Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
Brenda Munoz Furnish
bmfurnish@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys
for Plaintiffs listed on next page)
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
v.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT ARPAIOS MOTION
FOR EXTENSION
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
1
2
of fact regarding the charges of civil contempt against Defendant Arpaio and other non-
party contemnors. (Doc. 1677.) During these proceedings the Court permitted the
Parties to introduce all factual evidence relating to such charges and the relief to which
Plaintiffs are entitled. Defendant now asks for an additional 90 days to review the
factual and legal basis for the Courts findings. The Court should deny this request for
10
First, Defendant Arpaio did not meet and confer with Plaintiffs to determine their
11
position on the extension as required by Local Rule 7.3(b). For this reason alone,
12
13
Second, Defendant misconstrues the nature of the Courts findings of facts and has
14
had ample time to review the record. The Courts findings are final, based on the
15
considerable record before it (which Defendant has had six months or more to review),
16
and Defendant is not necessarily entitled an opportunity to contest every aspect of those
17
findings before this Court. This is not, as Defendant suggests, the equivalent of a
18
motion to which a party would be entitled to file a response in opposition. See Def.s
19
Mot. at 3. Further, while not obligated to do so, the Court has permitted the Parties 14
20
days in which file memoranda on the matters set forth by the Courts May 13 Order.
21
This is the same amount of time provided to Defendant to file a motion for
22
23
24
Third, Defendant also contends that the Parties had three months to analyze and
25
respond to the Courts original findings of fact issued on May 24, 2013. This is an
26
inaccurate comparison. At that time the Parties requested and were provided an
27
28
remedies alone. Here, the Court has delineated proposed relief for the Plaintiff class,
Fourth, settlement discussions are not only unnecessary at this point given the
Courts findings, they are also unlikely to be productive. The Parties were unable to
settle matters prior to or during the contempt proceeding. Plaintiffs do not believe there
failed to disclose discovery that he was legally obligated to produce, and conducted
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Daniel Pochoda
Brenda Munoz Furnish
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 19, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing
system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28