PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Haytham Faraj, Pro Hac Vice

Law Offices of Haytham Faraj

1935 W. Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60657

P: 312-635-0800

M: 818-925-4060

F: 202-280-1039 

haytham@farajlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MUSSALINA MUHAYMIN as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHAYMIN 

JR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PHOENIX, an Arizona 

Municipal Corporation; ANTONIO 

TARANGO; Officer OSWALD 

GRENIER; Officer KEVIN McGOWAN; 

Officer JASON HOBE; Officer 

RONALDO CANILAO; Officer DAVID 

HEAD; Officer SUSAN HEIMBINGER; 

Officer JAMES CLARK; Officer DENNIS 

LEROUS; Officer RYAN NIELSON; 

Officer STEVEN WONG; and DOE 

Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No. CV-17-04565-PHX-SPL

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO 

MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND 

VIDEO 

AND

EXPEDITED MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER TO CEASE 

AND/DESIST AND REMOVE 

PUBLIC POSTINGS
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CEASE AMD 

DESIST

INTRODUCTION

Defendant City of Phoenix and its elected officials are using taxpayer money to fund 

legal efforts aimed at curbing political speech in an effort to protect their seats in the 2020

elections. Counsel for the defendant City and its elected officials filed a supplement to its 

motion for a protective order seeking to muzzle counsel for the plaintiff in this action from 

commenting on current events and drawing comparisons to the knee that killed George 

Floyd with the knee that killed Muhammad Muhaymin. The defendants seek to use the 

civil case as a pretext to limit the advocacy of counsel on behalf of plaintiffs who have 

called for criminal prosecution for the defendant officers, which this court has no 

jurisdiction over; modification of the use of arrest procedures which are known to cause 

positional asphyxiation that this court has no power to order or affect; firing of the 

responsible officers, which this court cannot order; the unseating of the Mayor in the 2020 

elections which is constitutionally protected political speech unrelated to the civil case; 

unseating of the Maricopa County Attorney in November 2020 who failed to conduct a 

criminal investigation into the individual defendant officer actions; advocacy to appoint a 

new Police Chief that is willing to hold officers accountable for official misconduct as the 

City of Minneapolis did after the killing of George Floyd in the exact manner that 

Muhammad Muhaymin was killed by the individual defendant officers in this case, and 

which this court cannot limit.

Lastly, even if this court were to limit its inquiry of the postings to the impact on 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the civil case, plaintiffs are well within their rights to engage in the conduct because it is a 

response to the defendants’ attempts to shape the narrative by posting an edited and 

modified version of the incident along with patently false statements that Mr. Muhaymin 

refused to leave a public facility; assaulted an employee; and that he acted violently. All of 

these statements are falsely based on sworn testimony from the defendant officers and 

Community Center manager. Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6, as with the Model 

Rules, permit a lawyer to make a statement to protect a client from the substantial undue 

prejudice as a result of statements not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. The 

temporal qualifier in the rule has not been mitigated because the posted quoted statements 

from the Phoenix police department statement remain online and is visible on the first page 

of a google search for the name Muhammad.1

LEGAL ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff’s counsel advocacy is not limited to the civil matter but also includes 

advocacy to effectuate criminal prosecution of defendants, policy changes, 

procedural changes and, if necessary, political change. 

The events since May 25, 2020, since the killing of Mr. George Floyd, have brought 

renewed attention to the issues of excessive force by police. The killing of George Floyd 

by asphyxiation by four Minneapolis police officers has been condemned by numerous 

police Chiefs, public officials and even the very pro-police President of the United States 

called for the F.B.I. to investigate the death of George Floyd. The responsible officers were 

1 All statements attributed to police officers which may be subject to the unagreed 

to assertion of confidentiality by defendants are available online from the video posted by 

the defendants through ABC News.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fired within 24 hours of the death of Mr. Floyd and the officer with a knee to the neck of 

Mr. Floyd was charged criminally by the District Attorney. 

Mr. Muhaymin died the same way. After cuffing Mr. Muhaymin, the defendant 

officers took him to ground, one placed his knee into the neck and head of Mr. Muhaymin 

as others pressed their knees or bodies into his back, depriving him of the ability to breath 

until he suffocated to death. Mr. Muhaymin’s sister and daughter, from the outset and long 

before any civil action was taken, called for a criminal investigation and prosecution. 

Neither the City or Maricopa County took any action. They called for the firing of the 

police officers. None of the officers were fired or even administratively reprimanded. They 

called for changes in how to deal with mentally disabled people like Mr. Muhaymin. The 

City demurred. When their pleas found no response from the City of Phoenix or the 

Maricopa County Attorney, they reached out, through their counsels, to human and civil 

rights organizations and advocates including Black Lives Matter and CAIR of Arizona, 

among several others, to help them raise awareness and effectuate the political change 

necessary to prevent deaths like Mr. Muhammad’s from happening again. All of these 

actions took place before a civil case was filed. Counsel for the plaintiffs have been alongside their clients advocating for the legal and political remedies they seek to effectuate from 

the outset.

Social media posts calling attention to the stark parallels between the deaths of Mr. 

Floyd and Mr. Muhaymin do nothing to advance the civil case for plaintiffs nor deny either 

party a right to a fair trial. Prominence does not produce prejudice. Skilling v. United States, 

561 U.S. 358, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2902, 177 L. Ed. 2d 619 (2010). A presumption of prejudice 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attends only the extreme case. Id. The social media posts do offer plaintiffs an opportunity 

to influence political change in the leadership of the City and the County in the November 

elections and perhaps even criminal accountability of the officers. The City’s motion to 

muzzle counsel for plaintiffs is an illegal attempt to curb political speech. It is also probably 

a criminal act that violates Federal Election laws by the politician who approved the work 

of private counsel paid for by taxpayers to protect the political seats of elected officials 

including the City of Phoenix Mayor and City Council seats up for election. 

a. Pursuit of criminal prosecution of the defendants is issue advocacy 

unrelated to the civil case.

In June of 1995, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice published a bulletin that was disseminated to all law 

enforcement agencies putting them on notice of the danger of positional asphyxia. (Exhibit 

1.) Positional asphyxia is the cause of death of George Floyd and Muhammad Muhaymin. 

The bulletin also provided information about the physiology of the struggle. Pressure 

applied to the back of the person who is prone will result in compression. Compression 

will result in difficulty breathing which causes the person to struggle even more. Greater 

pressure to subdue has the opposite effect of inducing compliance. It results in a greater 

struggle to breath due to oxygen deficiency until the person suffocates. This is the manner 

of death of Muhammad Muhaymin. He cried out several times that he cannot breathe. He

clearly struggled the less oxygen he received. Rather than let up as the bulletin 

recommends. The officers remained on him until he died. That is the same manner of death 

as Mr. Floyd. 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The immediate condemnation of Mr. Floyd’s death by many police chiefs, public 

officials and even the President, and the firing of the four responsible officers, provided an 

opportunity to bring attention and accountability to the conduct of the officers involved in 

Mr. Muhammed’s death and the City’s failure to train the officers to recognize the dangers 

of positional asphyxia. The advocacy undertaken by counsel for plaintiffs is not limited to 

winning the civil case but to bring attention to fundamental issues in policing. Plaintiff 

Mussalina Muhaymin continues to demand criminal accountability. Social media posts to 

bring attention to Mr. Muhammad’s death that can be leveraged to apply pressure on 

politicians to conduct an independent criminal investigation and to charge the responsible 

officers is well within the charge of plaintiffs’ counsel, or, in the alternative, face the wrath 

of voters. Such issue advocacy is part and parcel of counsel’s advocacy. See Fed. Election

Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right To Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 477, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2671, 168 L. 

Ed. 2d 329 (2007). Rejecting the attempt to regulate issue advocacy.2

Claims by defendants that the social media posts will somehow influence the civil 

case are disingenuous and specious in light of the City of Phenix Police Department’s 

spokes person’s false statements about the facts of this case and the videos remain for the 

public to access and review. https://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-police-release-bodycamera-videos-mans-death/story?id=45088346, (Exhibit 2) (As it appeared on June 1, 

2020). The city wants to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they claim prejudice 

2 The citation to this case is not intended to draw factual parallels to the challenge 

by the FEC to Wisconsin Right to Life but it is an informative reminder of the strict scrutiny 

the attempt to regulate speech receives.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

when counsel for plaintiffs engages in inherently political speech calling on the public to 

hold public officials responsible, while on the other hand, the spokesperson of the police 

department leverages the unique access police departments have to free publicity to offer 

false facts and conclusions that they know will forever remain accessible to the public. The 

Phoenix police department did not just put out the videos, they put out statements that could 

have only come from police officers to shape the narrative to the defendants’ benefit. The 

Spokesperson was not present at the scene of Mr. Muhammad’s killing. Accordingly, his 

information came from the officers at the scene. The City knowingly and intentionally put 

out those statements. Now, it seeks court intervention to make them “confidential” so as 

not, as the City alleges, to influence the proceeding. But that is not the only reason 

statements may be made public. 

b. Advocacy and speech to effectuate political change is unrelated to 

this civil case.

Notwithstanding the submission as evidence in support of the motion of a settlement 

communication covered by F.R.E. 408, every settlement communication sent by plaintiffs 

has invited dialogue between City leaders, including the police chief, and the plaintiffs. 

Defendants have not shown any interest except a half-heated attempt at mediation. Plaintiff 

Mussalina Muhaymin, like most victims of violent crimes, seeks answers and 

understanding. She seeks accountability. The remedies available through a civil suit were 

her last resort and remain lowest on her list of priorities.

When the City refused to hold the responsible officers accountable, Plaintiff 

Muhaymin turned to action to effectuate political change. She reached out to several 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

community and national civil rights organization with the help of her attorneys to bring 

attention to the City’s failure to hold the responsible officers accountable. Social media 

posts seek to effectuate that change. We currently continue to work to bring the type of 

media attention that the City and its police department have ready -and free- access to so 

that City leaders can be held accountable for their refusal in the fall3. The City’s motion, 

that is funded by taxpayers, seeks to limit that political speech and may violate Federal 

Election laws. “A State or local officer or employee may not use his official authority or 

influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election for office.”

5 U.S.C. §1502. While an argument can certainly be made that social media posts may 

possibly affect the civil case, the jury selection process and the charge of the jury regarding 

their duties to follow the law, eliminates the possibility of unfair prejudice from pretrial 

publicity, assuming people saw and remember the social media posts at the time of trial. A 

more persuasive argument is that the social media posts will put pressure on elected 

officials to take action to better train and regulate the police department, to hold the 

responsible officers accountable or lose their elected offices in the fall.4 The attempt to 

limit plaintiffs, through counsel, from bringing attention to the city leaders’ failure to take 

action is an attempt to have this court regulate inherently political speech, not subject to 

regulation.

3 Compare the City of Phoenix utter refusal to undertake a criminal investigation or 

even a an administrative review of procedures with the actions of the Minneapolis P.D. in 

the George Floyd case.

4 The Maricopa County Attorney, City of Phoenix mayor and three council member 

seats are up for reelection in the fall.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

City officials undertook to publish the City’s own position in the local media. Supra. 

They are well aware that Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct ER 3.6, which the 

defendants rely on to effectuate their purpose of silencing counsel for the plaintiff, also 

states:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable 

lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue 

prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's 

client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such 

information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

Ariz. R. Prof. Cond. 3.6(c) (Emphasis added).

Defendants failed to include that paragraph in their brief. While the Court may be aware of 

the Rule and its exception, the failure to include it, reveals defendants’ lack of candor with 

the Court. See. E.R. 3.3(a)(2).

In light of the City’s clear violation of E.R. 3.6 when it used the police department 

spokesperson to provide alleged facts that are verifiably false about the killing of Mr.

Muhammad and the reasonable presumption that defendants did not stop reading E.R. 3.6 

at paragraph (b) but actually continued to paragraph (c), the exception, the City’s motion 

appears to be nothing more than a tax payer funded effort by public officials to limit the 

political damage to their political careers from their failure to undertake a criminal 

investigation of the defendant officers’ actions or even an administrative review of arrest 

procedures that the DOJ warned about in 1995. 

c. The social media posts in this case are appropriate responses to the 

Defendants’ media statements.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Despite jury instructions that admonish jurors not to conduct outside research about a 

case, jurors often do. A simple search of the words “Muhammad” and “Muhaymin” reveals 

the ABC News article, on the first search page, that includes quotes from City of Phoenix 

P.D. with the following false statements:

1. “Multiple officers were needed to subdue the man who continued to act 

violently even after he was restrained by officers and handcuffs.”

(See Exhibit 2.) 

This statement is false and was then known to be false by the Phoenix P.D. and its 

spokesperson. All of the officers directly involved have been deposed and none have 

testified that Mr. Muhaymin was violent. The videos do not reveal violent behavior. 

Moreover, Mr. Muhaymin was handcuffed and subdued outside of the Maryvale 

Community Center by the first three officers that were there. He started screaming after 

they got him to the police vehicle and lifted his handcuffed arms up behind his back and in 

a nearly 360-degree arc over his head and to his front. That violence was unnecessary since 

he was already handcuffed and at the vehicle. That movement probably tore both rotator 

cuffs which would have caused intolerable pain which is consistent with the agonizing 

screams heard on the video. Finally, the witness -Arizona Smith- who observed the arrest 

and killing, testified that officers took Muhaymin to ground after he had his handcuffed 

arms spun from behind his back to his front. She testified that four officers put their weight 

on him, and one had a knee to his neck. She heard him say I can’t breathe before he fell 

silent. (Arizona Smith Depo. P. 14-18. Exhibit 3.)
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. “Officers observed Muhaymin ‘acting erratically’ and refusing to leave 

the facility after he ‘had assaulted an employee.’” 

(See Exhibit 2.)

This statement is also false. Officers never asked him to leave the facility and had 

no right to ask him to leave a public facility because he had not violated any law. The 

facility manager was deposed and consistent with his statement on video admitted that he 

was not assaulted. The police officers, then, knew that the public facility manager had made 

a false police report alleging an assault. Yet, they decided to arrest Muhaymin and to ignore 

the crime committed by the facility manager in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-

2907.1 which states: “A person commits false reporting by initiating or circulating a report 

of a...offense...knowing that such report is false and intending [t]hat it will cause action 

of any sort by an official...organized to deal with emergencies.” The facility manager 

admitted to the officers that he was not assaulted. It was his false call that resulted in their 

response to the Community Center. The officers ignored the false call and set upon 

Muhaymin instead.

3. “While struggling with officers on the ground in the parking lot outside 

the community center after his arrest, Muhaymin began showing signs 

of medical distress.”

(Id.)

This statement is also false and misleadingly suggests that there was a struggle
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

instigated by Mr. Muhaymin. Mr. Muhaymin’s only struggle was his struggle to breath

when the defendant officers digged their knees into his neck and back until he died. He 

pleaded “I can’t breathe” several times. The homicide was not a result of the struggle by 

Mr. Muhammad but due to positional asphyxiation brought upon from the knee to 

Muhaymin’s neck and the weight upon his back causing compression and depriving him 

of oxygen. He did not die because he struggled. He died because he was suffocated.

Unlike the ABC News article with the statements from the individual defendants 

and the City of Phoenix which appear on the first page of a google search, the social media 

posts defendants complain about could not be retrieved through a google search after 

combing through the first 10 pages of a google search result using the words “Muhammad 

Muhaymin.” Any claim by defendants that they are not responsible for the ABC News 

report article or that the article is old is disingenuous and feigns ignorance. Unlike a 

traditional newspaper article whose impact would be expected to dissipate after a few years 

or even months or weeks, statements on the internet remain readily accessible and always 

visible. The defendants knew that their statements would be accessible on the internet as 

the official factual version of what actually occurred. The statements of defendants appear 

as the third listing on the first page of a google search. A juror who determines to disobey 

the court’s admonition to not conduct outside research will find the false statements about 

Mr. Muhammad long before any social media postings, assuming such postings are capable

of being retrieved by a Google search. And if such posts are accessible, then they are 

nothing more than proper responses to the City’s pretrial publicity statements as allowed 

by ER 3.6(c).
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. Defendants attack on plaintiff’s counsel and his intent are specious 

and seeks to damage an-out-of state counsel’s reputation before this 

court.

Undersigned counsel served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 22 years before retiring. 

After service throughout the world in several combat missions and many leadership 

positions, counsel became an attorney and represented criminally accused service 

members. Undersigned counsel has tried more than one hundred criminal and civil jury 

trials throughout the United States. Plaintiff’s counsel does not need nor seeks to leverage 

pretrial publicity to prevail at trial as the defendants allege. Wearing the uniform and 

swearing to uphold the constitution meant a commitment to protecting the weak and 

vulnerable and to fight against those who abuse their authority or power. The social media 

posts provide a vehicle to advocate for political change on behalf of a helpless client who 

is desperate to understand why no one has been held accountable for the death of her 

brother, especially in light of the accountability demonstrated by city leaders in 

Minneapolis for the death of George Floyd.

The social media posts were, in fact, posted to leverage the national attention now 

turned to policing so that the City of Phoenix will institute the necessary procedures to 

avoid tragedies like the death of Muhammad Muhaymin and to hold accountable officers 

that violate well known policies.5 To the extent that such posts incite anger at the City of 

5 City of Phoenix is well aware of the dangers of positional asphyxiation. In 2014, 

the city settled a case alleging the wrongful death of a man due to positional asphyxiation.

See https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/02/06/family-edgardofigueroa-who-died-phoenix-police-custody-get-settlement/2790658002/
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Phoenix and its police department, then such actions are precisely what is needed to 

effectuate change in November and prima facie evidence of the improper use of public 

authority and money by defendants to interfere with a political election. Defendant’s 

unpersuasive citation to a couple of out of state, unreported district court cases, where in 

one the court disagreed with the attempt to disallow video depositions of police officers 

but permitted blurring of the faces upon plaintiff’s concession that there is no reason to 

believe that the officers will not be available to appear for trial; and another related to a 

disagreement in a settlement agreement as to whether police officer’s images would be 

pixelated, are hardly persuasive authority to curb speech seeking to effectuate political 

change. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ supplemental motion should be denied in its entirety as an improper 

limitation on constitutionally protected speech. The complained of social media posts are 

unlikely to affect the trial outcome but definitively fit the definition of a political issue 

which may not be limited by this court absent strict scrutiny. Moreover, even if the social 

media posts are likely to fit the definition of pretrial statements, they are well within the 

response parameters contemplated by E.R. 3.6(c) of the Arizona Rules of Professional 

Conduct. 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEO AND EXPEDITED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND REMOVE PUBLIC POSTINGS

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respectfully submitted this 1st of June, 2020.

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM 

FARAJ

/s/ Haytham Faraj

Haytham Faraj, Pro Hac Vice

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 1, 2020, I electronically files the forgoing with the 

Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, using the CM/ECF 

System. A notice of electronic filing will be served on the following registered participants:

Daniel J. O’Connor Jr.

Karen Stillwell

Jared Scarborough

O’CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

7955 South Priest Drive 

Tempe, Arizona 85284

Attorneys for defendants

Brian J. Theut

Theut, Theut & Theut

5150 North 16th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85258

Court ordered representative

for Amirah Muhaymin, a minor

By: /s/ Haytham Faraj