on other grounds by Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 194 (1987).

Finally, appellants contend that S.M. was not candid during voir dire. We held in Dyer, 151 F.3d at 982, that a juror’s dishonesty supported an inference of bias, but the facts in Dyer were radically different from the facts here. In Dyer, the juror in question failed to mention that her brother was murdered in the same manner that the defendant was accused of murdering the victim. Further, the juror lied by claiming that she thought her brother’s death was an accident and by stating that she did not testify at the trial of her brother’s killer. Id. at 982. Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that S.M. was dishonest about anything. During his initial voir dire, S.M. failed to mention his father’s ACLU connection, but the next day, on his own initiative, he notified the court of the omission. The district court did not err in finding that this initial omission was not evidence of dishonesty that would support a finding of implied bias. Further, the late disclosure did not deprive appellants of the opportunity to exercise a peremptory challenge, for they had used all of their peremptory challenges before S.M.’s initial voir dire began.

G. Punitive Damages

Appellants challenge as excessive the jury’s award of punitive damages. The total compensatory damages award was $740,000. The total punitive damages award was $210,000, awarded only against the supervisory appellants.

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 54 of 60 Page ID #:20505

54

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

The punitive damages awarded per individual supervisor were: $75,000 against appellant Cruz; $60,000 against appellant Blasnek; $30,000 each against appellants McGratten and Ohnemus; and $15,000 against appellant Washington. All of the punitive damages awards to individual appellees ranged from $10,000 to $15,000, with the exception of one award of $30,000.

Appellants urge us to apply California law that limits punitive damages based on a defendant’s net worth. We decline to apply California law here because appellees sought punitive damages for violations of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than state law. Under federal law, “ability to pay is of some importance” in assessing the propriety of a punitive damages award but it is not dispositive. Tri-Tron Int’l v. Velto, 525 F.2d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1975).

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the determination whether punitive damages are excessive turns on several factors, including the egregiousness of the conduct, the proportionality between punitive and compensatory damages awards, and the amount of the punitive damages awarded or upheld in similar cases. See State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003). As applied to facts of this case, these factors do not warrant reversal.

Appellees proved egregious, even shocking, abuses of power. Furthermore, the punitive damages awarded to each appellee, considered individually or together, were all far less than appellees’ compensatory damages. We have upheld significantly larger per-plaintiff punitive damages awards in other cases. For example, we recently upheld a jury award of

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 55 of 60 Page ID #:20506

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

55

$125,000 in compensatory damages and $165,000 in punitive damages to a single plaintiff, in an excessive force case against the County of Los Angeles, as well as appellant Cruz and several other LASD officials working in a Los Angeles County jail. Willis v. Vasquez, 648 F. App’x 720, 724 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2016).

H. Trial Errors

Appellants argue that the district court committed several reversible errors during trial. We are not persuaded.

First, appellants argue that appellees’ Monell claim against the county should have been tried separately from their claims against the individual defendants. The district court acted within its “broad discretion” in declining to bifurcate the Monell claim. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Though some of the evidence relevant to the Monell claims was irrelevant to individual liability, the district court’s many limiting instructions cured any possible prejudice. See Velazquez, 793 F.3d at 1028.

Second, appellants argue that the district court should not have excluded evidence of appellees’ felony convictions and their gang membership. The district court permitted appellants’ witnesses to testify, consistent with their knowledge, that the prisoners involved in the disturbance held some of the highest security classifications in the prison. For example, appellants testified that the prisoners were “extremely dangerous,” that they were some of the most dangerous prisoners in the county and even the country, that they were the “worst of the worst,” and that they were prone to act violently toward other prisoners and staff. The court

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 56 of 60 Page ID #:20507

56

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

also permitted appellants to present evidence of appellees’ violent and disruptive behavior before and during the extraction itself. The court evaluated the additional probative value of the proffered evidence of criminal history and gang membership, and balanced it against prejudice to appellees. It then acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. “The Rule 403 weighing process is primarily for the district court to perform. Trial judges are better able to sense the dynamics of a trial than we can ever be, and broad discretion must be accorded them in balancing probative value against prejudice.” Longenecker v. Gen’l Motors Corp., 594 F.2d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1979); see also United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005).

Third, appellants argue that the district court erred in two of its instructions to the jury. One is an instruction in which the court told the jury:

The defendants have an affirmative duty to video record what occurred during the extractions and to preserve the videos. Certain videos once existed. Now they are missing or they are destroyed. The Court makes a finding to be used for all purposes that defendants violated their own video preservation policy by not maintaining these videos.

Appellants argue that before giving this instruction the district court was required to find that the videotapes had been willfully misplaced or destroyed. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court did make such a finding, which was supported by evidence in

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 57 of 60 Page ID #:20508

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

57

the record. Further, individual appellants point out that there was no showing that any of them were responsible for the loss or destruction of the videotapes. Therefore, they argue, the jury should have been told that the instruction could be used against only the county. We are not convinced. But assuming without deciding that the individual appellants are right on this point, we conclude that there was no prejudice, given the overwhelming evidence against them. See Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that an erroneous jury instruction is harmless if “it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed” (citation omitted)).

The other challenged instruction told the jury to disregard appellant Alonso’s testimony that he heard the prisoners shouting “Spanish words that meant they were ready to fight.” The district court interpreted this testimony to refer to the phrase “puro sur trece,” a gang slogan that the court had excluded from evidence in a pretrial order. The court did not clearly err in finding that appellant Alonso was referring to the excluded slogan in his testimony, and did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction.

Fourth, appellants argue that the district court should have allowed live testimony from some of the appellees as well as some non-party inmates. Appellee Rodriguez did provide live testimony. The other appellees and the non-party inmates testified by means of video depositions. The district court had authorized the taking of these depositions on the understanding that they could be used at trial in lieu of live testimony, and appellants were able to cross examine the witnesses during the depositions. Before trial, appellees successfully moved for admission of the videotaped depositions, listing a driving mileage of 126 miles between

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 58 of 60 Page ID #:20509

58

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

the courthouse and the witnesses’ place of incarceration. After witness lists were filed, after the final pretrial order was filed limiting witnesses to those identified on the lists, and three weeks after appellees’ motion was granted, appellants applied for writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum to compel live testimony from the four appellees and the non-party inmates. The district court reasonably denied the application.

Appellants maintain that the district court erred in denying their application, noting that deposition testimony is allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(B) only if the witness is located more than 100 miles from the place of trial. They contend that the distance between the witnesses’ place of incarceration is less than 100 miles “as the crow flies” (though they concede that it is more than 100 miles in driving distance). Appellants never presented this argument to the district court, and it is therefore waived. See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010).

I. Attorney’s Fees

The district court awarded $5,378,174.66 in attorney’s fees payable to appellees’ trial attorneys. We review the award for abuse of discretion, Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245, 250 (9th Cir. 1984), and affirm the decision of the district court.

Appellants argue that the district court should have applied the PLRA’s attorney’s fee provisions to all attorney’s fees incurred in this case. The PLRA limits recovery of attorney’s fees “in any action brought by a prisoner . . . in which attorney’s fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. § 1988].” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d). However, the PLRA’s limits

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 59 of 60 Page ID #:20510

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

59

do not apply to attorney’s fees incurred in litigation under California Civil Code § 52.1. Attorney’s fees incurred in litigating § 52.1 claims are not authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Rather, § 52.1(h) authorizes attorney’s fee awards independently of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Indeed, we have held that the PLRA attorney’s fees cap does not apply even to federal law claims for which attorney’s fees are available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as long as those claims are brought under statutes with their own attorney’s fee provisions. Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the PLRA cap does not apply to fees awarded under the ADA’s or RA’s attorney’s fee provisions even if the plaintiff could have sought attorney’s fees under § 1988).

The district court calculated attorney’s fees attributable solely to the work performed in litigating appellees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and applied 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) to those fees. It calculated attorney’s fees solely attributable to appellees’ § 52.1 claims as well as fees that were as readily available to appellees’ § 52.1 claims as to their § 1983 claims, and applied § 52.1(h) to those fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion in so doing. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1230, 1237 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees under a California statute in excess of those allowed under federal law, where the plaintiff challenged the same discriminatory conduct under state and federal law).

Appellants challenge the district court’s decision to apply a 2.0 multiplier to the attorney’s fees in this case. Calculation of attorney’s fee awards in cases brought under state law is a substantive matter to which state law applies. See In re Larry’s Apartment, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir. 2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470,

Case 2:10-cv-06342-CBM-AJW Document 808 Filed 05/30/18 Page 60 of 60 Page ID #:20511

60

RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

1478–79 (9th Cir. 1995). In accordance with state law, the district court based its decision on the substantial financial risk that appellees’ counsel assumed in investing $3.4 million of attorney time in a contingency case; the difficulty of representing prisoners with the Men’s Central Jail’s highest security classifications, in an excessive force action against high-ranking jail officials, all the while facing “aggressive opposition” from appellants; and the opportunity costs the years-long litigation in this case required. The court expressly noted that it had considered the burden to California’s taxpayers that the fee award would represent, and found that the award was justified given the factors described above and the importance of civil rights suits in protecting the public against abuses at the hands of “large or politically powerful defendants.” Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ., 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 399–401 (2005); see Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49 (1977) (“The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We cannot fault the trial judge’s reasoning or results here.

Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 1 of 106
(AJWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−06342−CBM−AJW

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich Case in other court: 9th CCA, 13−56292
9th CCA, 14−55374 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/25/2010 Date Terminated: 02/05/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Heriberto Rodriguez

represented by Barrett S Litt Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: blitt@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin S Weisberg Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: cweisberg@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S McLane Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: dmclane@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Muller Law Offices of James S Muller 225 East Broadway Suite 107F Glendale, CA 91205 818−536−7922 Fax: 818−536−7499 Email: jamesmullerlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin J LaHue Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: klahue@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald O Kaye Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 2 of 106

Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: rok@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carlos Flores

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin S Weisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Muller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Juan Trinidad

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin S Weisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Muller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Erick Nunez

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin S Weisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Muller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 3 of 106

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin S Weisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James S Muller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Los Angeles

represented by David D Lawrence Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 818−545−1925 Fax: 818/−545−1937 Email: dlawrence@lbaclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714−375−8452 Fax: 714−374−1590 Email: daniel.cha@surfcity−hb.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: dgonzales@lbaclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 90210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 4 of 106

Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: jchoi@lbaclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

Paul B Beach Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: pbeach@lbaclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Los Angeles Sheriff's TERMINATED: 09/22/2010

Defendant
Does 1 through 10

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Los Angeles Sheriff's Department

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

Paul B Beach

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 5 of 106

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Capt. Daniel Cruz

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sgt. Matt Onhemus

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 6 of 106

Defendant Clayton Stelter
Defendant Andrew Lyons
Defendant

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 7 of 106

Frank Quintana TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Justin Bravo

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Javier Guzman

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 8 of 106

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Herman Delgado

represented by Andrew Charles Pongracz Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP 605 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90015 213−481−2869 Fax: 213−481−2871 Email: apongracz@snw−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilbert M Nishimura Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP 600 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−481−2869 Fax: 213−481−2871 Email: gnishimura@snw−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Edwin Rathbun , Jr Los Angeles City Attorney's Office 200 N. Main Street 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7041 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: edwin.rathbun@lacity.org TERMINATED: 10/31/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/13/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

Defendant Adrian Ruiz

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 9 of 106

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Carlos Ortega

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Francisco Alonso

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 10 of 106

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Lt Christopher Blasnek

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Enrique Cano

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 11 of 106

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alejandro Hernandez Castanon

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ivan Delatorre

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 12 of 106

Defendant J Demooy TERMINATED: 03/05/2013 Defendant Arthur Diaz, Jr
Defendant Adolph Esqueda

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 13 of 106

Defendant Michael Frazier
Defendant Antonio Galindo
Defendant Armando Gonzalez

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 14 of 106

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Nicholas Graham

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
B Jackson TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J Hill TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 15 of 106

Defendant M Juarez TERMINATED: 03/05/2013
Defendant R Langarcia TERMINATED: 03/05/2013
Defendant M Lockhart TERMINATED: 03/05/2013
Defendant Sgt Michel McGrattan
Defendant John McNicholas

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Cha

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 16 of 106

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sgt J Mendoza TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
A Montes TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Matthew Nowotny

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 17 of 106

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Blake Orlandos

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
R Patterson TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J Puga` TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
A Rivera TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
G Rodriguez TERMINATED: 03/05/2013

represented by Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 18 of 106

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Joseph Sanford

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Matthew Thomas

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Hector Vazquez

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 19 of 106

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kelley Washington

represented by David D Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Cha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis Michael Gonzales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E Morris , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/16/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jin S Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/25/2010
08/25/2010 08/25/2010
09/20/2010 09/21/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10, Los Angeles Sheriff's. Case assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.(Filing fee $ 350: PAID), filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez.(ghap) (ds). (Entered: 08/25/2010)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants County of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10, Los Angeles Sheriff's. (ghap) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (ghap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/25/2010: # 1 Notice) (ds). (Entered: 08/25/2010)
3 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. First Amended Complaint (Muller, James) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
4 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents, RE: Amended Document (Non−Motion) 3 . The following error(s) was found: L.R. 3−2, Filing of Initiating Documents. Complaints (including first amended complaint,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 20 of 106

09/22/2010 09/22/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010

counter−claims, etc) and other initiating documents in civil cases shall be filed in the traditional manner on paper rather than electronically. Please manually file your first amended complaint. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Does, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Daniel Cruz, Matt Onhemus, Clayton Stelter, Andrew Lyons, Frank Quintana, Justin Bravo, Javier Guzman, Herman Delgado, Adrian Ruiz, Carlos Ortega filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez. (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2010: # 1 Summons Issued) (lom). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
21 DAY Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint, 5 as to Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter, Does. (lom) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Adrian Ruiz served on 10/1/2010, answer due 10/22/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Herman Delgado served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Frank Quintana served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Andrew Lyons served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Daniel Cruz served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Justin Bravo served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Javier Guzman served on 9/28/2010, answer due 10/19/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Adam Kennedy in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 21 of 106

10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/26/2010
11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010

13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant County of Los Angeles served on 10/1/2010, answer due 10/22/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Tammy Johnson, Deputy Clerk in compliance with statute not specified by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement AO440 Proof of Service)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Clayton Stelter served on 9/29/2010, answer due 10/20/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon C. Rogers, #244756 in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
15 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter, (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
16 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 5 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter.(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
17 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS RE Scheduling Conference by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, this case is set for a Scheduling Conference on Jan. 24, 2011 at 11:00 A. M. pursuant to FRCP 16(b). Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the Scheduling Conference. Counsel shall file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan within 14 days after the conference of counsel. The Rule 26(f) discovery plan shall contain the following information: 1. A brief description of the nature of the case and type of action filed and the date filed in the District Court; 2. The number of depositions to be taken by each side and the date the date the depositions are set; 3. The written discovery sought and date responses to interrogatories requests for production and requests for admissions are due; 4. The number of experts expected to be called by each side and the expert's area of expertise; 5. Proposed Pre Trial Conference date; 6. Date Demand for Jury Trial was filed; 7. Prospects of Settlement; 8. Positions of counsel re: consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge; 9. A list of contemplated motions, including what type of motion, a tentative hearing date, and whether discovery must be conducted prior to the filing of the motions. (lom) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Matt Onhemus served on 10/26/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Dirks #221990 in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Muller, James) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, upon Defendant Carlos Ortega served on 10/25/2010, answer due 11/15/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sgt. Ralph J. Gama in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Muller, James) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
20 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN] NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. Motion set for hearing on 12/20/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Choi, Jin) Modified on 11/18/2010 (bp). (Entered: 11/17/2010)
21 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 20 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 22 of 106

11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010
11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/24/2010 12/06/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/21/2010 12/22/2010 01/04/2011

Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C, # 2 Exhibits D−E)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
22 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Declaration of Deputy Adam Kennedy; Exhibit "A" and "B" re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 20 (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
23 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court strikes MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 20 . The Court notes for the record that the Declaration of Adam Kennedy is unsigned. (jl) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
24 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. Motion set for hearing on 12/20/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
25 IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court hereby strikes the Motion of Defendants Carlos Ortega and Matt Ohnemus (doc.#20). The Court notes for the record that the Declaration of Adam Kennedy is unsigned re: MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 20 . (bp) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
26 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 is submitted without oral argument. (jl) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
27 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C, # 2 Exhibits D−E)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
28 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
29 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Muller, James) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
30 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Opposition in Support of MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
31 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 in Support of Reply to Opposition 30 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
32 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 7−12 days, filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter.. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
33 JOINDER in MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
34 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, Scheduling Conference is hereby continued to Jan. 25, 2011 at 10:00 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 23 of 106

01/06/2011 01/07/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011
01/25/2011 02/07/2011 02/11/2011 02/14/2011

35 STIPULATION for Order Authorizing the California Department of Corrections to Produce Non−Psychiatric Medical Records of Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez and Juan Trinidad filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
36 ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PRODUCE NON−PSYCHIATRIC MEDICAL RECORDS OF PLAINTIFFS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich, re Stipulation for Order, 35 . See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
37 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1); parties request to Appear Before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich for settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad (lom) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
38 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Granted the NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1) to Appear Before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich for settlement proceedings. For Settlement Procedure No. 1, counsel are responsible for contacting the judge or mediator at the appropriate time to arrange for further proceedings. (lom) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
39 MINUTES IN CHAMBER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The matter before the Court is Defendants' Unenumerated F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (the "Motion") 24 . The matter was heard by the Court on January 25, 2011. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants file a supplemental declaration detailing the administrative remedy scheme available to inmates at Men's Central Jail. Specifically, the evidence should address: (1) whether inmates must request an Inmate Complaint Form in order to access the administrative remedy scheme; (2) if regulations or a manual govern how the administrative remedy works and, if so, how inmates access those regulations and/or manual; and (3) what the procedural requirements of the administrative remedy scheme are, including time deadlines for filling out an Inmate Complaint Form after a grievance occurs. Defendants are also ORDERED to file with the Court any manual and/or regulations that govern how the administrative remedy scheme works at Men's Central Jail, if such manual and/or regulations exist. Defendants must file this supplemental evidence no later than February 7, 2011. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs submit evidence from the individual Plaintiffs as to why they did not comply with the Men's Central Jail administrative remedy scheme. Specifically, each individual Plaintiff should present evidence as to their "attempts" to exhaust administrative remedies relating to the alleged August 25, 2008 incident referenced in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs must file this supplemental evidence no later than February 14, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
40 MINUTES of Status Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Status Conference held in lieu of a Scheduling Conference. Oral arguments held as to the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint 24 . The Motion to Dismiss, etc. shall remain under submission but the Court will issue a minute order as to further briefing. Court Reporter: Leandra Amber. (lom) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
41 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 Pursuant to Court's Order [Docket No. 39] filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
42 First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Declarations filed by Plaintiff Erick Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
43 DECLARATION of Mary Tiedeman in support of opposition MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Mary Tiedeman, # 2 Exhibit Stipulation and Order re Rutherford, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Mary Tiedeman re Rutherford)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 24 of 106

02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/15/2011
02/15/2011 02/18/2011 02/22/2011 04/27/2011 04/27/2011 04/28/2011
05/03/2011

44 DECLARATION of James S. Muller in support of opposition MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
45 Opposition re: First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Declarations 42 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
46 Evidentiary Objections to Supplemental Declarations re Plaintiffs' Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
49 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 42 Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Declarations. It is ORDERED that time for plaintiffs' filing of supplemental declarations in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss be extended from February 14, 2011 to February 28, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
47 DEFENDANTS' CORRECTION TO EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS RE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; DECLARATION OF JIN S. CHOI re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
48 DECLARATION of Juan Carlos Sanchez in support of opposition to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiff Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Signed) Juan Carlos Sanchez)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
50 DECLARATION of Juan Trinidad in support of opposition to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
51 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 supplemental response filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Muller, James) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
52 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File a Supplemental Declaration in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Heriberto Rodriguez)(Muller, James) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
53 Defendants' Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File a Supplemental Declaration in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 52 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
54 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File a Supplemental Declaration in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 52 . The following error(s) was found: No Proposed Document was submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
55 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 52 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for leave to file the Declaration of Heriberto Rodriguez in opposition to defendants'

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 25 of 106

05/04/2011 05/09/2011 05/16/2011 05/20/2011
06/09/2011 06/09/2011 07/25/2011 08/02/2011 08/04/2011 08/09/2011

motion to dismiss. The Declaration of Heriberto Rodriguez shall be filed on or before May 6, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
56 DECLARATION of Heriberto Rodriguez in support of opposition to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 24 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
57 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 24 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. After considering the evidence presented by Plaintiffs and the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds that it would unreasonable to expect that Plaintiffs would have complied with the grievance procedure because Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they would suffer additional physical force if they complained. The administrative remedies at MCJ were therefore "effectively unavailable" to Plaintiffs and the PLRA does not require exhaustion in this case. (lom) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
58 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 5 by Defendants Sgt. Matt Onhemus and Carlos Ortega filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter.(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
59 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS Re Scheduling Conference by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, this case is set for a Scheduling Conference on Aug. 1, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. pursuant to FRCP 16(b). Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the Scheduling Conference. Counsel shall file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan within 14 days after the conference of counsel. The Rule 26(f) discovery plan shall contain the following information: 1. A brief description of the nature of the case and type of action filed and the date filed in the District Court; 2. The number of depositions to be taken by each side and the date the date the depositions are set; 3. The written discovery sought and date responses to interrogatories requests for production and requests for admissions are due; 4. The number of experts expected to be called by each side and the expert's area of expertise; 5. Proposed Pre Trial Conference date; 6. Date Demand for Jury Trial was filed; 7. Prospects of Settlement; 8. Positions of counsel re: consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge; 9. A list of contemplated motions, including what type of motion, a tentative hearing date, and whether discovery must be conducted prior to the filing of the motions. (lom) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
60 STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from August 1, 2011 to August 8 or 15, 2011 filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
61 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Continue 60 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. It is ordered that the scheduling conference in this case shall be continued. This conference, currently scheduled for August 1, 2011, shall be continued to August 8, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
62 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 7−12 days, filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter.. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
63 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: striking 20 Motion to Dismiss (jl) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
64 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Scheduling Conference is continued to August 12, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. ADR−1 Form shall be filed on or before August 9, 2011. (jl) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
65 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1); parties request to Appear Before Magistrate Judge for settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order ADR−01 Order)(Muller, James) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 26 of 106

08/12/2011
08/12/2011 08/26/2011 08/30/2011 09/02/2011 09/06/2011 09/13/2011 09/19/2011 09/21/2011
09/26/2011

08/09/2011)
66 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, The Court orders: (1) all fact discovery shall be completed on or before 11/30/2011; (2) all expert discovery shall be completed on or before 12/30/2011; (3) Last date to conduct settlement conference is 1/20/2012; (4) motions hall be set for oral argument on or before 2/27/2012, at 10:00 a.m. Pretrial Conference is set for 4/16/2012 02:30 p.m.; and 7−12 day Jury Trial is set for 5/29/2012 10:00 a.m. The Court approves the parties' Settlement Procedure Selection: Request and Notice 65 , Settlement Procedure No. 1, for the parties to appear before the Magistrate Judge assigned.Court Reporter: Katie Thibodeaux. (ys) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
67 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Granted the NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1) to Appear Before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich for settlement proceedings. For Settlement Procedure No. 1, counsel are responsible for contacting the judge at the appropriate time to arrange for further proceedings. (lom) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
68 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND Amended Complaint, 5 filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 9/26/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
69 First REQUEST to Substitute attorney J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. in place of attorney Jin S. Choi filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. Request set for hearing on 9/19/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
70 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: First REQUEST to Substitute attorney J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. in place of attorney Jin S. Choi 69 . The following error(s) was found: No hearing is required. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
71 Opposition re: MOTION to AMEND Amended Complaint, 5 MOTION to AMEND Amended Complaint, 5 68 filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" (Bates Nos. 9−72), # 2 Exhibit "B" and "C" (Bates Nos. 73−101))(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
72 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 69 Request to Substitute Attorney J Edwin Rathbun, Jr as attorney of record in place and stead of Attorney Jin S Choi for Defendnat Herman Delgado. (lom) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
73 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Take Plaintiffs' In−Custody Depositions filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
74 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITIONS OF IN−CUSTODY PLAINTIFFS HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ AND JUAN TRINIDAD by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 73 Ex Parte Application for Leave. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(a)(2), the Defendants in this action may take the depositions of the following Plaintiffs in this action while they are incarcerated in either a state prison or county jail facility: (1) Heriberto Rodriguez (2) Carlos Flores(3) Erick Nunez (4) Juan Carlos Sanchez (5) Juan Trinidad. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
75 MINUTES OF Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint 68 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Plaintiffs Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted. Second Amended complaint is deemed filed. Court Reporter: Theresa Lanza.

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 27 of 106

09/26/2011
09/30/2011
10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/05/2011 10/18/2011 10/21/2011 10/25/2011
10/25/2011

(lom) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
76 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 against Defendants Carlos Flores, Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Does, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter, Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Ivan Delatorre, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, B Jackson, J Hill, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Blake Orlandos, R Patterson, J Puga`, A Rivera, G Rodriguez, Joseph Sanford, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Juan Trinidad, Heriberto Rodriguez, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez. (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2011: # 1 Summons Issued) (lom). (Entered: 09/29/2011)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Second Amended Complaint, 76 as to Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, B Jackson, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Erick Nunez, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, G Rodriguez, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Juan Trinidad, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (lom) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
77 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 76 filed by Defendant Herman Delgado.(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
78 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Herman Delgado, identifying Herbierto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. (Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
79 STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to January 30, 2012 and February 29, 2012 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
80 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Justin Bravo, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Matt Onhemus, Carlos Ortega, Frank Quintana, Adrian Ruiz, Clayton Stelter. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
81 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall GRANTING Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date 79 , all fact discovery shall be completed on or before January 30, 2012, all expert discovery shall be completed on or before February 29,2012. (jl) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
82 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 76 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Hector Vazquez.(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
83 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Hector Vazquez, (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 28 of 106

11/08/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011
11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011

84 FILED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (jl) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
85 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 76 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
86 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington, (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
87 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Francisco Alonso served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
88 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Christopher Blasnek served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
89 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Enrique Cano served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
90 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Alejandro Hernandez Castanon served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
91 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Ivan Delatorre served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
92 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant J Demooy served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
93 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Adolph Esqueda served

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 29 of 106

11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011

on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
94 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Michael Frazier served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
95 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Antonio Galindo served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
96 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Armando Gonzalez served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
97 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Plaintiff Nicholas Graham served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
98 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant J Hill served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
99 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant B Jackson served on 10/24/2011, answer due 11/14/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
100 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant M Juarez served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
101 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant G Rodriguez served on 10/24/2011, answer due 11/14/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
102 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant John McNicholas served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011; J Mendoza served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011; Matthew Thomas served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011; Kelley Washington served on 10/14/2011, answer due 11/4/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 30 of 106

11/14/2011
11/17/2011 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 12/05/2011 12/06/2011 12/06/2011
12/08/2011
01/03/2012

Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
103 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez, upon Defendant Arthur Diaz, Jr served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; R Langarcia served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; M Lockhart served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; Michel McGrattan served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; A Montes served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; Matthew Nowotny served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; Blake Orlandos served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; R Patterson served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; J Puga` served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; A Rivera served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; Joseph Sanford served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011; Hector Vazquez served on 10/7/2011, answer due 10/28/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
104 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Ronald Kaye and David McLane, of Kaye, McLane & Bednarski, LLP on behalf of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
105 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 76 filed by Defendants Christopher Blasnek, Ivan Delatorre, B Jackson, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, G Rodriguez.(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
106 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Christopher Blasnek, Ivan Delatorre, B Jackson, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, G Rodriguez, (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
107 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Discovery Cut−Off and Related Dates from January 30, 2012 to May 14, 2012 filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 2 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
108 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: the Court grants leave to the Defendants to file an Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Discovery Cut−Off and Related Dates 107 . Opposition shall be filed on or before Dec. 6, 2011 at 4:00 P.M. (jl) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
109 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Discovery Cut−Off and Related Dates from January 30, 2012 to May 14, 2012 107 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, B Jackson, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, G Rodriguez, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
110 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 107 Ex Parte Application to Continue. The deadlines and hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled: fact discovery deadline and Rule 26 Expert Disclosure extended to May 14, 2012; Rebuttal Expert Disclosure extended to May 28, 2012; Expert Discovery Deadline and Mandatory Settlement Conference Deadline extended to June 18, 2012; Motion Hearing Deadline (other than Motions In Limine) extended to August 6, 2012; Final Pretrial Conference continued to October 15,2012 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Jury Trial continued to November6, 2012 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (jl) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
111 (STRICKEN) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 2 Declaration

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 31 of 106

01/04/2012
01/04/2012 01/04/2012 01/04/2012 01/16/2012 01/16/2012 01/17/2012 02/06/2012 02/06/2012 02/07/2012

of Ronald Kaye, # 3 Declaration of Jin S. Choi, # 4 Exhibit A through U, # 5 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Captain Sean Mathers)(Kaye, Ronald) Modified on 1/4/2012 (mz). (Entered: 01/03/2012)
112 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents 111 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected.Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Correct event is: Responses/Replies/Other Motion Related Documents − Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion (Rule 37). Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry does no match the title of the document; and no motion was filed as a separate document and docket entry.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (mz) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
113 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS. The document is stricken and counsel is ordered to file an amended or corrected document by as soon as possible, RE: MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents, 111 . (mz) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
115 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 114 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 2 Declaration of Ronald Kaye, # 3 Declaration of Jin S. Choi, # 4 Exhibit A through U, # 5 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Captain Sean Mathers)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
116 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff Sanchez's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three filed by plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 2/6/2006 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/16/2012)
117 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff Sanchez's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three 116 filed by Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 2 Exhibit A−H in support of Muller Decl., # 3 Declaration of Ronald Kaye, # 4 Exhibit A−B in support of Kaye Decl., # 5 Declaration of Jin S. Choi)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/16/2012)
118 MINUTE ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 114 by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are advised that on the courts own motion plaintiffs motion to compel is being re−calendared from January 30, 2012, to Monday, February 6, 2012, at 10:00 a. m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
119 REPORT of Defendant County of Los Angeles to the Magistrate Judge Regarding Lawsuit Lists Produced to Plaintiffs' Counsel filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
120 MINUTES OF Discovery Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich:, RE: MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 114 , MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff Sanchez's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three 116 . Court questions counsel and listens to their responses. The motions are submitted; separate order to issue. Court Recorder: CS 02−06−2012. (yb) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
121 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 116 Motion to Compel further responses to plaintiff Sanchez's requests for production, set no. 3. Compliance within 21 days is required. If the parties desire that an additional protective order regarding confidentiality be entered, a proposed order

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 32 of 106

02/07/2012 02/08/2012
02/08/2012
02/13/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/23/2012 02/25/2012 02/27/2012 03/02/2012 03/05/2012
03/05/2012

must be presented to the court within the period allowed for compliance so that the production will not be delayed. (yb) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
122 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Booth order to visit Heriberto Rodriguez in attorney booth at Men's Central Jail filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for booth order to visit client at Men's Central Jail)(McLane, David) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
123 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 122 Ex Parte Application for Order re Booth Order to allow Attorney−client visits for Heriberto Rodriguez. It is hereby ordered that counsel for Heriberto Rodriguez, Booking No. 8220127, currently housed at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Men's Central Jail, are allowed to conduct visits in the attorney visiting area booths. This is a booth order. Counsel for Heriberto Rodriguez, including James S. Muller, Ronald O. Kaye, David S. McLane, Caitlin S. Weisberg, and investigators Frank Mackey and John Brown, are allowed to visit Mr. Rodriguez in the booths in the attorney visiting area of the Men's Central Jail.It is sufficient if the attorneys or investigators bring a copy of this signed order when visiting Mr. Rodriguez in order to gain access to the attorney visiting booths. This booth order does not otherwise modify visiting rules and requirements at the Los Angeles County Mens Central Jail. (lom) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
124 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion to Compel. See attached order for further details. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is denied. Compliance within 14 days is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
125 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Videotaped depositions to use at trial filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 3/12/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for videotaped depositions)(McLane, David) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
126 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 , Order on Motion to Compel, 121 filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 3/26/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
127 Opposition re: MOTION for Order for Videotaped depositions to use at trial 125 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
128 DECLARATION re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
129 REPLY Support of Motion MOTION for Order for Videotaped depositions to use at trial 125 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (McLane, David) (Entered: 02/25/2012)
130 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Amend Protective Order Regarding Discovery Produced to Plaintiffs filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
131 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 130 Ex Parte Application to Amend Protective Order Regarding Discovery Produced to Plaintiffs 130 . See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
132 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ORDERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 7, 2012 AND FEBRUARY 8, 2012; AND TO PRODUCE A DECLARATION REFLECTING THE EFFORTS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLY WITH THE COURTS ORDER RE: DEPUTY GANGS filed by plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
133 OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 , Order on Motion to Compel, 121 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 , Order on Motion to Compel, 121 126 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments:

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 33 of 106

03/06/2012
03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/12/2012 03/12/2012 03/12/2012
03/14/2012 03/14/2012 03/15/2012 03/19/2012 03/19/2012 03/21/2012 04/02/2012 05/04/2012 05/10/2012

# 1 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye, # 2 Exhibit A−D to Kaye Declaration)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
134 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ORDERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 7, 2012 AND FEBRUARY 8, 2012; AND TO PRODUCE A DECLARATION REFLECTING THE EFFORTS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLY WITH THE COURTS 132 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
135 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Videotaped Depositions 125 is hereby continued to March 14, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. (jl) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
136 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying without prejudice 132 Ex Parte Application to compel production of documents required by February 7 and 8, 2012 Orders. (yb) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
137 REPLY in support of MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 , Order on Motion to Compel, 121 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Compel, 124 , Order on Motion to Compel, 121 126 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
138 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF FLORES' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET SIX filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores. Motion set for hearing on 4/2/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
139 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF FLORES' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET SIX 138 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Plaintiff's Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A through E, for Plaintiff, # 3 Declaration of Defendant's Counsel, # 4 Exhibit 1 and 2, for Defendant)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
140 MINUTES granting 125 Motion to Take Videotaped Depositions; Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall:Court Recorder: Hilda Avila. (jl) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
141 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Videotaped Depositions (125). (jl) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
142 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Reconsideration 126 is advanced to March 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (jl) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
143 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Reconsideration is submitted without oral argument. 126 . (jl) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
144 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF FLORES' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET SIX 138 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
145 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 126 Motion for Reconsideration (jl) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
146 MINUTES OF Discovery Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich:granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion to Compel. Compliance within 14 days is required.Court Recorder: CS 04−02−2012. (yb) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
147 STIPULATION to Continue Trial, Discovery Cut Off and Related Dates from May 14, 2012 to October 8, 2012 filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
148 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, extending fact discovery and expert disclosure date to October 8, 2012, extending rebuttal expert disclosure date to November 2, 2012, extending expert discovery deadline and mandatory settlement conference deadline to November 16, 2012, extending motion hearing deadline to January 7, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., (other than motions in limine), continuing Pre Trial

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 34 of 106

05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012
05/25/2012 05/30/2012 06/04/2012
06/07/2012 06/28/2012 06/29/2012 07/25/2012 07/26/2012 08/06/2012

Conference to March 18, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. and continuing 7−12 day Jury Trial to April 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. 147 (jl) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
149 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders of February 7, 2012 and April 2, 2012 filed by plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 6/4/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
150 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to June 4, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. for Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders of February 7, 2012 and April 2, 2012 filed by plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
151 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 150 Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing. The ex parte application is granted. The motion will be heard on June 4, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Any opposition must be filed by May 25, 2012, and any reply must be filed by May 30, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
152 OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders of February 7, 2012 and April 2, 2012 149 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
153 REPLY in support MOTION for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Orders of February 7, 2012 and April 2, 2012 149 filed by Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Declaration of Paralegal)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
154 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURTS DISCOVERY ORDERS held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Case called. Counsel make their appearances. Court questions counsel and listens to their responses. Court orders defendants to complete their document production pursuant to the February 7 and April 12 orders by June 30, 2012. Court hears argument on plaintiffs request for sanctions. That aspect of the motion is submitted for decision. Separate order to issue.Court Recorder: CS 6/4/12. (mz) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
155 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 149 Motion for Sanctions. Defendants are directed to pay the sum of $8,200.00 to plaintiffs within 14 days. See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
156 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Bring into Men's Central Jail videoequipment for video deposition filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for videoequipment use at MCJ)(McLane, David) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
157 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting ex parte application of counsel to allow videograph and laptop equipment to show witness exhibits for videotaped depositions at Men's Central Jail : granting 156 Ex Parte Application for Order (pg) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
158 STIPULATION for Order AUTHORIZING IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS / PERCIPIENT WITNESSES filed by plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
159 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich, re: Stipulation for Order, 158 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(a)(2)(b), Plaintiffs have Court authorization to take the following depositions of Plaintiffs and third party percipient witness in their respective penal institutions while they are incarcerated. (mz) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
160 NOTICE of Change of address by James S Muller attorney for Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Changing

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 35 of 106

08/10/2012 08/22/2012 08/24/2012
08/31/2012 09/04/2012 09/12/2012 09/12/2012

attorneys address to 225 East Broadway, Suite 107F, Glendale California, 91203. Telephone 818−536−7922, fax 818−536−7499.. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
161 NOTICE of Change of address by James S Muller attorney for Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Changing attorneys address to 225 East Broadway, Suite 107F, Glendale California, 91205. Telephone 818−536−7922, fax 818−536−7499. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
162 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for to CDCR allowing videographer and laptop equipment filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to CDCR allowing videographer and laptop equipment)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
163 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Based on the unopposed ex Parte Application 162 , it is hereby ordered that for any prisoner deposition conducted at any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") facility on "contract facility" in the above referenced case, including but not limited to those currently noticed, i.e. 1) Plaintiff Juan Trinidad (#F81179), September 7, 2012 at California Correctional Institution− Tehachapi, California, 2) witness Noah Ayala (#P07842), September 10, 2012 at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison− Corcoran, California, 3) Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez #AC1956), September 13,2012 at High Desert State Prison− Susanville, California, and 4) Plaintiff Erick Nunez (#067304), September 19, 2012 at Pelican Bay State Prison− Crescent City, California− the following shall be permitted: 1) A licensed videographer shall be allowed to bring into the facility for use at the deposition all necessary audio and video equipment including but not limited to: A camcorder, mixer, headphones x 2, tripod, DVD media, mini dvd media, audio cassettes, power strip with extension chord, light stand, gaffers tape, S cable, wiring harness combination RCA & XLR cables, XLR microphone cable, headphone cable, power supply, hdv recorder, audio cassette recorder, power supply, lavalier microphones, dvd recorder, background 6 x 8 background clamp, AC extension cable, stereo table top microphone with stand and adaptor, tota light with ac extension cable, tota light cable, lighting equipment bag, brief case, lighting equipment bag, brief case, and equipment bag; 2) The plaintiffs' attorneys will each be allowed to bring into the facility for use during the deposition: a laptop computer, a power chord, DVDs containing videos, a video monitor and power chord. The defendants' attorneys will each be allowed to bring a laptop computer and a power chord. 3) The plaintiffs attorneys will each be allowed to bring into the facility for use during attorney visits on dates and times prior to the prisoner depositions a laptop computer, and power chord, and DVDs containing videos. 4) The plaintiffs attorney visits with the prisoner witnesses on dates and times prior to the depositions will be permitted to last a maximum of 4 hours in duration. (ir) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
164 STIPULATION to Amend Order on Ex Parte Application for Order,,,,,,,,, 163 , STIPULATION for Order Modify Previous Court Order (Dkt. 163) filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To modify previous Court Order (Dkt. 163))(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
165 STIPULATION to Continue Trial, Discovery Cut Off, and Related Dates from April 2, 2013 to May 6, 2013 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
166 ORDER Approving Stipulation to Modify Previous Court Order 163 Re: Depositions and Attorney Visitations in CDCR Controlled Facilities 164 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court's Order dated 8/24/2012 is modified as outlined in this order. See order for details. (csi) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
167 ORDER Approving Stipulation to Continue Trial, Discovery Cut Off and Related Dates 165 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The deadlines and hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled. Fact Discovery Deadline 12/7/2012; Rule 26 Expert Disclosure 1/7/2013; Rubuttal Expert Disclosure 1/28/2013; Expert Discovery Cut Off/Settlement Conference Deadline 2/11/2013; Motions Hearing Deadline (Other

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 36 of 106

11/13/2012 11/16/2012 12/10/2012
12/17/2012 12/17/2012
12/17/2012 12/18/2012 12/21/2012
12/21/2012 12/24/2012
12/27/2012 12/27/2012 12/27/2012

than Motions in Limine) 3/11/2013; Pretrial Conference set for 4/1/2013 at 1:30 pm; and Jury Trial commencing 5/6/2013 at 9:00 am before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (csi) Modified on 9/12/2012 (csi). (Entered: 09/12/2012)
168 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing Re: Status Conference Reflecting Outstanding Discovery filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
169 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for a status conference, but with good cause having been shown, sets deadlines. : denying 168 Ex Parte Application for Hearing (pg) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
170 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez of EX PARTE APPLICATION; PROPOSED ORDER; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO IMPOSE OTHER LESSER SANCTIONS, FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
171 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Trial and other Related Dates from May 6, 2013 to September 10, 2013 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
172 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO IMPOSE OTHER LESSER SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
173 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant Herman Delgado of Notice of Manual Filing of Delgado's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. (Orquiola, Corinne) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
174 NOTICE of Errata filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
175 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, DISCOVERY CUT OFF AND RELATED DATES 171 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a declaration from counsel on or before December 26, 2012 identifying the expert witness who had spinal surgery on December 13, 2012, as well as the anticipated subject matter of the experts Rule 26 Report. The Court will rule on the ex parte application upon receipt of the declaration. (lom) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
176 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Ronald Kaye, Plaintiff's Counsel re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 175 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Attachments: # 1 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Martin Chenevert)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
177 REPLY in support of PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO IMPOSE LESSER SANCTIONS, FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye, # 2 Exhibit A through G, attached to Kaye Declaration, # 3 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 4 Exhibit A attached to Muller Declaration)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/24/2012)
179 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXPARTE APPLICATION Requesting Leave of the Court to File Under Seal Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Default Judgment or, In the Alternative, to Impose other Lesser Sanctions, for Spoliation of Evidence; Declaration of Counsel. (mat) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
180 SEALED DOCUMENT− ORDER (mat) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
181 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXPARTE APPLICATION Requesting Leave of the Court to File Under Seal Opposition of Defendant, Hernan Delgado to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Default Judgment; Declaration of J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr.; Request for Sanctions against Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Sum of $3,875 for Frivolous Motion. (mat) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 37 of 106

12/27/2012 12/27/2012 12/27/2012 01/02/2013
01/07/2013
01/07/2013 01/07/2013
01/09/2013 01/09/2013 01/11/2013 01/11/2013

182 SEALED DOCUMENT− ORDER (mat) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
183 SEALED DOCUMENT− NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Default Judgment, or, In the Alternative, to Impose other Lesser Sanctions, for Spoliation of Evidence; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations & Exhibits. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)(mat) (Main Document 183 replaced on 10/21/2015) (kyc). (Entered: 01/08/2013)
184 SEALED DOCUMENT− OPPOSITION of Defendant, Hernan Delgado to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Default Judgment; Declaration of J. Edwin Rathbun, Fr.; Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Sum of $3,875.00 for Frivolous Motion. (mat) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
178 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 171 Ex Parte Application to Continue. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good cause to continue expert discovery cut−off dates, but has not shown good cause to move subsequent dates by as much as four months. Notably, the Court has already moved discovery−related deadlines three times in this case, and the case is now over two years old. As such, the Court sets the following new deadlines: Rule 26 Expert and Rebuttal Expert Disclosure February 22, 2013; Expert Discovery Cut−Off March 22, 2013; Motions Hearing Deadline (other than motions in limine) April 22, 2013; Pretrial Conference May 14, 2013, 2:00 p.m.; and Trial (7−12 days) June 4, 2013, 10:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
187 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document, 172 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Objection/Opposition (Motion related). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
188 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 174 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Errata. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
189 MINUTES of Plaintiff' s Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Default Judgment, or, In the Alternative, to Impose Other Lesser Sanctions Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs' counsel in the Sum of $3,875 for Frivolous Motion 183 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court denies the motion to Strike. The Request to Impose Lesser Sanctions is taken under submission by the Court and its Order will follow. Plaintiff will submit a proposed order to the Court by Wednesday, January 9, 2013. Court Recorder: Meloni Warren. (lom) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
185 COMPACT DISC Order for date of proceedings 1/7/2013 to 1/7/2013 filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez. Court will contact Caitlin Weisberg at CWwisberg@kmbllp.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 1/7/2013. FEE PAID. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Receipt −Fee Paid)(mw) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
186 PROPOSED ORDER; PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER; RE: MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO IMPOSE OTHER LESSER SANCTIONS, FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE re EXPARTE APPLICATION to Seal 179 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
190 OBJECTIONS to Motion Related Document, 186 Re: Plaintiff's Proposed Order On Motion To Strike Defendants' Answer Or, In The Alternative, Impose Lesser Sanctions filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
191 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, B Jackson, M

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 38 of 106

02/06/2013
02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/20/2013

Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, G Rodriguez, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washingtonto Motion Related Document, 186 TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
192 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Objections − non−motion 190 ; Response (non−motion) 191 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Objection; Response (Motion related). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
193 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney David S McLane counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to dmclane@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (McLane, David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
194 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 193 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect caption and case no.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
195 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin J LaHue counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to klahue@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
196 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin J LaHue counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to klahue@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
197 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney David S McLane counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to dmclane@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (McLane, David) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
198 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Caitlin S Weisberg counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to cweisberg@kmbllaw.com. Adding Caitlin Weisberg as attorney as counsel of record for Heriberto Rodriguez for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
199 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ronald O Kaye counsel for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to rok@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
200 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, J Demooy, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, J Hill, B Jackson, M Juarez, R Langarcia, M Lockhart, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, J Mendoza, A Montes, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, R Patterson, J Puga`, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, G Rodriguez, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 3/25/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 39 of 106

02/21/2013 02/25/2013 03/04/2013 03/04/2013 03/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/07/2013 03/11/2013
03/11/2013

201 JOINDER in MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 ; Declaration of J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
202 ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to strike Defendants' Answer 183 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer and Enter Judgment but GRANTS Plaintiff's Alternative to Impose Other Lesser Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and orders the sanction described above. The Court DENIES Defendant Delgado's Request for Sanctions. (See attached document for details.) (lom) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
203 STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendants M Juarez, J Hill, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, J Demooy, R Patterson, J Puga`, B Jackson, A Montes, J Mendoza, R Langarcia, G Rodriguez, M Lockhart filed by Defendants M Juarez, J Hill, Frank Quintana, A Rivera, J Demooy, R Patterson, J Puga`, B Jackson, A Montes, J Mendoza, R Langarcia, G Rodriguez, M Lockhart. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
204 OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 , 201 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
205 STIPULATION to Continue Mediation Cut−Off and Expert Discovery Cut−Off from March 29, 2013 and March 22, 2013, respectively to May 20, 2013 and May 1, 2013, respectively filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
206 ORDER Granting Stipulation 205 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mediation Cut−Off in the above referenced case is continued to May 20, 2013, and the Expert Discovery Cut−Off is continued to May 1, 2013. All other dates set out in the Courts January 2, 2013 Scheduling Order, including the Pretrial Conference date of May 14, 2013 and the Trial date of June 4, 2013, remain unchanged. (lom) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
207 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Dismiss 203 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The claims of Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, and Erik Nunez against Defendants Jose Mendoza, Jeffrey Demooy, Jonathan Hill, Brendon Jackson, Mario Juarez, Ricardo Langarcia, Mark Lockhart, Anthony Montes, Richard Patterson, Jason Puga, Frank Quintana, Aaron Rivera, and Gregory Rodriguez, are dismissed with prejudice, with these designated parties to bear their respective costs. (lom) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
208 MINUTE ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are directed to appear for a settlement conference on April 18, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom "69O", Roybal Federal Building, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, California. Each party shall deliver a confidential settlement conference statement to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge on or before April 11, 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
209 REPLY in support of MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
210 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 40 of 106

03/14/2013
03/15/2013
03/15/2013 03/18/2013 03/18/2013
03/18/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/25/2013

Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
211 STIPULATION for Order to Dismiss the Second and Fourth Claims for Relief from Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
212 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
213 ORDER Granting Stipulation 211 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Claims for Relief are dismissed with prejudice from the Second Amended Complaint. (lom) Modified on 3/15/2013 (lom). (Entered: 03/15/2013)
214 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Christopher Blasnek, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Antonio Galindo, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 4/15/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement, # 2 Proposed Judgment)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
215 DECLARATION of Jin S. Choi, Christopher Blasnek, Daniel Cruz, Patrick Davoren, Ernie Barbosa, Michel McGrattan, Kelley Washington, Matthew Ohnemus and Exhibits in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 filed by Defendants Christopher Blasnek, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Antonio Galindo, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
216 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 [Notice of Supplemental Authority and Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority] filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
217 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Second Amended Complaint 200 (JOINDER filed by Defendant Hernan Delgado 201 is hereby continued to April 15, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
218 JOINDER in MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 ; Declaration of J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
219 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 41 of 106

03/25/2013
03/27/2013 03/27/2013
04/01/2013 04/02/2013 04/02/2013 04/04/2013 04/04/2013 04/08/2013
04/10/2013

Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Matthew Nowotny, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas. Motion set for hearing on 4/22/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement, # 2 Proposed Judgment)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
220 DECLARATION of Jin S. Choi, Christopher Blasnek, Daniel Cruz, Ernie Barbosa, Kelley Washington, Matthew Ohnemus, Michel McGrattan, Armando Gonzalez, Carlos Ortega, Justin Bravo, Michael Frazier, Andrew Lyons, and Francisco Alonso in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 219 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Matthew Nowotny, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
221 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Responses to Motions from Aprl 1, 2013 to April 8, 2013 filed by Plaintiffs Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
222 ORDER Granting Stipulation 221 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the motions for summary judgment on the Second Amended Complaint, docket nos. 214 and 219 , and the hearing for the motion for judgment on the pleadings, docket no. 200 , will be heard on April 29, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motions for summary judgment are due April 8, 2013, including a consolidated opposition to both motions, one separated statement of genuine issues of material fact, and one statement of additional material facts, and the replies by the defendants are due April 15, 2013. (lom) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
223 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 4/29/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye and Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
224 MINUTE ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are advised that the settlement conference calendared for April 18, 2013, is being continued to Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
225 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, Motion In Limine (#223) to Admit the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence is submitted without oral arguments. (bp) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
226 STIPULATION to Continue Briefing Schedule, Trial and Related Dates filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, et al. (lom) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
227 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Continue 226 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. It is hereby ordered: Plaintiffs' Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment − 4/15/13; Defendants Reply to Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment − 4/22/13; Expert Discovery Cut−Off − 5/10/13; Pretrial Conference − 8/19/13 at 2:00 p.m.; Trial (7−12 days) − 9/17/13 at 10:00 a.m. (lom) Modified on 4/9/2013 (lom). (Entered: 04/08/2013)
228 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 223 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
230 EX PARTE APPLICATION for leave of the Court to file a Plaintiff's Opposition, the Separate Statement of Facts, the supporting Exhibits and Declarations under seal filed

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 42 of 106

04/10/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/15/2013
04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/16/2013
04/16/2013 04/16/2013

by Plaintiffs Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
232 EX PARTE APPLICATION for an order requesting leave of the Court to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities over 25 pages filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
231 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 230 Ex Parte Application requesting leave of the Court to file Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Additional Material Facts, accompanying Exhibits and Declarations Under Seal is granted. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
233 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 232 Ex Parte Application requesting leave of the Court to file Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities over 25 pages in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities shall not exceed 45 pages in length. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
229 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez of PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES AND ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION; EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
241 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXHIBITS in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22, Part 23, Part 24, Part 25, Part 26, Part 27)(mat) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
394 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22)(mat) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
396 SEALED DOCUMENT − PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT of Genuine Issues and Additional Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(gk) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
397 SEALED DOCUMENT − DECLARATIONS in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (gk) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
419 SEALED DOCUMENT − PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (gk) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
234 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
235 REPLY In Support of Plaintiffs' MIL No. 1 MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 223 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
236 DECLARATION of Caitlin S. Weisbderg In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 223 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Matz Order re Goldstein)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 43 of 106

04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/17/2013
04/17/2013 04/18/2013 04/22/2013
04/22/2013

237 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Disclosure of Rule 26 Rebuttal Gang Expert filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
238 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye re EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Disclosure of Rule 26 Rebuttal Gang Expert 237 filed by Plaintiffs Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
239 Corrected EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to FOR LATE DISCLOSURE OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 26 REBUTTAL GANG EXPERT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RONALD O. KAYE, WITH ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS, IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of counsel, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
240 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. correcting Declaration (non−motion), 238 , EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Disclosure of Rule 26 Rebuttal Gang Expert 237 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
242 Opposition re: Corrected EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to FOR LATE DISCLOSURE OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 26 REBUTTAL GANG EXPERT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RONALD O. KAYE, WITH ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS, IN SUPPORT THEREOF 239 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
243 DECLARATION of Ronald Kaye In Support Of Corrected EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to FOR LATE DISCLOSURE OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 26 REBUTTAL GANG EXPERT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RONALD O. KAYE, WITH ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS, IN SUPPORT THEREOF 239 (Supplemental Filing in Respons to Defendants Opposition) filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
244 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 [Second Notice of Supplemental Authority and Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority] filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Holguin Order)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
245 REPLY in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 219 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
246 Objection to Plaintiffs' Evidence Offered in Opposition to re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 219 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 44 of 106

04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/23/2013 04/24/2013
04/24/2013 05/01/2013 05/02/2013 05/02/2013
05/03/2013 05/08/2013

Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
247 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Joinder in Reply (Motion related),, 245 filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. Motion set for hearing on 4/29/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
248 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Corrected EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to FOR LATE DISCLOSURE OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 26 REBUTTAL GANG EXPERT 239 , EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Disclosure of Rule 26 Rebuttal Gang Expert 237 is GRANTED.. (jl) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
249 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 [Third Notice of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
250 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Joinder in Reply (Motion related),, 245 247 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Motions and Related Filings: Responses/Replies/Other Motion Related Documents> Motion Related Document.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bp) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
251 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, the following motions are continued to May 2, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.: (1) Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Second Amended Complaint (#200); (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint (#214 & 219). (bp) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
252 MINUTE ORDER RE−CALENDARING TIME OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are advised that the Court is moving the time of the settlement conference on calendar May 7, 2013, at 3:30 pm. to May 7, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 690, Roybal Federal Courthouse, 255 E. Temple, Street, Los Angeles. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
253 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 219 are continued to May 16, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. (jl) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
254 STIPULATION for Order TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS' TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS JAVIER STAURING filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, A Rivera, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
255 MINUTE ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are advised that the settlement conference calendared for May 7, 2013, is being continued to Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
256 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint 200 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 214 , MOTION for Summary

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 45 of 106

05/15/2013 05/17/2013 06/11/2013 07/12/2013 07/15/2013
07/15/2013 07/15/2013 07/16/2013 07/18/2013
07/22/2013

Judgment as to Second Amended Complaint 219 are continued to May 17, 2013 at 9:00 A.M.. (jl) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
257 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS' TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS' REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS JAVIER STAURING re 254 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants may take the deposition of Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert witness, Javier Stauring, by June 5, 2013. (lom) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
258 MINUTES OF Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 219 ; Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Second Amended Complaint 200 ; Defendants' Joinder in Motions 201 hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and for Judgment on the Pleadings are submitted without further oral arguments. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lom) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
259 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: No settlement was achieved. (yb) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
261 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING MOTION FOR JOINDER, AND GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 214 Motion for Summary Judgment.; denying 219 Motion for Summary Judgment.; granting 223 Motion in Limine for Admissions; granting 247 Motion for Joinder (bp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
260 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Matter before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [Docket No.200]. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED only as to the third (3rd) and fifth (5th) causes of action against only the public−entity defendants. The Motion is DENIED as to the remaining Defendants as to the third (3rd) cause of action. (bp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
263 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING MOTION FOR JOINDER, AND GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: re: Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 246 . (See document for further details) (bp) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
265 AMENDED MINUTES ORDER REGARDING OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Judge Consuelo B. Marshall re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held 263 . (bp) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
262 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich:( Confidential Settlement Statement may be submitted by 8/20/2013, Further Settlement Conference set for 8/27/2013 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.) (yb) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
264 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington Court Reporter. Court will contact Julia Valino at jvalino@lbaclaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: May 17, 2013. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
266 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Preclude References to Gang Membership filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 46 of 106

07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013
07/22/2013

267 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Preclude References to Gang Membership 266 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
268 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
269 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
270 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Defendants' Medical Expert Opinions re Causation of Injuries filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
271 DECLARATION of David S. McLane In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Defendants' Medical Expert Opinions re Causation of Injuries 270 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(McLane, David) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
272 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Admit Video Depositions of Inmate Witnesses filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
273 DECLARATION of David S. McLane In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Admit Video Depositions of Inmate Witnesses 272 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(McLane, David) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
274 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Bifurcate Trial filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
275 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Other Acts Evidence filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 47 of 106

07/22/2013
07/22/2013
07/22/2013
07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013

276 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Evidence of the Extraction of Non−Plaintiff Inmates filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
277 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Murder of Deputy Juan Escalante filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
278 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Preclude Evidence of Any Post Incident Changes in Policy, Training, and Investigations filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
279 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.(Muller, James) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
280 DECLARATION of James S. Muller in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report 279 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Muller, James) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
281 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence of the Term "Culture of Violence" filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
282 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Evidence of the Percentage of Force Investigations Which Resulted in Findings of Unreasonable Force filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 48 of 106

07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013

Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
283 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony of Mary Tiedeman, Robert Olmstead, and Patricia Bartlett filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
284 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
285 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Character and Other Acts in Support Thereof filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
286 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Prior Statements filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
287 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Preclude Testimony of Steve Martin and Javier Stauring filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−D, # 2 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
288 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#13) to Preclude Any Reference to Potential Indemnification of Individual Defendants by the County of Los Angeles filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 49 of 106

07/22/2013
07/23/2013
07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013

Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
289 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
290 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Appeal of Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion in Limine for Admissions, Order on Motion for Joinder,,,, 261 (Appeal fee of $455 receipt number 0973−12445874 paid.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
291 Amendment to MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report 279 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muller, James) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
292 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13−56292, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 290 as to Defendants. (car) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
293 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
294 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
295 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
296 Joint Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
297 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
298 Witness List filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 50 of 106

07/29/2013
07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013
08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013

299 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
300 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Certify THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT 293 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement July 29, 2013 Order of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
301 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION 294 AND SETTING DEADLINES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS SO ORDERED The Plaintiffs have shown good cause and the application is granting. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion 293 is to be file no later than 8/5/2013, and Plaintiffs' reply is to be filed no later than 8/12/13. (ys) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
302 Witness List filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
303 Opposition to In Opposition To re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Evidence of the Percentage of Force Investigations Which Resulted in Findings of Unreasonable Force 282 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
304 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Bifurcate Trial 274 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
305 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition To MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Bifurcate Trial 274 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
306 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Preclude Testimony of Steve Martin and Javier Stauring 287 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
307 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition To MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Preclude Testimony of Steve Martin and Javier Stauring 287 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
308 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony of Mary Tiedeman, Robert Olmstead, and Patricia Bartlett 283 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
309 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony of Mary Tiedeman, Robert Olmstead, and Patricia Bartlett 283 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
310 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 284 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 51 of 106

08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013
08/05/2013

Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
311 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 284 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
312 opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Evidence of the Extraction of Non−Plaintiff Inmates 276 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
313 opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Murder of Deputy Juan Escalante 277 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
314 opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Preclude Evidence of Any Post Incident Changes in Policy, Training, and Investigations 278 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
315 opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Character and Other Acts in Support Thereof 285 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
316 opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Prior Statements 286 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
317 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
318 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Opposition MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
319 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#13) to Preclude Any Reference to Potential Indemnification of Individual Defendants by the County of Los Angeles 288 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
320 Opposition re: MOTION to Certify THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT 293 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
321 OPPOSITION to re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Evidence of the Extraction of Non−Plaintiff Inmates 276 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 52 of 106

08/05/2013
08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013

Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
322 OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
323 OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Defendants' Medical Expert Opinions re Causation of Injuries 270 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
324 OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report 279 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
325 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Other Acts Evidence 275 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence of the Term "Culture of Violence" 281 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
326 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Opposition To MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Other Acts Evidence 275 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence of the Term "Culture of Violence" 281 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
327 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Admit Video Depositions of Inmate Witnesses 272 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
328 Amendment to Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report 279 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 53 of 106

08/05/2013
08/08/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013
08/12/2013

329 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Preclude References to Gang Membership 266 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
330 NOTICE OF LODGING Proposed Pretrial Conference Order Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Objections to Defs Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit B−Defs Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit C−COLA's Response to RFA #1, # 4 Exhibit C2−COLA's Supplemental Response to RFA #1, # 5 Exhibit D−Cruz's Response to RFA #1)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
331 REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Certify THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT 293 Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
332 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support Of MOTION to Certify THAT DEFENDANTS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS UNDER CHUMAN V. WRIGHT 293 In Support of Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
333 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Preclude References to Gang Membership 266 Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald Kaye)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
334 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 In Support Of Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
335 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 In Support of Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
336 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Defendants' Medical Expert Opinions re Causation of Injuries 270 Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
337 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Admit specific portions of jail commission report 279 Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
338 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Bifurcate Trial 274 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
339 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Other Acts Evidence 275 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence of the Term "Culture of Violence" 281 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 54 of 106

08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013

Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
340 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Evidence of the Percentage of Force Investigations Which Resulted in Findings of Unreasonable Force 282 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
341 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Evidence of the Extraction of Non−Plaintiff Inmates 276 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
342 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Murder of Deputy Juan Escalante 277 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
343 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Preclude Evidence of Any Post Incident Changes in Policy, Training, and Investigations 278 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
344 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony of Mary Tiedeman, Robert Olmstead, and Patricia Bartlett 283 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
345 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 284 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 55 of 106

08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/15/2013

Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
346 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Character and Other Acts in Support Thereof 285 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
347 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Prior Statements 286 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
348 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Preclude Testimony of Steve Martin and Javier Stauring 287 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
349 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
350 REPLY In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Admit Video Depositions of Inmate Witnesses 272 Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (McLane, David) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
351 DECLARATION of David McLane In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Admit Video Depositions of Inmate Witnesses 272 In Support of Reply to Defendants' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F)(McLane, David) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
352 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Courts own motion, the following motions, currently scheduled for Aug. 19, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.:Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 2 266 ;Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 3 268 ;Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 4 270 ; Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 5 272 ;Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 6 279 Plaintiff's Motion for certification that Defendants' appeal is frivolous under Chuman v. Wright 293 Defendant's Motion in limine No. 1 274 ;Defendant's Motion in limine No. 2 275 Defendant's Motion in limine No. 3 276 ;Defendant's Motion in limine No. 4 277 Defendant's Motion in limine No.5 278 ;Defendant's Motion in limine No.6 281 Defendant's Motion in limine No. 7 282 ;Defendant's Motion in limine No. 8 283 Defendant's motion in limine No. 9 284 ;Defendant's motion in

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 56 of 106

08/15/2013 08/15/2013 08/19/2013
08/22/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013

limine No. 10 285 Defendant's motion in limine No. 11 286 ;Defendant's motion in limine No. 12 287 Defendant's motion in limine No. 13 288 ;Defendant's motion in limine No. 14 289 are hereby ordered ADVANCED to August 19, 2013 at 9:00 A.M. (ys) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
353 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Modifying the Date and/or Time for the Hearing on the Parties' Motions Set to be Heard on August 19, 2013 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
354 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting 353 Defendants' Ex Parte Application to modify the date and/or time for the hearing on the parties' motions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' motions in limine and Plaintiffs' motion to certify as frivolous Defendants' qualified immunity appeal under Chuman v. Wright will be heard on: 8/19/2013 at 3:30 p.m. the Final Pretrial Conference is set on 8/19/2013 at 3:30 p.m. (ys) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
356 MINUTES OF Pretrial Conference and Various Motions in Limine Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court and counsel confer re the status of the case and the proposed pretrial conference order. The Court is informed that all briefing has been completed by the parties. Following discussions with the parties, the Court makes rulings on the following motions: A Notice of Appeal was filed on 7/23/2013 290 . Plaintiff's Motion to Certify that Defendants' Appeal is Frivolous Under Chuman v. Wright 293 is DENIED because the Court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 2 266 is granted. Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 4 270 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 5 272 granted in part as to Noah Ayala, denied without prejudice as to those that are less than 100 miles away from the place of hearing or trial (Fernando Delgado and Andres Madrigal). Defendant's motion in limine No. 1 to bifurcate trial 274 is denied. Defendant's motion in limine No. 3 276 is denied. Defendant's motion in limine No. 6 281 is granted. Defendant's motion in limine No. 10 285 denied without prejudice. Defendant's motion in limine No. 12 287 is granted as to Javier Stauring and denied as to Steve Martin. Defendant's motion in limine No. 13 288 is granted. Counsel should submit a written proffer before the Court makes a ruling as to the following Motions: Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 3 268 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 2 275 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 4 277 , Defendant's motion in limine No.5 278 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 7 282 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 8 283 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 9 284 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 11 286 , Defendant's motion in limine No. 14 [289.] 8/26/2013 is the deadline for parties to file their proffers. Jury Trial is continued to 10/1/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court further orders the parties to meet and confer re the exhibits no later than 9/9/2013. The parties shall then file a joint or amended exhibit list, if needed, no later than 9/12/2013. If no changes are necessary the parties shall file a notice stating that. Plaintiffs and Defendants are hereby ordered a file a written summary of each Witnesses' expected testimony on their Witness List no later than 9/16/2013. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (gk) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
355 FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER approved by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
357 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez of Plaintiffs Proffer to the Court in Support of Plaintiffs Motions in Limine; Declaration of Counsel and Exhibits. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
358 Amended NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez of Plaintiffs Proffer to the Court in Support of Plaintiffs Motions in Limine; Declaration of Counsel and Exhibits. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
359 DEFENDANTS' PROFFER re MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 57 of 106

08/26/2013
08/26/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 09/03/2013 09/03/2013 09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/05/2013

Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−E)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
360 DEFENDANTS' PROFFER re MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Murder of Deputy Juan Escalante 277 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 284 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Prior Statements 286 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
363 UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Plaintiffs' Proffer to the Court in Support of Motions in Limine; Accompanying Declarations; Exhibits Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, and Juan Trinidad. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Main Document 363 replaced on 8/29/2013) (gk). (Entered: 08/29/2013)
361 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: No settlement was achieved. (yb) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
362 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #6 to Admit Specific Portions of Jail Commission Report 279 is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. See document for details. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (gk) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
364 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificanum for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez)(Kaye, Ronald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2013: # 3 Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum) (gk). (Entered: 09/03/2013)
365 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Fernando Delgado filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testifandum for Witness Fernando Delgado)(Kaye, Ronald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2013: # 3 Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum) (gk). (Entered: 09/03/2013)
367 ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court hereby ORDERS the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 364 be GRANTED and that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum be issued to secure the appearance of Detainee HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, BKG. NO. 8220127, alias EDDIE RODRIGUEZ on 10/4/2013 at 8:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
368 ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court hereby ORDERS the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 365 be GRANTED and that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum be issued to secure the appearance of Detainee FERNANDO DELGADO, BKG. NO. 3411708, on 10/2/2013 at 8:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
366 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Dennis Michael Gonzales counsel for Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 58 of 106

09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/11/2013
09/11/2013
09/11/2013

Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Adding Dennis M Gonzales as attorney as counsel of record for County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek, Matthew Onhemus, Clayton Stelter, Andrew Lyons, Justin Bravo, Javier Guzman, Adrian Ruiz, Carlos Ortega, Francisco Alonso, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Arthur Diaz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Michel McGrattan, Matthew Nowotny, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington, Matthew Thomas, Ivan Delatorre and John McNicholas for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Daniel Cruz, Christopher Blasnek, Matthew Onhemus, Clayton Stelter, Andrew Lyons, Justin Bravo, Javier Guzman, Adrian Ruiz, Carlos Ortega, Francisco Alonso, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandes Castanon, Arthur Diaz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Michel McGrattan, Matthew Nowotny, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington, Matthew Thomas, Ivan Delatorre and John McNicholas. (Gonzales, Dennis) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as to Heriberto Rodriguez, 8220127, issued. (gk) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as to Fernando Delgado, 3411708, issued. (gk) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
369 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for Status Conference on 9/12/2013 at 08:15 A.M. (ys) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
370 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 290 filed by Defendants, CCA # 13−56292. Appellants' emergency motion for a stay of district court proceedings is denied. Briefing remains suspended pending disposition of the July 29, 2013 order to show cause. Order received in this district on 9/10/2013. (car) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
371 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney George E Morris, Jr on behalf of Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Morris, George) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
372 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Carlos Manuel Flores filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Application set for hearing on 10/1/2013 at 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Morris, George) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
373 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Erick J. Nunez filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Application set for hearing on 10/1/2013 at 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Morris, George) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 59 of 106

09/11/2013 09/11/2013 09/11/2013 09/11/2013 09/11/2013

09/11/2013)
374 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Juan Carlos Sanchez filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Application set for hearing on 10/1/2013 at 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Morris, George) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
375 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Juan Trinidad filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Application set for hearing on 10/1/2013 at 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Morris, George) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
376 DECLARATION of David D. Lawrence in support of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Erick J. Nunez 373 , Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Carlos Manuel Flores 372 , Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Juan Trinidad 375 , Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Juan Carlos Sanchez 374 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
377 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiffs' Unopposed Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs' Proffer to the Court in support of Motions in Limine Under Seal 363 is GRANTED as to Exhibit A and DENIED as to the Proffers and the remaining exhibits. Plaintiffs may pick up the documents that Plaintiffs sought to place under seal no later than 9/16/2013. The documents will be filed if they are not retrieved from the Court by that date. (gk) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
378 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) RULINGS RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: This Order does not address Defendants' Motion in Limine # 14 to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 . The Court makes the following ruling as the remaining Motions: Plaintiff's Motion in limine No. 3 to Restrict Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence to Impeach Plaintiffs and Inmate Witnesses 268 is GRANTED as to all of Plaintiffs' crimes and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs' disciplinary history. Defendant's Motion in limine No. 2 to Exclude Other Acts Evidence 275 is GRANTED as to the testimony of ACLU Jails Project Coordinator Esther Lim; DENIED as to the Chart of Lawsuits filed against the County of Los Angeles regarding the number of lawsuits filed, but limits those lawsuits to December 2005 through December 2008 for Monell purposes only; GRANTED as to the prior case against Def. Delgado; DENIED as to the Use of Force Incidents on 8/25/2008 but GRANTED as to events that did not occur on 8/25/2008; DENIED as to any evidence from the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence Report since it is addressed in the Court's ruling regarding Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #6; GRANTED as to evidence regarding Jonathan Fajardo; GRANTED as to the "3000 boys" reference; DENIED as to the "Quiet Cannon" incident to the extent it is relevant to the Monell claim only; GRANTED as to the PPI reports since it is

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 60 of 106

09/11/2013 09/12/2013
09/13/2013 09/13/2013
09/13/2013

inadmissible under Rule 404 as character evidence, but may be permitted for impeachment, or if Plaintiff can make a showing that it be used for another purpose (such as motive, opportunity, knowledge, etc.), however, DENIED to the extent the evidence is offered to prove the Monell claim only. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Murder of Deputy Juan Escalante 277 is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion in Limine No.5 to Preclude Evidence of Any Post Incident Changes in Policy, Training, and Investigations 278 is GRANTED unless the "feasibility of precautionary measures" or impeachment becomes an issue during trial. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence of the Percentage of Force Investigations Which Resulted in Findings of Unreasonable Force 282 is DENIED because it is relevant to the Monell claim, and the evidence should be offered only as to the Monell claim. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Testimony of Mary Tiedeman, Robert Olmstead, and Patricia Bartlett 283 : AS TO THE DECLARATION OF ROBERT OLMSTED, GRANTED as to paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, Plaintiffs may use paragraph 14 only as to the Monell claim; DENIED as to paragraphs a, b, c, d, and e on the basis that though there are hearsay statements, they are party opponent statements; GRANTED as to paragraph f, lines 15−20 as irrelevant and as to paragraph g and h, because the statement is not authenticated; AS TO THE DECLARATION OF SENIOR CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN AT MCJ, SISTER PATRICIA BARTLETT, GRANTED as to paragraphs 3 (only as to Line 14 "a Los Angeles..." to Line 21, "...would be excessive."), 4 (only as page 1, line 27, "Based..." to page 4, line 1, "...injured."), 5 (only as to line 15 through line 18), 6, 8, 9 (only as to line 16, "I spoke..." to line 23, "...the deputies."), 10, 11, 12. Plaintiffs proffer a single additional paragraph, but it is not authenticated, and therefore the Motion is GRANTED as to this paragraph; AS TO THE DECLARATION OF PRIOR ACLU JAILS PROJECT COORDINATOR, MARY TIEDEMAN, GRANTED as to paragraphs 2 (only as to lines 8, "...pursuant to..." to line 9, "...DDP."), 3 (only as to line 19, "...and I was advised..." to line 22, "...on that date."), and 4(b) (only as to line 4, "within their gang"). Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9 to Preclude Evidence of Offers to Negotiate and Alleged Failures to Negotiate Prior to Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 284 is DENIED. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs' Prior Statements 286 is GRANTED. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
386 SEALED DOCUMENT − EXHIBIT "A" in Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye in Support of Plaintiffs' Proffer to the Court in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine. (gk) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
383 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with the parties, the Court is informed that the parties will not stipulate to screening the potential jury panel. The Court orders the counter designation should be made, including objections by no later than 9/18/2013. Plaintiff's position re counter designation, if any, due no later than 9/19/2013. Any amended exhibit list shall be filed by 9/13/2013. Counsel are reminded that all trial documents are due no later than 9/24/2014 as stated on the record. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (gk) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
379 Revised Joint Exhibit List filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
380 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants' Motion in Limine # 14 to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−IncidentUse of Force−Related Memoranda 289 is DENIED. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants may advise the Court of any redacted statements not relevant to this case. If Plaintiffs choose to redact portions of the memoranda, then they should serve these redactions on Defendants and file the redacted memoranda with the Court no later than 9/16/2013. Defendants may object to portions of the memoranda, and may file objections with the Court no later than 9/17/2013. The redacted memoranda may not be published to the Jury until approved by the Court. Court Reporter: Not Recorded. (gk) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
381 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Ruling re Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants' Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to permit the live testimony of Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Sanchez, and Juan Trinidad 372 , 373 , 374 , 375 are

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 61 of 106

09/15/2013
09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013
09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/17/2013
09/17/2013

DENIED. Defendants have not made a good cause showing that "manifest injustice" would occur if the Court did not modify the pre−trial conference order, which incorporates the Defendants' witness list. Court Reporter: Not Recorded. (gk) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
382 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to AMENDED for Heriberto Rodriguez and Fernando Delgado filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Heriberto Rodriguez, # 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Fernando Delgado, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/17/2013: # 4 Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as to Heriberto Rodriguez, # 5 Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as to Fernando Delgado) (gk). (Entered: 09/15/2013)
384 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Plaintiff's Application 382 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court should issue the Amended Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for witness Heriberto Rodriguez to appear in Courtroom 2 of the above referenced Court on 10/4/2013 at 8:00 AM, and witness Fernando Delgado to appear in Courtroom 2 of the above referenced Court on 10/3/2013 at 8:00 AM. (gk) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
385 WITNESS TESTIMONY SUMMARIES filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
387 WITNESS TESTIMONY SUMMARIES filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
388 WITNESS TESTIMONY SUMMARIES Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
389 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 −− PLAINTIFFS REDACTED POLICY MEMORANDA PURSUANT TO THE cOURT'S ORDER filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H − With Proposed Redactions, # 2 Exhibit I − With Proposed Redactions, # 3 Exhibit K − With Proposed Redactions)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
390 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for ALLOWING ATTORNEYS RONALD KAYE, DAVID McLANE, JAMES MULLER, and KEVIN LaHUE TO BRING A LAPTOP COMPUTER INTO THE ATTORNEY ROOM OF MENS CENTRAL JAIL TO PREPARE WITNESSES filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued as to Heriberto Rodriguez re 382 . (gk) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued as to Fernando Delgado re 382 . issued. (gk) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
391 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application 390 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Attorneys Ronald Kaye, David McLane, James Muller and Kevin LaHue are permitted to bring a laptop computer into the attorney visitation area of the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail to prepare witnesses Heriberto Rodriguez (Booking #8220127) and witness Fernando Delgado (Booking #3602661) for trial in the above captioned case. They shall be permitted to use the laptop during any and all visits with these witnesses, including for both note taking and presenting videos and documents, until 10/25/2013. (gk) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
392 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Preclude Evidence of Internal Post−Incident Use of Force−Related Memoranda 289 Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Redactions to Three Memoranda filed by Defendants Francisco

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 62 of 106

09/17/2013 09/18/2013
09/18/2013 09/18/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013
09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013

Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I−D − Defendants' Proposed Redactions, # 2 Exhibit K−D − Defendants' Proposed Redactions)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
393 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FINDING OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR PERCIPIENT WITNESS ANDRES MADRIGAL AND PERMISSION TO USE THE VIDEO TAPED DEPOSITION OF HIS TESTIMONY filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Declaration of Investigator Eric Lessard, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
395 OPPOSITION to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FINDING OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR PERCIPIENT WITNESS ANDRES MADRIGAL AND PERMISSION TO USE THE VIDEO TAPED DEPOSITION OF HIS TESTIMONY 393 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
399 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: Ex Parte Application for Finding of Unavailability For Percipient Witness Madrigal by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall denying 393 . The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs' Counsel should attempt to verify Mr. Madrigal's whereabouts outside the 100 mile radius outlined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(B). (im) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
421 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to SEALED DOCUMENT− EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 241 , is a copy of 394 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF. (mat) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
398 REPLY In Support Of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FINDING OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR PERCIPIENT WITNESS ANDRES MADRIGAL AND PERMISSION TO USE THE VIDEO TAPED DEPOSITION OF HIS TESTIMONY 393 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (McLane, David) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
400 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
401 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support OF INCLUSION OF PLAINTIFFS TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION TESTIMONY REFLECTING THE PROTEST WHICH LEAD TO THE EXTRACTION ON AUGUST 25, 2013, AND THE AGRRESSIVE BEHAVIOR BY THE DEPUTIES AT THE MENS CENTRAL JAIL THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE EXTRACTION (Kaye, Ronald) ** STRICKEN PURSUANT TO CIVIL MINUTES OF 10/4/2013 486 ** Modified on 10/4/2013 (gk). (Entered: 09/19/2013)
402 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Ayala Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
403 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Flores Deposition, Vol. I filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
404 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Flores Deposition, Vol. II filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 63 of 106

09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/20/2013
09/20/2013
09/20/2013
09/23/2013
09/23/2013

405 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Madrigal Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
406 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Nunez Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
407 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Sanchez Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
408 OBJECTIONS Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Markings of Trinidad Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
409 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Transcript Designations re Objections − non−motion 402 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
410 NOTICE Heriberto Rodriguez. OF ORDER TO INTRODUCE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AT TRIAL (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
411 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Order on Ex Parte Application for Order, 399 OF THE OF FINDING OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR PERCIPIENT WITNESS ANDRES MADRIGAL BASED ON THE DISCOVERY OF NEW EVIDENCE, AND PERMISSION TO USE THE VIDEO TAPED DEPOSITION OF HIS TESTIMONY AT TRIAL filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Counsel, Ronald Kaye, # 2 Declaration of Appellate Counsel Benjamin Owens, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
412 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM RE INCLUSION OF PLAINTIFFS' TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION TESTIMONY re Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (non−motion), 401 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
413 DEFENDANTS' INDEX OF PORTIONS OF DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED AT TRIAL WITH PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS INCLUDED, PURSUANT TO L.R. 16−2.7 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
414 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Application for Finding of Unavailability For Percipient Witness Andres Madrigal and Permission to Use the Video Taped Deposition of His Testimony 411 is GRANTED. Further, in lieu of live testimony, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs may use the videotaped deposition testimony provided by Mr. Madrigal on 7/19/2012 at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail as testimony at trial in this case. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
415 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 18 SEPARATE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT USED DURING CELL EXTRACTIONS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VIA TRIAL SUBPOENA ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A − Trial Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit B − Defendants' Objections, # 4 Exhibit C− Correspondence of Defendants' Counsel, # 5 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 64 of 106

09/23/2013 09/23/2013
09/23/2013 09/23/2013 09/24/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/24/2013

416 EX PARTE APPLICATION to re Witness List 298 filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
417 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTRODUCTION OF PARTY ADMISSION UNDER FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2). filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A − 9/10/13 corresp., # 3 Exhibit B − 9/19/13 corresp., # 4 Exhibit C − 9/22/13 corresp., # 5 Exhibit D − Sgt. Stanley Admissions, # 6 Exhibit E − Thomas Admissions, # 7 Exhibit F − Alonso Admissions, # 8 Exhibit G − Lyons Admission, # 9 Exhibit H − Delgado Admissions, # 10 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
418 DECLARATION in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 18 SEPARATE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT USED DURING CELL EXTRACTIONS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VIA TRIAL SUBPOENA ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 415 Supplemental filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
420 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE #14 289 & PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE #3 268 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
422 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to re Witness List 298 416 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
423 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to re Witness List 298 416 filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
424 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTRODUCTION OF PARTY ADMISSION UNDER FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2). 417 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
425 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTRODUCTION OF PARTY ADMISSION UNDER FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2). 417 filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
426 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Defendant Herman Delgado.. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
427 STIPULATION for Order FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT TO TRANSPORT PLAINTIFF HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ TO TRIAL ON OCTOBER 4, 2013 AT 8:00 A.M. filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
428 Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 65 of 106

09/24/2013
09/24/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/24/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013

Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
429 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 18 SEPARATE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT USED DURING CELL EXTRACTIONS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VIA TRIAL SUBPOENA ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 415 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
430 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 427 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on 10/4/2013 at 8:00 AM, the Los Angles County Sheriff's Department is to transport, produce and deliver Mr. Heriberto Rodriguez, Booking No. 8220127, from the custodial facility operated by the County of Los Angeles where he resides, to the Federal District Court in the Central District of California, pursuant to the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued by the Federal District Court on 9/16/2013. It is FURTHER ORDERED that after Mr. Rodriguez's testimony is completed, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department shall transport Mr. Rodriguez back into the custodial facility operated by the County of Los Angeles. (gk) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
431 PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY VERDICT filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
432 Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
433 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Annotated set) filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad.. (Muller, James) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
434 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Annotated set) filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
435 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Annotated set) filed by Defendant Herman Delgado.. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
436 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ANNOTATED−JOINT SET set) filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
437 STATEMENT − JOINT − OF THE CASE FOR TRIAL (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
440 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: Ex Parte Application To Amend Plaintiffs' Witness List by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall 416 . The Motion before the Court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application To Amend Plaintiffs' Witness List. Plaintiffs' "cutting and pasting error" does not constitute good cause. The Motion is DENIED. (im) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 66 of 106

09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013
09/26/2013
09/26/2013
09/26/2013
09/26/2013

438 NOTICE OF LODGING filed (DEFENSE REQUESTED EXCERPTS FROM CCJV REPORT) re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,, 352 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
439 Proposed Testimony of Blasnek and Washington w/Objections filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
441 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Los Angeles County Commission on Jail Violence, Ex. 404 re Exhibit List 379 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 404)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
442 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Daniel S Cha on behalf of Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
443 PROPOSED Special (for Plaintiff Carlos Flores) JURY VERDICT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
444 PROPOSED Special (Re: Plaintiff Erick Nunez) JURY VERDICT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
445 PROPOSED Special (Re: Heriberto Rodriguez) JURY VERDICT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
446 PROPOSED Special (Re: Juan Carlos Sanchez) JURY VERDICT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
447 PROPOSED Special (Re: Juan Trinidad) JURY VERDICT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 67 of 106

09/26/2013
09/26/2013 09/26/2013 09/27/2013
09/27/2013 09/27/2013
09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013

Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
448 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Lodging 441 Los Angeles County Commission on Jail Violence, Exhibit 404 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
449 NOTICE OF LODGING filed AMENDED re Notice of Lodging 441 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James S. Muller, # 2 Declaration of Ronald Kaye, # 3 Exhibit Proposed 404 − Excerpts / Findings of the Citizen's Commission on Jail Violence Admitted Into Evidence)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
450 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENSE REQUESTED EXCERPTS FROM CCJV REPORT AND PROPOSAL RE: PROCEDURE FOR PRESENTATION OF THIS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
451 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Calling "Summary Witness on Monell Documents"; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of David D. Lawrence; Exhibits filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
452 DISCLOSURE of PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SPOLIATION INSTRUCTION, PURSUANT TO THE COURTS ORDER, DKT. NO. 202 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
453 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending TRIAL filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
457 MINUTES Re Deposition of Percipient Witness Andres Madrigal by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Percipient Witness Andres Madrigal and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
458 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for the Court to Consider the Introduction of Party Admissions under FRE 801(d)(2) 417 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
459 MINUTES Re Deposition of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 68 of 106

09/27/2013
09/29/2013 09/29/2013 09/29/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013
09/30/2013
09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013

(Entered: 09/30/2013)
460 MINUTES Re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Compel Production of 18 Pieces Of Equipment Used During Cell Extractions Previously Requested by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Compel Production of 18 Pieces Of Equipment Used During Cell Extractions Previously Requested via Trial Subpoena on 9/6/2013 415 . Plaintiffs should reply to Defendants' Opposition 429 , no later than 10/1/2013. The following is provided as guidance to parties: Defendants have not yet filed a motion to quash subpoena regarding the 18 pieces of equipment discussed in the Application and therefore the equipment should be produced pursuant to the subpoena. Plaintiffs should raise with the Court the following: whether each piece of equipment will be used during trial, if at all, and for what purpose. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
454 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/29/2013)
455 in Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending TRIAL 453 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/29/2013)
456 NOTICE Heriberto Rodriguez. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS CALLING SUMMARY WITNESS ON MONELL DOCUMENTS (DKT. 451) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/29/2013)
461 SUPPLEMENT to Jury Instructions (Proposed) 454 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
462 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED SPOLIATION INSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER [DKT. NO. 202] AND RESPONSE TO KAYE DECLARATION filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
463 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Quash Trial Subpoena re: PRODUCTION OF 18 PEICES OF EQUIPMENT USED DURING CELL EXTRACTIONS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VIA TRIAL SUBPOENA ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
464 Second Joint Revised Exhibit List Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
465 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Stay of Trial 453 . Defendants should file a reply with the Court no later than 10/1/2013 at 8:00 AM. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
466 SUPPLEMENT to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending TRIAL 453 − Plaintiffs Opposition − Certified Transcript of August 19, 2013 Hearing filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
467 SUPPLEMENT to Notice (Other), 456 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
468 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 69 of 106

09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013
10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/02/2013 10/02/2013
10/02/2013 10/02/2013

on the Court's calendar for Jury Trial and now is advanced to 10/1/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
469 MINUTES Re Deposition of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
470 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Quash Trial Subpoena re: PRODUCTION OF 18 PEICES OF EQUIPMENT USED DURING CELL EXTRACTIONS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VIA TRIAL SUBPOENA ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 463 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
471 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending TRIAL 453 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington, Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
472 DEFENDANTS' PROFFER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFFS' K−10/HIGH POWER CLASSIFICATION (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
475 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoena For Production of 18 Pieces of Equipment Used During Cell Extractions 463 is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Compel Production of 18 Pieces Of Equipment Used During Cell Extractions Previously Requested 415 is GRANTED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
487 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 1st Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury impaneled and sworn. Impanelment continues as stated on the record. Jury Trial continued to 10/2/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri / Myra L. Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
473 OBJECTIONS to Jury Instructions (Proposed),, 434 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
474 MINUTES Re Plaintiffs' Calling of Summary Witness on Monell Documents by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Calling of Summary Witness on Monell Documents 451 , and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Objections 456 . The Court finds that putting a "summary witness" as a placeholder on Plaintiffs' witness list is sufficient and does not harm Defendants, particularly since Defendants plan to call their own summary witness for Monell purposes only. Defendants' Objections are OVERRULED. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
476 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: See document for ruling re Proposed Testimony and Objections of Christopher Blasnek and Kelley Washington 439 . Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
477 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Proposed Spoilation Jury Instruction and Objections thereto 452 , 462 . Since the instruction takes directly from the Court's findings, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' sole objection. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 70 of 106

10/02/2013
10/02/2013
10/02/2013
10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/03/2013 10/03/2013 10/03/2013 10/03/2013 10/04/2013

478 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court are concerns raised by Plaintiffs as to the references to the terms "K−10" and "high−powered" status in references to Plaintiffs location or status within Men's Central Jail, and the corresponding proffer by Defendants 472 . The Court ORDERS that all references to "K−10" and "high−powered" status are inadmissible. However, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants are permitted to make references to modules 3100 and 3300 as the location of Plaintiffs' cells and where dangerous inmates are housed. To the extent Plaintiffs have objections to references to modules 3100 and 3300, those objections are overruled. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
479 Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
480 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS RE: EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT KELLEY WASHINGTON filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
482 MINUTES Re Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Excerpts of the Citizen's Commission on Jail Violence Report by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Defendants' Notice of Lodging of Defense Requested Excerpts from the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence ("CCJV") Report 438 . The Court DENIES Defendants' Request to include the CCJV Excerpts. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
483 MINUTES Re Deposition of Plaintiff Erick Nunez by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Plaintiff Erick Nunez and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
488 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 2nd Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury impaneled and sworn. Impanelment continues as stated on the record. Jury Trial continued to 10/3/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri / Myra L. Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
481 Proposed Voir Dire Questions Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
484 REPLY filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez to Objections − non−motion,, 480 (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
485 MINUTES Re References to post−8/25/2008 Crimes of Plaintiffs Trinidad and Sanchez by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Defendants' Request to refer to the post−8/25/2008 crimes of Plaintiffs Trinidad and Sanchez. The request is DENIED. See Court's ruling in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #3 268 . Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
489 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 3rd Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury impaneled and sworn. Impanelment completed as stated on the record. Jury Trial continued to 10/4/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri / Myra L. Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
486 MINUTES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Strike Plaintiffs' Memorandum Re Inclusion of Plaintiffs' Transcript Designation Testimony 412 is GRANTED; the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Inclusion of Plaintiffs Transcript Designation Testimony Reflecting the Protest Which

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 71 of 106

10/04/2013 10/05/2013 10/06/2013 10/06/2013 10/06/2013
10/06/2013 10/06/2013 10/06/2013

Lead to the Extraction on 8/25/2013, and the Aggressive Behavior by the Deputies at the Mens Central Jail the Weeks Leading up to the Extraction 401 . Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
504 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 4th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Opening statements by plaintiffs and Defendants, except as to Defendant Delgado, he reserved opening statement. Juror #5 is discussed by parties and the court. Witness Kelly Washington still on stand. Jury Trial continued to 10/7/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Myra L. Ponce /Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
497 MINUTES Re Deposition of Plaintiff Carlos Flores (Vols. I & II) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Plaintiff Carlos Flores (Volumes I & II) and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
490 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS RE: EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT NICHOLAS GRAHAM filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
491 TRIAL BRIEF POCKET BRIEF RE EVIDENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' NET WORTH filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
492 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 20 RE THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' NET WORTH set) filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
493 DISCLOSURE of Plaintiffs' Proposed Limiting Instruction Re: Monell Evidence filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
494 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Erick Nunez, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
495 TRIAL BRIEF RE: JUROR NO. 5's CONTINUED SERVICE filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 72 of 106

10/06/2013
10/06/2013 10/07/2013 10/07/2013
10/07/2013 10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/09/2013
10/09/2013 10/09/2013

Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Erick Nunez, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS A−E, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBIT F)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/06/2013)
496 AMENDED MINUTES Re Deposition of Plaintiff Erick Nunez 483 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is designations made to the Deposition of Plaintiff Erick Nunez. The Court previously issued an Order ruling on objections to this Deposition; the Court grants this request and therefore this Order amends and supersedes the prior Order. Amended rulings are highlighted and in boldface type. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
498 MINUTES Re Deposition of Percipient Witness Noah Ayala by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court are designations made to the Deposition of Percipient Witness Noah Ayala and objections thereto. The Court deems admitted those designations to which there are no objections. The Court makes the ruling in this order as to those designations to which there are objections. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
499 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Trial Brief,, 495 . (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
500 SUPPLEMENT to Trial Brief,, 495 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS A and B)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
505 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 5th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Juror #5 is questioned by the court outside presence of juror, as stated on the record. Witness Kelly Washington still on stand. Jury Trial continued to 10/8/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
501 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Pocket Brief, Dkt. 495 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
506 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 6th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Body armor and equipment held by jurors. Witness Steve Martin still on stand. Jury Trial continued to 10/9/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Myra Ponce/Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
502 SUPPLEMENT to Trial Brief,, 495 , Supplement (non−motion),, 500 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
503 DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING VIDEO RECORDINGS DISPLAYED DURING TRIAL (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cha, Daniel) Modified on 10/11/2013 (gk). (Entered: 10/09/2013)
507 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 7th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 73 of 106

10/10/2013 10/10/2013 10/11/2013
10/11/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013
10/15/2013
10/15/2013

present. Plaintiff continues with witness Steve Martin and recalls witness Kelly Washington. Jury Trial continued to 10/10/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
508 DISCLOSURE of of Revised Proffer of Witness Mary Tiedeman filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
521 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 8th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Plaintiff continues with witness Nicholas Graham. Video testimony of Erick Nunez. Jury Trial continued to 10/11/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
509 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Defendants' Request for Supplemental Protective Order Regarding Video Recordings Displayed During Trial filed 10/9/2013 503 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests − Protective Order. The Miscellaneous Document event was utilized for docketing this filing. The docketing event has been converted. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
529 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 9th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Plaintiff continues with witness video testimony of Erick Nunez. Jury Trial continued to 10/15/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
510 DISCLOSURE of Plaintiffs' Proposed Sanction for Defendants' Violation of the Court's Order Pursuant to Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 − Preclude References to Gang Membership filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
511 DISCLOSURE of PROFFER OF SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF WITNESS ROBERT OLMSTED AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REFLECTING THE PERSONAL PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF DEFENDANT DEPUTIES IN THIS CASE; EXHIBITS (WHICH WILL BE BROUGHT TO COURT BASED ON THEIR CONFIDENTIAL NATURE) filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
512 OBJECTIONS to Disclosure 508 PLAINTIFFS' REVISED PROFFER OF WITNESS TESTIMONY RE: ACLU JAILS PROJECT COORDINATOR MARY TIEDEMAN filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
513 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washingtonto Disclosure, 511 TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL PROFFER OF TESTIMONY OF WITNESS ROBERT OLMSTED AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REFLECTING THE PERSONAL PERFORMANCE INDICES OF DEFENDANT DEPUTIES IN THIS CASE; DECLARATION OF DAVID D, LAWRENCE (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
530 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 10th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 74 of 106

10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/17/2013
10/17/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013
10/18/2013
10/18/2013

present. Court and counsel confer re Juror #7 and Juror #7 is excused. The Court rules on counsels request on various matters as stated on the record. Jury Trial set for 10/16/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
514 DISCLOSURE OF PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANTS USE OF FORCE REPORTS filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
531 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 11th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Jury Trial continued to 10/17/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
515 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS SANCHEZ AND TRINIDAD ARISING OUT OF THE INCIDENT filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
516 PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY VERDICT filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
517 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Re: Request for Judicial Notice,,, 515 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Production)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
518 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition Re: Jury Verdict (Proposed) 516 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Production)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
532 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 12th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Plaintiff(s) rest. All jurors present. Defendant will argue the Rule 50 motion and will file brief by 10/18/2013. Defendant Delgado will file his joinder/brief by 10/21/2013. Plaintiff will wait until all briefs are filed and then will respond if needed as stated on the record. Defendant Delgado conducts his opening statements. Jury Trial continued to 10/18/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
519 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANTS' USE OF FORCE REPORTS BRIEF filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. regarding Disclosure 514 . (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
520 REPLY filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington to Request for Judicial Notice,,, 515 , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition (non−motion) 517 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 75 of 106

10/18/2013
10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/19/2013 10/19/2013
10/20/2013 10/20/2013
10/21/2013 10/21/2013

522 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 10/22/2013 at 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
533 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 13th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Plaintiff(s) rest. All jurors present. Jury Trial continued to 10/21/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
563 AMENDED MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 13th Day 533 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Jury Trial continued to 10/21/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Myra Ponce. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
523 NOTICE Heriberto Rodriguez. OF PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT FOR LIMITED EXAMINATION OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WITNESSES RE: THE OMMISSION OF THE AUGUST 25, 2008 INCIDENT FROM THE DEPUTY DEFENDANTS PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE INDEX (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − LASD PPI POLICY)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/19/2013)
524 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS filed by DEFENDANTS RE: DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS RE: NOS. 17, 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 29 Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington.. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/19/2013)
525 SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS SANCHEZ AND TRINIDAD ARISING OUT OF THE INCIDENT; DECLARATION OF RONALD O. KAYE; EXHIBIT A & B. filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/20/2013)
526 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washingtonto Notice (Other), 523 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT FOR LIMITED EXAMINATION OF LASD WITNESSES RE: THE OMISSION OF THE AUGUST 25, 2008 INCIDENT FROM THE DEPUTY DEEFENDANTS PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE INDEX (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/20/2013)
527 JOINDER in MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law 522 , Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), As To Plaintiffs' State Law Claims for Violation of Cal. Civil Code section 52.1 filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
528 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Request for Judicial Notice,,, 515 , Reply (non−motion),, 520 . (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 76 of 106

10/21/2013
10/21/2013 10/22/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/24/2013 10/24/2013 10/25/2013
10/25/2013
10/27/2013 10/27/2013 10/28/2013

534 SUPPLEMENT to Jury Instructions (Proposed),, 524 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
535 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 14th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 10/22/2013 08:00 AM.Court Reporter: Myra Ponce/ Miranda Algorri. (lc) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
536 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 15th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 10/28/2013 08:00 AM.Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (lc) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
537 OBJECTIONS to Court's Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
538 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Criminal Procedural Facts Re: Plaintiff Carlos Flores and Heriberto Rodriguez Re: Supplement (non−motion),, 534 (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
539 PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED JURY VERDICT Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
540 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law 522 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
541 DEFENDANTS PROPOSED LIMITING INSTRUCTION REGARDING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF EXTRACTIONS OF NON−PLAINTIFF INMATES filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
542 MINUTES Of Filings Objections and Amendments to Court Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Parties have been provided with copies of the Court Proposed Jury Instructions and Court Proposed Verdict Forms as of today's date. Please file objections and amendments with the Court no later than 10/28/2013, making reference only to the instruction number or verdict form question number and provide the amended instruction or verdict form question. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
543 BRIEF Re: Plaintiffs' Position With Regard to the Testimony o f Deputy Cano; Declaration of Counsel (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/27/2013)
544 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY LIEUTENANT DAVOREN AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR AULT ON CERTAIN MATTERS; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/27/2013)
545 OBJECTIONS to Miscellaneous Document,, 541 DEFENDANTS PROPOSED LIMITING INSTRUCTION REGARDING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF EXTRACTIONS OF NON−PLAINTIFF INMATES filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 77 of 106

10/28/2013 10/28/2013
10/28/2013
10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 10/30/2013 10/30/2013
10/31/2013

546 OBJECTIONS to Court's Proposed Jury Instructions (10.25.13) filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
547 OBJECTIONS RE: COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS [AS OF 10−25−13] filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
548 OBJECTIONS RE: COURT'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMS [AS OF 10−25−13] filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
549 OBJECTIONS to Court's Proposed Special Verdict Forms [as of 10.52.2013] and Plaintiffs' Proposed Changes filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
562 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 16th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Defense continued with witness: Enrique Cano. Jury Trial continued to 10/29/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Sandra MacNiel. (gk) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
550 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguezto Request for Judicial Notice,,, 515 Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instruction Re: Plaintiffs Trinidad and Sanchez (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
552 MINUTES OF Hearing Re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Exclude Testimony by Lieutenant Davoren and International Affairs Investigator Ault on Certain Matters 544 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court DENIED Plaintiffs ex parte at moot since the Defendants decided not to call the witnesses that were the subject of the motion. Court Reporter: Sandra MacNeil. (gk) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
564 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 17th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. All jurors present. Court and counsel discuss the Rule 50 motion and the proposed jury instructions. Jury Trial continued to 10/30/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri/Sandra MacNiel. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
551 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidadto Jury Instructions (Proposed),, 492 , Trial Brief,, 491 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
565 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 18th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Plaintiff(s) rest. ALL Defendant(s) rest. All jurors present. Court and counsel have further discussion re the proposed jury instructions. Defendant renewed his Rule 50 motion 522 which the Court will take under submission. Jury Trial continued to 10/31/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
566 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 19th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Closing arguments made. Court instructs jury. Bailiff(s) sworn. Jury retires to deliberate. All jurors present. CSO Vernon Williams is sworn. Jury Note #1 is received which tells us who is the foreperson and the hours in which the jurors will be working. Jury Trial

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 78 of 106

10/31/2013 11/01/2013
11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013
11/01/2013 11/05/2013
11/06/2013 11/06/2013

continued to 11/1/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
583 NOTICE OF COURT ORDER to U.S. Marshal Re: Bailiff/Matron's presence for Jury Deliberation on 10/31/2013 at 10:30 AM. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
553 Defendants' Renewed Request to Excuse Juror No. 5; Declaration of Daniel Cha; Exhibits filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
554 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RENEWED REQUEST TO EXCUSE JUROR NO. 5 (DKT. NO. 553); DECLARATION OF COUNSEL. re: Miscellaneous Document,, 553 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
555 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye filed 10/17/2013 517 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
556 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs' Request for Leave of the Court for Limited Examination of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Witnesses, etc. filed 10/19/2013 523 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests − Leave. Filer used the Notice (Other) event for docketing this filing. Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
567 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 20th Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury resumes deliberations. All jurors present. Jury Note #2 is received, Court and counsel confer off the record and answer Jury Note #2. Jury Note #3 is received and is moot per response to Jury Note #2. Jury Trial continued to 11/6/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Myra Ponce−stand by. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
557 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MISTRIAL filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−N, # 3 Exhibit O−Q)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
558 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MISTRIAL filed by DEFENDANT Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
559 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Pocket Brief Re Evidence Of The Individual Defendants' Net Worth On The Issue of Punitive Damages filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 79 of 106

11/06/2013 11/06/2013
11/06/2013
11/07/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013

Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington re: Trial Brief,, 491 (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
560 MEMORANDUM in Opposition To Defendants' Motion for Mistrial (Dkt. 557) filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
561 Notice of Withdrawal of Miscellaneous Document,, 557 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
568 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 21st Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury resumes deliberations. All jurors present. Jury Note #4 is received. Court and counsel confer and respond on the record as to Jury Note #4. Defendants states there is a pending motion to excuse one juror, Judge Hatter informs counsel that Judge Marshall will rule on this pending motion. Jury Note #5 is received and will be addressed on 11/7/2013 at 8:00 AM. Jury Trial continued to 11/7/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
569 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 22nd Day held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Jury resumes deliberations. Jury Verdict in favor of plaintiff(s) are read and filed. Jury polled. All jurors present. Jury Note #5 is received. Court and counsel confer and respond on the record as to Jury Note #5. Jury Note #6 is received. Court and counsel confer and respond on the record as to Jury Note #6. Jury Note #7 is received re verdicts reached. Judge Hatter informs the jurors and the parties that another phase as to punitive damages is pending and will be addressed on 11/12/2013 at 8:00 AM. Jury Trial continued to 11/12/2013 08:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Myra Ponce/Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
584 COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS (Given) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
585 Jury Note Number 1 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 585 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
586 Jury Note Number 2 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 586 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
587 Jury Note Number 3 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 587 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
588 Jury Note Number 4 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 588 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
589 Jury Note Number 5 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 589 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
590 Jury Note Number 6 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 590 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
591 Jury Note Number 7 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 591 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
592 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 592 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 80 of 106

11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013
11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013
11/10/2013
11/10/2013

593 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
594 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 594 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
595 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
596 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 596 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
597 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
598 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Juan Trinidad. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 598 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
599 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Juan Trinidad. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
600 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Erick Nunez. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 600 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
601 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM for Plaintiff Erick Nunez. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
611 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 13−73900. Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. Order received in this district on 11/7/2013. (dmap) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
570 PROPOSED Special Re: Punitive Damages Phase JURY VERDICT filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
571 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Proposed Re: Punitive Damages Phase − Annotated set) Heriberto Rodriguez.. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
572 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Enforcement of the Standing Protective Order to Preclude Dissemination of the Videos of Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
573 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Proposed Jury Instructions Numbers 31, 32 and 33 and Proposed Additional and Alternative Instructions; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Jury Instructions Attached filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/10/2013)
574 OBJECTIONS to Jury Verdict (Proposed) 570 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 81 of 106

11/11/2013 11/11/2013 11/11/2013 11/11/2013
11/11/2013 11/11/2013 11/11/2013
11/11/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013

Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/10/2013)
575 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM RE: PUNITIVE DAMAGES filed by DEFENDANT Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
576 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS NUMBERS 31, 32 AND 33 AND PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE INSTRUCTIONS filed by DEFENDANT Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
577 NOTICE OF LODGING OF DECLARATION OF KELLEY WASHINGTON (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
578 DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBOENA FOR PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE RE INDEMNIFICATION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS AND DOCUMENTS REFLECTING REQUESTS FOR SUCH INDEMNIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID D. LAWRENCE; EXHIBIT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
579 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT JUROR CONTACT AFTER JURORS ARE DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
580 OBJECTIONS to Miscellaneous Document 577 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (McLane, David) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
581 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT JUROR CONTACT AFTER JURORS ARE DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE 579 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
582 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Enforcement of the Standing Protective Order to Preclude Dissemination of the Videos of Plaintiffs' Cell Extractions 572 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Muller, James) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
602 COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS Punitive Damages (Given) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
603 Jury Notes Number 8 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 603 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
604 Jury Notes Number 9 filed. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 604 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 82 of 106

11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013
11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013
11/14/2013
11/14/2013 11/22/2013 12/02/2013

6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
605 COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM PUNITIVE DAMAGES. (Not for Public View Pursuant to the E−Government Act of 2002) (gk) (Main Document 605 replaced on 6/30/2015) (mba). Modified on 6/30/2015 (mba). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
606 REDACTED COURT'S SPECIAL VERDICT FORM PUNITIVE DAMAGES. (gk) Modified on 11/13/2013 (gk). (Entered: 11/13/2013)
607 Witness List filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
608 Witness List filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez, Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
609 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES at trial. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
610 SECOND REVISED Joint Exhibit List. (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
612 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 23rd Day held and completed before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Plaintiff(s) rest. All Defendant(s) rest. Opening and Closing arguments made. Court instructs jury. Bailiff(s) sworn. Jury retires to deliberate. Jury resumes deliberations. Jury Verdict in favor of plaintiff(s) is read and filed. Jury polled. Filed Witness & Exhibit Lists. Filed jury notes. Filed jury instructions. Judgment by Court for Plaintiffs. All jurors present. Bailiff James Burns, CSO sworn. The Court rules on various motions. Defendants' Renewed request 553 to excuse Juror No. 5 is denied. Defendant's ex parte application for enforcement of the standing protective order, etc. 572 is granted. Defendant's application to quash 578 is granted. Plaintiff's ex parte application for order to prohibit or limit juror contact after jurors are discharged from service 579 is denied. JuryNote # 8 received and answered. Jury Note #9 verdict reached. Court orders Plaintiffs to file final judgment and grants the request to file this in 30 days. Pending Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law 522 continued to 11/14/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court thanks and discharged the jurors. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
613 MINUTES OF Status Conference and Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with the parties, the Court will DENY the Defendant's Motion for Judgment 522 under 50A2. Court will allow Defendant to file his renewed motion for judgment under Rule 50 B. Parties will meet and confer and submit a stipulation and proposed order re the final judgment. Counsel stipulate to the return of exhibits upon the conclusion of trial. Exhibit Release Form prepared and filed. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (gk) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
614 RECEIPT FOR RELEASE OF EXHIBITS to Counsel Upon Verdict/Judgment at Trial; Pursuant to stipulation of counsel and/or by Order of the Court, all exhibits listed on the joint exhibits list are returned to counsel for respective party(ies). (gk) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
615 NOTICE of Offer of Judgment Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
616 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Offer of Judgment 615 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 83 of 106

12/02/2013 12/03/2013
12/05/2013 12/05/2013
12/10/2013
12/10/2013 12/11/2013 12/11/2013 12/11/2013

617 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Objections − non−motion,, 616 . (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
618 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Re: Objections − non−motion,, 616 (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
619 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (non−motion),, 618 . (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
621 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 290 filed by Daniel Cruz, John McNicholas, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Ivan Delatorre, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Carlos Ortega, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Antonio Galindo, Matthew Thomas, Armando Gonzalez, Joseph Sanford, Matthew Nowotny, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman and Adrian Ruiz CCA # 13−56292. The order to show cause is discharged. The opening brief and excerpts of record are due January 8, 2014; the answering brief is due February 7, 2014; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. See the order for all of the details. Order received in this district on 12/5/2013. (dmap) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
620 Defendants' Notice of the Ninth Circuit's Discharge of its Order to Show Cause with Respect to the Pending Qualified Immunity Appeal and Request for the Court to Stay Entry of Judgment filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
625 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court is continually engaged in purging exhibits, no longer required by counsel or parties, to actions previously tried and determined by this Court. Please take notice that on 12/10/2013, Plaintiff's box of deposition transcripts and a disk has been released to the care, custody and control of Plaintiffs. Physical box pick up was made by Pasadena Courier Attorney Service on their behalf on that day at 3:47 PM. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
622 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidadto Miscellaneous Document,,, 620 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
623 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Miscellaneous Document,,, 620 . (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
624 REPLY filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington to Response (non−motion) 622 , Miscellaneous Document,,, 620 , Objections − non−motion,, 616 , Notice of Offer of Judgment 615 , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (non−motion),, 618 (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 84 of 106

02/05/2014

626 JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: AS TO PLAINTIFF HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco Alonso, Deputy Clayton Stelter, Deputy Joseph Sanford and Deputy Alejandro Hernandez−Castanon, to recover jointly and severally the sum of $90,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover the sum of $15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez against Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover the sum of $12,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez from Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover the sum of $10,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny, Antonio Galindo, Adolph Esqueda and Matthew Thomas against Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez for the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim. AS TO PLAINTIFF JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco Alonso, Deputy Adolph Esqueda, Deputy Matthew Thomas, Deputy Joseph Sanford and Deputy Alejandro Hernandez−Castanon, to recover jointly and severally the sum of $200,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover the sum of $15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover the sum of $12,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez against Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover the sum of $10,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny, Antonio Galindo and Clayton Stelter against Plaintiff Juan Carlos Sanchez for the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and California Civil Code Section 52.1 claims. AS TO PLAINTIFF ERICK NUNEZ: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Michel McGrattan, Deputy Francisco Alonso, Deputy Matthew Thomas, Deputy Clayton Stelter, Deputy Joseph Sanford and Deputy Alejandro Hernandez−Castanon, to recover jointly and severally the sum of $100,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover the sum of $15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover the sum of $12,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Erick Nunez against Defendant Sergeant Michel McGrattan, to recover the sum of $10,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Matthew Nowotny, Antonio Galindo and Adolph Esqueda against Plaintiff Erick Nunez for the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and California Civil Code Section 52.1 claims. AS TO PLAINTIFF CARLOS FLORES: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Matthew Onhemus, Deputy Andrew Lyons, Deputy Javier Guzman, Deputy Hernan Delgado, and Deputy Justin Bravo, to recover jointly and severally the sum of $200,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover the sum of$15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores againstDefendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to the sum of $12,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Flores against Defendant Sergeant Matthew Onhemus, to recover the sum of $30,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz and Clayton Stelter against Plaintiff Carlos Flores. Judgment is entered as a matter of law under FRCP Rule 50 in favor of Defendant Armando Gonzalez against Plaintiff Carlos Flores. PLAINTIFF JUAN TRINIDAD: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against Defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, Sergeant Kelley Washington, Deputy Michael Frazier, Deputy Blake Orlandos, Deputy Nicholas Graham, and Deputy Hector Vazquez, to recover jointly and severally the sum of $150,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against Defendant Daniel Cruz, to recover the sum of $15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against Defendant Lieutenant Christopher Blasnek, to recover the sum of $12,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juan Trinidad against Defendant Sergeant Kelley Wahshington, to recover the sum of $15,000.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr., Enrique Cano and John McNicholas against Plaintiff Juan Trinidad. Any motion for attorney's fees or application to tax costs shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules following the entry of Judgment by the Court. See document for details. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (gk) (Entered: 02/06/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 85 of 106

02/11/2014 02/13/2014 02/18/2014 02/20/2014 02/20/2014
02/21/2014 02/27/2014 02/28/2014
03/04/2014 03/04/2014

627 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Attorney Fee Motion and Responsive Documents filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
628 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 627 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following schedule will be imposed for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees: Plaintiffs' Motion and Supporting Documents 3/17/2014; Defendants' Opposition and Supporting Documents 4/21/2014; Plaintiffs' Reply 5/26/2014; Hearing on Motion 6/16/2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that enforcement of the Judgment 626 is stayed pending resolution of Defendants' pending appeal and any appeal Defendants may take from the final judgment. (gk) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
629 APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez. Application set for hearing on 3/10/2014 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
630 APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs filed by Defendants Enrique Cano, Armando Gonzalez, Carlos Ortega, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Ivan Delatorre, Adrian Ruiz, Matthew Nowotny, Antonio Galindo, John McNicholas. Application set for hearing on 3/7/2014 at 10:00 AM before Clerk of Court. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
631 BILL OF COSTS Deficiency Notice Filed. The following deficiency was noted on the Plaintiffs' Notice of Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs and Proposed Bill of Costs filed 2/18/2014 629 : L.R. 54−2.1: Scheduled for incorrect day of week. Bill of Costs hearings are held on Thursdays and Fridays. Counsel is to re−notice the corrected hearing information. L.R. 54−2.2: Hearing should be noticed before the clerks designee and not the judge. Counsel is to re−notice the corrected hearing information. Filer has set this matter before Magistrate Judge Abram on 3/10/2014 at 9:00 AM. Clerk has terminated this hearing date from the judge's calendar. Counsel is advised to review the Bill of Costs Handbook on the court's website, and re−notice the matter the Clerk of Court. (gk) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
632 Amended APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez. Application set for hearing on 3/7/2014 at 10:00 AM before Clerk of Court. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
633 OBJECTION To In Opposition To re: APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs 630 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
634 OBJECTION re: Amended APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants All Defendants 632 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Herman Delgado, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Does, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attorney Jin S Choi added to party Does(pty:dft))(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
635 REPLY filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad to Objection/Opposition (Motion related),, 634 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ronald Kaye Declaration, # 2 Declaration Sui MacKenzie Declaration w/Ex. A, # 3 Declaration Julia White Declaration)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
636 REPLY in support of APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs 630 filed by Defendants Enrique Cano, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 03/04/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 86 of 106

03/06/2014 03/06/2014 03/06/2014 03/06/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/14/2014

637 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Judgment)(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
638 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for New Trial or Amend and/or Relief from Judgment filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
639 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for New Trial filed by DEFENDANTS Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−N, # 3 Exhibit O−Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Proposed Order)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
640 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Vacate Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR REMITTITUR OR NEW TRIAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES filed by DEFENDANTS Christopher Blasnek, Daniel Cruz, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Declaration Defendant Cruz, # 3 Declaration Defendant Blasnek, # 4 Declaration McGrattan, # 5 Declaration Ohnemus, # 6 Declaration Washington, # 7 Proposed Order)(Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
641 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Appeal of Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 (Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0973−13480462 paid.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Lawrence, David) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
642 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 14−55374, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 641 as to Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (mat) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
660 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 filed by Daniel Cruz, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Matthew Thomas, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, CCA # 14−55374. The court's records reflect that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of timely filed motions listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). To appeal the district court's ruling on the post−judgment motion, appellants must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court. Order received in this district on 031414. (mat) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 87 of 106

03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014
03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014
03/17/2014
03/18/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014

643 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation 5 additional pages filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
644 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
645 DECLARATION of Barry Litt In support of motion for attorneys' fees MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B, # 2 Exhibit 13, # 3 Exhibit 14, # 4 Exhibit 15, # 5 Exhibit 16, # 6 Exhibit 17, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibit 21, # 9 Exhibit 22, # 10 Exhibit 23, # 11 Exhibit 82, # 12 Exhibit 83, # 13 Exhibit 86, # 14 Exhibit 87, # 15 Exhibit 89, # 16 Exhibit 90, # 17 Exhibit 91)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
646 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
647 DECLARATION of James Muller In support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
648 DECLARATION of Carol Sobel In support of motion for Attorneys' Fees MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
649 DECLARATION of Cook Declaration and additional declarations In support of Moton for Attorneys' Fees MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Genego Declaration, # 2 Declaration Hoffman Declaration, # 3 Declaration Kennedy Declaration, # 4 Declaration Paz Declaration, # 5 Declaration Re Declaration, # 6 Declaration Vogel Declaration, # 7 Declaration Watson Declaration)(McLane, David) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
650 DECLARATION of Caitlin Weisberg in Support of MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−D)(Attorney Caitlin S Weisberg added to party Carlos Flores(pty:pla), Attorney Caitlin S Weisberg added to party Erick Nunez(pty:pla), Attorney Caitlin S Weisberg added to party Juan Carlos Sanchez(pty:pla), Attorney Caitlin S Weisberg added to party Juan Trinidad(pty:pla))(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
651 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Barrett S Litt on behalf of Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad (Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Carlos Flores(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Erick Nunez(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Heriberto Rodriguez(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Juan Carlos Sanchez(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Juan Trinidad(pty:pla))(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
652 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. correcting Declaration (Motion related), 649 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
653 Opposition In Opposition To re: MOTION for New Trial 639 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
654 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition To MOTION for New Trial 639 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
655 Opposition In Opposition To re: MOTION for New Trial 639 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 88 of 106

03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/25/2014
03/25/2014 03/25/2014
03/25/2014 03/25/2014
03/28/2014 03/28/2014 03/28/2014

656 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Opposition To MOTION for New Trial 639 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
657 Opposition in Opposition To re: MOTION to Vacate Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR REMITTITUR OR NEW TRIAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES 640 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
658 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Opposition To MOTION to Vacate Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR REMITTITUR OR NEW TRIAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES 640 filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
659 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. correcting Declaration (Motion related) 654 , Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 653 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
661 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) 637 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Flores. (Muller, James) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
662 REPLY in support MOTION for New Trial or Amend and/or Relief from Judgment 638 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
663 REPLY in support of MOTION to Vacate Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR REMITTITUR OR NEW TRIAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES 640 filed by Defendants Christopher Blasnek, Daniel Cruz, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
664 REPLY in support of MOTION for New Trial 639 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
665 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 643 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. (rne) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
666 REPLY in support of MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) 637 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
667 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. correcting Declaration (Motion related),, 645 , MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlin S. Weisberg)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
668 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
669 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt in support of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−B, # 2

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 89 of 106

04/01/2014 04/03/2014 04/04/2014 04/10/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014

Exhibit 13, # 3 Exhibit 14, # 4 Exhibit 15, # 5 Exhibit 16, # 6 Exhibit 17, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibit 21, # 9 Exhibit 22, # 10 Exhibit 23, # 11 Exhibit 82, # 12 Exhibit 83, # 13 Exhibit 86, # 14 Exhibit 87, # 15 Exhibit 89, # 16 Exhibit 90, # 17 Exhibit 91)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
672 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court advises counsel that the Defendants' Motion for judgment as a matter of law 637 is taken under submission. Defendants' Motion to vacate judgment as to moving defendants and for new trial after resolution of moving defendants' interlocutory qualified immunity appeals 638 , Defendants' Motion for new trial pursuant to FRCP Rule 59(a) 639 , and Defendants Cruz's Blasnek's, McGrattan's, Onhemus' and Washington's Motion to vacate punitive damages; or alternatively for remittitur or new trial on punitive damages 640 are hereby DENIED. Court Reporter: Debbie Hino−Spaan. (gk) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
671 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs' Corrected Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed 3/28/2014 668 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Responses/Replies/Other Motion Related Documents − Amendment (Motion related). Filer used the Motions − Attorney Fees event for docketing, and created a duplicative hearing date of 6/16/2014 to document number 644. Clerk shall remove this Corrected Motion from the 6/16/2014 10:00 AM calendar. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
670 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, the Defendants' Motion for judgment as a matter of law 637 ; Defendants' Motion to vacate judgment as to moving defendants and for new trial after resolution of moving defendants' interlocutory qualified immunity appeals 638 ; Defendants' Motion for new trial pursuant to FRCP Rule 59(a) 639 ; and Defendants Cruz's Blasnek's, McGrattan's, Onhemus' and Washington's Motion to vacate punitive damages; or alternatively for remittitur or new trial on punitive damages 640 , currently scheduled for 4/8/2014, are hereby ordered continued to 4/10/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
676 AMENDED MINUTES held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Defendant's Motion for judgment as a matter of law 637 . Defendants' Motion to vacate judgment as to moving defendants and for new trial after resolution of moving defendants' interlocutory qualified immunity appeals 638 . Defendants' Motion for new trial pursuant to FRCP Rule 59(a) 639 . Defendants' Cruz's Blasnek's, McGrattan's Onhemus' and Washington's Motion to vacate punitive damages; or alternatively for remittitur or new trial on punitive damages 640 . The case is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with the parties, the Court advises that the Defendants' Motion for judgment as a matter of law 637 is taken under submission. The remaining motions are hereby DENIED. (bp) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
673 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation to File a Memorandum of Points and Authorities Over 25 Pages in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
674 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OVER 25 PAGES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES filed by DEFENDANT Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 04/16/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 90 of 106

04/16/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014
04/23/2014 05/19/2014
05/20/2014 05/21/2014 05/23/2014 05/23/2014

675 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation to File a Memorandum of Points and Authorities Over 25 Pages in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees 673 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
677 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXCEED 25−PAGE LIMIT FOR THEIR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall 673 . SEE ORDER. (im) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
678 Opposition to re: Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
679 DECLARATION of David D. Lawrence, Jin S. Choi, Daniel S. Cha and Exhibits 1−5 in opposition to Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
680 DECLARATION of Robert Bruning in opposition to Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
681 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
682 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS F.R.C.P., RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW [DOCKET NO. 637] re MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) 637 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
683 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' F.R.C.P. RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW [DOCKET NO. 637] filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
684 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
685 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) 637 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by Plaintiff Juan Trinidad. (Muller, James) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
686 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rule 50(b) 637 IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY [DOCKET NO. 685] filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 91 of 106

05/26/2014 05/26/2014 05/26/2014 05/26/2014 05/26/2014 05/26/2014 05/29/2014
05/29/2014 05/29/2014
05/29/2014

Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
687 REPLY Reply to Opposition of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
688 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
689 DECLARATION of James S. Muller In Support Of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
690 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
691 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Declaration of Robert M. Bruning filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
692 DECLARATION of Caitlin S. Weisberg In Support Of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit B−1, # 3 Exhibit C−1, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
693 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS (1) FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS A MOVING DEFENDANT AS AND FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS AFTER RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPEALS; (3} TO VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; and (4) FORA NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 637 , Motion to Vacate Judgment and for New Trial 638 , Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) 639 , and Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages or Remittitur or New Trial on punitive Damages 640 are DENIED. (gk) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
694 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS F.R.C.P. RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW [DOCKET NO. 686] filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
695 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed 5/26/2014 687 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 11−6 Memorandum brief exceeds 25 pages. It appears that an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Memorandum of up to 35 pages was filed, document number 684, however, the docket does not reflect an order. Thus, this document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to a Notice of Lodging. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
696 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Expert Robert M. Bruning filed 5/26/2014 691 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. The filer set this Motion for hearing on 6/16/2014 at

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 92 of 106

06/02/2014
06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/05/2014 06/09/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/11/2014
06/12/2014

10:00 AM, the same time as the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Hearing date is untimely pursuant to Local Rule 6−1. Lacking statement re conference of counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7−3. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
697 Opposition re: Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 [and additional fees and costs] filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
698 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS [DOCKET NO. 697] filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
699 Opposition re: MOTION to Strike Declaration of Robert M. Bruning 691 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
700 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application requesting leave of the Court to file Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities of up to 15 pages in support of their Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs 684 is granted. NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. (gk) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
701 Objections Opposition re: Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
702 REPLY In Support Of Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
703 NOTICE OF JOINDER/ADOPTION OF DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO STRIKE ATTORNEY DECLARATIONS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS [DOCKET NO. 701] filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Rathbun, J) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
704 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 Filed On: February 5, 2014; Entered On: February 6, 2014; (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
705 SUPPLEMENT to Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 (AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION) filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 93 of 106

06/12/2014 06/13/2014
07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/09/2014 07/10/2014
10/31/2014 11/06/2014 11/10/2014

706 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidadto Supplement(Motion related),, 705 (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
707 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for award of attorneys' fees and costs filed 3/17/2014 644 ; Plaintiff's corrected motion for award of attorneys fees and costs filed 3/28/2014 668 ; and Plaintiff's Motion to strike portions of the declaration of expert Robert M. Bruning, filed 5/26/2014 691 , currently set for hearing on 6/16/2014, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, these motions are taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on 6/16/2014. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
708 SUPPLEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
709 APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
710 DECLARATION of Caitlin Weisberg re APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing 709 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
711 NOTICE OF LODGING filed w/Proposed Final Fee Order re Supplement (non−motion) 708 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
712 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. correcting Declaration (Motion related), 692 (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
713 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. correcting Supplement (non−motion) 708 , Errata 712 , Declaration (non−motion), 710 , Notice of Lodging 711 [Correcting titles and cross−reference links in docket entries] (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
714 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON PLRA RATE CAP by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing on the PLRA Rate Cap 709 is DENIED. The Court finds that supplemental briefing is not necessary and declines to exercise its discretion to permit such briefing. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
715 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Gilbert M Nishimura counsel for Defendant Herman Delgado. J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. (Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
716 JOINT REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83−9.2 RE: MATTERS UNDER SUBMISSION [DOCKET NO. 707] re MOTION to Strike Declaration of Robert M. Bruning 691 , Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 668 , MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 644 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
717 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Request Pursuant to Local Rule 83−9.2 Re Matters Under Submission filed 11/6/2014 716 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests − Ruling. Responses/Replies/Other Motion Related Documents − Motion Related Document event used for docketing this filing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 94 of 106

11/12/2014 12/26/2014
12/29/2014 01/12/2015 01/20/2015 01/20/2015 01/21/2015 01/22/2015
01/23/2015
01/28/2015

718 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE: JOINT REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83−9.2 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court is in receipt of the Parties' Joint Request Pursuant to Local Rule 83−9.2 716 . A written order will issue on the requested matters (Docket Nos. 691 , 668 , and 644 ) no later than 12/26/2014. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
719 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees. Plaintiffs fee for counsels success on §1983 claims is $239,744.04 paid pursuant to §1988, with $9,500 of this amount paid as a contribution from Plaintiffs judgment. Plaintiffs fee pursuant to §52.1 is $5,138,430.62.12 The total fee award is 5,378,174.66 ($9,500 contributed from Plaintiffs judgment). Plaintiffs counsel may file a renewed application to tax costs with the Clerk of this Court no later than January 12, 2015. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Expert Robert M. Bruning. (Dkt. No. 691.) The Court also GRANTS the Defendants Motion to Strike and strikes portions of the Plaintiffs declarations offered in support of Plaintiffs reply. (Dkt. No. 701.) (See order for further details). (shb) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
720 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion to Strike, 719 ..Pdf image was not served attached to the docket entry. The document is attached hereto. (Attachments: # 1 order) (shb) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
721 APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against defendants All Defendants filed by plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Bookkeeper Sui MacKenzie)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
722 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct re Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, 719 filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald O. Kaye, # 2 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
723 Objections re: APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against defendants All Defendants 721 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
724 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct re Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,, 719 722 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
725 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF FEE ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Clarification and/or Modification of Fee Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) 722 is DENIED. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for leave to move for fees for services rendered on Plaintiffs' post−trial motions between 3/1/2014 and 6/16/2014. Any motion must be filed pursuant to this Court's Local Rules. Any motion shall be limited to arguing what services were rendered from 3/1/2014 to 6/16/2014 and whether the hours spent and tasks conducted were reasonable and are compensable. Fees will not be awarded for duplicative or unnecessary work and will not be awarded for services rendered preparing any documents filed after 6/16/2014. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
726 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 Filed On: February 5, 2014; Entered On: February 6, 2014; (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
727 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Andrew Charles Pongracz counsel for Defendant Herman Delgado. Adding Andrew C. Pongracz as attorney as counsel of record for Hernan Delgado for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Hernan Delgado. (Attorney Andrew Charles Pongracz added to party Herman Delgado(pty:dft))(Pongracz, Andrew) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 95 of 106

01/28/2015 01/29/2015 01/29/2015 01/30/2015
02/02/2015 02/17/2015 02/24/2015
03/03/2015 03/13/2015 03/16/2015

01/28/2015)
728 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 Filed On: February 5, 2014; Entered On: February 6, 2014; (Pongracz, Andrew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
729 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Relief from Late Filing filed by Plaintiffs Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
730 REPLY In Opposition to Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs' Application to Tax Costs filed by Plaintiff Heriberto Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ronald Kaye, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
731 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Relief from Late Filing 729 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
732 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS−ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's ex parte application for relief from late filing, filed on January 29, 2015 729 . The Court having read and considered the papers and the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court hereby DENIES said application. (jp) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
733 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees for March 1, 2014 Through June 16, 2014 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Motion set for hearing on 3/17/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
734 OPPOSITION Opposition re: MOTION for Attorney Fees for March 1, 2014 Through June 16, 2014 733 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Cha, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
735 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Attorney Fees for March 1, 2014 Through June 16, 2014 733 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
736 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, the Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees for March 1, 2014 Through June 16, 2014 733 , currently scheduled for 3/17/2015, is hereby ordered continued to 5/26/2015 at 10:00 PM. (jp) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
737 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jin S Choi counsel for Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. George E. Morris Jr. is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Co. of Los Angeles, et al.. (Choi,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 96 of 106

04/28/2015
04/28/2015 05/05/2015 05/12/2015 05/15/2015
05/21/2015
05/26/2015
05/27/2015 05/29/2015

Jin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
738 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro., Rule 60(b)(6) re Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Motion set for hearing on 5/26/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
740 BILL OF COSTS. Costs Taxed in amount of $ 34,296.56 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. RE: 632 (mb) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
739 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro., Rule 60(b)(6) re Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 738 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
741 REPLY in support of MOTION for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro., Rule 60(b)(6) re Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 626 738 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
742 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Tax Costs against Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad, Erick Nunez. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
743 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR 3/1/2014 THROUGH 6/16/2014 AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees for 3/1/2014 through 6/16/2014 733 and Defendants' Motion for Relief From the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6) 738 are appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Motions are taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on 5/26/2015. The Court will issue a written order on the Motions. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
744 Opposition re: MOTION to Tax Costs against Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff&#03 742 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
745 JOINDER filed by Defendant Herman Delgado joining in Objection/Opposition (Motion related),, 744 . (Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
746 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)− ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 60(B)(6) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Relief from the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6) (the "Motion"). (Dkt. No. 738 .) The Motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction because the case is pending on appeal. Moulton v. Cory, 995 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(a)(4). See

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 97 of 106

05/29/2015 06/04/2015 06/11/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 08/07/2015 08/11/2015 09/08/2015
09/14/2015

order for further details. (jy) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
747 AMENDED MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court hereby amends its Minute Order 746 on Defendants' Motion for Relief from the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b) 738 . The Motion remains DENIED for lack of jurisdiction, and merit. Additionally, the Court declines to consider granting the Motion if the Ninth Circuit remands the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cw) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
748 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Courts own motion, the Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and to award nontaxable expenses pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(2)(A), 742 , currently scheduled for 6/16/2015, is hereby ordered continued to 8/11/2015 at 10:00 AM. (jp) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
749 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court has considered the Motion for Attorney Fees for March 1, 2014 Through June 16, 2014 733 , and related papers. For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS the Motion, awarding $9,433.68. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cw) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
750 Third AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 Filed On: March 07, 2014; Entered On: March 07, 2014; (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
751 THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CIRCUIT filed by Defendant Herman Delgado. Amending Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 Filed On: March 7, 2014; Entered On: March 7, 2014; (Pongracz, Andrew) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
752 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS−ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion to retax costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and to award nontaxable expenses pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(2)(A) 742 , filed on 5/15/2015 and currently set for hearing on 8/11/2015, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on 8/11/2015. (jp) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
753 MINUTES OF Plaintiff's Motion to Re−Tax Costs 742 before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The case is called. The Court stated on the record that the Plaintiffs motion to re−tax costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1) and to award nontaxable expenses pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(2)(A) 742 , is hereby taken under submission and a written order will issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (jp) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
754 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion To Retax Costs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and To Award Nontaxable Expenses Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(A) 742 . Plaintiffs provide the Court with little to no specificity on the necessity or reasonableness of the nontaxable expenses sought. The Court requires additional evidence from Plaintiffs demonstrating that each of the nontaxable expenses were reasonably spent and necessary. Plaintiffs shall submit additional evidence addressing the Court's inquiry no later than 9/14/2015. Defendants may file a response not to exceed 10 pages except upon further order of the Court, no later than 9/18/2015. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
755 DECLARATION of Caitlin Weisberg re MOTION to Tax Costs against Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Herman Delgado, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff&#03 742 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 98 of 106

09/18/2015
11/12/2015 11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/20/2015 03/09/2016
03/09/2016
03/09/2016

756 Response to Declaration of Caitlin S. Weisberg Re: Additional Cost Detail in Response to Court Order of September 8, 2015 filed by Defendants Francisco Alonso, Christopher Blasnek, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Ivan Delatorre, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Adolph Esqueda, Michael Frazier, Antonio Galindo, Armando Gonzalez, Nicholas Graham, Javier Guzman, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Andrew Lyons, Michel McGrattan, John McNicholas, Matthew Nowotny, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, Carlos Ortega, Adrian Ruiz, Joseph Sanford, Clayton Stelter, Matthew Thomas, Hector Vazquez, Kelley Washington re: Declaration (Motion related), 755 (Lawrence, David) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
757 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RETAX COSTSPURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) AND TO AWARD NONTAXABLE EXPENSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2)(A). DENYING 742 MOTION for Taxation of Costs. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion To Retax Costs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion To Award Nontaxable Expensesand awards nontaxable costs of $39,928.35. (shb) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
758 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants County of Los Angeles for Court Reporter. Court will contact Jin S. Choi at jchoi@lbaclaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
759 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants County of Los Angeles for Court Reporter. Court will contact Jin S. Choi at jchoi@lbaclaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
760 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants County of Los Angeles for Court Reporter. Court will contact Jin S. Choi at jchoi@lbaclaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
761 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants County of Los Angeles for Court Reporter. Court will contact Jin S. Choi at jchoi@lbaclaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Choi, Jin) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
762 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 1, 10−01−13, 9:29 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
763 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 2, 10−01−13, 1:32 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
764 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 3, 10−02−13, 8:20 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 99 of 106

03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016

765 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 4, 10−02−13, 1:10 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
766 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 5, 10−03−13, 8:10 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
767 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 6, 10−03−13, 1:06 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
768 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 7, 10−04−13, 8:17 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
769 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 8, 10−04−13, 10:33 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
770 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 9, 10−07−13, 8:14 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
771 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 10, 10−08−13, 8:17 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
772 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 11, 10−08−13, 1:01 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 100 of 106

03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016

for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
773 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 12, 10−09−13, 8:14 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
774 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 13, 10−09−13, 1:06 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
775 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on L 14, 10−10−13, 7:56 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
776 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 15, 10−10−13, 2:24 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
777 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 16, 10−11−13, 8:11 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
778 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 17, 10−15−13, 8:27 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
779 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 18, 10−15−13, 12:56 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 101 of 106

03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016

Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
780 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 19, 10−16−13, 8:10 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
781 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 20, 10−16−13, 12:56 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
782 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 21, 10−17−13, 8:12 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
783 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 22, 10−17−13, 12:55 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
784 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 23, 10−18−13, 8:13 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
785 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 24, 10−21−13, 8:05 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
786 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 25, 10−21−13, 12:54 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 102 of 106

03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016

787 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 26, 10−22−13, 8:12 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
788 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 27, 10−28−13, 8:12 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
789 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 28, 10−28−13, 1:02 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Sandy MacNeil, phone number/email macneilsandy@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
790 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 29, 10−29−13, 8:24 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
791 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 30, 10−29−13, 1:03 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Sandy MacNeil, phone number/email macneilsandy@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
792 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 31, 10−30−13, 8:25 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
793 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 32, 10−30−13, 5:14 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Sandy MacNeil, phone number/email macneilsandy@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
794 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 33, 10−31−13, 8:18 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 103 of 106

03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016

for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
795 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 34, 11−01−13, 8:00 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
796 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 35, 11−01−13, 12:09 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
797 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 36, 11−06−13, 2:09 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
798 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 37, 11−07−13, 9:22 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Myra Ponce, phone number/email myraponce@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
799 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 38, 11−07−13, 2:44 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
800 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on VOL 39, 11−12−13, 8:39 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
801 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on MASTER INDEX − TRIAL. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/11/2016. Release of Transcript

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 104 of 106

03/09/2016
07/02/2016
07/02/2016 08/15/2016 08/15/2016 01/04/2018 05/30/2018 06/20/2018

Restriction set for 6/7/2016. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
802 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings VOL 1, 10−01−13, 9:29 am; VOL 2, 10−01−13, 1:32 pm; VOL 3, 10−02−13, 8:20 am; VOL 4, 10−02−13, 1:10 pm; VOL 5, 10−03−13, 8:10 am; VOL 6, 10−03−13, 1:06 pm; VOL 7, 10−04−13, 8:17 am; VOL 8, 10−04−13, 10:33 am; VOL 9, 10−07−13, 8:14 am; VOL 10, 10−08−13, 8:17 am; VOL 11, 10−08−13, 1:01 pm; VOL 12, 10−09−13, 8:14 am; VOL 13, 10−09−13, 1:06 pm; VOL 14, 10−10−13, 7:56 am; VOL 15, 10−10−13, 2:24 pm; VOL 16, 10−11−13, 8:11 am; VOL 17, 10−15−13, 8:27 am; VOL 18, 10−15−13, 12:56 pm; VOL 19, 10−16−13, 8:10 am; VOL 20, 10−16−13, 12:56 pm; VOL 21, 10−17−13, 8:12 am; VOL 22, 10−17−13, 12:55 pm; VOL 23, 10−18−13, 8:13 am; VOL 24, 10−21−13, 8:05 am; VOL 25, 10−21−13, 12:54 pm; VOL 26, 10−22−13, 8:12 am; VOL 27M 10−28−13, 8:08 am; VOL 28, 10−28−13, 1:02 pm; VOL 29, 10−29−13, 8:24 am; VOL 30, 10−29−13, 1:03 pm; VOL 31, 10−30−13, 8:25 am; VOL 32, 10−30−13, 5:14 pm; VOL 33, 10−31−13, 8:18 am; VOL 34, 11−01−13, 8:00 am; VOL 35, 11−01−13, 12:00 pm; VOL 36, 11−06−13, 12:09 pm; VOL 37, 11−07−13, 9:22 am; VOL 38, 11−07−13, 2:44 pm; VOL 39, 11−12−13, 8:39 am; MASTER INDEX− TRIAL re Transcript 790 , 784 , 778 , 763 , 785 , 772 , 789 , 768 , 786 , 787 , 764 , 795 , 797 , 799 , 762 , 766 , 779 , 775 , 798 , 800 , 796 , 774 , 794 , 801 , 776 , 781 , 770 , 783 , 788 , 767 , 791 , 773 , 792 , 769 , 793 , 780 , 782 , 771 , 777 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Algorri, Miranda) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/09/2016)
803 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 08/19/2013; 3:04 P.M.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: MARIA R. BUSTILLOS, phone number MADAMCOURTREPORTER@GMAIL.COM FOR ALL TRANSCRIPT REQUESTS. Tape Number: madamereporter@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through MARIA BUSTILLOS. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/2/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/30/2016. (Bustillos, Maria) (Entered: 07/02/2016)
804 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 08/19/2013; 3:04 P.M. re Transcript 803 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Bustillos, Maria) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/02/2016)
805 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 8:25 A.M. Court Reporter: C. NIRENBERG, CONTACT: www.msfedreporter.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through Court Reporter: C. NIRENBERG, CONTACT: www.msfedreporter.com, or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/6/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/15/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/14/2016. (Nirenberg, C) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
806 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 8:25 A.M. re Transcript 805 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Nirenberg, C) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/15/2016)
807 NOTICE of Change of address by Ronald O Kaye attorney for Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. Changing attorneys address to 975 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
808 OPINION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: CCA # 13−56292, 14−55374. For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. (twdb) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
809 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,,, 290 filed by Daniel Cruz, John McNicholas, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Ivan Delatorre, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington,

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 105 of 106

06/21/2018 06/25/2018
07/20/2018 07/24/2018 10/17/2018 10/19/2018

Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Carlos Ortega, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Antonio Galindo, Matthew Thomas, Armando Gonzalez, Joseph Sanford, Matthew Nowotny, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Adrian Ruiz, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 filed by Daniel Cruz, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Matthew Thomas, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman. CCA # 13−56292 and 14−55374. Appellees' unopposed motion for an extension of time, up to and includingJuly 25, 2018, in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs isGRANTED.(mat) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
810 MANDATE of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 290 , Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 641 , CCA # 13−56292 and 14−55374. The judgment of the 9th Circuit Court, entered May 30, 2018, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of the 9th CCA issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Costs are taxed against the appellant in the amount of $746.10. [See USCA Opinion 808 AFFIRMED.] (mat) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
811 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,,, 290 filed by Daniel Cruz, John McNicholas, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Ivan Delatorre, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Enrique Cano, Carlos Ortega, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Antonio Galindo, Matthew Thomas, Armando Gonzalez, Joseph Sanford, Matthew Nowotny, Arthur Diaz, Jr, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Adrian Ruiz, Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,, 641 filed by Daniel Cruz, Clayton Stelter, Matt Onhemus, Blake Orlandos, County of Los Angeles, Andrew Lyons, Adolph Esqueda, Nicholas Graham, Christopher Blasnek, Kelley Washington, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Justin Bravo, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Matthew Thomas, Joseph Sanford, Hector Vazquez, Francisco Alonso, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman. CCA # 13−56292, 14−55374. Appellees opposed motion to transfer consideration of attorneys fees onappeal to the district court is GRANTED. See 9th Cir. R. 39−1.8.(shb) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
812 STIPULATION to Continue Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs from July 25, 2018 to September 25, 2018 filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
813 ORDER RE STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 812 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation to Continue, 812 : GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the parties' Stipulation and Request to Continue Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is hereby GRANTED. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for attorneys' fees and costs is extended from July 25, 2018 to September 25, 2018. (bm) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
814 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS− ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: After affirming the judgment on appeal, the Ninth Circuit set the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs on July 25, 2018, and pursuant to Plaintiffs' motion to transfer, remanded the issue of fees and costs to the district court. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs from July 25, 2018 to September 25, 2018. (Dkt. No. 813.) No motion has been filed. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than October 24, 2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file Plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees and costs by the September 25, 2018 deadline. (bm) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
815 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidadto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,, 814 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #

Case: 2:10-cv-6342 As of: 01/04/2019 07:29 AM PST 106 of 106

10/22/2018 11/21/2018 11/26/2018
12/07/2018

2 Exhibit B)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
816 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: In light of the response filed on October 19, 2018, the Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is hereby VACATED. (bm) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
817 STIPULATION for Judgment as to all Defendants filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Flores, Erick Nunez, Heriberto Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Juan Trinidad. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Amended Judgment)(Weisberg, Caitlin) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
818 AMENDED JUDGMENT 817 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, in favor of Heriberto Rodriguez against County of Los Angeles, Adolph Esqueda, Alejandro Hernandez Castanon, Andrew Lyons, Blake Orlandos, Christopher Blasnek, Clayton Stelter, Daniel Cruz, Francisco Alonso, Hector Vazquez, Herman Delgado, Javier Guzman, Joseph Sanford, Justin Bravo, Kelley Washington, Matt Onhemus, Matthew Thomas, Michael Frazier, Michel McGrattan, Nicholas Graham. (see document for further details) Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 817 (bm) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
819 Notice of Electronic Filing re Judgment,, 818 e−mailed to George E Morris and Matthew P Allen bounced due to invalid email addresses. The primary e−mail addresses associated with the attorney records have been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/10/2018)