1

· · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

· · · · · · · · EASTERN DIVISION

· · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

Karl Shaw,· · · · · · · ·:

· · · · Plaintiff,· · · ·:

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No. 2:18-cv-483

· · · · vs.· · · · · · · : Judge Graham

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Magistrate Judge Vascura

City of Columbus,· · · · :

et al.,

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·:

· · · · Defendants.

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·:

· · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

· · · · · DEPOSITION OF THOMAS QUINLAN

· · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

· · · · ·Taken at Spectrum Reporting LLC

· · · · · 400 S. Fifth Street, Ste. 201

· · · · · · · ·Columbus, OH 43215

· · · · · · June 12, 2019, 11:09 a.m.

· · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

· · · · · · ·Spectrum Reporting LLC

· · · · · 400 S. Fifth Street, Ste. 201

· · · · · · · Columbus, Ohio 43215

· · · · · 614-444-1000 or 800-635-9071

· · · · · · www.spectrumreporting.com

· · · · · · · · · · - - - - -

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 1 of 199 PAGEID #: 1477
2

·1· · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S

·2

· · · ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

·3

· · · · · ·The Gittes Law Group

·4· · · · ·723 Oak Street

· · · · · ·Columbus, OH 43205-1011

·5· · · · ·By Frederick M. Gittes, Esq. and

· · · · · · · ·Jeffrey P. Vardaro, Esq.

·6

· · · · · ·and

·7

· · · · · ·Walton & Brown, LLP

·8· · · · ·395 East Broad Street, Ste. 200

· · · · · ·Columbus, OH 43215

·9· · · · ·By Sean L. Walton, Esq.

10

· · · ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

11

· · · · · ·Columbus City Attorney's Office

12· · · · ·77 North Front Street, 4th Floor

· · · · · ·Columbus, OH 43215

13· · · · ·By Richard N. Coglianese, Esq.

14

· · · ALSO PRESENT:

15

· · · · · ·Karl Shaw

16· · · · ·David Rutz - Intern

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 2 of 199 PAGEID #: 1478
3

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Wednesday Morning Session

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · June 12, 2019, 11:09 a.m.

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - -

·4· · · · · · · · · S T I P U L A T I O N S

·5· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - -

·6· · · · ·It is stipulated by counsel in attendance that

·7· · the deposition of Thomas Quinlan, a witness

·8· · herein, called by the Plaintiff for

·9· · cross-examination, may be taken at this time by

10· · the notary pursuant to notice and subsequent

11· · agreement of counsel that said deposition may be

12· · reduced to writing in stenotypy by the notary,

13· · whose notes may thereafter be transcribed out of

14· · the presence of the witness; that proof of the

15· · official character and qualification of the notary

16· · is waived.

17· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - -

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 3 of 199 PAGEID #: 1479
4

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X

·2· · Examination By· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page

·3· · Mr. Vardaro - Cross· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5

·4

· · · Plaintiff's Exhibits· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page

·5

· · · Exhibit 10 - E-mails to Decker from Cameron· · · ·60

·6

· · · Exhibit 11 - Informational Summary #9· · · · · · 170

·7

· · · Exhibit 38 - Investigative Summary to Knight· · ·154

·8· · · · · · · · ·from Decker, 9/28/15

·9· · Exhibit 41 - Routing Sheet for Correspondence,· ·104

· · · · · · · · · ·10/14/15

10

· · · Exhibit 44 - Informational Summary #8· · · · · · 166

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21· · (Exhibits retained by Spectrum Reporting)

22

23

24

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 4 of 199 PAGEID #: 1480
5

·1· · · · · · · · · · · THOMAS QUINLAN

·2· · being first duly sworn, testifies and says as

·3· · follows:

·4· · · · · · · · · · ·CROSS-EXAMINATION

·5· · BY MR. VARDARO:

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Could you state your name for the

·7· · record.

·8· · A.· · · · ·Thomas Quinlan, Q-U-I-N-L-A-N.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·What is your current employment?

10· · A.· · · · ·City of Columbus.

11· · Q.· · · · ·All right.· I will -- I guess I'll

12· · start by introducing myself on the record.· My

13· · name is Jeff Vardaro.· I'm one of the attorneys

14· · for Karl Shaw in this case.

15· · · · · · · ·Have you been in a deposition before?

16· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

17· · Q.· · · · ·About how many times?

18· · A.· · · · ·A dozen.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When was the last time that you

20· · can remember?

21· · A.· · · · ·Two, three months ago, maybe.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What was the case?

23· · A.· · · · ·I'm trying to recall.· I honestly don't

24· · recall.· I have several overlapping right now and

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 5 of 199 PAGEID #: 1481
6

·1· · I don't recall the --

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Related to the work with the

·3· · Columbus Police?

·4· · A.· · · · ·It is.· It is.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·6· · A.· · · · ·All of them have been.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Was it a discrimination case?

·8· · A.· · · · ·No.· I think -- I think the last one I

·9· · was in -- involved in was out of the police

10· · involved shooting possibly.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And how about before that, last

12· · time before two or three months ago?

13· · A.· · · · ·Same, just random times --

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

15· · A.· · · · ·-- involved in a deposition work

16· · related.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember who was

18· · conducting the deposition that you did a couple

19· · months ago?

20· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember if that was -- that

21· · wasn't yours.· I would have to check with city

22· · attorney's office.· I do not know.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Well, since you don't seem to

24· · remember a whole lot about the -- even the more

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 6 of 199 PAGEID #: 1482
7

·1· · recent depositions, I will go over some of the

·2· · ground rules, at least that I use during

·3· · depositions just as a refresh.

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·I'm going to be asking you most, if not

·6· · all of the questions that you're asked today.· If

·7· · I ask a question and you don't understand it, I

·8· · would like you to tell me that you don't

·9· · understand it and I'll try to rephrase it in a way

10· · you can understand.· Will you do that for me?

11· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

12· · Q.· · · · ·And if you answer a question and you

13· · don't ask me to clarify it, I'm going to assume

14· · that you understood the question unless you've

15· · told me.

16· · A.· · · · ·I understand that.

17· · Q.· · · · ·I'm also going to be asking you

18· · questions about things that are -- at this point

19· · happened four or five years ago.· I understand

20· · that nobody's memory is perfect.· So if you

21· · realize in the course of the deposition that you

22· · said something wrong or you couldn't remember

23· · something and then something jogs your memory and

24· · you do, do you understand that you can interrupt

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 7 of 199 PAGEID #: 1483
8

·1· · me at any time to correct what you've said or add

·2· · to it?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·And will you do that for me?

·5· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·All right.· I'm going to ask you a

·7· · couple questions that I ask basically everybody

·8· · who goes through this.· Are you -- do you have any

·9· · medical conditions or are you on any medications

10· · that would interfere with your ability to testify

11· · fully and accurately today?

12· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Do you -- is there any other reason

14· · that you couldn't testify fully or accurately

15· · today?

16· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I assume from your position that

18· · I know the answer to this, but -- have you been

19· · convicted of a crime at any point?

20· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have an opportunity to

22· · meet with counsel to prepare for this deposition?

23· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

24· · Q.· · · · ·When did that happen?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 8 of 199 PAGEID #: 1484
9

·1· · A.· · · · ·A week or so ago.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was that the only time?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· About how long was that prep?

·5· · A.· · · · ·30, 35 minutes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And who did you meet with?· Rich

·7· · Coglianese?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.· That was my answer.· Sorry.

·9· · Pointing doesn't work.· Sorry.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Yeah.· I will say --

11· · A.· · · · ·Right.

12· · Q.· · · · ·-- we're not on video --

13· · A.· · · · ·Right.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- even if we were --

15· · A.· · · · ·I apologize.

16· · Q.· · · · ·-- the record needs --

17· · A.· · · · ·Right.· I understand that.· Slip of the

18· · mind.

19· · Q.· · · · ·And now we'll go into another ground

20· · rule, which is I sometimes, maybe more than other

21· · attorneys, tend to meander around to my point and

22· · so --

23· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· I haven't noticed.

24· · Q.· · · · ·-- I will say to both you and Rich, if

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 9 of 199 PAGEID #: 1485
10

·1· · you could let me get to the end of the question

·2· · before you answer, and I will try to let you get

·3· · to the end of your answer before I interrupt you.

·4· · A.· · · · ·Thank you.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·And that will make it easier for Mary.

·6· · · · · · · ·All right.· Did you review any

·7· · documents to prepare for your deposition today?

·8· · A.· · · · ·A few e-mails.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember what e-mails you

10· · reviewed?

11· · A.· · · · ·I don't.· They're dated.· They were

12· · back during the time this occurred, so I don't

13· · recall.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember who the

15· · e-mails -- was it e-mails that you wrote or

16· · received?

17· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· I think they're e-mails that I

18· · wrote to look to see what they -- what the

19· · contents was or refresh my recollection as I was

20· · preparing.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And they were about this -- the

22· · investigation of Eric Moore or about Karl Shaw in

23· · some other way?

24· · A.· · · · ·Yes, about the Eric Moore

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 10 of 199 PAGEID #: 1486
11

·1· · investigation.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I could be wrong, but I don't

·3· · know that I've actually seen any e-mails to or

·4· · from you about this investigation.· Have you been

·5· · asked to provide e-mails to counsel about this

·6· · investigation?

·7· · A.· · · · ·The requests go to our public records

·8· · unit and they do a -- they have a software that

·9· · does a search.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

11· · A.· · · · ·So I'm never even notified, they just

12· · go in and grab them and take them.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How did you get the e-mails that

14· · you were reviewing?

15· · A.· · · · ·I think I just did a query for Eric

16· · Moore or something trying to refresh a date in my

17· · mind.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And at least a few e-mails

19· · popped up?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were any of them between you and

22· · Chief Jacobs?

23· · A.· · · · ·I would have to recall.· I would have

24· · to go back and look.· I don't recall any.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 11 of 199 PAGEID #: 1487
12

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · · ·May have been.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·How about between you and Jennifer

·4· · Knight?

·5· · A.· · · · ·There may have been, yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What about there's -- I'm going

·7· · to get the name wrong, a Jeff Lokai?

·8· · A.· · · · ·It's Lokai.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·What's his first name?

10· · A.· · · · ·Jeff.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Oh, okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·Jeff Lokai.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Was there e-mails --

14· · A.· · · · ·I do not recall any with him.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I will ask you once we're done

16· · with this deposition, if you could do that query

17· · again and send those --

18· · A.· · · · ·Provide them?

19· · Q.· · · · ·-- send what you've got to Rich and he

20· · can just double check --

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

22· · Q.· · · · ·-- that those have been provided to us.

23· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Please remind me of that.

24· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Yeah.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 12 of 199 PAGEID #: 1488
13

·1· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thanks.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Anything -- besides those

·3· · e-mails, did you review anything else?

·4· · A.· · · · ·No.· I've not reviewed the

·5· · investigation or anything.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Have you seen the complaint in

·7· · this case, the lawsuit that Karl Shaw filed?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Probably in the very beginning when it

·9· · was originally filed, but not since then.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I guess putting aside the

11· · specific e-mail, like what was in each particular

12· · e-mail, because I understand you don't remember

13· · exactly which e-mails you reviewed, was there

14· · anything in the e-mails that you reviewed in

15· · preparing for this deposition that helped to

16· · refresh your memory about some specific thing?

17· · A.· · · · ·Nothing that I -- have no idea what

18· · you're going to inquire about, so there's nothing

19· · in there that said, oh, yeah, I need to remember

20· · that or -- it was just general information about

21· · a -- say maybe like a quick direction to Jen

22· · Knight or something like that that I may do this

23· · or send me this.· Something like that.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember the time

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 13 of 199 PAGEID #: 1489
14

·1· · frame -- I mean, I'm not asking for dates, but the

·2· · time frame in terms of what stage of the Moore

·3· · investigation that these e-mails would have been

·4· · from?

·5· · A.· · · · ·I have no recollection of that.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· We'll get back into those

·7· · questions in a little bit, I'll switch subjects

·8· · for a second.

·9· · · · · · · ·I may have asked this already, but

10· · other than the e-mails, any other documents you

11· · reviewed to prepare?

12· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can you tell me what is your

14· · highest level of education?

15· · A.· · · · ·Master's degree.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Where did you get that?

17· · A.· · · · ·Central Michigan University.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And when was that?

19· · A.· · · · ·2001, as I recall.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was that in criminal justice or

21· · something else?

22· · A.· · · · ·No.· Human resource administration.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And where did you get your

24· · bachelor's degree?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 14 of 199 PAGEID #: 1490
15

·1· · A.· · · · ·The Ohio State University.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When was that?

·3· · A.· · · · ·1993.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·5· · A.· · · · ·I believe.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·And where did you go to high school?

·7· · A.· · · · ·East Liverpool.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Graduation?

·9· · A.· · · · ·1984.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When did you join the Columbus

11· · Police?

12· · A.· · · · ·December of 1989, 24th.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So you were -- you were going to

14· · school at Ohio State as you were in the police

15· · department?

16· · A.· · · · ·I was sitting out at that time until I

17· · got through my one-year probation, then I went

18· · back to school.· I had been going to school

19· · previous to that.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you have a major in -- at

21· · Ohio State?

22· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.· Criminal justice.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· Okay.· And so what's

24· · your current title with the Columbus Police?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 15 of 199 PAGEID #: 1491
16

·1· · A.· · · · ·Interim chief of police.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When did you become interim

·3· · chief?

·4· · A.· · · · ·February 8th, 2019.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And that was when Chief Jacobs

·6· · required?

·7· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Prior to being interim chief,

·9· · what was your assignment?

10· · A.· · · · ·Deputy chief of police.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How long had you been deputy

12· · chief?

13· · A.· · · · ·Since October of 2013, as I recall.

14· · Right thereabouts.

15· · Q.· · · · ·And my understanding is the deputy

16· · chiefs, at least under Chief Jacobs'

17· · administration, were assigned -- they have a

18· · particular divisions of the police department that

19· · were under each deputy chief?

20· · A.· · · · ·Some divisions, yes, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And did -- were your

22· · subdivisions the same throughout your time as

23· · deputy chief or did they change?

24· · A.· · · · ·No.· They stayed the same.· I was

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 16 of 199 PAGEID #: 1492
17

·1· · patrol north deputy chief the whole time.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Prior to being -- actually, I'm

·3· · sorry.

·4· · · · · · · ·In October 2013 when you became deputy

·5· · chief, was Chief Jacobs already the chief?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What was your assignment prior

·8· · to being deputy chief?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Police commander.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And what was your -- what were

11· · you the commander over?

12· · A.· · · · ·Before I was promoted, training bureau.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Training bureau?· Okay.

14· · · · · · · ·When were you promoted to commander?

15· · A.· · · · ·It was about September of 2009, as I

16· · recall, right around that September, October time

17· · frame.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Prior to that, you were a

19· · lieutenant?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·How long were you a lieutenant?

22· · A.· · · · ·2001 -- February 2001, I believe, until

23· · 2009.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When -- and prior to that I

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 17 of 199 PAGEID #: 1493
18

·1· · assume a sergeant?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·When did you get promoted to sergeant?

·4· · A.· · · · ·February 2006 -- or 1996.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I don't want to go through every

·6· · single assignment that you had.

·7· · A.· · · · ·I understand.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Were you in internal affairs at this

·9· · point?

10· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you ever over internal

12· · affairs?

13· · A.· · · · ·No.· I was companion to it,

14· · professional standards bureau, which is -- handles

15· · all the cases internal affairs puts out to the

16· · chief for departmental charges.

17· · Q.· · · · ·When you say you were "companion," did

18· · you mean you were in the professional standards

19· · bureau?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

22· · A.· · · · ·It's different than internal affairs,

23· · internal affairs bureau and professional standards

24· · bureau.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 18 of 199 PAGEID #: 1494
19

·1· · Q.· · · · ·When were you in professional

·2· · standards?

·3· · A.· · · · ·It was roughly some month in 2002,

·4· · early 2002 until April 2005 or '6.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And that was under Chief Jackson

·6· · or --

·7· · A.· · · · ·That was under Chief Jackson.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·9· · A.· · · · ·Might even have been 2004. I

10· · apologize.· I don't recall.· I think it was 2004,

11· · actually.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you started or when you

13· · finished?

14· · A.· · · · ·When I finished and when I went to

15· · patrol.

16· · Q.· · · · ·A couple years?

17· · A.· · · · ·So February of 2004 I went to patrol.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So a couple of years?

19· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is there a deputy chief, or was

21· · there at the time that you were a deputy chief

22· · that is over internal affairs?

23· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall at what point, but the

24· · most recently internal affairs was a direct report

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 19 of 199 PAGEID #: 1495
20

·1· · to the chief of police.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But that was throughout the time

·3· · that Chief Jacobs was chief or --

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I want to talk a little bit

·6· · about your training in EEO, equal employment

·7· · opportunity.

·8· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·I guess I'll start with:· Did you get

10· · special training as part of your master's degree

11· · in human resources administration in equal

12· · employment opportunity?

13· · A.· · · · ·I don't know if I would classify it as

14· · specialized training.· I had courses between labor

15· · law, administrative law and regulatory processes,

16· · and other courses in human resources like that

17· · that would -- that part of the course spoke on

18· · EEO.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· No individual course just about

20· · discrimination or retaliation or anything like

21· · that?

22· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· While you were with the Columbus

24· · Division of Police, have you had training in

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 20 of 199 PAGEID #: 1496
21

·1· · discrimination, retaliation or other EEO

·2· · procedures?

·3· · A.· · · · ·In-service training, yes, sir.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When was your last in-service

·5· · training?

·6· · A.· · · · ·I would have to review records.· I do

·7· · not know.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was it this year?

·9· · A.· · · · ·We tend to do something at least every

10· · other year at a minimum.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Who provided the last in-service

12· · training that you did on EEO if you remember?

13· · A.· · · · ·I would have to review records. I

14· · don't remember.· But we also do ethics training

15· · every year, which kind of touches on it as well.

16· · And Ohio Ethics Commission comes in and provides

17· · that training.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember whether your

19· · last ethics training dealt with discrimination or

20· · retaliation?

21· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall specifically.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember whether your

23· · last EEO training with the CPD was done by folks

24· · from Columbus -- city of Columbus HR or Columbus

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 21 of 199 PAGEID #: 1497
22

·1· · Police HR or somebody from the outside?

·2· · A.· · · · ·That course is usually team taught by a

·3· · regular police instructor and a human resources

·4· · manager.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you say, "a regular police

·6· · instructor," you mean internal instructor from

·7· · CPD?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Who's the person at CPD who does

10· · that?

11· · A.· · · · ·I've done a lot of training.· I don't

12· · remember which one handles which activity.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Have you ever been the person

14· · that provided the training?

15· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In any of the positions that we

17· · just walked through, was it your responsibility

18· · to, I guess other than as a general command staff

19· · officer, was it your responsibility to administer

20· · CPD's EEO policies?

21· · A.· · · · ·No.· I just want to add to what you

22· · said, other than it's all our responsibility to

23· · report.· I don't administer any of the policies.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So your understanding as a CPD

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 22 of 199 PAGEID #: 1498
23

·1· · officer is that if you see or learn about some

·2· · kind of discrimination or retaliation going on

·3· · within the CPD, you're obligated to report it to

·4· · somebody?

·5· · A.· · · · ·Report to human resources manager and

·6· · to internal affairs.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Have you ever done that?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·When did you do that?

10· · A.· · · · ·I would have to review records and go

11· · through IA files.· I don't recall, but it's --

12· · this is one of the cases I sent forward. I

13· · mean --

14· · Q.· · · · ·When you say, "this is one of the

15· · cases," you mean Eric Moore's investigation?

16· · A.· · · · ·Sorrell, Eric Moore investigation.· Any

17· · other paperwork that came through on these

18· · allegations that would come to the deputy chief, I

19· · would send them to IA and instruct them to

20· · investigate.· IA works with HR and decides who's

21· · going to specifically handle it, if it's going to

22· · be someone in the city administration or if IA

23· · specifically is going to.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So you would have been the one

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 23 of 199 PAGEID #: 1499
24

·1· · that sent this to IA to be investigated in the

·2· · first place as an EEO?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Yes, I -- as I recall.· I don't have

·4· · the record to reflect on right here, but as I

·5· · recall, yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I'm going to delve into this

·7· · in a couple of minutes, but just to try to get it

·8· · established, I guess.· At the time that the first

·9· · allegations from Wes Sorrell came out about Eric

10· · Moore and discriminatory comments he allegedly

11· · made, Eric Moore and Wes Sorrell were in your

12· · chain of command?

13· · A.· · · · ·At the time they surfaced, yes.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I just want -- we've had

15· · some confusion over this, but at the time Eric

16· · Moore allegedly made the discriminatory comments,

17· · he was in SRB?

18· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Was SRB under your chain of command?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

22· · A.· · · · ·Now, I want to clarify real quick.· At

23· · the time they were reported, I was there.· At the

24· · time they actually occurred, I don't recall if I

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 24 of 199 PAGEID #: 1500
25

·1· · was in that assignment yet or not.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Because you weren't deputy chief yet?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· So stepping back to

·5· · EEO training.· Is -- is it your understanding that

·6· · Columbus Police has its own EEO rules and

·7· · regulations separate from the laws that apply to

·8· · everybody?

·9· · A.· · · · ·They're complimentary to the laws.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What do you mean by that?

11· · A.· · · · ·They use the language of statute to

12· · direct our employees of what the responsibilities

13· · and expectations are, policy.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can there be violations of CPD

15· · EEO policy that don't necessarily rise to the

16· · level of a legal violation?

17· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But pretty much if it violates

19· · state and federal EEO laws, it's also going to

20· · violate CPD policy?

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· Not only the EEO policy, but we

22· · also have a rule of conduct to obey laws and

23· · ordinances.

24· · Q.· · · · ·So just in general, any CPD officer

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 25 of 199 PAGEID #: 1501
26

·1· · that does something that violates the law, it's

·2· · going to violate CPD policy always basically?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· With the condition that we have

·4· · to first investigate and determine just cause.

·5· · Because the contract requires, you know, a full

·6· · just cause determination prior to determining

·7· · sustained finding.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And in your experience or to

·9· · your understanding, while you were deputy chief

10· · under Chief Jacobs, was -- was it CPD's policy to

11· · treat EEO violations as particularly serious?

12· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Are you familiar with the term

14· · "critical misconduct" as it applies to the CPD?

15· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

16· · Q.· · · · ·What is critical misconduct?

17· · A.· · · · ·Conduct that would likely result in

18· · departmental charges or some substantial job

19· · action.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Would an EEO violation typically

21· · be treated as critical misconduct?

22· · A.· · · · ·Depends on the nature of it.· There are

23· · some that are very -- relatively innocuous in

24· · nature that someone may report.· There's others

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 26 of 199 PAGEID #: 1502
27

·1· · that are blatant and need immediate, you know,

·2· · follow up.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can you give me an example of an

·4· · innocuous EEO violation?

·5· · A.· · · · ·Someone is typing out something on a

·6· · computer screen, an e-mail to somebody and

·7· · somebody passes by behind them and sees something

·8· · that -- that, you know, says something that --

·9· · says something that's more of say a sexual nature

10· · or whatever.· Someone takes offense to it.· That's

11· · not directed towards that person; wasn't meant to

12· · be seen by that person.· It's not something that's

13· · horrendous, you know, just something that whatever

14· · the term was an individual took offensively, even

15· · though we don't know that it was intended that way

16· · or it's used in maybe common language.

17· · · · · · · ·But if someone took offense to that,

18· · then we would investigate that.· But that could be

19· · innocuous.· It's not particularly harmful on its

20· · face.· You have to understand what the person --

21· · how the person received it.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is it also fair to say that if

23· · something already violates some kind of CPD rule

24· · on its own, but also is determined to be an EEO

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 27 of 199 PAGEID #: 1503
28

·1· · violation, that that would make it more serious?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Again, you can violate CPD rule and

·3· · EEO, but there's a spectrum or a continuum of how

·4· · critical that particular phrase, comment, action

·5· · was compared to others.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do CPD rules also prohibit

·7· · retaliation against officers who participate in

·8· · EEO investigations?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

10· · Q.· · · · ·And they also prohibit retaliation

11· · against officers who participate in internal

12· · affairs investigations and other forms of

13· · investigation, correct?

14· · A.· · · · ·Be more specific, all employees.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Not just officers.

16· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Would retaliation against an officer

18· · who participated in the EEO investigation

19· · typically be considered critical misconduct?

20· · A.· · · · ·Retaliation, yes.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And how about retaliation

22· · against an officer who participated in an IA

23· · investigation?

24· · A.· · · · ·Let me phrase it in maybe a slightly

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 28 of 199 PAGEID #: 1504
29

·1· · different way.· Not rephrase it, but answer it in

·2· · a slightly different way.· We take them to be

·3· · critical on their face.· We do not take job action

·4· · against someone without proof, so we have to

·5· · investigate first, because the contract requires a

·6· · person suffers no career disadvantage except for

·7· · just cause, and there's seven steps that we have

·8· · to prove before we can take a particular action

·9· · against them.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Did you say seven steps or some steps?

11· · I didn't hear what --

12· · A.· · · · ·Well, there's seven steps typically

13· · associated with just cause.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can you run me through quick

15· · what those seven steps are?

16· · A.· · · · ·I know you know them, you're just

17· · testing me, so...

18· · Q.· · · · ·I literally don't.· We don't do a lot

19· · of FOP arbitrations, so...

20· · A.· · · · ·The seven steps are there must be a

21· · rule.

22· · · · · · · ·The rule must be -- number two, the

23· · rule must be reasonably related to the efficient,

24· · effective operation of the workplace.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 29 of 199 PAGEID #: 1505
30

·1· · · · · · · ·There has to be notice, number three.

·2· · Notice of a rule to the employee so you know it's

·3· · a rule.

·4· · · · · · · ·Number four, there has to be an

·5· · investigation conducted.

·6· · · · · · · ·Number five, the investigation must

·7· · provide sufficient proof that the rule was

·8· · violated by a preponderance of the evidence, or

·9· · sometimes it's looked at as clear and convincing

10· · evidence.

11· · · · · · · ·Number six, you have to take into

12· · consideration what you've done to other employees

13· · who have done the same thing.

14· · · · · · · ·And number seven, you have to consider

15· · the employee that's -- that's at fault or accused,

16· · their specific work record, compliments, past

17· · discipline, awards, stuff like that to see, have

18· · we treated everybody the same?· Is there a reason

19· · to progress this for this employee but not

20· · another?· So you have to compare them.· That's the

21· · seventh step.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And those seven steps are what

23· · you have to --

24· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Pass?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 30 of 199 PAGEID #: 1506
31

·1· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· You did.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·That was impressive, by the way.

·3· · A.· · · · ·That may be the only one I get.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Those seven steps are what you have to

·5· · go through to justify departmental charges against

·6· · somebody?· Is that -- is that what there are steps

·7· · for?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Departmental charges, or to take some

·9· · type of action that could cause someone a career

10· · disadvantage.· Sometimes it could be just

11· · relieving a person of duty can impact their

12· · career, because they're not able to work special,

13· · they can't maybe go to court and earn overtime or

14· · schedule for other overtime assignments, so they

15· · are losing pay without any just cause.· So there's

16· · many issues that we have to think of.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· I want to just walk

18· · through some of your relationships with people who

19· · are involved in this case, witnesses and

20· · decision-makers, things like that.

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

22· · Q.· · · · ·First of all, can you tell me your

23· · relationship with retired Chief Jacobs?

24· · A.· · · · ·A mentor to me.· Has helped progress my

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 31 of 199 PAGEID #: 1507
32

·1· · career from the time I made lieutenant.· Has, you

·2· · know, worked with me and helped develop me along

·3· · the way.· I have a lot of respect for Chief

·4· · Jacobs.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Would you consider her a

·6· · personal friend?

·7· · A.· · · · ·We haven't done anything outside of

·8· · work together as far as any type of interaction,

·9· · but I would consider her a friend.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When did you first meet Chief

11· · Jacobs?

12· · A.· · · · ·Throughout my career, throughout -- I

13· · mean, she was a patrol lieutenant.· And when I was

14· · an officer, I believe, and I had opportunities to

15· · encounter her in the patrol admin office

16· · periodically, didn't really get to know her much

17· · until she was a commander over radio.

18· · · · · · · ·When I was promoted to lieutenant, she

19· · called me in.· I was first on the list, so I had a

20· · choice between three jobs that were open, because

21· · three of us were being promoted.· And she invited

22· · me to come work for her at radio room since I had

23· · a choice of three jobs, and I accepted that

24· · request.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 32 of 199 PAGEID #: 1508
33

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So she's been your direct

·2· · supervisor several different times over the course

·3· · of your career?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· In radio room for a short time

·5· · period before she was moved to internal affairs.

·6· · And C4 and I was L4, so patrol.· Then as a deputy

·7· · chief -- actually, I'm sorry, she was a deputy

·8· · chief over me in training bureau for a short time

·9· · before she was made chief.· And then as chief, she

10· · promoted me to deputy chief.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When -- you said she was over

12· · internal affairs at some point?

13· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

14· · Q.· · · · ·And you were in that role, you had some

15· · direct relationship with her?

16· · A.· · · · ·No, not direct relationship with her.

17· · I, again, was assigned to professional standards.

18· · I -- all the investigators, sergeants that

19· · completed cases would bring their case to me for a

20· · just cause review, and I would draft the

21· · departmental charges against an officer, present

22· · those charges to the chief and to the director for

23· · suspension or termination for officer misconduct.

24· · I had little to no interaction with Chief Jacobs

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 33 of 199 PAGEID #: 1509
34

·1· · as she was the internal affairs commander.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But you were -- you were in

·3· · professional standards when she was internal

·4· · affairs commander?

·5· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What is the role -- you said you

·7· · would deal directly with the sergeants who did the

·8· · investigations when you were in professional

·9· · standards.· What is the role of the commander of

10· · internal affairs in relation to professional

11· · standards bureau?

12· · A.· · · · ·To assign cases, direct the cases as

13· · they progress, and to review and approve the case

14· · as it's finalized before it goes to chain of

15· · command for decisions.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Does the commander of IAB

17· · participate in the decision-making process about

18· · what things rise to the level of departmental

19· · charges?

20· · A.· · · · ·They would -- sorry, they would have

21· · input.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Does professional standards

23· · bureau -- go the other way around.· Does the

24· · professional standards bureau have input into the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 34 of 199 PAGEID #: 1510
35

·1· · scope of an internal affairs investigation in

·2· · terms of what things are worth investigating and

·3· · what things are not?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Not at that stage that you described.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·What is -- is there a stage at which

·6· · they would?

·7· · A.· · · · ·After the case comes to the chain of

·8· · command and the chief approves departmental

·9· · charges, it would come to the discipline grievance

10· · liaison lieutenant, which was my role.· And I

11· · would review it for just cause.· And I may say, if

12· · we are going to prove this case to the standard we

13· · need to meet, I will need this additional

14· · information so I could send it back for additional

15· · investigation at that point in order to close

16· · gaps.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So professional standards would

18· · never basically be in a position of saying, don't

19· · bother following up on this, this isn't worth

20· · reviewing, that kind of thing.· But they might be

21· · in the opposite position of saying, we need to do

22· · more follow up on a particular issue in order to

23· · justify such and such action?

24· · A.· · · · ·That virtually sounds correct.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 35 of 199 PAGEID #: 1511
36

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · · ·I don't want to say never.· You said

·3· · never.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Yeah.

·5· · A.· · · · ·I can't say never would be involved,

·6· · but virtually, that would be a correct statement.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· Thank you for

·8· · clarifying.

·9· · · · · · · ·How about Deputy Chief Ronald Gray,

10· · what's your relationship with him?

11· · A.· · · · ·Colleague.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is Deputy Chief Gray still with

13· · the department or --

14· · A.· · · · ·He's retired.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you ever report directly to

16· · Deputy Chief Gray or vice versa?

17· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Consider him a friend?

19· · A.· · · · ·Colleague.· Again, I don't do anything

20· · outside of work.· I've never had interaction with

21· · him outside of work, but I consider him a friend

22· · through work.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How about Deputy Chief Kuebler?

24· · A.· · · · ·I'm familiar with him.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 36 of 199 PAGEID #: 1512
37

·1· · Q.· · · · ·He's still with the department?

·2· · A.· · · · ·He is.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is he a friend of yours?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Again, never anything outside of work,

·5· · professional acquaintance and friend through work.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did either of you report to the

·7· · other directly at any point in your careers?

·8· · A.· · · · ·We were both street lieutenants at the

·9· · same time.· Other than right now, I'm interim

10· · chief, he reports to me as the deputy chief, I

11· · can't think of any other time.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How about Commander Gary

13· · Cameron?

14· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

15· · Q.· · · · ·I'm just going to go through those same

16· · basic questions.· Are they a personal friend, are

17· · they a colleague, are they --

18· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.

19· · Q.· · · · ·-- your arch nemesis, and, you know,

20· · did you report to them or did they report to you.

21· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Cameron?

23· · A.· · · · ·Or Cameron?· Not a personal friend. I

24· · have been to his house for a birthday party for

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 37 of 199 PAGEID #: 1513
38

·1· · his sister-in-law, who was my secretary.· I've

·2· · been on one motorcycle ride with him with a group

·3· · of 20 people.· Other than that, no other direct

·4· · relationship.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Are you in some kind of police

·6· · motorcycle club or group or something?

·7· · A.· · · · ·No, no group like that that I know of.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I understand from previous

·9· · depositions that a couple different family members

10· · of Gary Cameron are secretaries in the department?

11· · A.· · · · ·His spouse and his mother -- his spouse

12· · and his sister-in-law.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is one of them your secretary

14· · currently?

15· · A.· · · · ·Not currently.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Have they been at some point?

17· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· Both of them actually were at one

18· · point.· As deputy chief, Nancy Cameron was my

19· · first secretary and then Donna Custer was my

20· · second secretary.

21· · Q.· · · · ·All right.· But they're both still

22· · secretaries in the department?

23· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And no direct reporting

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 38 of 199 PAGEID #: 1514
39

·1· · relationship between you and Cameron at any point?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· He directly reported to me.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When he was commander or --

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.· As a commander, I was deputy

·5· · chief, he was patrol zone one, he directly

·6· · reported to me.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Do you remember the time frame?

·8· · A.· · · · ·He came over to zone one after he was

·9· · removed from narcotics vice, which would have

10· · been, I don't know, 2016 maybe.· I don't recall.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·'17 maybe, 2017.· Don't recall the time

13· · frame.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Do you know why he was removed from

15· · narcotics vice?

16· · A.· · · · ·Chief did not advise me.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· The same questions Commander --

18· · or I guess she's acting -- or interim Deputy Chief

19· · Jennifer Knight?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Go ahead.

22· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.· She's a direct report to me now.

23· · I'm trying to think if she's ever been a direct

24· · report other times.· I don't recall her ever being

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 39 of 199 PAGEID #: 1515
40

·1· · a direct report to me or me to her.· Little to no

·2· · outside interaction.· We've been to a couple FOP

·3· · events after work hours where she was there, I was

·4· · there, her husband was there.· And other than

·5· · that, really nothing else that stands out with

·6· · acting Deputy Chief Knight.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is acting Deputy Chief Knight's

·8· · husband a police officer also?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Police sergeant.

10· · Q.· · · · ·A police sergeant with CPD?

11· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Has he ever been your direct

13· · report?

14· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What's his assignment?

16· · A.· · · · ·Internal affairs currently.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Like the family business, I

18· · guess.

19· · · · · · · ·Lieutenant Ty Brust?

20· · A.· · · · ·Yes, he's a classmate of mine.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Consider him a friend?

22· · A.· · · · ·I consider him a friend.· We're

23· · classmates.· We've spent a lot of time together.

24· · But, again, over the last 30 years, since the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 40 of 199 PAGEID #: 1516
41

·1· · academy, other than a few reunions or

·2· · get-togethers, nothing outside of work.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Lieutenant Echenrode -- or is he

·4· · commander now?

·5· · A.· · · · ·He's commander now.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Commander Echenrode?

·7· · A.· · · · ·A great deal of respect for Commander

·8· · Echenrode.· No outside of work relationship or

·9· · activity.· He was a direct report to me when I was

10· · deputy chief, and he was commander over SRB.· No

11· · other direct report that I recall.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you say you have a great

13· · deal of respect for him, does that come from

14· · something in particular or you just --

15· · A.· · · · ·I think he's a straight shooter and

16· · calls shots like he sees them.· And he was in SWAT

17· · for years and had a reputation of being very level

18· · headed and just an all around -- shortest way to

19· · say it, everybody likes Joe Echenrode.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

21· · A.· · · · ·Not the arch nemesis you described.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Any of these people that we

23· · described previously not fit those descriptions?

24· · I mean --

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 41 of 199 PAGEID #: 1517
42

·1· · A.· · · · ·None of them that you've said so far

·2· · are arch nemesis, no.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Lieutenant Kemmerling?

·4· · A.· · · · ·I know Lieutenant Kemmerling.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Friend of yours?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Absolutely not.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Arch nemesis?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Not a nemesis.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What made you say, "absolutely

10· · not"?

11· · A.· · · · ·I -- again, I explained Commander

12· · Echenrode I have a great deal of respect for. I

13· · would describe Lieutenant Kemmerling as the

14· · opposite.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What -- any particular bad

16· · experiences or --

17· · A.· · · · ·I think he's failed as a supervisor.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In what sense?

19· · A.· · · · ·He's failed to supervise.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

21· · A.· · · · ·He had a job to do.· And he's had

22· · multiple assignments and has not performed those

23· · assignments to the expectations that I would have.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can you give me an example?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 42 of 199 PAGEID #: 1518
43

·1· · A.· · · · ·Most recent one would be the Stormy

·2· · Daniels case.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· He was over vice?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·6· · A.· · · · ·He oversaw the operation.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And what would you say he did

·8· · that didn't -- that he failed as a supervisor now?

·9· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· And I'm just going to

10· · jump in with an objection to the extent that it is

11· · not privileged either through FBI investigations

12· · that may or may not still be ongoing or anything

13· · else, you can answer the question, but do not

14· · divulge any information that is still privileged.

15· · A.· · · · ·Certainly understand that.

16· · · · · · · ·What did he do or didn't he do?· He did

17· · not act as a supervisor over that particular

18· · incident.· He was at scene.· He allowed officers

19· · to make decisions that have greatly impacted the

20· · division.· And he was aware of those decisions.

21· · Did not do his job as the supervisor.· And he knew

22· · about the operation in advance and was the acting

23· · commander at the time and made no notification to

24· · anyone for someone else to say time out.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 43 of 199 PAGEID #: 1519
44

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What about with respect to this

·2· · situation that we're talking about today and the

·3· · Eric Moore investigation, Karl Shaw's situation.

·4· · Do you feel like he had similar failures when he

·5· · was over -- he was over SRB at some point?

·6· · A.· · · · ·He was.· The enforcement team, and I

·7· · named him, even though the original complaint did

·8· · not, I added him as a focus for failure to

·9· · supervise Eric Moore properly.· Eric Moore was

10· · ultimately charged and terminated for theft of

11· · time basically, overtime, but he turned a blind

12· · eye to.· Arbitrator ultimately ruled to give

13· · Sergeant Moore's position back, and a lot of that

14· · was because Lieutenant Kemmerling failed in his

15· · duties and signed the slips and asked no

16· · questions, and that was his job to do.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was Lieutenant Kemmerling --

18· · actually did he have anything sustained against

19· · him in this investigation?

20· · A.· · · · ·The allegation I made against him was

21· · determined by internal affairs to be not

22· · sustained, which means that neither prove nor

23· · disprove it.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When internal affairs says, "not

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 44 of 199 PAGEID #: 1520
45

·1· · sustained" on an investigation, the chain of

·2· · command can still overturn that and sustain it,

·3· · right?

·4· · A.· · · · ·The chain of command can recommend and

·5· · argue more harsh or more lenient.· The deputy

·6· · chief will make the final determination.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you say, "more harsh or

·8· · more lenient," that can include turning something

·9· · from unfounded or not sustained to sustained?

10· · A.· · · · ·Yes, they can recommend that.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You didn't do that in this

12· · particular situation?

13· · A.· · · · ·I did not, because as the case was

14· · presented to me without sending it back for -- he

15· · was secondary to the main issue.· I wanted to move

16· · forward with the termination case against Sergeant

17· · Moore.· To have sent that back to get more

18· · information, because IA did not obtain adequate

19· · information in my opinion to have sustained it.

20· · Had they done that, I think there would have been

21· · a case to be made for failure to supervise,

22· · mis-mal or nonfeasance.· The real issue at that

23· · time was Sergeant Eric Moore and dealing with his

24· · misconduct, so it would have taken several months

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 45 of 199 PAGEID #: 1521
46

·1· · to send it back, which means this would have been

·2· · lingering, Eric Moore, so I left it not sustained

·3· · and went after the employee who I felt needed

·4· · terminated.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And there was another employee

·6· · also who had charges sustained against him --

·7· · A.· · · · ·Wes Sorrell.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·-- which was Wes Sorrell?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· Well, that's a good

11· · segue into what's your relationship, then, with

12· · Eric Moore?

13· · A.· · · · ·There is zero relationship other than

14· · supervisor/subordinate.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you ever supervise him

16· · directly?

17· · A.· · · · ·Never directly.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· He was just several links down

19· · in the chain at some points?

20· · A.· · · · ·At some point he was in my chain of

21· · command, but several links down as you said.

22· · Q.· · · · ·How about Wes Sorrell?

23· · A.· · · · ·Never had any direct supervision of

24· · him.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 46 of 199 PAGEID #: 1522
47

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And no personal relationship?

·2· · A.· · · · ·No.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How about Scott Watkins?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Same, no -- at one point in the links

·5· · of the chain of command, but never direct report.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Larry Wilson?

·7· · A.· · · · ·I coached Larry Wilson as an FTO.

·8· · Other than that, I have no interaction or

·9· · throughout his career had very little

10· · interaction --

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·-- dealings with him.

13· · Q.· · · · ·When were you his FTO?

14· · A.· · · · ·1992 maybe.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How about Sergeant Doug

16· · Williams?

17· · A.· · · · ·Only through the links of the chain of

18· · command that I have interaction with him there.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Eric Cornett?

20· · A.· · · · ·Again, through the chain of command.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Stephanie Gibson?

22· · A.· · · · ·Supervised her once directly as a

23· · forgery fraud sergeant.· She was a forgery fraud

24· · detective.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 47 of 199 PAGEID #: 1523
48

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · · ·And then again in the chain of command

·3· · later in her career.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In your -- and not a personal

·5· · friend of yours?

·6· · A.· · · · ·No.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have any negative

·8· · interactions with her when you were supervising

·9· · her?

10· · A.· · · · ·Nothing other than supervisory

11· · corrective action.· Nothing, no serious

12· · discipline, nothing that was -- would have maybe

13· · questioned her competency or anything like that.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

15· · A.· · · · ·And just to clarify, all these I say

16· · there's no personal relationship, it's not that I

17· · dislike any of them, I just have no outside work

18· · relationship with any of them.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Sure.· Just going back to Stephanie

20· · Gibson for a second.· In your dealings with her,

21· · you found her to be truthful, reliable?

22· · A.· · · · ·Interactions I had with her, yes.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is there some -- I mean --

24· · A.· · · · ·Nothing I know of.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 48 of 199 PAGEID #: 1524
49

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · · ·I'm just --

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·4· · A.· · · · ·-- for me, I've always had reliable

·5· · interactions with her.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Mary Battle, do you know her?

·7· · A.· · · · ·Same, yes.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Just a -- some kind of indirect

·9· · supervisory relationship at some point?

10· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Falacia Dragin?

12· · A.· · · · ·I know of her.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Ever supervise her?

14· · A.· · · · ·I was -- at one point I was ultimately

15· · over patrol admin and she was assigned.· I don't

16· · recall what -- I think she was patrol south, so

17· · she was assigned to deputy chief.· But when she

18· · was administrative unassigned or just assigned to

19· · patrol admin office in a restricted duty capacity,

20· · my chain of command supervised her on a daily

21· · basis, but she was permanently assigned patrol

22· · south.

23· · Q.· · · · ·For a short period of time, long period

24· · of time?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 49 of 199 PAGEID #: 1525
50

·1· · A.· · · · ·Long period of time.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So you know her relatively well?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I don't know that I would even know her

·4· · to see her.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·6· · A.· · · · ·But I know the name.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Karl Shaw?

·8· · A.· · · · ·I know him.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What -- how would you describe

10· · your relationship?

11· · A.· · · · ·Same as with everyone else,

12· · professional acquaintance.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Never supervised him directly?

14· · A.· · · · ·No, not directly.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Whitney Lancaster?

16· · A.· · · · ·I know him.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Ever supervise him directly?

18· · A.· · · · ·Not directly.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Not a personal friend?

20· · A.· · · · ·No.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· I think I'm finished

22· · with that list.

23· · · · · · · ·I --

24· · A.· · · · ·There's 1,900 people, come on.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 50 of 199 PAGEID #: 1526
51

·1· · Q.· · · · ·No, I know.· I could keep going and

·2· · going, but I think I'll stop.

·3· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·We started getting into this and I'll

·5· · jump back to it.· When was the first that you

·6· · heard -- or what was the first that you heard

·7· · about what became the investigation of Eric Moore

·8· · that we were talking about?

·9· · A.· · · · ·As I recall, this could be off a little

10· · bit, but as I recall at the time, Lieutenant

11· · Echenrode was assigned, came in and discovered

12· · some irregularities and brought it to my

13· · attention, or through the chain of command.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember whether the

15· · irregularities had to do with discriminatory

16· · comments that Eric Moore made or whether it was

17· · something else?

18· · A.· · · · ·I think the very first thing started

19· · out with the Sorrell/Moore investigation.· And as

20· · that progressed and Sorrell was under -- as I

21· · recall it, when Sorrell felt he was under

22· · suspicion of critical misconduct, he started

23· · making allegations from years earlier that then

24· · were brought to my attention that involved an EEO

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 51 of 199 PAGEID #: 1527
52

·1· · nature.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And when you say the

·3· · Sorrell/Moore investigation, you're talking about

·4· · the theft of time, theft of equipment, that kind

·5· · of --

·6· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I will say most of the

·8· · questions that I have for you today obviously are

·9· · about the EEO aspect of things.

10· · A.· · · · ·I understand.

11· · Q.· · · · ·As opposed to the theft of time.· I may

12· · get into some of that stuff one way or the other,

13· · but -- but I will try to separate those out for

14· · you.

15· · · · · · · ·What did you do when you first became

16· · aware of this -- these allegations against Moore?

17· · A.· · · · ·Directed Lieutenant Echenrode to

18· · conduct some interviews to get the facts of what

19· · we were dealing with and put it in writing and

20· · forward it.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Who did you direct him to

22· · interview?

23· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall the exact list of

24· · people.· I think, you know, you mentioned --

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 52 of 199 PAGEID #: 1528
53

·1· · sorry, I'm not supposed to look -- Watkins, that's

·2· · it.· Watkins, Doug Williams, might have been

·3· · Stephanie Gibson, people that would have been

·4· · around whatever Wes Sorrell had reported that may

·5· · have overheard or had knowledge of the allegation

·6· · of, if you will, hostile work environment.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Did you direct Echenrode to interview

·8· · Eric Moore?

·9· · A.· · · · ·He was -- would have been the person --

10· · I'm trying to remember.· We're speaking about the

11· · EEO part of it?

12· · Q.· · · · ·Yeah.

13· · A.· · · · ·He would have -- I think I -- no, I

14· · think what I did was direct him to gather the

15· · information, what the allegation is from who might

16· · have -- may have been witnesses and send it

17· · forward.· Then I would assign it to IA who would

18· · conduct a full investigation, which would have

19· · involved an interview with the person that is

20· · accused of misconduct.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So this was after -- I mean, at

22· · that point, you had already received the other

23· · allegations, the property and time issues?

24· · A.· · · · ·I did.· I did.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 53 of 199 PAGEID #: 1529
54

·1· · Q.· · · · ·What did you do when you learned about

·2· · those allegations?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Well, the theft of time I assigned for

·4· · investigation as well, and directed that Commander

·5· · Curmode tighten up the oversight or the failure to

·6· · oversee the use of time.· And the allegation that

·7· · was forwarded to me included a self-disclosure of

·8· · what was, on its face, criminal conduct by Wes

·9· · Sorrell.· Since it was a self-admission, I ordered

10· · him relieved of duty and a criminal investigation

11· · be conducted against him.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I think you sort of

13· · partially answered this.· You didn't direct for

14· · Eric Moore to be relieved of duty at that point?

15· · A.· · · · ·Not at that time.· It was an allegation

16· · from the years prior.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

18· · A.· · · · ·And theft of time was something that,

19· · again, ranged over time that there was -- it

20· · needed to have an investigation before, because he

21· · denied it.· It wasn't a self-admission.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

23· · A.· · · · ·They needed proof first.

24· · Q.· · · · ·At the time that this stuff was coming

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 54 of 199 PAGEID #: 1530
55

·1· · up, I mean, I'll represent to you my understanding

·2· · is the first indication that there was some

·3· · alleged misconduct by Moore or Sorrell would have

·4· · been August of 2014.· Does that sound about right?

·5· · A.· · · · ·I'll go by your recollection that you

·6· · have in front of you better than my recollection.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·At that point, you -- SRB was in your

·8· · chain of command as deputy chief?

·9· · A.· · · · ·At that point, yes.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was narcotics in your chain of

11· · command?

12· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember that Eric Moore

14· · at that -- by that time had transferred from SRB

15· · to narcotics?

16· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember if it was by that

17· · time.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

19· · A.· · · · ·At some point, I know he did.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Is it possible that he would have

21· · already transferred?

22· · A.· · · · ·I would have to review records, but

23· · it's possible.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Assuming that Moore was already

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 55 of 199 PAGEID #: 1531
56

·1· · in narcotics at the time these allegations came

·2· · up, would it have been your call about whether or

·3· · not to relieve him of duty?

·4· · A.· · · · ·If evidence was brought to my attention

·5· · that we had corroboration of a theft offense in

·6· · the SRB chain of command, it would have been -- I

·7· · could have ordered that.· It would have been one

·8· · of the -- one of the decisions I was allowed to

·9· · make.· If it was a hostile work relation or

10· · retaliation claim or anything like that, his

11· · current chain of command would make that.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Why the distinction?

13· · A.· · · · ·Because we have to have spans of

14· · control and unity of command.· It's hard to have

15· · multiple people making decisions when there's

16· · other deputy chiefs where I'm making decisions of

17· · -- career-impacting decisions against their

18· · members.· I can go to them and say, here's what we

19· · know, here's what I recommend, but it's their

20· · decision to make.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

22· · A.· · · · ·And Deputy Chief Mike Woods at the

23· · time, I believe over narcotics.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Is it possible it was Ron Gray?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 56 of 199 PAGEID #: 1532
57

·1· · A.· · · · ·At that time it could have been Ron

·2· · Gray.· I'm sorry.· It was a transition period

·3· · there.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Woods supervised narcotics

·5· · previous to Gray or after?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Super -- previous to Gray, you mean

·7· · Woods?

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Yeah.· Woods -- that's what I'm saying,

·9· · was Deputy Chief Woods over narcotics before Gray

10· · or after Gray?

11· · A.· · · · ·Okay.· Here's where there's just a

12· · little bit of confusion and I've got to remember

13· · myself.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Sure.

15· · A.· · · · ·We had an executive staff retreat where

16· · I don't remember all the reporting chains, because

17· · Gray was over narcotics at some point.· At some

18· · point Chief Jacobs changed narcotics bureau to

19· · place under the Homeland Security subdivision,

20· · which Mike Woods was over.· I don't remember if

21· · that's while Deputy Chief Gray was still here or

22· · if he had retired and Mike Woods -- I don't

23· · remember dates of all those.· But Deputy Chief

24· · Gray had it originally and at some point Mike

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 57 of 199 PAGEID #: 1533
58

·1· · Woods had it.· I don't remember the -- who had it

·2· · at what point.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So let me step back for a

·4· · second, because I think I might be confused about

·5· · something.

·6· · · · · · · ·So you had said if there was a theft

·7· · offense in the SRB chain of command, you would

·8· · have responsibility for relieving a person of duty

·9· · if it was corroborated.· But if it was a hostile

10· · work environment or discrimination of some kind,

11· · then that person's current chain of command would

12· · handle it?

13· · A.· · · · ·Let me be maybe a little more clear

14· · about it.· If someone else was in another chain of

15· · command and I did have corroboration, although as

16· · a deputy chief I may have the authority to

17· · ultimately do that, I would not have done that. I

18· · would have gone to the deputy chief, and the two

19· · of us, if there was a disagreement, would have

20· · gone to the chief and made a decision whether to

21· · relieve the person or leave them in their -- in

22· · their position.· So I would not have ultimately

23· · made that decision at that time.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So assuming that Moore was

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 58 of 199 PAGEID #: 1534
59

·1· · already out of SRB and was in narcotics, it would

·2· · have been something where at minimum, you would

·3· · have had to consult with whoever the deputy chief

·4· · was over narcotics?· And then if there was any

·5· · disagreement, it would have gone to Chief Jacobs?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Again, to be very specific, not that I

·7· · would have had to, I would have.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Because any deputy chief

·9· · could -- would have the authority to take

10· · virtually any officer --

11· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

12· · Q.· · · · ·-- out of service --

13· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- but --

15· · A.· · · · ·The way it works, just so you

16· · understand, I can take that person as an

17· · intervening action as immediate, because there's a

18· · threat or something going on.· Then it would go to

19· · -- the relief of duty paperwork would go to that

20· · deputy chief and the chief, and then they would

21· · decide whether to reinstate or to uphold the

22· · relief of duty.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Chief Quinlan, I'm handing you

24· · what's been previously marked as Plaintiff's

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 59 of 199 PAGEID #: 1535
60

·1· · Exhibit 10, which I'll represent to you is an

·2· · e-mail chain that we were provided by the city in

·3· · this case.

·4· · · · · · · ·I just want to ask if that clarifies

·5· · for you at all whose chain of command Sergeant

·6· · Moore was in at the point when the internal

·7· · affairs investigation, at least the portion of it

·8· · that had to do with EEO, came up?

·9· · A.· · · · ·It would appear to be narcotics,

10· · because this e-mail is from Commander Gary

11· · Cameron, who was over narcotics, to Sergeant Ken

12· · Decker, who was the internal affairs investigation

13· · and --

14· · Q.· · · · ·And it looks like at the top he's

15· · copying Chief Gray?

16· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

17· · Q.· · · · ·So does that -- I mean, does that

18· · square with the idea that Deputy Chief Gray was

19· · likely over narcotics, at least at that particular

20· · time?

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes, that's what it would indicate to

22· · me.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

24· · A.· · · · ·Now, when these became known, Sergeant

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 60 of 199 PAGEID #: 1536
61

·1· · Eric Moore was in a new chain of command.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And we're going to talk to Chief

·3· · Gray in a couple days, but I think at least for

·4· · our purposes today, I'll assume that Deputy Chief

·5· · Gray was over narcotics at the point when this

·6· · particular decision was being made about relieving

·7· · him from duty at the beginning of the

·8· · investigation.

·9· · · · · · · ·So in terms of that decision, do you

10· · remember one way or the other whether you were

11· · involved in discussions about whether or not to

12· · take Sergeant Moore off duty?

13· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember any discussion

15· · that you had with Deputy Chief Gray about Sergeant

16· · Moore's duty status?

17· · A.· · · · ·It's certainly possible, but I -- it's

18· · been so long, and I've had so many others, there's

19· · so many tentacles to this, I don't recall which

20· · one is which.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were there any of the e-mails

22· · that you reviewed in preparation for the

23· · deposition about Sergeant Moore's on duty or off

24· · duty status?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 61 of 199 PAGEID #: 1537
62

·1· · A.· · · · ·No, not to my recollection.· I mean,

·2· · there were like two e-mails or something that I

·3· · looked at, so I don't recall.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember any

·5· · conversations you had with Chief Jacobs about

·6· · decisions to leave Sergeant Moore on active duty

·7· · or relieve him of duty or assign him to

·8· · administrative duty or anything like that?

·9· · A.· · · · ·It's possible, but I don't recall as I

10· · sit here today that I had that discussion.

11· · Especially if he was in a different chain of

12· · command.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· During the course of this

14· · investigation of Sorrell and Moore over the theft

15· · of time, theft of property issues and/or over the

16· · discrimination, retaliation issues, first of all,

17· · all of those -- the whole investigation was

18· · principally conducted by Sergeant Ken Decker?

19· · A.· · · · ·As I recall.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Did you have any conversations with

21· · Sergeant Decker while the investigation was going

22· · on before it was -- before Decker made his

23· · findings?

24· · A.· · · · ·I'm sure I did.· But I'm also

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 62 of 199 PAGEID #: 1538
63

·1· · reasonably certain they would have been focused on

·2· · the theft of time and the theft of equipment, not

·3· · on the EEO if that portion was being overseen by

·4· · IA and under employees under a different chain of

·5· · command.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What would your conversations

·7· · have been with Decker about the theft of time and

·8· · equipment issues?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Just general status updates.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

11· · A.· · · · ·Witnesses still to be interviewed,

12· · evidence being discovered.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Was that typical of IA practice or your

14· · practice in terms of investigations going on under

15· · your chain of command?

16· · A.· · · · ·Not typical, but not unheard of.· On

17· · complex cases, you can see there's a thousand

18· · pages of -- that it would be.· A sergeant would

19· · come in and get clarification or direction on how

20· · much further do you want us to pursue this avenue

21· · or et cetera.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have update type

23· · conversations like that with Commander Knight

24· · while this was going on?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 63 of 199 PAGEID #: 1539
64

·1· · A.· · · · ·I would have to ask her if she

·2· · remembers, because I don't recall.· There's

·3· · certainly times she was in my office discussing

·4· · cases during this time frame, but, again, there's

·5· · multiple cases going on.· I don't recall if it was

·6· · this case or others.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In a case under your chain of

·8· · command, would you expect that if internal affairs

·9· · came up with some new evidence that changed the

10· · nature of the case or established some critical

11· · fact that you would be updated on it?

12· · A.· · · · ·Not particularly.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

14· · A.· · · · ·Their job would be to notify the chief

15· · of police probably.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

17· · A.· · · · ·Because that's their direct supervisor.

18· · And as the deputy chief over that chain of

19· · command, I'm going to only be making the decision

20· · at the end, so my preference is to remain neutral

21· · and out of the loop to the extent reasonable so I

22· · don't have a lot of pre-drawn conclusions or

23· · pieces of information.· I can get a case in full

24· · after the chain of command's reviewed it and then

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 64 of 199 PAGEID #: 1540
65

·1· · make my own determination based on the totality,

·2· · so I try to stay somewhat neutral and independent

·3· · in it.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So what -- I mean, do you

·5· · remember what Decker was telling you about the

·6· · status of the case as it was going on?

·7· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember what he was telling

·8· · me.· It was -- I'm sure it was case related at the

·9· · time, but with so much going on, I don't remember

10· · what the focus was.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I mean, was he telling you what

12· · he was finding or was he telling you what he still

13· · needed to do or what he was thinking about doing?

14· · A.· · · · ·The one thing that I specifically

15· · recall discussing at some point was that he had

16· · evidence that Eric Moore was being untruthful to

17· · him during interviews.· And that in his words, as

18· · I recall, it was basically virtually everything he

19· · says is a lie.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

21· · A.· · · · ·And so we were pursuing that course.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

23· · A.· · · · ·Because that changes an investigation

24· · into a clear termination case.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 65 of 199 PAGEID #: 1541
66

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember what stage he

·2· · told you that?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I do not.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember whether it was

·5· · before or after he finished his report?

·6· · A.· · · · ·I do not.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was that an in-person

·8· · conversation or a phone call or an e-mail?

·9· · A.· · · · ·In person.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· This was in your office or --

11· · A.· · · · ·In my office.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Where was your office at the

13· · time in relation to IA?

14· · A.· · · · ·8th floor.· IA is out on Long Street.

15· · So 8th floor central police headquarters.· Totally

16· · different buildings, facilities.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So he would have had to

18· · especially come over to headquarters?

19· · A.· · · · ·He would have been in headquarters to

20· · gain records from HR, to talk to the chief.

21· · Internal affairs are frequently on the 8th floor

22· · dropping off packages, picking up packages.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was the chief involved in that

24· · conversation as well when Decker was telling you

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 66 of 199 PAGEID #: 1542
67

·1· · about the dishonesty?

·2· · A.· · · · ·No, sir.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have -- did you convey

·4· · that over to the chief when Decker told you that?

·5· · A.· · · · ·I'm sure at some point we had

·6· · discussion.· We either had private meetings,

·7· · sometimes we'll discuss a case in an executive

·8· · staff.· So I don't remember what point, but at

·9· · some point I'm sure we had some general discussion

10· · on that.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What was it about what Decker

12· · told you that would have turned this into what you

13· · called a clear termination case?

14· · A.· · · · ·Any untruthfulness in an administrative

15· · matter when you're under orders to answer

16· · questions truthfully, and that's just a hallmark

17· · of our profession.· That turns it into a

18· · termination case.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was it Chief Jacobs' policy,

20· · written or unwritten or formal or informal, I

21· · guess, during her administration that any

22· · untruthfulness on duty was a termination offense?

23· · A.· · · · ·I'm not going to say it's a policy.· It

24· · is a standing practice that if we sustain

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 67 of 199 PAGEID #: 1543
68

·1· · allegations of untruthfulness -- remember during

·2· · the IA case, they're not sustained, there's an IAB

·3· · investigator saying this is what I'm seeing.· That

·4· · investigator still has to connect the dots.

·5· · Here's what we know to be true, here's what the

·6· · person reported, here's how we know it's false.

·7· · You have to connect those dots.· It's a standing

·8· · practice that when that happens, we're going to

·9· · recommend termination.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you do anything in response

11· · to what Decker told you about the untruthfulness?

12· · A.· · · · ·The only thing I would have done is to

13· · tell him to keep pursuing that line and to make

14· · sure he can lay out in the investigation the --

15· · what we know to be factual and how we can prove

16· · it's factual, and what he said and how we can

17· · prove that's false.· And as I recall reviewing the

18· · investigation, it wasn't as clear in the

19· · investigation as what I felt it needed to be to

20· · show A is true and B is false.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was there consideration at that

22· · point when Decker told you about the

23· · untruthfulness that he believed was happening to

24· · take Moore off duty?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 68 of 199 PAGEID #: 1544
69

·1· · A.· · · · ·Again, not a policy, but our practice

·2· · is on untruthfulness, once an allegation is

·3· · sustained, in many cases, in other cases once

·4· · there's an actual department hearing, a divisional

·5· · hearing, chief's hearing and a formal

·6· · recommendation for termination, then we relieve of

·7· · duty.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· The document I showed you

·9· · earlier, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, I don't -- did

10· · you have an opportunity to read it when you --

11· · when I just showed it to you or did --

12· · A.· · · · ·I scanned the headlines on from the

13· · back to the front.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Can you take a look at the top of it

15· · where I think it's an e-mail from Cameron to

16· · Decker copying Chief Gray.· Would you take a

17· · moment and read that and let me know when you're

18· · done.

19· · A.· · · · ·Yep.· Yes, sir.

20· · Q.· · · · ·In that e-mail, Cameron is instructing

21· · Decker basically to keep him posted about any

22· · developments in the investigation that would

23· · warrant relieving Sergeant Moore of duty?

24· · A.· · · · ·It essentially says the same thing that

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 69 of 199 PAGEID #: 1545
70

·1· · I said, that he's reporting A and B is accused to

·2· · be untruthful.· The lack of existing corroborating

·3· · evidence.· He's telling him to connect those dots.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Right.· But he's also saying, if you

·5· · connect the dots at some point in your

·6· · investigation, let me know and we can reconsider

·7· · the decision to take him off duty on an interim

·8· · basis?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· How that typically works, again,

10· · is on an allegation that is -- of this nature and

11· · is dated, we are very careful, because we have

12· · other ongoing lawsuits right now about relieving

13· · officers of duty and putting in what others, we do

14· · not call the fish bowl, but there -- in a lawsuit

15· · it's alleging we put them in a fish bowl and

16· · they're suffering a career disadvantage.· So we

17· · are very careful to make that determination only

18· · in the cases where we're extraordinarily

19· · confident, or the chief has already recommended

20· · termination.

21· · · · · · · ·So in this, he says should credible

22· · evidence develop supporting the alleged critical

23· · misconduct, advise me so I might reconsider this

24· · decision.· When he says reconsider this decision,

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 70 of 199 PAGEID #: 1546
71

·1· · I would assume that means that he's going to

·2· · consult with his deputy chief and the chief of

·3· · police to decide if we have enough strength to the

·4· · allegation to potentially disrupt someone's

·5· · career, cause a disadvantage to their career to do

·6· · the right thing.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is fish bowl the same thing as

·8· · 580?

·9· · A.· · · · ·It is.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

11· · A.· · · · ·I do not call it fish bowl.· I was

12· · repeating what others -- what the lawsuits allege

13· · and that's what it's referred to.· But we as the

14· · patrol administrative office --

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

16· · A.· · · · ·-- is where all restricted duty

17· · officers go for the most part and officers that

18· · are awaiting discipline outcomes.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And there are other -- there are

20· · other options besides 580 if you have concerns

21· · about an officer's maintaining their duty status,

22· · like they can be put on administrative assignment,

23· · is that different?

24· · A.· · · · ·They're all administrative assignments.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 71 of 199 PAGEID #: 1547
72

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · · ·We -- by default, typically we'll

·3· · assign to the patrol admin.· Others who are in a

·4· · restricted duty status for medical, let's say

·5· · they're pregnant, they're going to be off duty

·6· · for, just say nine months, whatever, we may place

·7· · them at the academy or in another position where

·8· · we have some consistent workflow for a nine-month

·9· · period versus someone that may be there

10· · intermittently.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You're familiar with an officer

12· · Melissa McFadden?

13· · A.· · · · ·I am.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you involved at all in

15· · her -- in the investigation of her that --

16· · A.· · · · ·I was not.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you aware of her -- there

18· · was a period of time, fairly lengthy period of

19· · time where she was assigned to the property room

20· · rather than her regular assignment?

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

22· · Q.· · · · ·It was because of some allegations that

23· · had been made against her?

24· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 72 of 199 PAGEID #: 1548
73

·1· · Q.· · · · ·How does that differ from the 580

·2· · assignment?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I don't know what went into that

·4· · decision.· I was not privy to that.· I don't know.

·5· · Was not privy to that.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But you were aware that you and

·7· · other command officers have the option, at least,

·8· · of reassigning officers to duties where they might

·9· · not have a direct supervisory authority or

10· · wouldn't have contact with civilians, that kind of

11· · thing?

12· · A.· · · · ·If they're relieved of duty, they do

13· · not have police or supervisory authority.· And we

14· · make a decision on where to place them based on

15· · the needs and interests of the division and the

16· · membership.· And those decisions are always

17· · subject to review.

18· · Q.· · · · ·And I guess I'm just getting at

19· · something a little in between, because my

20· · understanding was McFadden was not actually

21· · relieved of duty, she was just reassigned to

22· · different duties.· She still had her service

23· · weapon and things like that.

24· · A.· · · · ·As -- and, again, I'm speaking based on

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 73 of 199 PAGEID #: 1549
74

·1· · our general practice, because I don't know the

·2· · specifics of that case.· As a general practice, if

·3· · someone's accused of misconduct and supervises

·4· · that individual, then the accused must be moved to

·5· · a different workstation so there is no ability to

·6· · have impact on the other party.

·7· · · · · · · ·In the -- to draw a comparison with the

·8· · Eric Moore case, he was already in a different

·9· · assignment in a different workstation, so that

10· · satisfied that.· Where Lieutenant McFadden was

11· · overseeing the patrol sergeants and officers, so

12· · we have to move that person, just like we did

13· · Lieutenant Brian Lance and Sergeant Frencz when

14· · they had an allegation.· We moved them out of

15· · their patrol assignment to another work location

16· · but did not relieve them of duty.· So that's how

17· · that works as a general practice.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Going back to the update that

19· · you got from Ken Decker about alleged

20· · untruthfulness.· Did you have any conversations

21· · with Jeff Lokai about what you had heard from

22· · Decker?

23· · A.· · · · ·It's possible at the time he was -- he

24· · was a grievance liaison.· It's possible, but I

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 74 of 199 PAGEID #: 1550
75

·1· · don't recall.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I'll jump back for a second.

·3· · In terms of 580 assignments or relief of duty,

·4· · there are concerns on both sides of that, right?

·5· · I mean, in terms of -- you would be concerned

·6· · about disrupting an officer's career for purposes

·7· · of grievance filing and things like that, but

·8· · there were also reasons to be concerned about

·9· · other -- other officers that might be affected by

10· · their conduct or civilians that might be affected

11· · by their conduct, the department might be affected

12· · by their conduct if they remain on duty?

13· · A.· · · · ·I apologize.· Can you -- I did not

14· · understand the question.

15· · Q.· · · · ·That's fair.

16· · · · · · · ·You mentioned that you are very careful

17· · as a department about removing people from active

18· · duty with the CPD because of disciplinary

19· · allegations and that the concern is --

20· · A.· · · · ·Thoughtful decisions.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All I'm getting at is:· Is it

22· · fair to say that -- well, let me ask it a

23· · different way.

24· · · · · · · ·What is the purpose of relieving an

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 75 of 199 PAGEID #: 1551
76

·1· · officer of duty?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Well, again, there's a difference

·3· · between relieving an officer and moving an

·4· · officer.· You move an officer as you were

·5· · describing with Lieutenant McFadden and others to

·6· · make sure that the person is not continuing to

·7· · have supervisory authority over the person who's

·8· · accused them of wrongdoing.· You relieve an

·9· · officer of duty as typically an intervening action

10· · to safeguard the public or other officers while a

11· · case is investigated to determine if there's

12· · sufficient just cause to bring departmental

13· · charges or other action against that employee.

14· · · · · · · ·And not to disrupt you there, but you

15· · asked me to clarify anything I've said in the

16· · past.· I thought of one thing I do want to

17· · clarify.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Yes.

19· · A.· · · · ·When you asked about e-mails, as I try

20· · to think back, I think what I was looking at was

21· · not e-mails, but a calendar that I was looking to

22· · see when I had -- usually like Ken Decker comes in

23· · my office, I would usually put a note on my

24· · calendar, I spoke to Ken Decker on this date and

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 76 of 199 PAGEID #: 1552
77

·1· · time.· Commander Curmode, C-U-R-M-O-D-E, so

·2· · that's -- I believe when I was talking to Richard,

·3· · I was looking at dates that I may have had

·4· · interactions with either Sergeant Decker,

·5· · Commander Curmode or Joe Echenrode.· I think

·6· · that's what I was looking for, not e-mails.· Just

·7· · to clarify my previous testimony.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Then I will revise my previous

·9· · request --

10· · A.· · · · ·I understand.

11· · Q.· · · · ·-- and say, if you can get that --

12· · those -- I don't know whether they're separate --

13· · A.· · · · ·I can answer that.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- notations or whatever, but if you

15· · can get that calendar to Rich --

16· · A.· · · · ·Yeah, I can answer that.

17· · Q.· · · · ·-- so he can provide it.

18· · A.· · · · ·I tried to look it up while we were

19· · having the meeting.· I went to my desk and looked

20· · it up and could not find what I was looking for.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

22· · A.· · · · ·So that's the review I did.· I looked

23· · up different comments where I maybe had an

24· · interaction with Curmode or Officer Shaw or

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 77 of 199 PAGEID #: 1553
78

·1· · something.· But they were based on a notation

·2· · unrelated to the investigation, and I could not

·3· · locate the one Decker that I recall, but I will

·4· · look.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So the e-mails that you

·6· · described early on as the documents that you

·7· · reviewed in preparation for the deposition, there

·8· · were no e-mails?

·9· · A.· · · · ·There may be, I would have to look. I

10· · don't recall.· But what I'm saying is what I was

11· · looking for is to try to confirm dates that I

12· · made -- I gave directions or had notification of

13· · certain issues, and I could not find -- because at

14· · the time I may make a note, but I may not -- I may

15· · say something generically, met with Commander

16· · Curmode on the investigation issue.· But I may not

17· · say Shaw investigation or Moore investigation, I

18· · may have.· Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I

19· · was trying to find it by a search for Moore's name

20· · or whatever and did not see it.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So when you said that you

22· · reviewed documents to prepare for the deposition,

23· · you really just -- you looked through -- you

24· · looked for documents that might prepare you for

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 78 of 199 PAGEID #: 1554
79

·1· · the deposition, but you didn't actually find any?

·2· · A.· · · · ·That's my recollection.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· About when did you do that?

·4· · A.· · · · ·It would have been within the last

·5· · couple weeks that I met with Richard.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I just want to clarify

·7· · whenever we're talking about that, I don't want to

·8· · know anything that you --

·9· · A.· · · · ·I understand.

10· · Q.· · · · ·-- talked about during that meeting.

11· · A.· · · · ·I understand.

12· · Q.· · · · ·That's all privileged stuff.

13· · · · · · · ·Okay.· So that was -- before you

14· · remembered that, we were talking about the purpose

15· · of relieving.· And, again, I'm separating it from

16· · what happened with McFadden and maybe other

17· · officers.· When you're relieving an officer of

18· · duty, the purpose is -- one of the purposes is to

19· · protect the public and protect other officers.

20· · What are you -- what are you protecting them from?

21· · A.· · · · ·If there is an indication that there

22· · could be an immediate threat to the public or to

23· · an officer, then we may make that decision to

24· · relieve until we get enough facts to know one

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 79 of 199 PAGEID #: 1555
80

·1· · direction or another.

·2· · · · · · · ·In this case, as I recall, the -- the

·3· · allegation that was brought to me was two or

·4· · three years old at the time, or something to that

·5· · effect.· And there had been a continuing

·6· · commingled work environment with no evidence of

·7· · any hostility or action or derogatory interaction,

·8· · so there was no reason to take an intervening

·9· · action if there was no evidence that someone may

10· · be actually in harm versus speech versus action.

11· · Q.· · · · ·A couple things, first of all, do you

12· · remember for sure how long before -- how long

13· · between when the statements that Moore made were

14· · made and when they were reported?· You said a

15· · couple different times during the deposition that

16· · it was a period of years?

17· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall.· Because, again, we

18· · have so many things going on.· Like I said,

19· · tentacles.· We have Wes Sorrell making allegations

20· · about overtime abuse.· We have another allegation

21· · that Joe Echenrode developed where there was

22· · allegations made of comments or derogatory or, if

23· · you will, racist comments.· Those I don't remember

24· · the sequence of timing and when it was.· But as I

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 80 of 199 PAGEID #: 1556
81

·1· · recall, it had been a substantial time gap,

·2· · whether it was weeks, months or years, there was a

·3· · gap where there was no evidence since they were

·4· · working in the same environment.· Or currently

·5· · when I found out if at that time Moore was already

·6· · in a different work environment that there would

·7· · be any opportunity for workplace violence, because

·8· · they're not in the same workplace.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But the reason I ask the

10· · question is that all the information that we've

11· · been provided that the comments took place in

12· · April of 2014 and the report was like August,

13· · September 2014.

14· · A.· · · · ·Okay.· That's possible.

15· · Q.· · · · ·So that -- I just want to make sure

16· · you're not trying to dispute that.

17· · A.· · · · ·I'm not trying to dispute.· I'm saying

18· · I don't recall, because there's so many

19· · allegations coming from so many different angles.

20· · If it -- if going by your timetable, my thinking

21· · would have been, it's April, it's now September,

22· · they worked in the same work environment during

23· · that time, there's -- there may be speech that

24· · we're investigating, but there's clearly no

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 81 of 199 PAGEID #: 1557
82

·1· · action, nothing had happened.· So there's no

·2· · imminent threat.· Where if there was -- if someone

·3· · said -- separate from this case, if someone came

·4· · to me and said, that person needs to watch

·5· · themselves, you know, I'm going to end this or

·6· · something, as a future act, then that would be

·7· · something I would want to take action on until we

·8· · can get to the bottom of it.· Because there's a

·9· · belief that something may be imminently likely to

10· · occur.· That was not the case here.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I'll address another thing

12· · that you said was about in the same working

13· · environment.· Again, the information that we've

14· · been provided, it appeared that Sergeant Moore

15· · transferred to narcotics sometime in the spring of

16· · 2014, so they wouldn't have still been working --

17· · there would not have been the kind of relationship

18· · that you're talking about where they continued

19· · working together peacefully over some additional

20· · period.

21· · A.· · · · ·And that all seems to make sense.

22· · Because as I'm trying to refresh my memory, I

23· · think some of the allegations that Sorrell made,

24· · is that after he left SRB, he had taken equipment

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 82 of 199 PAGEID #: 1558
83

·1· · with him and other things, and so that would

·2· · refresh my memory that he had already moved to a

·3· · new assignment with a new position when some of

·4· · these things from the Sorrell allegations, to

·5· · other individuals that say they overheard Moore

·6· · make either racist or inflammatory comments, not

·7· · directed at them personally, but to others about

·8· · either Sergeant Williams or Officer Shaw or --

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And, again, this was not --

10· · you're sort of describing a thought process of

11· · somebody else, I guess, because you were not the

12· · person who would have been actually making the

13· · decision about whether to take Sergeant Moore off

14· · duty, because he wasn't in your chain of command.

15· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.· I guess I'm explaining that's

16· · how I would have processed it.· Or if I consulted

17· · with another deputy chief, those would have been

18· · the issues that I would have been talking about.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

20· · A.· · · · ·Again, as I said, I don't remember the

21· · sequence of events.· So as my memory is being

22· · refreshed through those dates, it would make sense

23· · that it would never have been my decision as an

24· · extreme circumstance to have made a decision to

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 83 of 199 PAGEID #: 1559
84

·1· · relieve of duty.· It may have been a discussion,

·2· · but it would not have been an action I would have

·3· · taken.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But as long as we're going into

·5· · that thought process of whoever's thought process

·6· · it would have been, there would be a concern,

·7· · wouldn't there, for an officer like Sergeant

·8· · Moore, who's got personal supervisory authority

·9· · over officers of all different races and who

10· · has -- is directing investigations, narcotics

11· · investigations involving individuals of all

12· · different races, there would be a concern if there

13· · was an allegation that the department felt that

14· · would be sustained about discrimination, racial

15· · bias?

16· · A.· · · · ·I would --

17· · Q.· · · · ·Wouldn't there?

18· · A.· · · · ·I would look at it differently. I

19· · would say that the persons accused, no proof of,

20· · accused of and being investigated making -- to use

21· · your kind of setup -- threatening remarks.

22· · There's opportunity, and clearly nothing had

23· · occurred, so that would allow me to believe that

24· · this is just hyperbole or talk, not something a

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 84 of 199 PAGEID #: 1560
85

·1· · person's actually contemplating.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But putting aside the threats,

·3· · he was also being accused of making racially

·4· · discriminatory comments using the N word, using

·5· · descriptions like monkeys or apes to describe

·6· · black people, black officers.· Calling black

·7· · officers -- calling black people in general lazy.

·8· · Wouldn't that by itself, without any of the

·9· · threats, wouldn't that be -- itself be a concern

10· · for leaving an officer on duty in a position where

11· · they're supervising black officers?· Where they're

12· · investigating black civilians?· Wouldn't that pose

13· · a threat?

14· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

15· · A.· · · · ·Sorry.· I will use your words, there's

16· · an allegation.· Again, there was no evidence of

17· · that and no current allegation that this was a

18· · realtime activity.· This is something, according

19· · to this timeline, four, five, six months in

20· · advance.· There was no concern that an immediate

21· · action needed to be taken without having facts to

22· · support it.· Because, again, the contract requires

23· · us to -- that an employee not suffer a career

24· · disadvantage except for just cause.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 85 of 199 PAGEID #: 1561
86

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I guess I'll go back to one

·2· · of the purposes of relieving an officer of duty is

·3· · in -- on an interim basis is that sometimes an

·4· · officer is in a position to take actions during

·5· · the course of an investigation that might not be

·6· · easy to fix later basically; that you would want

·7· · to prevent.· And so the department decides in

·8· · certain circumstances, even before an allegation

·9· · is actually formally sustained, that if there's a

10· · certain level of evidence to support that conduct,

11· · you're going to take him off duty even while the

12· · investigation is going on?

13· · A.· · · · ·What I said was if we have reason to

14· · believe, a reasonable belief that there is an

15· · imminent threat that we need to take an

16· · intervening action on, in this case, there was

17· · allegations from a third party who did not

18· · personally see or hear it, overheard it from

19· · another party about something that happened

20· · several months in the rear.· And nothing had

21· · happened to act on those allegations, so we had no

22· · reason to believe it was more than idle,

23· · inappropriate, disciplinary worthy, chatter.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I want you to try -- I mean,

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 86 of 199 PAGEID #: 1562
87

·1· · I'm asking you to sort of, again, even your

·2· · descriptions of what happened in Moore's case in

·3· · terms of taking him off duty or not taking him off

·4· · duty.· It's kind of a hypothetical scenario,

·5· · because you're not the person -- from everything

·6· · that said, you're not the person that made that

·7· · decision.

·8· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·I'm asking you to be a little bit more

10· · hypothetical than that.· I'm talking about in

11· · general in terms of the decision-making process

12· · that you use and the decision-making process that

13· · the division in general uses for taking officers

14· · off duty.· Putting aside Eric Moore -- not Eric

15· · Moore.· I guess I'm asking whether what you're

16· · talking about in terms of imminent threats extends

17· · to things beyond threats to a person's physical

18· · safety and would extend to things like a threat

19· · that a command officer might not treat officers

20· · under their command appropriately or might not

21· · handle investigations of civilians appropriately.

22· · Isn't that a consideration that can come into play

23· · in taking an officer off duty?

24· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 87 of 199 PAGEID #: 1563
88

·1· · A.· · · · ·With the right information in realtime

·2· · be made aware to parties in the chain of command,

·3· · it may drive that action.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·5· · A.· · · · ·Again, in a third-party case, not this

·6· · specific case, if I'm confronted with information

·7· · that is relayed by someone else that overheard

·8· · someone else and there's an allegation, I would

·9· · wait until at least we had some corroboration

10· · that -- that there was some truth to the matter

11· · and that someone in the future may be impacted if

12· · we do not act.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

14· · A.· · · · ·And I did -- in any case I've been

15· · involved in, regardless of the case, I -- when I

16· · felt that, I took that action.· If I did not have

17· · that knowledge, then I allowed the investigation

18· · to continue to unfold until we got to that point.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Let me give you a hypothetical

20· · scenario.· And I'm not trying to represent to you

21· · that this happened in this case by any means,

22· · because I don't believe -- as far as I know, I

23· · don't believe it did.

24· · · · · · · ·Let's say you've got a command officer,

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 88 of 199 PAGEID #: 1564
89

·1· · sergeant or above, who's another officer, comes to

·2· · you with an allegation they're making racially

·3· · derogatory remarks about other officers or about a

·4· · race in general.· And I've got a recording of this

·5· · officer making those remarks, this officer's using

·6· · the N word, this officer's calling black people

·7· · monkeys and apes, officer is saying that black

·8· · people are lazy.

·9· · · · · · · ·You've got a recording, so you know it

10· · seems like a reliable recording.· You know that

11· · the officer did what they're accused of doing.· Is

12· · that a situation where it would be justified to

13· · take the officer off duty while the investigation

14· · is proceeding?

15· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

16· · A.· · · · ·In your hypothetical, that would be

17· · information worthy serious consideration to take

18· · that action.· But, again, it would be a

19· · case-by-case, fact-driven decision.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is one of the reasons -- well,

21· · first of all, let me go back.

22· · · · · · · ·You took Sorrell off duty based on his

23· · admission that he had done something that might be

24· · considered criminal?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 89 of 199 PAGEID #: 1565
90

·1· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·What's the threat there?· What was

·3· · the -- what would be the reason to take them off

·4· · duty on an interim basis?

·5· · A.· · · · ·It's what's in the best interest of the

·6· · division.· If he self-admitted that he committed a

·7· · crime, that would be a theft, a theft in office,

·8· · theft of division equipment.· That would be

·9· · something I could foresee recommending termination

10· · for if the facts play out.

11· · · · · · · ·If I have that belief and I let him

12· · continue working and he gets into a shooting, for

13· · instance, of a citizen, and it comes out that I

14· · was planning on wanting to terminate this officer

15· · or recommend that, because of criminal conduct, if

16· · I continue to let that person work, and as a

17· · result this person ended up getting shot in an

18· · unrelated incident, then that could create

19· · liability for the city.· And part of my position

20· · is try to limit the liability of the city.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So even if the crime itself

22· · wasn't necessarily threatening to somebody's

23· · safety, because you basically could see a

24· · situation where the person should be fired as a

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 90 of 199 PAGEID #: 1566
91

·1· · result of their admission, it puts the city in a

·2· · liability situation that you would feel like they

·3· · should be taken off duty while the investigation's

·4· · going forward?

·5· · A.· · · · ·In the fact pattern as you laid out,

·6· · yes.· If it was a self-admission to a criminal

·7· · act, it's not an allegation, then that's the time

·8· · I would make a decision until -- which in this

·9· · particular case, I did.· I had a criminal

10· · investigation conducted.· As soon as I was

11· · notified that this will not reach the level of

12· · criminal burden of proof, I returned the officer

13· · to duty.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Who informed you that it

15· · wouldn't reach the level of criminal burden of

16· · proof?

17· · A.· · · · ·It's the subdivision chain of command.

18· · I believe it was Deputy Chief Bash, but I believe

19· · the inquiry, the investigation was conducted by

20· · Sergeant Chris Bond.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So it was an internal CPD

22· · determination?

23· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 91 of 199 PAGEID #: 1567
92

·1· · A.· · · · ·And that does not mean there's not an

·2· · administrative wrongdoing.· It means this doesn't

·3· · reach the bar to file a criminal charge.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Once -- but once it was

·5· · determined that it didn't reach the bar of

·6· · criminal charge, immediately Sorrell was placed

·7· · back on duty?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· Because, again, at that point, I

·9· · don't have justification to have Officer Sorrell

10· · suffer career disadvantage without just cause.

11· · Because at that point, I'm being told he's not

12· · going to be criminally charged.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Putting aside the criminal

14· · nature of -- of the issue, the principle would

15· · still apply that if you feel like you've got a

16· · self-admission of what would qualify as critical

17· · misconduct that is likely to result in

18· · termination, there's still going to be a basis to

19· · take the person off duty?

20· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

21· · A.· · · · ·No.· The -- once the criminal aspect of

22· · it has been removed, then the administrative

23· · investigation will be conducted to determine

24· · policy violation, not legal violations.· If a

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 92 of 199 PAGEID #: 1568
93

·1· · policy violation is sustained and heard in a

·2· · departmental hearing by a -- by the chief, who has

·3· · the authority to recommend termination, if she, at

·4· · that time, would recommend termination on that,

·5· · then, again, termination would be on the table.

·6· · He would have been relieved of duty.

·7· · · · · · · ·In the meantime, we did not have

·8· · sufficient grounds to have him, in the FOP's view,

·9· · suffer career disadvantage without just cause.

10· · Nothing had been sustained at that point.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·It was a mere admin allegation.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Was there some intervention by the FOP

14· · to get Sorrell put back on duty, or was that just

15· · basically once the criminal charge was not being

16· · pursued?

17· · A.· · · · ·I would say they probably -- I'm just

18· · spit balling this, probably called weekly or

19· · biweekly to say, what's going on with the criminal

20· · case?

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did that factor in to your

22· · determination to put him back on duty?· Or was it

23· · just that would have been your decision even

24· · without the FOP's involvement?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 93 of 199 PAGEID #: 1569
94

·1· · A.· · · · ·That would have been a decision -- once

·2· · I was told there was no criminal going to be

·3· · filed, that would have been my decision whether

·4· · they ever talked to me.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· If you've got an investigation

·6· · going on and you -- well, I'm -- I don't mean you.

·7· · If there's an investigation, an internal affairs

·8· · investigation going on after an officer who's

·9· · within your chain of command and information comes

10· · to your attention that the officer's doing

11· · something to interfere with the investigation or

12· · retaliate against officers who are involved in the

13· · investigation, would that be a reason to consider

14· · taking them off duty?

15· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

16· · A.· · · · ·I'll repeat my previous answer.· It

17· · would be a reason or a justification, but it,

18· · again, would be fact driven.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Meaning you would have to be

20· · very confident that it had happened?

21· · A.· · · · ·Not necessarily confident that it

22· · happened.· I would have to be briefed on what the

23· · investigation -- what facts were known, and if

24· · there's an ongoing threat or if there's a concern

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 94 of 199 PAGEID #: 1570
95

·1· · for liability to the city if we do not take some

·2· · intervening action until the case was resolved.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·So integrity of the investigation would

·4· · not be a basis for taking somebody off duty if

·5· · they're using their command authority as a command

·6· · officer, at least to interfere with the

·7· · investigation that's going on?

·8· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·9· · A.· · · · ·I will repeat the previous answer.· It

10· · would be a justification, but it would have to be

11· · based on the specific facts known, not arbitrary

12· · or capricious.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I guess I'm just trying to

14· · figure out what the specific facts would have to

15· · be to get to the point where you would consider

16· · taking somebody off duty for interfering with an

17· · investigation?

18· · A.· · · · ·That's -- I guess what I'm trying to

19· · explain is that every individual case is fact

20· · specific.· And until you look at the facts known

21· · in that case or the facts are being revealed in

22· · that case at that point in time, you won't know.

23· · It is not a policy or something you can use a

24· · checklist on.· It is specifically driven by what

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 95 of 199 PAGEID #: 1571
96

·1· · we know at the time and what we feel is the right

·2· · thing to do.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·So case by case is what you're trying

·4· · to say?

·5· · A.· · · · ·That would be a shorter way of saying

·6· · it.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did Chief Jacobs -- and I think

·8· · we'll take a break in a couple minutes.

·9· · A.· · · · ·That's fine.· Use the bathroom real

10· · quick.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Just figure this -- you know what, I

12· · should have said this at the beginning, but this

13· · is not an endurance contest.

14· · A.· · · · ·Oh, I know.

15· · Q.· · · · ·I know we are trying to cover a lot of

16· · ground before you have to go.

17· · A.· · · · ·I know.· I respect that.

18· · Q.· · · · ·But if you need a break at any point --

19· · A.· · · · ·I can wait a few minutes --

20· · Q.· · · · ·-- just tell me.

21· · A.· · · · ·-- just to get rid of some water.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All I was going to ask is did

23· · Chief Jacobs at any point instruct you during this

24· · investigation to keep tabs of what was happening

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 96 of 199 PAGEID #: 1572
97

·1· · in the investigation so she could make a

·2· · determination of whether to keep Sergeant Moore on

·3· · duty or not?

·4· · A.· · · · ·I can't say yes or no.· I don't

·5· · specifically recall either way.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did she instruct you to do

·7· · anything with respect to this investigation?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Let me answer it this way:· Please keep

·9· · in mind there are multiple investigations going

10· · on.· What direction she gave me on this specific

11· · case versus the five, six, seven, ten others that

12· · were balancing and juggling at the same time, I

13· · can't say --

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

15· · A.· · · · ·-- as I sit here today.

16· · · · · · · ·MR. VARDARO:· All right.· We'll leave

17· · that as a stopping point for a break.

18· · · · · · · ·(A recess is taken.)

19· · Q.· · · · ·I have a general question about what I

20· · was just asking you about, which is Chief Jacobs

21· · and her oversight of you during this investigation

22· · process, which is:· During the time that you were

23· · deputy chief for Chief Jacobs, what was her

24· · approach to ongoing internal affairs

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 97 of 199 PAGEID #: 1573
98

·1· · investigations?· Did she get updates?· Did she

·2· · want to know what was going on with particularly

·3· · large or serious investigations?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Since internal affairs was a direct

·5· · report to the chief, you would have to ask her,

·6· · because I don't know -- I was not included in this

·7· · loop.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Even when it was an

·9· · investigation of an officer in your chain?

10· · A.· · · · ·What she did with people that were

11· · direct reports to her, I don't know.· She would

12· · have talked directly to internal affairs.· If she

13· · did that, she would not have come to me as the

14· · deputy chief, even if it was my chain of command,

15· · because I didn't know what was going on typically.

16· · Because, again, I said I tried to stay neutral and

17· · disinterested in it.· So the investigation wasn't

18· · impeded or interfered with or trying to steer it.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· There was a -- part of this

20· · obviously was an allegation that Eric Moore had

21· · threatened the life of a couple different black

22· · officers while he was in SRB, one of who was Eric

23· · Cornett.· Do you remember that?

24· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember the exact wording.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 98 of 199 PAGEID #: 1574
99

·1· · When you said threatening life, I don't remember

·2· · what the phrase was.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Well, I -- I mean, I'll just represent

·4· · to you the phrase as it was described in the

·5· · original report was that he needed to -- referring

·6· · to Eric Cornett and Doug Williams, that he needed

·7· · to, quote, take their monkey asses out back and

·8· · kill them.

·9· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember.

10· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.

11· · Q.· · · · ·It's not material to my question.

12· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

13· · Q.· · · · ·You remember there was a threat against

14· · two black officers as part of this investigation?

15· · That was the allegation?

16· · A.· · · · ·The allegation was -- I don't remember

17· · the word "kill" being used, but I -- I don't

18· · remember that.· It's been awhile.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

20· · A.· · · · ·But there was a threat -- or some could

21· · interpret as a threat.

22· · Q.· · · · ·And strictly I'm asking you this as the

23· · background to the real question I want to ask,

24· · which is:· Do you remember that one of the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 99 of 199 PAGEID #: 1575
100

·1· · officers who was threatened in some way was Eric

·2· · Cornett?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I believe so.· I don't specifically

·4· · recall the details, but I believe so.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Right.· And that may be an answer to

·6· · the next question I have.· Do you remember at some

·7· · point Eric Cornett asked to speak with Chief

·8· · Jacobs about the threat that he had learned had

·9· · been made against him?

10· · A.· · · · ·Sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't

11· · recall the specifics.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember one way or the

13· · other if you actually had a conversation with Eric

14· · Cornett about the threat and his request to speak

15· · with Chief Jacobs?

16· · A.· · · · ·I may have, but I don't recall the

17· · specifics.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And that as part of that Eric --

19· · you actually were in a phone call with Eric

20· · Cornett where you then put Chief Jacobs on the

21· · line and talked to him about the threat and the

22· · precautions that were being taken?

23· · A.· · · · ·It's quite -- I'm sorry.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Your safety is also important to us, so

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 100 of 199 PAGEID #: 1576
101

·1· · I do want to make sure you don't choke in the

·2· · middle of the deposition.· I would feel

·3· · responsible for that.

·4· · A.· · · · ·I apologize.

·5· · · · · · · ·That certainly sounds familiar.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·7· · A.· · · · ·That certainly sounds familiar.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·What would have been the circumstance

·9· · there where an officer was asking to speak to the

10· · chief about something like that and you would have

11· · been involved in it?

12· · A.· · · · ·By policy, any officer is allowed to

13· · request to speak to the chief.· It's up to the

14· · chief whether to grant the request.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But why would the deputy chief

16· · be involved in that?

17· · A.· · · · ·The request must go through the chain

18· · of command.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· And then the

20· · other -- the other question I have about Chief

21· · Jacobs in this investigation is there was a --

22· · there was a point during this process where

23· · Sergeant Decker had asked for permission to do a

24· · polygraph examination of Sergeant Moore regarding

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 101 of 199 PAGEID #: 1577
102

·1· · a couple of different allegations that Officer

·2· · Sorrell had made?

·3· · A.· · · · ·He may have.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Were you involved at all in determining

·5· · whether or not a polygraph would be conducted?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Not that I recall.· The -- that's

·7· · typically something the chief, by contract, has to

·8· · order.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I -- we do have records

10· · indicating that Chief Jacobs told Commander Knight

11· · that there would be no polygraph authorized in

12· · this situation, and so I'm just trying to refresh

13· · your recollection as to whether or not you were

14· · involved in any discussions with the chief about

15· · that?

16· · A.· · · · ·Not that I recall.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· At the conclusion of this

18· · investigation, your -- well, first of all, as a

19· · general matter, any time -- any time there's a

20· · disciplinary charge against somebody or

21· · departmental charges, I'm actual -- maybe you can

22· · clarify for me.· What is the deputy chief's role

23· · in reviewing a completed internal affairs

24· · investigation?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 102 of 199 PAGEID #: 1578
103

·1· · A.· · · · ·The role of the deputy chief is to make

·2· · a final disposition of whether the allegation is

·3· · sustained or not.· And if it is sustained, what

·4· · level discipline should occur.· If it is anything

·5· · above what's called documented constructive

·6· · counseling, the deputy chief must take it to the

·7· · chief of police and get permission to issue a

·8· · written reprimand or file departmental charges.

·9· · The professional standards bureau lieutenant will

10· · decide what charges will be filed.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And we've seen documents in this

12· · case indicating that you were the deputy chief who

13· · made those determinations with respect to the Eric

14· · Moore, Wes Sorrell investigation?

15· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Does that sound right?

17· · A.· · · · ·I -- partially.· I would have only made

18· · decisions on the disposition for the allegation

19· · that occurred while under my chain of command. I

20· · recall there was some additional allegations made

21· · under the narcotics chain of command and I

22· · forwarded it to that chain of command to decide on

23· · those issues.

24· · Q.· · · · ·I'm handing you what's been previously

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 103 of 199 PAGEID #: 1579
104

·1· · marked -- what's previously been marked as

·2· · Plaintiff's Exhibit 41, which is a number of

·3· · collected documents about this investigation at

·4· · the conclusion of it.· And I want you to turn

·5· · particularly to the last few pages, which -- which

·6· · is -- well, at the -- actually the last, let's say

·7· · seven pages of this are a memo addressed to you

·8· · from Commander Knight dated September 28th, 2015?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Curmode you mean?

10· · Q.· · · · ·No, from Commander Knight.

11· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Which page are you on?

12· · Q.· · · · ·It's -- there are Bates stamp -- thank

13· · you, Rich.

14· · · · · · · ·It's starting on Bates stamped pages

15· · 014421?

16· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· I have it now, sir.

17· · Q.· · · · ·At the end of the document, the very

18· · last page of Exhibit 41, Bates stamped page

19· · 014427, it says, deputy chief signature, and I

20· · assume that's your signature?

21· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

22· · Q.· · · · ·And throughout that document, there are

23· · handwritten notes next to deputy chief's

24· · determination.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 104 of 199 PAGEID #: 1580
105

·1· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·And I want you to go through this

·3· · document and tell me if there's any other deputy

·4· · chief that you see making any determinations on

·5· · these charges?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Not on these -- I'm sorry, there is.

·7· · Okay.· You want me to go through them from the

·8· · beginning?

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Yeah.· I think -- I think we need to do

10· · that in this situation unless you -- well, I guess

11· · I'll direct you to a couple particular ones.

12· · There's allegations numbered Roman numerals I

13· · through XXI against Eric Moore.

14· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Just objection for

15· · purposes of the record.· And the pages that you're

16· · pointing him to actually start in allegation

17· · three.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Oh, interesting.· Sure.· Let's go with

19· · there's -- there's Roman numerals of charges that

20· · refer to Eric Moore, and the earliest one, as Rich

21· · points out, seems to be allegation three, and then

22· · it goes all the way up through allegation 21 on

23· · page 5 of the document.

24· · A.· · · · ·Let me look back for a second at

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 105 of 199 PAGEID #: 1581
106

·1· · something else.

·2· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· And, again, just for

·3· · purposes of the record, actually there are some

·4· · numbers that are skipped in there as well.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Does it -- just to clarify this, would

·6· · it match your recollection and what you're seeing

·7· · in this document that these allegations are

·8· · grouped against three different officers, Moore,

·9· · Sorrell, Kemmerling like we talked about earlier?

10· · And they are somewhat out of order because they're

11· · grouped by which officer they're against rather

12· · than put in numerical order?

13· · A.· · · · ·That would be correct.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Like allegations 1 and 2 are

15· · against -- 1, 2, 11, 13 and 18 are against

16· · Sorrell?

17· · A.· · · · ·That is correct.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Allegation 15 is against Kemmerling?

19· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

20· · Q.· · · · ·And then all the rest of them are

21· · against Moore?

22· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

23· · Q.· · · · ·And all of that is a long windup to

24· · saying, there's some allegations on the fifth page

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 106 of 199 PAGEID #: 1582
107

·1· · of this portion of the document, Bates stamp

·2· · 014425, allegation 20 has to do with Eric Moore

·3· · not following an order from Commander Cameron?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·And then the page before that there's

·6· · allegation 19 that says Eric Moore did not fairly

·7· · and equitably fill a narcotics bureau assignment

·8· · vacancy?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

10· · Q.· · · · ·And I guess I'm trying to figure out,

11· · is it -- there's a -- there's some initials there?

12· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Are those your initials?

14· · A.· · · · ·No.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Whose initials are they?

16· · A.· · · · ·Can't tell, but it would be somebody in

17· · the narcotics chain of command.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Is it possible it would be Deputy Chief

19· · Gray or would it be somebody else?

20· · A.· · · · ·I see Terry Moore on here.· If he was

21· · acting deputy chief, it could have been Terry

22· · Moore.· Looking at the initial -- the initials,

23· · doesn't look like it would be Gray.· Could have

24· · been Mike Woods.· I don't know if that's a W. I

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 107 of 199 PAGEID #: 1583
108

·1· · don't know.

·2· · · · · · · ·But, again, those were allegations that

·3· · were in a different chain of command, so I ruled

·4· · on -- as I recall it, I ruled on the ones that you

·5· · see my handwriting and I signed off on.· And then

·6· · I handed the entire case over to the narcotics

·7· · chain of command, which I believe was possibly

·8· · Mike Woods at that point, and that he made the

·9· · final dispositions on those that occurred while

10· · assigned under his command.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And after you signed this

12· · document for the -- I mean, was this forwarded to

13· · Chief Jacobs?

14· · A.· · · · ·No.

15· · Q.· · · · ·What happens after you sign this

16· · document?

17· · A.· · · · ·So the deputy chief makes the decision

18· · on whether the policy violation occurred.· As the

19· · allegation specified, you know, 7, 8, 9.· If we

20· · sustain it -- if the deputy chief sustains it, the

21· · deputy chief would identify which rule of conduct

22· · or work rule is being cited.· And then they'll

23· · decide what the level of charge -- what the level

24· · of discipline is.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 108 of 199 PAGEID #: 1584
109

·1· · · · · · · ·If it's a DCC, as you see on some of

·2· · these, they're allowed to make that decision at

·3· · their level.· Or if it's a written reprimand as a

·4· · result of progressive discipline, they can issue a

·5· · written reprimand.· If it's bypass and progressive

·6· · and going to a written or a departmental charges,

·7· · it must go to the chief of police.· Which if you

·8· · notice on the back sheet, 014408 of the routing

·9· · sheet, it states that I have discussed this with

10· · the chief at executive staff and with PSB on

11· · different occasions, the last one being 2/25/16,

12· · and the chief approved bypassing progressive

13· · discipline and filing departmental charges as

14· · noted.· And then I forward it to professional

15· · standards to have them create the charges and

16· · specifications.

17· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

18· · A.· · · · ·That's the process.

19· · Q.· · · · ·All right.· And it's possible that it's

20· · in some document that I'm not seeing, but the --

21· · can you tell from the routing sheet at the front

22· · of this Plaintiff's Exhibit 41, the first page and

23· · the attachment on the back, was this routing sheet

24· · strictly about the -- the SRB faced charges

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 109 of 199 PAGEID #: 1585
110

·1· · against Moore and Sorrell and Kemmerling or did

·2· · this cover the whole investigation, including the

·3· · stuff that happened while Moore was in narcotics?

·4· · A.· · · · ·This appears that it would have been

·5· · inclusive of both chains of command investigation

·6· · findings, because it has Commander Curmode's

·7· · letter outlining the allegations pertinent to that

·8· · chain of command, and Lieutenant Brust's letter

·9· · outlining the allegations unique to the narcotics

10· · chain of command.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And same question as before:· Do

12· · you see any other deputy chief's signature on here

13· · or initials or comments?

14· · A.· · · · ·I see the initials on the cover sheet

15· · from IAB that we already discussed.

16· · Q.· · · · ·I'm sorry, did you say you do or you

17· · don't see initials?

18· · A.· · · · ·I said on the cover -- this is called

19· · the cover sheet.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Oh, I see.

21· · A.· · · · ·So this is -- this has the initials on

22· · the 19 and 20 allegations.· That's a different

23· · chain of command.· And I'm reasonably certain that

24· · would have been Mike Woods, because as you notice

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 110 of 199 PAGEID #: 1586
111

·1· · here, it goes through Lieutenant Brust and

·2· · Commander Terry Moore, just like it went through

·3· · Commander Curmode, then to me.· Because it goes

·4· · through the other chain -- through the commanders,

·5· · then to me.· I sent it over to PSB for a just

·6· · cause review.· They confirmed just cause.· I took

·7· · it to the chief, she approved departmental

·8· · charges.· And that's where I made my final finding

·9· · on here.

10· · · · · · · ·So what -- what I would have assumed

11· · happened just based on practice with other cases

12· · is I ruled on mine, sent it over to the chain.

13· · The deputy chief there has a routing sheet that

14· · shows what the lieutenant and the commander wanted

15· · and signed off on it, on the allegation pertinent

16· · to that chain of command to make the ruling for

17· · that chain of command.

18· · · · · · · ·And, again, I certainly would have

19· · preferred that there either be initials and a

20· · badge number or a name legible.· But in this case,

21· · there's not.· That doesn't make it any less

22· · binding that the -- that they go to a different

23· · chain of command.· You can clearly see it's

24· · different handwriting than anybody else's.· You

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 111 of 199 PAGEID #: 1587
112

·1· · can see Terry Moore's handwriting on here, you can

·2· · see Lieutenant Brust's handwriting, Commander

·3· · Curmode's and mine.· Clearly somebody else's

·4· · handwriting, probably Deputy Chief Woods or

·5· · possibly Gray, but I don't think so.· And -- well,

·6· · this actually didn't come through until 2016, so

·7· · it would have been Mike Woods.

·8· · · · · · · ·So he signed off on his portion,

·9· · returned it to me, and that's when I took it to

10· · the chief.· Because his, if you notice, both the

11· · ones he signed off on the DCC on the two

12· · allegations, which he had the authority to issue

13· · at his level without chief of police review and

14· · approval.· So he ordered the DCCs, and that was

15· · the final disposition.· No further review needed

16· · on those allegations.· He had the authority to

17· · issue the DCC.· The only thing that needed to go

18· · to the chief were my allegations that I sustained

19· · and wanted departmental charges on.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Certainly in a case where the

21· · deputy chief approves a DCC, if the chief's got it

22· · in front of her, she's got the authority to say, I

23· · want you to look at this harder and think about

24· · departmental charges on this?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 112 of 199 PAGEID #: 1588
113

·1· · A.· · · · ·She has the authority to do that.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I mean, you've seen cases where

·3· · she did that?

·4· · A.· · · · ·I have, yes.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·6· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·And that by itself was not in those

·8· · cases that you saw, it wasn't like the FOP could

·9· · just come in and say, no, the chief overruled the

10· · deputy chief on the DCC and took it to

11· · departmental charges and so we're grieving it just

12· · on that basis?

13· · A.· · · · ·What I can say -- I'm not really clear

14· · exactly on the question, but what I can say, and

15· · you can correct me if I'm misinterpreting the

16· · question, is that the deputy chief on allegation

17· · 19 and 20 would have conferred, in all likelihood,

18· · with Lieutenant Lokai and made sure that the

19· · comparables for this violation would have been

20· · supported by this level of discipline.

21· · · · · · · ·And if he, I assume, got confirmation

22· · of that, because he did rule that way if the

23· · lieutenant said, no, no, no, this has to go to

24· · departmental charges, then I'm assuming he would

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 113 of 199 PAGEID #: 1589
114

·1· · have sent that to the chief.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· We talked a little bit about at

·3· · the very beginning actually about -- well, maybe

·4· · not the very beginning, we talked about Sergeant

·5· · Decker's belief that Sergeant Moore was untruthful

·6· · to him during the investigation about the subject

·7· · matter of the investigation and --

·8· · A.· · · · ·(Indicates affirmatively.)

·9· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Yes?

10· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

11· · Q.· · · · ·-- some of the -- actually, all of that

12· · alleged untruthfulness that Sergeant Decker

13· · believed he had found occurred while Sergeant

14· · Moore was in the narcotics chain of command,

15· · because the investigation didn't even start until

16· · after he left SRB, right?

17· · A.· · · · ·I'm not -- I have to think through

18· · exactly the sequence.

19· · Q.· · · · ·I'll withdraw the question.

20· · · · · · · ·But I will represent to you none of

21· · this investigative activity happened until

22· · Sergeant Moore was in narcotics.· And he certainly

23· · wasn't interviewed by Ken Decker until he was in

24· · narcotics, right?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 114 of 199 PAGEID #: 1590
115

·1· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· What I can say is I don't know

·2· · if -- without looking in more detail whether he

·3· · was charged with lying to internal affairs that

·4· · occurred while he was assigned then to that chain

·5· · of command or if the untruthfulness were limited

·6· · to the unique allegations that were predated that.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Well, what Decker was telling you in

·8· · the meeting that you described at headquarters was

·9· · what was that he was being lied to by Sergeant

10· · Moore, basically every word out of his mouth was a

11· · lie in the interviews that he conducted.

12· · A.· · · · ·As I recall, yes.

13· · Q.· · · · ·And I guess I'm just asking you sort of

14· · a jurisdictional technical question, which is:

15· · Sergeant Moore was in narcotics at the time that

16· · he was allegedly lying to Ken Decker.· So my

17· · question is:· Would that have been considered a

18· · narcotics issue or an SRB issue?

19· · A.· · · · ·If the chief directed internal affairs,

20· · which she had direct supervisory oversight on, to

21· · make that a new allegation, that would have been

22· · dispositioned by narcotics --

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

24· · A.· · · · ·-- not me, because the lie occurred at

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 115 of 199 PAGEID #: 1591
116

·1· · that time.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And if you take a look at 41 --

·3· · Exhibit 41, the last -- I think it's on page --

·4· · page 3 of that cover sheet, it's 014423 at the

·5· · bottom.

·6· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Allegation 9 is that Sergeant Eric

·8· · Moore was deceptive during the internal affairs

·9· · investigation.

10· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

11· · Q.· · · · ·And you have -- I think it's your

12· · handwriting --

13· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- that says sustained and there's no

15· · initials?

16· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

17· · Q.· · · · ·So that's your finding?

18· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Can you explain why you would have been

20· · the one to make that finding considering that, you

21· · know, by its nature, that conduct occurred while

22· · he was outside of your chain of command?

23· · A.· · · · ·Again, it was a complex investigation.

24· · What happened here was I directed the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 116 of 199 PAGEID #: 1592
117

·1· · investigation into allegations A.· He lied about

·2· · the specific information being asked about

·3· · allegations A during his time in SRB.· And that's

·4· · what he was lying about.· So it came to me to

·5· · decide whether -- whether he was going to be

·6· · charged with untruthfulness about the original

·7· · investigation.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·I'm not sure I completely understood

·9· · that.

10· · · · · · · ·You're saying basically because the

11· · allegations that he was found to have lied about

12· · were allegations involving SRB, it was under your

13· · authority to sustain or not sustain those

14· · allegations?

15· · A.· · · · ·Either chain of command, in essence,

16· · we're both the same rank, could have made that

17· · decision.· What the lie was about, although in a

18· · different chain of command, we typically send

19· · everything that stems from time you're in one

20· · chain of command, everything related, encapsulated

21· · by that comes back to the chain of command where

22· · it occurred at the time.· The allegations that

23· · occurred while he was in narcotics were

24· · allegations that narcotics chain of command rules

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 117 of 199 PAGEID #: 1593
118

·1· · on.

·2· · · · · · · ·If you lie about the conduct or the

·3· · information you provide is untruthful about what

·4· · you're being investigated for that I directed the

·5· · investigation to occur, it would come back to me

·6· · to make that determination.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember what it was that

·8· · Eric -- that you sustained Eric Moore lying about?

·9· · A.· · · · ·That was one of the issues that I had

10· · concerns on the investigation is that it was

11· · difficult to connect the dots.· So one of the

12· · things I think the arbitrator ultimately ruled on,

13· · I don't remember the arbitration decision, but it

14· · wasn't the facts are -- that that water bottle is

15· · unopened and he said the water bottle was half

16· · empty, that would be -- you could connect the dots

17· · and say, that's a lie, you know that.

18· · · · · · · ·I don't remember that we were able to

19· · show concretely how we could show that was a lie.

20· · We just knew it to be untrue to the satisfaction

21· · clear and convincing to an arbitrator.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Do you remember what the subject matter

23· · was, though?

24· · A.· · · · ·I don't.· Like I said, everything that

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 118 of 199 PAGEID #: 1594
119

·1· · he was asked was a spin, if you will, that's not

·2· · truthful.· I wasn't in the IA interviews, so I

·3· · don't recall that, but I was in on the chief's

·4· · hearing.· And in the chief's hearing, everything

·5· · he said was not believable.

·6· · · · · · · ·So that's where I could understand why

·7· · it was so confusing.· That we're trying to ask

·8· · about this, we know this to be true, not because

·9· · he's saying the opposite, he's given some

10· · explanation why that bottle would look half empty

11· · to him.· We know it's not, but in his mind, it was

12· · so convoluted, we knew he wasn't being open and

13· · honest.· But it was hard to show that it was a

14· · concrete lie.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Can you tell me what your

16· · process was in drawing the conclusions that you

17· · drew on these allegations once Decker presented

18· · them to you?

19· · A.· · · · ·Process was to read the investigation,

20· · formulate a general understanding of what we can

21· · corroborate, send it to professional standards,

22· · have the just cause review done, which is the

23· · seven steps I discussed.· And which the key one

24· · there is to make sure there's proof of the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 119 of 199 PAGEID #: 1595
120

·1· · allegation.

·2· · · · · · · ·They advise me on what they feel the

·3· · charges should be.· Like some of these that you

·4· · notice on Eric Moore, and this was key on

·5· · allegation 9 that you mentioned, Sergeant Eric

·6· · Moore was deceptive during an internal affairs

·7· · investigation.· I sustained it, but internal

·8· · affairs recommended rule conduct 1.15(a)5, which

·9· · is requirement to be truthful at all times.· As

10· · you see, I changed it to rule of conduct 1.36,

11· · which is unbecoming conduct.

12· · · · · · · ·We -- because his answers were so

13· · unintelligible, I don't know how else to say it,

14· · we could not say we know A to be true, he said B,

15· · we can prove B is false.· It was so convoluted,

16· · the best we could say is he was impeding the

17· · investigation by not giving direct answers.· So

18· · that's unbecoming conduct.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I just want to step back to

20· · the question, because you answered it and then you

21· · gave me an example, but I want to step back to the

22· · answer.· You said the first step was to read the

23· · investigation.· The investigation materials, as I

24· · understand them from Sergeant Decker, consisted of

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 120 of 199 PAGEID #: 1596
121

·1· · first the IAB summary, which was something like

·2· · 200 pages long by itself?

·3· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·I see an eye roll there.

·5· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·So we'll get into that in a second.

·7· · · · · · · ·That it also had, as I think you

·8· · referenced earlier, probably a thousand pages or

·9· · more of supporting materials?

10· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

11· · Q.· · · · ·And I just want to get a sense of what

12· · of that you actually looked at in reaching these

13· · conclusions.

14· · A.· · · · ·I would have looked at all of it

15· · scanning for information that was pertinent to the

16· · allegations I'm trying to decide on.· That's not

17· · to say I would have read every verbatim

18· · transcript.· I would have looked at this portion

19· · of the IAB summary, and if there's page references

20· · in there, if there's something I wanted to see

21· · what the full context was, maybe what the

22· · statement was before or after it, I would go and

23· · read that section of the transcript to make sure

24· · it was not being mischaracterized.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 121 of 199 PAGEID #: 1597
122

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you find any instances where

·2· · you felt like Sergeant Decker had mischaracterized

·3· · his -- what he wrote in the summary?

·4· · A.· · · · ·Again, I did not find what I thought to

·5· · be mischaracterizations.· I felt his frustration,

·6· · where you could not get a straight, intelligible

·7· · answer from the sergeant, which means, in my

·8· · opinion, he was impeding the investigation.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Obviously the 208-page

10· · investigative summary consisted of some

11· · allegations under your chain of command and some

12· · allegations that were not.· Did you skip the

13· · allegations that were not in your chain of command

14· · or did you read them for context?· Or did you do

15· · something in between those things?· What did you

16· · do?

17· · A.· · · · ·The summary, then I read the context of

18· · a full appreciation of what was discovered.· My

19· · decision-making would have been based on those

20· · that I had authority over.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Is it fair to say that there are

22· · some investigations where you might treat an

23· · allegation, a particular allegation differently

24· · because of the surrounding allegations?· Like if

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 122 of 199 PAGEID #: 1598
123

·1· · there's a pattern of conduct, it might make it

·2· · more serious than if it's just one isolated

·3· · incident?

·4· · A.· · · · ·That's possible to happen.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· The --

·6· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can I go off the record

·7· · for one second?

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Is there some reason we need to go off

·9· · the record?

10· · A.· · · · ·I'm sorry, I -- can I go off the

11· · record?

12· · · · · · · ·MR. VARDARO:· Sure.

13· · · · · · · ·(A discussion is held off the record.)

14· · Q.· · · · ·Is it -- I'll try to ask my last

15· · question in a clearer way.

16· · · · · · · ·Actually, you -- I think you answered

17· · it.· So in a wide-ranging investigation like this

18· · one, it -- I think it would be -- it would have

19· · been maybe unwise for you not to read the whole

20· · investigation so that you could at least see

21· · whether maybe some of the things that Sergeant

22· · Moore was being accused of in SRB had either

23· · carried over into narcotics or were part of a

24· · pattern that crossed over both chains of command,

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 123 of 199 PAGEID #: 1599
124

·1· · so it -- I mean, does that make sense?

·2· · A.· · · · ·I would say that I reviewed it at the

·3· · time enough to have a flavor of or a good feeling

·4· · of what the gravity of the misconduct was.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In -- did you listen to any of

·6· · the interviews?

·7· · A.· · · · ·Not the -- not the verbal --

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·9· · A.· · · · ·-- recording.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But you read some of the

11· · interview summaries just to spot check?

12· · A.· · · · ·Yes, I did.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you review any of the other

14· · supporting materials, documents about equipment

15· · and things like that?

16· · A.· · · · ·As I said, I reviewed everything that

17· · was encompassing the investigation.· To the level

18· · that I read through word for word, I can't state

19· · that that occurred.· Because there was a lot of

20· · documents that are -- that you recognize them on

21· · their face what they are and know that there's not

22· · something there that you have to dial down into.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You mentioned in your note on

24· · the routing sheet that's in Exhibit 41 that you

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 124 of 199 PAGEID #: 1600
125

·1· · had executive staff discussions of this case?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Would that have included the deputy

·4· · chief over narcotics as well --

·5· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·-- as --

·7· · A.· · · · ·Yes, sir.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And it would also have included

·9· · the chief?

10· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

11· · Q.· · · · ·And professional standards?

12· · A.· · · · ·The commander of professional standards

13· · is present.· The discipline grievance liaison

14· · lieutenant is not.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Who was the commander of PSB?

16· · A.· · · · ·Commander Kelly Weiner.· In 2016 it

17· · probably was Commander Weiner, but I don't recall.

18· · We've had -- Commander Moore was at one point

19· · before he went to narcotics, I believe.· I don't

20· · remember, though, the changes.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Was part of the discussion in

22· · the executive staff about this case which charges

23· · would or would not be escalated to departmental

24· · charges?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 125 of 199 PAGEID #: 1601
126

·1· · A.· · · · ·No.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What was the -- go ahead.

·3· · A.· · · · ·Basically what the discussion is is

·4· · I've received the case, I reviewed it, I've sent

·5· · it to professional standards for a just cause

·6· · review.· They found just cause for the sustained

·7· · allegations that would -- that I would request

·8· · departmental charges for, because they're critical

·9· · misconduct.

10· · · · · · · ·The chief may ask some questions where

11· · I give her a general update on what the nature of

12· · it is.· And, I mean, this would all occur in five

13· · minutes.· And then she would say, go ahead and

14· · file departmental charges.· It's up to the

15· · discipline grievance liaison lieutenant to

16· · actually craft the charges by charge and

17· · specification, bring it to me to look at and make

18· · some language suggestions or changes if I see

19· · anything.· And then once it's finalized, they take

20· · it to the chief for a hearing date and a

21· · signature.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Sergeant Decker indicated to us

23· · that there was a draft of his investigation prior

24· · to the one that was forwarded to the chain of

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 126 of 199 PAGEID #: 1602
127

·1· · command, and it was probably another 100 pages

·2· · beyond the 200-page summary.

·3· · A.· · · · ·Okay.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Did you see the longer draft?

·5· · A.· · · · ·I remember having a conversation -- I

·6· · don't know that I saw it.· I believe Commander

·7· · Knight, in her role of reviewing it, directed him

·8· · to streamline it.· And, in fact, because you asked

·9· · me this question before, it's entirely possible --

10· · again, it's just hard to remember five years ago,

11· · but it's entirely possible I had a conversation

12· · with Commander Knight about concerns I had about

13· · the packet prepared by Sergeant Decker.· And that

14· · she told him to pare it down, because I remember

15· · having a conversation, as I said, I remember

16· · sitting in my office across from my desk and

17· · telling him that the problem we need is we know A

18· · to be true, he said B, here's how we can prove B

19· · is a lie to charge him with untruthfulness.

20· · · · · · · ·That's the reason I ultimately went

21· · with unbecoming conduct versus untruthfulness.

22· · The investigation -- I tried to explain to

23· · Sergeant Decker that the investigation, more is

24· · not always better, I guess is the easiest way to

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 127 of 199 PAGEID #: 1603
128

·1· · say it.· 200 pages, 300 pages doesn't always sum

·2· · up what could be maybe said in 25 pages, so to

·3· · speak.· It's who reads verbatim 200 pages when you

·4· · have everything else on your desk at the same

·5· · time?· You look for -- I don't want to go into a

·6· · lot of detail.· I usually try to tell anybody,

·7· · especially deputy chiefs, are content driven, time

·8· · pressed and decision focused.

·9· · · · · · · ·All the supplementary verbatim

10· · transcripts can support that if I need to prove

11· · something.· In the IA summary, I need to know the

12· · nuts and bolts.· Again, content focused, time

13· · pressed, decision focused.· Tell me what I need to

14· · know to make a decision if you can do it in 20

15· · pages, don't do it in 200.

16· · Q.· · · · ·So I take it that you're telling me you

17· · don't remember one way or the other whether you

18· · saw the longer draft?

19· · A.· · · · ·I do not recall that I saw the longer

20· · draft.· I knew there was direction given to pare

21· · it down.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Were you aware that the longer draft

23· · from Sergeant Decker included additional sustained

24· · allegations compared to the shorter draft?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 128 of 199 PAGEID #: 1604
129

·1· · A.· · · · ·I can tell you I would not have read

·2· · the longer draft, so I would not necessarily know

·3· · anything about that, other than what I was briefed

·4· · on, and I don't recall what the briefing included.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you say you were briefed on

·6· · it, briefed by Decker or Knight?

·7· · A.· · · · ·Verbally by Sergeant Decker in my

·8· · office, give me an update on it and lay out kind

·9· · of the overall picture.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· The issue of Sergeant Moore

11· · using racially derogatory terms was under your

12· · chain of command, correct?

13· · A.· · · · ·It would have occurred -- regardless of

14· · when it was reported, it would have occurred while

15· · under my chain of command.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And the finding on that was a

17· · sustained allegation of -- it would have been

18· · allegation 16, which is on page 4 of that cover

19· · sheet.· The finding was a sustained allegation

20· · under rule of conduct 1.15(a)1, which has to do

21· · with being courteous to other officers; is that

22· · right?

23· · A.· · · · ·That's the -- 115 is be courteous at

24· · all times.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 129 of 199 PAGEID #: 1605
130

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What's your understanding for

·2· · why he was charged with 1.15(a)1 versus an

·3· · allegation or a rule of conduct having to do with

·4· · equal employment opportunity?

·5· · A.· · · · ·Ask the last part of it again. I

·6· · caught all of it but the very last part.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·115(a)1 doesn't have a whole lot to do

·8· · with equal employment opportunity or

·9· · discrimination.· It has to do with how officers

10· · treat each other, right?

11· · A.· · · · ·Yes, or citizens.

12· · Q.· · · · ·And so my question is:· Why is there no

13· · EEO charge on this -- on this allegation?

14· · A.· · · · ·Again, the chief and internal affairs

15· · commander decide the scope of it and the

16· · allegation.· That's the reason they put in here.

17· · I can change them, as I did on several of these,

18· · but they decide what the allegation is.

19· · · · · · · ·So that's what was presented to me, and

20· · it was presented to me in a way that this is old

21· · information that's very difficult to prove.

22· · There's no evidence that rises to the level of

23· · hostile work environment or something like that,

24· · because it was old and conflicting statements from

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 130 of 199 PAGEID #: 1606
131

·1· · different people that would be a difficult charge

·2· · to prove when we had other -- the concern was kind

·3· · of more of the long-term, if we look like we're

·4· · just piling on, the arbitrator may even be more

·5· · critical.· We wanted to go with our strongest case

·6· · for departmental charges, what we had the best

·7· · proof of.· This was very difficult to prove.· It

·8· · was all over the place in there who remembers what

·9· · from years ago and who was present and the

10· · similar --

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Well, you had multiple officers

12· · from SRB telling Sergeant Decker that they had

13· · personally heard Sergeant Moore use words like the

14· · N word and call black officers monkeys and apes.

15· · And an officer saying that he had had a

16· · conversation with Sergeant Moore where he said

17· · that black people in general were lazy.· Do you

18· · remember that?

19· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember exactly what was in

20· · there.· I remember that there were other people

21· · who were interviewed out of it, and some gave

22· · supporting statements to that effect.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What more would you have needed

24· · to justify an actual EEO charge besides eyewitness

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 131 of 199 PAGEID #: 1607
132

·1· · reports of racist statements?

·2· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·3· · A.· · · · ·Again, what I would be looking at is

·4· · officers are reporting misconduct only when they

·5· · were -- in many cases -- in Wes Sorrell's case,

·6· · that initially brought it forward, after he was in

·7· · trouble, which makes things suspect that they're

·8· · brought forward at a later date.· If others are

·9· · now coming forward and saying, yeah, I heard that

10· · a couple years ago, then they are also in

11· · violation of withholding information.

12· · · · · · · ·So, again, it challenged their

13· · credibility a little bit to say, yeah, a couple

14· · years ago I heard it, but I didn't do anything

15· · about it.· And they have an obligation to do

16· · something about it if they really heard it.

17· · · · · · · ·So I think we had enough in our mind to

18· · sustain and take some action on it.· But to take

19· · further action like a departmental charge, I don't

20· · think, as I talked to professional standards,

21· · there was enough in the investigation to have

22· · supported that type of -- that level of activity.

23· · Q.· · · · ·I guess I'll go back to my question,

24· · which is:· What -- I understand that you feel that

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 132 of 199 PAGEID #: 1608
133

·1· · the evidence that you had was not sufficient to

·2· · sustain a departmental charge on an EEO

·3· · violation -- well, first, let me start with that.

·4· · If it had been deemed to be an EEO violation

·5· · versus just a discourteous conduct, it would have

·6· · been something that you would have pursued a

·7· · departmental charge on?

·8· · A.· · · · ·Again, everything's case specific.

·9· · Yeah, I would have to see the actual facts that

10· · can be proven.

11· · Q.· · · · ·It certainly would be more serious to

12· · put an EEO label on it than just a not courteous?

13· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I guess my question is:

15· · What -- what would you have been looking for in --

16· · I mean, obviously unless Sergeant Moore is going

17· · to either be recorded saying the N word or admit

18· · to it, there's always going to be a question about

19· · whether it actually happened.· I guess I'm asking,

20· · is that what you needed?· You needed it to be on a

21· · recording?· Or was there something in between

22· · those things that would have escalated this to a

23· · departmental charge in your mind?

24· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 133 of 199 PAGEID #: 1609
134

·1· · A.· · · · ·The way I would describe that is this

·2· · is -- all the employment actions are similar to

·3· · like a criminal case where the accused has the

·4· · just cause, the due process rights.· And it's up

·5· · to the members who are the moving party, who are

·6· · making the allegations to be -- to describe

·7· · activity that would be supported and credible

·8· · enough to make it that type of an allegation.· And

·9· · I don't think they met that bar.

10· · Q.· · · · ·What -- what would have been different

11· · that would have made it meet that bar if

12· · they're -- what more evidence could there possibly

13· · have been that would make it meet that bar,

14· · besides a recording or an admission?

15· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

16· · A.· · · · ·I can't sit here and tell you about

17· · going back through the thousand pages and going

18· · back and reliving the discussions that I had with

19· · the chief or professional standards or Commander

20· · Knight of how we reached that conclusion.· I do

21· · not recall.· At the time, that was the decision

22· · that was made.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Have you ever been involved in a

24· · situation where the department sustained a hostile

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 134 of 199 PAGEID #: 1610
135

·1· · work environment or other race discrimination

·2· · charge against an officer?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I know that we have.· I don't recall

·4· · ones that I was involved in.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What are the ones that you're

·6· · aware of?

·7· · A.· · · · ·I would have to go back through the

·8· · records.· I remember cases that they occurred. I

·9· · don't remember all the circumstances.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Another charge that was under

11· · your chain of command was the allegation of the

12· · threat against Doug Williams and Eric Cornett, and

13· · that one was forwarded as not sustained?

14· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Which you upheld?

16· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

17· · Q.· · · · ·You knew from reading Sergeant Decker's

18· · report that -- well, first of all, we talked about

19· · multiple officers corroborated Sorrell's

20· · allegation that Moore had made racial slurs,

21· · right?

22· · A.· · · · ·I don't -- I don't recall what they

23· · corroborated.· I just recall other officers

24· · provided testimony and were asked questions about

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 135 of 199 PAGEID #: 1611
136

·1· · that.· As I sit here today, I don't remember it

·2· · without reading through the whole case.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Well, let me put it this way:· Do you

·4· · remember that Sorrell recalled that Officer Scott

·5· · Watkins was present when Eric Moore made the

·6· · threat against Cornett and Williams?

·7· · A.· · · · ·Seems familiar, but I don't recall the

·8· · specifics.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember reading Decker's

10· · description of an interview with Watkins where

11· · Watkins said that he did remember Moore making

12· · statements along the lines that calling Eric

13· · Cornett a monkey or an ape?

14· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall.· I would have to read

15· · the whole transcript.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Do you remember multiple officers,

17· · including Watkins, including Larry Wilson,

18· · including Whitney Lancaster, stating that they had

19· · personally heard Eric Moore talk about fighting

20· · Eric Cornett or beating him up?

21· · A.· · · · ·The fighting or something like that

22· · sounds more familiar than the allegation of

23· · threaten to kill.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· My question is:· If you got a --

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 136 of 199 PAGEID #: 1612
137

·1· · if you have an officer who's accused of making a

·2· · death threat against other officers, as Eric Moore

·3· · was, and the finding is, well, we can't confirm

·4· · that he made the death threat, because there's no

·5· · sufficient corroboration, but he absolutely did

·6· · threaten physical violence against another officer

·7· · and used racial terms to do so, is it proper -- is

·8· · the proper conclusion to say, okay, well, that

·9· · allegation is not sustained because there wasn't a

10· · death threat?· Or is there something else that

11· · would be appropriate in that situation?

12· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

13· · A.· · · · ·The option would be to direct the

14· · allegation to be re-worded that there was threats

15· · to harm.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Would that be --

17· · A.· · · · ·That -- if we had done that, that may

18· · have been something that we could have sustained.

19· · We have to prove -- again, due process is the

20· · employee accused is the one that has the

21· · protections.· Just like in a criminal case, we

22· · have the burden to prove that he made a threat to

23· · kill either officer, and we did not have that

24· · proof.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 137 of 199 PAGEID #: 1613
138

·1· · Q.· · · · ·So what is the process if the charge is

·2· · Sergeant Eric Moore threatened to kill Sergeant

·3· · Doug Williams and Officer Eric Cornett and, again,

·4· · going to the hypothetical, he's interviewed and he

·5· · says, absolutely not, I didn't threaten to kill

·6· · Sergeant Williams and Eric Cornett, I threatened

·7· · to, you know, beat them up in the back parking

·8· · lot, what would be the next required procedural

·9· · step in order to sustain a charge?

10· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

11· · A.· · · · ·Again, an option is to reclassify the

12· · allegation that Sergeant Eric Moore threatened

13· · harm to Sergeant Williams and Officer Cornett, and

14· · then have a new summary written that would have

15· · shown where the validation is to prove that

16· · allegation.· Again, we were answering the question

17· · of whether we could prove the kill.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Would Eric Moore have had to be

19· · re-interviewed with the new charge in that

20· · situation, or could you just take his

21· · investigational interview and just say, okay,

22· · we're re-wording this charge as this?

23· · A.· · · · ·If there's sufficient --

24· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 138 of 199 PAGEID #: 1614
139

·1· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sorry.

·2· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Sorry.

·3· · A.· · · · ·If there's sufficient information

·4· · there, we would not have to re-interview him.· It

·5· · would have taken a new summary to explain how we

·6· · can prove the new allegation as worded.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Well, Decker's summary certainly lays

·8· · out in an incredible level of detail basically

·9· · everything that everybody said in the

10· · investigation.· It's -- I mean, it would be --

11· · you're not -- we're not talking about a big heavy

12· · lift here to re-word the allegation from threaten

13· · to kill to just threatened harm and then just

14· · saying, I didn't find that that threat

15· · corroborated, but he certainly threatened

16· · physically on multiple occasions?

17· · A.· · · · ·I agree it's not a heavy lift.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Would that be a serious charge,

19· · an officer threatening physical harm against

20· · another officer, especially in racially derogatory

21· · terms?

22· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

23· · A.· · · · ·With everything else we had sustained,

24· · I don't know that that would have overshadowed the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 139 of 199 PAGEID #: 1615
140

·1· · other charges, because, again, a threat to do

·2· · something is different than an action.· Speech is

·3· · different than an action.· The other cases that

·4· · were sustained were actions that we could prove.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So in your estimation of CPD

·6· · policy, it's more serious to mishandle

·7· · departmental equipment than to use a racially

·8· · derogatory term to threaten to harm a black

·9· · officer?

10· · A.· · · · ·That's not what I'm saying.

11· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.

12· · Q.· · · · ·Well, can you clarify it for me?· What

13· · he was found to have done, the more serious

14· · charges, the things that resulted in the

15· · departmental charges all had to do with theft of

16· · property or mishandling of departmental property

17· · or time.· And the charges that didn't get that

18· · treatment as departmental charges had to do with

19· · treatment of black officers by Eric Moore.· And so

20· · I'm just trying to figure out where threatening to

21· · harm somebody in racially derogatory terms might

22· · fall in that spectrum?

23· · A.· · · · ·I was trying to look to see where --

24· · when the date the investigation commenced was.· It

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 140 of 199 PAGEID #: 1616
141

·1· · sounds like it was October of '14 or something.

·2· · · · · · · ·And as you see on this, this came out

·3· · September of '15, this was signed in March of '16.

·4· · I think when we do that, we run the risk of

·5· · continuing to delay an investigation for another

·6· · month or two when there was, we felt, sufficiently

·7· · strong charges to go with termination.· We tend to

·8· · do a termination case.· We did terminate.· The

·9· · director heard it and terminated.· Arbitrator

10· · ruled differently.

11· · · · · · · ·So I think we were looking at

12· · continuing to drag a case out longer by sending

13· · him back.· With something that long, we could have

14· · sent it back five, six, seven times.· If we kept

15· · wanting to add things, clean something up,

16· · re-interview something, I think we felt we had

17· · enough here to terminate, and that's what we

18· · ultimately did.

19· · Q.· · · · ·In hindsight, do you think it would

20· · have helped to include that allegation that -- as

21· · a departmental charge that he had threatened to

22· · harm black officers using racially derogatory

23· · terms?

24· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 141 of 199 PAGEID #: 1617
142

·1· · A.· · · · ·I do not think so.· I think, again, a

·2· · threat to harm, something happened two years prior

·3· · with no evidence of any intent to act on that,

·4· · just speech, is different than the case that we

·5· · had proven that were actual actions.· And I think

·6· · that was our strongest case.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· These -- this reasoning that

·8· · you're giving me, is this something that you

·9· · discussed with Chief Jacobs and the rest of the

10· · executive staff, or is this just your individual

11· · analysis?

12· · A.· · · · ·I would say individual analysis.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have a discussion with

14· · Chief Jacobs where there was a strategic

15· · consideration of basically we don't want to charge

16· · him with too many things, it will distract the

17· · arbitrator, we don't want to spend any more time

18· · on this, that kind of thing?

19· · A.· · · · ·Not that I recall.· I did the

20· · discipline grievance job for about two years

21· · myself and have been through numerous

22· · arbitrations.· And so I believe I was basing a lot

23· · of it based on my experience, on what we did have

24· · and could prove and moving forward with that.· So

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 142 of 199 PAGEID #: 1618
143

·1· · I think it was more of my experience.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you recall any conversations

·3· · in which Chief Jacobs questioned whether maybe

·4· · there should be EEO charges or more serious

·5· · charges on the EEO aspects of this?

·6· · A.· · · · ·I do not recall.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember conversations

·8· · with Sergeant Decker where Sergeant Decker

·9· · advocated making further findings against Sergeant

10· · Moore on the EEO aspects of the case?

11· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall the EEO aspects being

12· · discussed further than what we had.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Do you remember him suggesting that

14· · there should be a charge of untruthfulness based

15· · not just on the overtime and equipment issues, but

16· · also on the EEO aspects of the case and the threat

17· · and some of the stuff that happened in narcotics?

18· · A.· · · · ·It's entirely possible.· Again, as I

19· · said, I had given some constructive feedback to

20· · Sergeant Decker that it was convoluted, the

21· · investigation as written, and it needed to be

22· · streamlined so the reader could find what it was

23· · that they could prove.· People get lost in the

24· · mass.· So it's possible we discussed it, but that

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 143 of 199 PAGEID #: 1619
144

·1· · was it.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you recall that in the final

·3· · version of Sergeant Decker's IAB summary, the only

·4· · allegation of untruthfulness against Sergeant

·5· · Moore was about a specific overtime or equipment

·6· · issue?

·7· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But you do recall having a

·9· · conversation with Sergeant Decker about making --

10· · making sure, in particular about the

11· · untruthfulness allegations, that you could connect

12· · the dots and that it was more clearly written than

13· · what you had read?

14· · A.· · · · ·I recall having a discussion over the

15· · entire set of -- scope of allegation that whatever

16· · you are sustaining, if someone can turn to a page

17· · and go there it is, I've got it.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you become aware during the

19· · course of the investigation or from reading

20· · Sergeant Decker's summary that Sergeant Moore, in

21· · addition to allegedly threatening Sergeant

22· · Williams and Officer Cornett, had engaged in some

23· · threatening conduct toward an officer named Dick

24· · Elias?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 144 of 199 PAGEID #: 1620
145

·1· · A.· · · · ·There's some recent conversation I've

·2· · had that refreshed my memory that that was an

·3· · allegation.· I don't remember at the time.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· In particular, you remember that

·5· · the allegation was that Dick Elias and Sergeant

·6· · Moore were walking down a hallway or around a

·7· · corner, and when Sergeant Moore saw Officer Elias,

·8· · he made a motion as if he was going to draw his

·9· · weapon?

10· · A.· · · · ·That's what I recall hearing recently.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember at the time.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Well, was it -- I mean, it was in

14· · Sergeant Decker's summary, you would have --

15· · A.· · · · ·Right.

16· · Q.· · · · ·-- read it at the time?

17· · A.· · · · ·I would have read it at the time.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

19· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember it.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Were you -- I mean, were you consulted

21· · at the time about whether that allegation should

22· · be investigated further?

23· · A.· · · · ·I don't believe so.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Sergeant Decker indicated in his

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 145 of 199 PAGEID #: 1621
146

·1· · report that - and I'm quoting from the report,

·2· · that this -- well, actually I'm not quoting yet,

·3· · but he said that he was not pursuing that further

·4· · because, and I'm quoting, this concern was brought

·5· · to the attention of Lieutenant Brust at the time.

·6· · · · · · · ·Does that -- is that an adequate

·7· · explanation for not including an allegation in an

·8· · IA summary?

·9· · A.· · · · ·It is, because if he brought it to the

10· · attention of Lieutenant Brust and Lieutenant Brust

11· · says, I'll take care of it and counseled the

12· · sergeant on that, then action would have already

13· · been taken.· If we try to go back and issue some

14· · other type of discipline out of it, the defense,

15· · if you will, or the union position would be,

16· · he's -- a card laid is a card played, as they say.

17· · He's already -- this has already been

18· · dispositioned by the lieutenant in realtime, we

19· · can't go back now and change that.

20· · Q.· · · · ·So as soon as Lieutenant Brust went and

21· · talked to Sergeant Moore about this incident, it

22· · became out of bounds for internal affairs?

23· · A.· · · · ·Virtually, yes.· There are -- what our

24· · recourse would have been is to go to Lieutenant

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 146 of 199 PAGEID #: 1622
147

·1· · Brust and corrected him and said, don't do that

·2· · again, you've created a situation now where we

·3· · can't change the outcome of that.

·4· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· If you've got a situation where

·5· · a sergeant does something potentially illegal or

·6· · against departmental rules, and their lieutenant

·7· · basically wants to just protect them, doesn't that

·8· · put the lieutenant in a situation where they're

·9· · just -- they can prevent IA from investigating a

10· · pretty serious charge?

11· · A.· · · · ·There is a mechanism to, again,

12· · discipline the lieutenant and explain in writing

13· · basically why you're disregarding that activity

14· · because it was out of bounds and didn't have the

15· · authority to disposition it.· There are certain

16· · things that the deputy chief has to disposition or

17· · the chief.

18· · · · · · · ·So if the lieutenant took a certain

19· · action, then he wasn't -- didn't have the

20· · authority to disposition it, then we could

21· · overrule it and discipline him for interfering

22· · with the deputy chief's right to disposition that.

23· · Q.· · · · ·What's the criteria for that?· I mean,

24· · what are the things that the lieutenant would not

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 147 of 199 PAGEID #: 1623
148

·1· · have the authority to deal with?

·2· · A.· · · · ·If it came in as a citizen complaint or

·3· · if that allegation was directed to be conducted by

·4· · deputy chief or chief, he does not have the

·5· · authority to disposition the case.· If it's

·6· · something that was discovered in the

·7· · investigation, and I don't know the fact pattern

·8· · there, but if it's something that was brought to

·9· · Lieutenant Brust's attention and he went and took

10· · care of it on his own, it was not something that

11· · was designed to be -- or ordered to be

12· · investigated by the chief or the deputy chief,

13· · then he could take that action.· May not be the

14· · action we wanted him to take, but he had the

15· · authority to take the action at that time.

16· · Q.· · · · ·How could it be determined whether

17· · Lieutenant Brust had done something inappropriate

18· · or not without investigating it at the IAB level?

19· · A.· · · · ·Just based on the known facts at the

20· · time, you can -- again, I don't know the fact

21· · pattern you're referring to, but if the -- if the

22· · allegation was brought to the chain of command

23· · that he made a threatening move towards Dick Elias

24· · and was not part of this investigation, and Brust

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 148 of 199 PAGEID #: 1624
149

·1· · said, I'll take care of it, because that's

·2· · something that needs immediate attention, I'll

·3· · take care of it, and he took care of it, then he

·4· · had the authority to do that.

·5· · · · · · · ·It may not be what he wanted him to do,

·6· · but he had authority to do it.· If it was part of

·7· · this investigation and I directed it to be

·8· · investigated, he did not have the authority to

·9· · disposition that.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So even with Lieutenant Brust,

11· · if he just decided, I don't think this is really

12· · that serious, I'm just going to tell Sergeant

13· · Moore not to threaten people with guns anymore,

14· · then not only can Sergeant Moore not be

15· · investigated or disciplined for the action, but

16· · Lieutenant Brust can't be either, because it's

17· · within his scope of authority?

18· · A.· · · · ·I didn't say he couldn't be

19· · investigated for it.· I said, if it was -- if

20· · these fact patterns or this criteria wasn't in

21· · place, then he was within his authority.· He can

22· · still be investigated to see if that was the fact

23· · pattern.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Given all of the other things

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 149 of 199 PAGEID #: 1625
150

·1· · that you know about what Sergeant Moore was being

·2· · accused of and the timing of this, wouldn't that

·3· · have been appropriate in this situation to at

·4· · least investigate it to determine whether

·5· · Lieutenant Brust had handled it properly or that

·6· · he had actually handled it?

·7· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·8· · A.· · · · ·It wasn't my chain of command at the

·9· · time, so I can't speak to what they -- what

10· · decisions they made around that --

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

12· · A.· · · · ·-- situation.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Is that a decision that Commander

14· · Knight could make on her own in terms of

15· · instructing Decker about what to investigate?· Or

16· · would she have had to consult with whoever the

17· · deputy chief was over that chain of command?

18· · A.· · · · ·She could have made that direction.· It

19· · would have been more likely that the chain of

20· · command or the chief would have been consulted on

21· · that to get additional direction.· Internal

22· · affairs tries to stay neutral and disinterested in

23· · not adding to the scope of an investigation

24· · without getting permission from the chain of

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 150 of 199 PAGEID #: 1626
151

·1· · command.

·2· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· What about deciding not to add

·3· · to the scope of the investigation?· Do they do

·4· · that on their own or do they check with the chain

·5· · of command?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Case by case.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Sergeant Decker told Officer

·8· · Shaw in response to -- it was Officer Shaw who

·9· · raised that concern with what happened with Elias.

10· · Sergeant Decker told him in response to that that

11· · he was instructed that they weren't going to take

12· · any third-party complaints about officer -- about

13· · Sergeant Moore, and that if Elias wanted to raise

14· · it, he would have to raise it himself.· Is that an

15· · accurate -- is that something appropriate within

16· · the department?

17· · A.· · · · ·Sounds like a reasonable instruction.

18· · Again, whether things are the way we would like

19· · them to have occurred, I can't speak on -- I don't

20· · have all the facts.· What you've described sounds

21· · like a reasonable instruction, that if you feel

22· · you are threatened, our policy is -- written

23· · policy that the employee has to write a letter

24· · requesting the case be investigated.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 151 of 199 PAGEID #: 1627
152

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· But it's not always the

·2· · employee's choice, right?· The employee can be

·3· · instructed to write a letter?

·4· · A.· · · · ·They can be, yes.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·But that's what happened with Sorrell,

·6· · for instance, that Sorrell raised some concerns

·7· · informally and he was instructed to write a

·8· · letter?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Do you know one way or the other

11· · whether Dick Elias was aware of all the other

12· · threatening or inappropriate conduct that Sergeant

13· · Moore was being accused of at the time?

14· · A.· · · · ·No knowledge.

15· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You really think it's reasonable

16· · in that context to leave it to individual officers

17· · whether they individually feel like it was a real

18· · threat or not --

19· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

20· · Q.· · · · ·-- given that they might not know that

21· · it's part of a pattern?

22· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

23· · A.· · · · ·They're trained and experienced police

24· · officers who carry a firearm and defend themselves

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 152 of 199 PAGEID #: 1628
153

·1· · and others all the time.· I give police officers a

·2· · lot of credit to be able to call something what it

·3· · is if it's something that they're concerned by or

·4· · feel that needs investigated.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Well, you understand that in this

·6· · particular situation, Officer Elias was the person

·7· · who brought it to the attention of Lieutenant

·8· · Brust at the time, because he felt that it was a

·9· · threatening situation?

10· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.· I don't have the facts.· That

11· · was not in my chain of command.· I don't have the

12· · facts that you're asking about.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· If this had been investigated

14· · and it had been determined that, in fact, Sergeant

15· · Moore had made a threatening gesture toward his

16· · weapon as to another officer of color besides Eric

17· · Cornett and Sergeant Williams, wouldn't that have

18· · helped corroborate the threat allegations that he

19· · was originally charged with?

20· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

21· · A.· · · · ·It would be considered in context with

22· · the rest of the investigation.

23· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You also saw in Sergeant

24· · Decker's report that Sergeant Moore was alleged to

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 153 of 199 PAGEID #: 1629
154

·1· · have purchased an illegal weapons enhancement

·2· · called a lightning link?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I don't even recall that.· I can't say

·4· · that -- I didn't see at the time, but that one

·5· · just is something I don't recall from the

·6· · investigation.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I'm handing you what's been

·8· · marked previously as Exhibit 38, which is Sergeant

·9· · Decker's investigative summary.· Can you turn to

10· · page 169 of that report?· The page numbers are at

11· · the top.

12· · A.· · · · ·Yeah, I got it.

13· · Q.· · · · ·You can unclip it if you want.· Just be

14· · aware it's not stapled.

15· · A.· · · · ·I got it.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Do you see a reference to lightning

17· · link on that page?· I think it's toward the

18· · bottom.

19· · A.· · · · ·I do see it.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Does this refresh your recollection

21· · about what this was about?

22· · A.· · · · ·It refreshes it.· Like I said, it's

23· · been a long time, but it refreshes it.

24· · Q.· · · · ·Sergeant Decker says in this stage of

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 154 of 199 PAGEID #: 1630
155

·1· · the report that this allegation wasn't pursued

·2· · because, quote, this concern has also already been

·3· · addressed by the appropriate law enforcement

·4· · agency.

·5· · · · · · · ·Is that consistent with CPD practice?

·6· · A.· · · · ·Again, it's a decision that was made

·7· · outside my involvement or input, so I can't speak

·8· · to that.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·I mean, you're the acting or interim

10· · chief of the department.· I mean, if this is

11· · something that if it came up now, you would only

12· · have some input on, and even when you were deputy

13· · chief, if it had happened within your chain of

14· · command, you would certainly been able to do that,

15· · right?

16· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

17· · Q.· · · · ·And I think we talked earlier about

18· · you've had investigations in the past, including

19· · this investigation, where something was

20· · investigated as a potential crime, but it was

21· · determined not to have been criminally chargeable,

22· · but then it still proceeded as an administrative

23· · investigation, right?

24· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 155 of 199 PAGEID #: 1631
156

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Isn't it inconsistent with the way that

·2· · the Columbus Police operate that just the fact

·3· · that something is determined not -- that a law

·4· · enforcement agency CPD or otherwise determines

·5· · that they're not going to proceed with the

·6· · criminal execution, that does not mean that it

·7· · couldn't -- that it might be -- might not be

·8· · something that IA should pursue or that the chain

·9· · of command should pursue?

10· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

11· · A.· · · · ·This is a concern I certainly could see

12· · could have been turned into an expanded scope of

13· · the investigation on.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Did you know that Sergeant Decker

15· · consulted with the ATF agent in charge and the

16· · agent told him that the reason that they didn't

17· · prosecute Sergeant Moore was because he was a

18· · police officer and they took his word as a police

19· · officer that he didn't accept delivery of the

20· · equipment he ordered?

21· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall that.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· If you had known that at the

23· · point when this was being investigated, would that

24· · have caught -- given you cause for concern?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 156 of 199 PAGEID #: 1632
157

·1· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·2· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·If you knew that Jennifer Knight was

·4· · aware of that at the time that Sergeant Decker had

·5· · that conversation and instructed him not to follow

·6· · up because the ATF had already handled it, would

·7· · that give you cause for concern?

·8· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·9· · A.· · · · ·Without confronting her and finding out

10· · what she knew at the time or what -- the base for

11· · her decision was or who else had input into her

12· · decision, I can't speak to that.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Given that Sergeant Moore was

14· · being accused of threatening other officers,

15· · including a potential death threat, wouldn't it

16· · escalate that concern to know that whether or not

17· · he had taken delivery of a device that would turn

18· · a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon?

19· · A.· · · · ·From what I understand --

20· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· I'm sorry.

21· · Go ahead.

22· · A.· · · · ·From what I understand here, he -- we

23· · had information that he did not take possession of

24· · it.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 157 of 199 PAGEID #: 1633
158

·1· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I'm representing to you,

·2· · Sergeant Decker was told by the ATF that, in fact,

·3· · there was no -- there was no information that he

·4· · didn't accept delivery, other than Sergeant Moore

·5· · just saying he didn't and them taking his word as

·6· · a police officer.· With that information, isn't

·7· · that -- wouldn't it make the concerns about the

·8· · death threat a little bit more serious?

·9· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Or a lot more serious?

11· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

12· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · · ·If Jennifer Knight decided on her own,

14· · knowing that information, not to allow Sergeant

15· · Decker to investigate that allegation further,

16· · would that -- would that be a cause for concern

17· · for you as a command officer?

18· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

19· · A.· · · · ·I do not know what information she was

20· · acting on, so I can't -- I can't --

21· · Q.· · · · ·I'm asking you -- and I'm sorry, I'm

22· · asking you to assume that Sergeant Decker was

23· · being truthful to us when he told us that he

24· · informed Jennifer Knight of that -- of what he

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 158 of 199 PAGEID #: 1634
159

·1· · learned from the ATF.

·2· · A.· · · · ·What I'm saying is I'm not going to

·3· · assume what Jennifer Knight was acting on in her

·4· · frame of reference or her knowledge base.· I don't

·5· · know, so I can't speak to the appropriateness of

·6· · her decision.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· When you read this report, even

·8· · though it was outside of your chain of command,

·9· · you had the authority to request additional

10· · investigation on these issues if you wanted it,

11· · right?

12· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · · ·And, for instance, if you felt like,

14· · okay, well, this might not be important to Deputy

15· · Chief Gray or Deputy Chief -- gosh, I'm blanking

16· · on the name of who took it over.

17· · A.· · · · ·Woods.

18· · Q.· · · · ·Woods.· If you felt like maybe they

19· · didn't think it was pertinent by itself under the

20· · narcotics chain, but it might be pertinent to my

21· · investigation of the threat, you could have

22· · instructed Decker to investigate it further?

23· · A.· · · · ·As I mentioned, I focused on the part

24· · of the investigation that I was to weigh in on,

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 159 of 199 PAGEID #: 1635
160

·1· · and because of that, I did not take that part into

·2· · my decision-making.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Did you have any role in advising what

·4· · should or shouldn't be charged on the allegations

·5· · under the narcotics chain of command?

·6· · A.· · · · ·No.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have any informal

·8· · discussions with Deputy Chief Woods or Deputy

·9· · Chief Gray about their charging decisions on those

10· · things?

11· · A.· · · · ·Not the charging decisions about --

12· · probably had some discussions about where I was at

13· · on the investigation that I was forwarding to them

14· · to decide on issues that occurred and any decision

15· · they would need to make in their chain of command.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you in meetings where

17· · Deputy Chief Woods or Deputy Chief Gray were

18· · explaining their decisions to Chief Jacobs about

19· · these issues?

20· · A.· · · · ·Not that I recall.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have any reaction to

22· · what you read in Decker's report about the

23· · treatment of the filling of the narcotics position

24· · involving Officer Shaw and others?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 160 of 199 PAGEID #: 1636
161

·1· · A.· · · · ·I didn't have any information from the

·2· · other perspective of what was going on in that

·3· · chain.· I didn't know what their reasons were, so

·4· · I didn't have a reaction, because I wasn't going

·5· · to react to something I didn't have the full facts

·6· · on.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you become aware while the

·8· · investigation was going -- I'll start I want to

·9· · talk about different timeframes, first of all,

10· · while the investigation was going on, before

11· · Decker's report, did you become aware that Decker

12· · had recovered text messages from Sergeant Moore

13· · making threatening comments about what would

14· · happen if Officer Shaw, Officer Lancaster or

15· · officer Richard Moore took the narcotics position?

16· · A.· · · · ·I don't recall obtaining the text

17· · messages.· I recall some conversation about

18· · knowing that there was statements or something

19· · about that.

20· · Q.· · · · ·Did you take that into account in your

21· · conclusions about the threats that Sergeant Moore

22· · was alleged to have made against Cornett and

23· · Williams?

24· · A.· · · · ·All I took into account was stuff that

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 161 of 199 PAGEID #: 1637
162

·1· · was provided and sustained in the investigation,

·2· · not stuff that was conjecture or secondary to it.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you involved at all in the

·4· · chief's decision to vacate and repost the

·5· · narcotics position that was at issue in this

·6· · investigation?

·7· · A.· · · · ·No involvement that I recall.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You were not involved in any

·9· · decision-making about how Sergeant Moore would be

10· · charged or disciplined on the failure to follow an

11· · order from Commander Cameron?

12· · A.· · · · ·No, I had no input in that.

13· · Q.· · · · ·Did you have any role in Sergeant

14· · Moore's arbitration once he was terminated?

15· · A.· · · · ·No.· I don't even recall testifying.

16· · It's possible because I've testified in different

17· · things, but I don't recall having any role

18· · whatsoever.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you informed -- well, you

20· · know that Officer Shaw and Officer Cornett both

21· · filed charges with the Ohio Civil Rights

22· · Commission related to these allegations?

23· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · · ·When did you become aware of those

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 162 of 199 PAGEID #: 1638
163

·1· · charges?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Whenever they were served.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you ever involved in

·4· · discussions of what the impact would be on the

·5· · Division of Police if the division took the

·6· · position that Sergeant Moore had committed an EEO

·7· · violation towards Officer Shaw and Officer

·8· · Cornett?

·9· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

10· · A.· · · · ·No.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Nobody ever discussed that one

12· · way or the other, that it would be good --

13· · A.· · · · ·I can't say.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- or bad?· I mean in your presence.

15· · A.· · · · ·I can say I was not involved in any

16· · discussions.

17· · Q.· · · · ·I'm asking about your personal

18· · knowledge.

19· · A.· · · · ·Yeah, not in my presence.

20· · · · · · · ·MR. VARDARO:· Okay.· I would like to

21· · take a five-minute break, and I might be close to

22· · done.

23· · · · · · · ·(A recess is taken.)

24· · Q.· · · · ·Chief Quinlan, earlier in the

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 163 of 199 PAGEID #: 1639
164

·1· · deposition you -- we were talking about the racial

·2· · slurs by Sergeant Moore.· And you mentioned that

·3· · you felt like it didn't rise to the level of a

·4· · hostile work environment.· Can you explain what

·5· · you meant by that?

·6· · A.· · · · ·My understanding of the case is that it

·7· · was done not in the -- not in the presence of

·8· · anyone other than Wes Sorrell, and Wes Sorrell's

·9· · credibility was nonexistent.· So that complicated

10· · the issue.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Well, first of all, you remember other

12· · officers corroborated that Sergeant Moore used

13· · racial slurs toward other officers and towards

14· · black people in general, right?

15· · A.· · · · ·Again, as you said, and there was

16· · some -- read for their credibility, there was some

17· · stuff made well after the fact that, again, made

18· · some challenges to the credibility that they're

19· · bringing something up many months after it

20· · occurred.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Was this --

22· · A.· · · · ·When they have a requirement to report.

23· · Q.· · · · ·I understand that Wes Sorrell, there

24· · were some questions about his motive for raising

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 164 of 199 PAGEID #: 1640
165

·1· · concerns about Sergeant Moore.· Did you have some

·2· · similar concern about officers like Larry Wilson

·3· · and Scott Watkins?

·4· · A.· · · · ·I don't remember what their statements

·5· · were to respond to what my assessment was of their

·6· · credibility at the time.

·7· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Strictly the fact that an

·8· · officer didn't mention hearing the racial slur

·9· · from a white commanding officer at the time that

10· · it was made, but then reported it in response to

11· · questions in a later IA investigation, would that

12· · be a reason to doubt their credibility?

13· · A.· · · · ·I would have to read the whole

14· · transcript to see what the -- what the nature of

15· · it was.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I guess that doesn't really

17· · answer the question that I asked, which is:· If

18· · just the fact that an officer doesn't report a

19· · racial slur as soon as they hear it and -- does

20· · that cast doubt on their credibility when they

21· · later answer an IA investigator's question and say

22· · they did hear the racial slur?

23· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

24· · A.· · · · ·You would have to show me what it was

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 165 of 199 PAGEID #: 1641
166

·1· · they said so I could try to refresh my mind why I

·2· · doubted or questioned their credibility.

·3· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· I will show you the summaries,

·4· · but I guess I'm just asking in general, there are

·5· · reasons why employees sometimes don't report

·6· · discrimination allegations, including fear of

·7· · retaliation, including not wanting to get somebody

·8· · in trouble.· I mean, that happens, right?

·9· · A.· · · · ·Yes.

10· · Q.· · · · ·The fact that they don't immediately

11· · report it doesn't automatically mean that they're

12· · less credible when they describe it later --

13· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

14· · Q.· · · · ·-- right?· Okay.

15· · · · · · · ·And I'm looking at the wrong thing. I

16· · guess I'll start you with this one.· I'm going to

17· · hand you what's previously marked as Plaintiff's

18· · Exhibit 44, which is the informational summary

19· · Sergeant Decker prepared of his interview with

20· · Larry Wilson.· If you could take a look through it

21· · and tell me if you see anything or it reminds you

22· · of anything that would cast doubt on Officer

23· · Wilson's credibility?

24· · A.· · · · ·So, for instance, on 004514 Bates, last

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 166 of 199 PAGEID #: 1642
167

·1· · paragraph, they, you know, just Wes and them said,

·2· · you know, he thinks that all black people are

·3· · inferior, that we're dumb.· So he's saying Wes

·4· · said he thinks all black people are dumb.· He's

·5· · not speaking on firsthand knowledge.· He says the

·6· · N word got thrown around a lot.· Have I heard him

·7· · say it?· No.· Do I believe he said it?· Yes.

·8· · Something like that would be an example where it's

·9· · not definitive.

10· · Q.· · · · ·Officer Wilson -- I mean, I'll ask you

11· · to just read the whole thing.· I know it will take

12· · a little bit of time, but you wanted to get a

13· · sense of the whole thing.· There are things that

14· · Officer Wilson describes that are not secondhand

15· · or things that he heard around.· These are things

16· · that he heard Sergeant Moore say himself.· And I'm

17· · asking you whether there was any reason from the

18· · informational summary or from anything else that

19· · you knew that would cast doubt on Officer Wilson's

20· · credibility describing what he heard firsthand?

21· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Jeff, just to be

22· · clear, are you going to have him read everything?

23· · What exactly do you want him to read it for, just

24· · so we can --

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 167 of 199 PAGEID #: 1643
168

·1· · · · · · · ·MR. VARDARO:· I'm going to look at

·2· · something because we have a little bit more detail

·3· · on that, but I think I asked the question I want

·4· · answered.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·And I guess in particular, were Officer

·6· · Wilson's summary -- there's comments that he

·7· · describes hearing Sergeant Moore say personally

·8· · that he wants to wipe the floor with Eric Cornett,

·9· · or take him out back, and that he threatened to

10· · put a GPS on Eric Cornett's car and take his

11· · badge.· And also that he observed Eric Moore

12· · tacitly admit to making racial slurs, in that

13· · other people asked him directly about it and he

14· · didn't deny it.

15· · A.· · · · ·Again, without going through line by

16· · line, there's just a lot of stuff in here as one

17· · example that he hedged his answer that would not,

18· · I don't think, stand up to being definitive. I

19· · asked Officer Wilson if he ever heard -- this is

20· · on 004516 -- if he ever heard Sergeant Moore when

21· · speaking with Sergeant Williams or Officer Cornett

22· · refer to them as a monkey?· He responded, I don't

23· · know.· I don't know.· And this is why I say I

24· · don't know.· It all borders together.· And he goes

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 168 of 199 PAGEID #: 1644
169

·1· · on.· I've heard him many times say, if I could get

·2· · him someplace, I would wipe the floor with him,

·3· · but it's because of stuff that Eric Cornett had

·4· · done to him that he felt was unjust.

·5· · · · · · · ·Officer Wilson elaborated.· Sergeant

·6· · Moore goes, Larry, if I could get my hands, he

·7· · goes, you know what, if all it takes for us to

·8· · settle this like men, if we could just go back, we

·9· · would settle it right there.

10· · · · · · · ·And, again, he's explaining that he

11· · stated this was in an e-mail conversation or

12· · something that to this day, I never saw it, I just

13· · heard about it.· Again, there's just -- I didn't

14· · feel there was enough here to -- with everything

15· · else we had to -- to pursue that.

16· · Q.· · · · ·Well, in what you just read, it would

17· · be accurate to say that Officer Wilson was not

18· · definitive at all about hearing Sergeant Moore

19· · make racial slurs, but he was very definitive

20· · about hearing him say a number of times, if I

21· · could get him someplace, I would wipe the floor

22· · with him, and things along those lines?

23· · A.· · · · ·Yes.· And, again, this is something

24· · that to my understanding was months old.· And they

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 169 of 199 PAGEID #: 1645
170

·1· · had worked together and he never actually acted on

·2· · anything.· So I had no reason to believe this was

·3· · anything more than idle chatter between one

·4· · employee and another.· And that's -- that's where

·5· · that --

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

·7· · A.· · · · ·-- was resolved.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Can you take a look at Plaintiff's

·9· · Exhibit 11?· And I'll ask you the same question

10· · about Officer Watkins.· And in particular, I want

11· · you to take a look at pages 4 and 5 of this

12· · summary where he confirms that Sergeant Moore

13· · called Eric Cornett a monkey or an ape or both.

14· · A.· · · · ·He was asked if he had ever heard him

15· · refer to officer as a monkey, an ape or the N

16· · word, and I'm not repeating.· He responded, yes.

17· · He asked, well, which one?· And he said, a monkey.

18· · Q.· · · · ·And he also said on page -- on the last

19· · page, second-to-last paragraph of the whole

20· · interview, that he had heard Sergeant Moore refer

21· · to black people as a race as lazy?

22· · A.· · · · ·Correct.

23· · Q.· · · · ·And then the paragraph after that, he

24· · heard -- he said that he heard him refer to

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 170 of 199 PAGEID #: 1646
171

·1· · Officer Cornett as an ape?

·2· · A.· · · · ·Yeah.· And he also -- he says

·3· · specifically, I never heard the N word, but he

·4· · said -- asked if he heard Sergeant Moore say he

·5· · was going to go talk to Lieutenant Kemmerling

·6· · about that ape?· I've heard him refer to Cornett

·7· · as an ape specifically about Kemmerling.· I don't

·8· · remember the timing on that.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So, again, he's definitive about

10· · him calling Officer Cornett racial slurs and he's

11· · definitive about him calling black people lazy.

12· · He's less definitive about the -- some of the

13· · specific context here?

14· · A.· · · · ·Correct.· And to reiterate on the

15· · allegation 16, Sergeant Eric Moore referred to

16· · Williams, Cornett or others using racially

17· · derogatory language, I sustained that and said

18· · it's accurate.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And I guess I'll go back to my

20· · original question.· You said the reason why it was

21· · sustained as discourteous but not as an EEO

22· · violation was, at least in part, because you felt

23· · it did not rise to the level of hostile work

24· · environment.· And that's what I was sort of

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 171 of 199 PAGEID #: 1647
172

·1· · reacting to is what -- what leads you to say that

·2· · in particular?

·3· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·4· · A.· · · · ·The -- the individuals who state that

·5· · they were suffering career -- hostile work

·6· · environment had no knowledge based on my reading

·7· · of this of this occurring.· It was other

·8· · individuals who heard some stuff, but were all

·9· · over the place on what it was that they heard or

10· · what the time frame was, whether it was two months

11· · ago or two years ago.· And they did not report it,

12· · so I sustained it that it was improper, absolutely

13· · 100 percent wrong, no question.

14· · · · · · · ·But to show -- again, the burden is on

15· · us to show that it was sustained as a hostile work

16· · environment.· There was no actions taken against

17· · the officers.· They had no knowledge of it at the

18· · time.· So I did not see how I could prove that was

19· · a hostile work environment to something they had

20· · no knowledge of.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Would it have to -- I guess my

22· · question is really about the -- what you mean by

23· · "a hostile work environment."· Like what -- does

24· · that have something to do with the Columbus Police

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 172 of 199 PAGEID #: 1648
173

·1· · standard for what is and isn't an EEO violation?

·2· · A.· · · · ·It follows the statutory language,

·3· · which I would have to pull out the directory and

·4· · go through the four or five items that are

·5· · specifically listed.· But if you have that --

·6· · again, generally in my mind I have an idea, but I

·7· · would have to cite what it was that I compared it

·8· · to.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Did you have any conversations

10· · with either division or city HR personnel about

11· · what would or would not be an EEO violation in

12· · these circumstances?

13· · A.· · · · ·Not as I recall.

14· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Commander Jennifer Knight was at

15· · some point removed from internal affairs by Chief

16· · Jacobs.· Were you aware of that?

17· · A.· · · · ·I will classify it or categorize it as

18· · reassigned.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.

20· · A.· · · · ·Which the chief does on a regular basis

21· · to all commanders.

22· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you know why in particular

23· · Jennifer Knight was reassigned from her position

24· · in internal affairs?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 173 of 199 PAGEID #: 1649
174

·1· · A.· · · · ·I just know that the chief made three

·2· · or four changes, which was her prerogative.· So I

·3· · don't know, you would have to ask her why she made

·4· · that specific decision.· I don't know.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· So the chief doesn't consult

·6· · with you about that?

·7· · A.· · · · ·No.· She would not do that.

·8· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· And you didn't make any

·9· · recommendations about reassigning Jennifer Knight

10· · from IA?

11· · A.· · · · ·No.· My entire limitation was when

12· · she -- when the chief mentioned she was going to

13· · make X moves, whatever individuals they were, and

14· · said she was going to change the assignments of,

15· · you know, A, B, and C, Jen Knight was one of them.

16· · I said I would be happy to have her on patrol

17· · north, so I welcomed her to come to my

18· · subdivision.

19· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Were you aware at the time that

20· · you told the chief that, and at the time that

21· · Jennifer Knight was reassigned from IA, that there

22· · had been allegations that Jennifer Knight was not

23· · properly handling allegations of discrimination

24· · that she was in charge of reviewing with IA?

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 174 of 199 PAGEID #: 1650
175

·1· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· Objection.· Go ahead.

·2· · A.· · · · ·I don't know that they were about

·3· · allegations of discrimination.· I know there were

·4· · people -- I had heard that there were other chains

·5· · of command that did not like the outcomes of

·6· · investigations, did not feel they were being

·7· · investigated to their satisfaction.· That's all I

·8· · know.

·9· · Q.· · · · ·What were the chains of commands that

10· · had a problem with that?

11· · A.· · · · ·I believe it was Chief Kuebler and

12· · possible Chief Bash, as I recall.· But I don't --

13· · I can't confirm, just as I recall.

14· · Q.· · · · ·What's the best of your recollection

15· · what that was about?

16· · A.· · · · ·I think how long it takes to get an

17· · investigation through the chain of command was --

18· · is just unacceptable.· The -- again, this type of

19· · investigation that is so expansive and not

20· · narrowly defined, to focus on the real issues, I

21· · think we probably could have narrowed this down to

22· · three concrete allegations that were critical

23· · misconduct related, untruthfulness, unbecoming

24· · conduct, violations of laws potentially.· If we

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 175 of 199 PAGEID #: 1651
176

·1· · had that proof for EEO sake, could have narrowed

·2· · it down and had probably a better work product.

·3· · So I think they were wanting a change in direction

·4· · there.

·5· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember specifically

·6· · whether there was a concern about an investigation

·7· · that Jennifer Knight had authority over for --

·8· · involving a racial profiling by patrol officers in

·9· · a particular zone?

10· · A.· · · · ·I remember the case.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· Do you remember the -- there was

12· · concerns within the chain of command about

13· · Jennifer Knight's handling of the case?

14· · A.· · · · ·I remember there were allegations made

15· · by the person accused of discrimination making

16· · allegations, but I did not investigate them. I

17· · don't have any firsthand knowledge of what was

18· · occurring in those investigations.· I did not --

19· · it was a whole different chain of command, so I

20· · did not oversee those.

21· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· How about the situation where

22· · Falacia Dragin had raised a concern about Jennifer

23· · Knight telling a white command officer that she

24· · had made a discrimination complaint about that he

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 176 of 199 PAGEID #: 1652
177

·1· · didn't need to worry about the investigation and

·2· · she was going to handle it?

·3· · A.· · · · ·I know that allegation was made. I

·4· · don't know what the actual statement was or what

·5· · the context was, so I made no conclusion on that.

·6· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· You don't know whether that had

·7· · any impact on Jennifer Knight's reassignment from

·8· · IA?

·9· · A.· · · · ·The chief would not have talked to me

10· · about that.

11· · Q.· · · · ·Okay.· With one exception, those are

12· · all the questions I have for you today.· The one

13· · exception is:· Do you have anything in what you've

14· · said throughout the whole rest of the day that you

15· · feel you need to add to or correct at this time?

16· · A.· · · · ·I feel I did that along the way.

17· · · · · · · ·MR. VARDARO:· All right.· Then those

18· · are all the questions I have.

19· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you, sir.

20· · · · · · · ·MR. COGLIANESE:· He'll read.

21· · · · · · · ·(Signature not waived.)

22· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - - -

23· · · · · · ·Thereupon, the foregoing proceedings

24· · · · · · ·concluded at 3:15 p.m.

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 177 of 199 PAGEID #: 1653
178

·1· · State of Ohio· · ·:· · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E

· · · County of Franklin: SS

·2

· · · · · I, Mary Bradley, RPR, CRR, a Notary Public in

·3· · and for the State of Ohio, certify that Thomas

· · · Quinlan was by me duly sworn to testify to the

·4· · whole truth in the cause aforesaid; testimony then

· · · given was reduced to stenotype in the presence of

·5· · said witness, afterwards transcribed by me; the

· · · foregoing is a true record of the testimony so

·6· · given; and this deposition was taken at the time

· · · and place specified on the title page.

·7

· · · · · Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of

·8· · Civil Procedure, the witness and/or the parties

· · · have not waived review of the deposition

·9· · transcript.

10· · · · I certify I am not a relative, employee,

· · · attorney or counsel of any of the parties hereto,

11· · and further I am not a relative or employee of any

· · · attorney or counsel employed by the parties

12· · hereto, or financially interested in the action.

13· · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

· · · hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus,

14· · Ohio, on August 6, 2019.

15

16

17

18

19

· · · __________________________________________________

20· · Mary Bradley, Notary Public - State of Ohio

· · · My commission expires September 19, 2019.

21

22

23

24

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 178 of 199 PAGEID #: 1654
179

· · · · Witness Errata and Signature Sheet

· · · · ·Correction or Change Reason Code

· ·1-Misspelling· 2-Word Omitted· 3-Wrong Word

· · ·4-Clarification· 5-Other (Please explain)

Page/Line· · ·Correction or Change· · ·Reason Code

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

_______· _______________________________· ________

I, Thomas Quinlan, have read the entire transcript

of my deposition taken in this matter, or the same

has been read to me.· I request that the changes

noted on my errata sheet(s) be entered into the

record for the reasons indicated.

Date__________Signature___________________________

The witness has failed to sign the deposition

within the time allowed.

Date__________Signature___________________________

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Ref: Mb30925tq· S-mb P-bw

Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 179 of 199 PAGEID #: 1655
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 180 of 199 PAGEID #: 1656
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 181 of 199 PAGEID #: 1657
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 182 of 199 PAGEID #: 1658
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 183 of 199 PAGEID #: 1659
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 184 of 199 PAGEID #: 1660
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 185 of 199 PAGEID #: 1661
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 186 of 199 PAGEID #: 1662
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 187 of 199 PAGEID #: 1663
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 188 of 199 PAGEID #: 1664
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 189 of 199 PAGEID #: 1665
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 190 of 199 PAGEID #: 1666
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 191 of 199 PAGEID #: 1667
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 192 of 199 PAGEID #: 1668
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 193 of 199 PAGEID #: 1669
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 194 of 199 PAGEID #: 1670
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 195 of 199 PAGEID #: 1671
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 196 of 199 PAGEID #: 1672
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 197 of 199 PAGEID #: 1673
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 198 of 199 PAGEID #: 1674
Case: 2:18-cv-00483-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15-11 Filed: 08/15/19 Page: 199 of 199 PAGEID #: 1675