Case 5






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

18-cv-01125?SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:4411

Susan E. Coleman SBN 171832)
E?mail: scoleman bwslaw'.com
Carmen M. Aguado (SBN 291941)
E-mail: ca uado bwslaw.com
BURKE, ILLI
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los An eles, CA 90071-2953

Tel: 21 236.0600

Attorne for Defendants

CITY OF ADELANTO

OMAR ARNOLDO RIVERA
ISAAC ANTONIO
LOPEZ JOSUE
VLADIMIR CORTEZ JOSUE
MATEO LEMUS 
MARVIN JOSUE GRANDE
ALEXANDER
ANTONIO BURGOS MEJ LUIS
PENA JULIO CESAR
BARAHONA CORNEJO, as
individuals,

Plaintiffs,
V.

THE GEO GROUP, Inc., a Florida
co oration; the CITY OF 

AD LANTO, a munlci a1 GEO
LIEUTENANT DURA sued 1n her
individual oagacit GEO
LIEUTENA AZ, sued in her
1nd1v1dual ca a01ty; GEO 
SERGEAN CAMPOS, sued 1n 
individual oapacital; SARAH JONES,
sued 1n her 1nd1v1 ual capamt THE
UNITED STATES OF AME 
and DOES 1-10, individuals,

Defendants.

 

 




 

LA #4829-2817-4510 

SORENSEN, LLP

Fax: 213.236.2700

THE GROUP, INC., DIAZ, CAMPOS and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 

DEFENDANTS DIAZ AND
OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF 
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS
IN RESPONSE TO DEF 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: December 17, 2019
Time: 10:00 am.
Courtroom: 3

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Sheri 


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5'






28

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

 

 

l8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 2 of 73 Page ID #:4412

Defendants, CAMPOS and DIAZ, hereby respond to Plaintiffs? Statement of
Additional Material Facts (Doc. #123) in response to Defendants? Motions for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 111), as follows:
REPLY TO PLAIN STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL

 

 

 

Adelanto Detention
Facility in May 2017.

MATERIAL FACTS
o. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT
1? Plaintiffs, eight asylum Ex. 47, Plaintiffs? Irrelevant and immaterial
frii?igrg?ligee?lgal agegetention to Defendants? Motion for

Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

 

 

 

After enduring more than a
monthof degrading
conditlons and being
deprived of b_aSic human
needs, Plaintiffs decided,
as a group, they would 
be in a hun er strike until
a E0 or I supervisor
would address their
complaints, and they wrote
out aotwo?page letter in
Shpanish that explained

is.

 

Ex. 23, Castillo Dep.

63:10-13 74:21?

75:20, 76:12-25; Ex.

25, Cornejo Dep.
52:25-54:16;

 

1648? of foundation. FRE
Misstates/mischaracterizes

evidence. FRE 403. -

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summar Judgment as to
whether laintiffs endured
?more than a month of
degrading conditions and
being deprived of baSic
human needs? as this does
not relate to any of their
claims and relies on their
opinion. RE 402, 403.

There is no evidence to
sup ort the contention that
the etter explained that
Plaintiffs? ?would be in a
hun er strike until a E0
or I supervisor would
address their corn laints.?
To the contrary, 
ev1dence demonstrates that
Plaintiffs presented a two-
page letter in Spanish that
explained their demands
and a second piece of
paper that was a list of
their name. See Doc. 1 11?

 

LA #4829?2817?4510 v1



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

Case 5'18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 3 of 73 Page ID #:4413

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 -. .
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY DEFENDAN REPLY
2 . SUPPORT
3 Diaz and Campos
Se arate Statement], Nos.
- cz x.
4 9 
Depo.] at 72:2?
5 0, 7327?19, 77:5-15
Of?cer
6 111011 was una le to read
or understand the 11st of
7 lgema?ds??g4z2 11575: 19;
x. e'ia c. at
8 61:7-62: 
gRodrlguez De at
9 9:16- 0:14, x. [Copy
ofhst of demands], 81 
10 82:25 [Translatlon of List
of Demands]; Ex. 
11 gGarma Depo'.] at 34: 16?
615 (ex lammg that
12 Of?cer who only
spoke was
13 informed that they wanted
sorneone to respond to
14 the1rl1st of demands Ex.
[SDiaz Depo] at 0:19
15 51:2 ,62119-63z3; 78:2?
79le (statlng second.
16 ptece of paper was a 11st of
namesf; x. [Martmez
17 Depo. at 78:24-80z2
(statmg the detamee was
18 asked to translate the. l1st
of demands, d1d_ not
19 mentron the _hun er str1ke,
to Of?cer thlon Ex. 
20 Depo] at 14: 1-4
he cannot
21 speak SpamSh), 86:11-20
(acknowledging that he
22 recetved the 11st of
demands), 142:6-21.
23 3. The ?rst age of the letter EX. 23, Castillo De . Lack of foundation. FRE
24 explalne that 73:1-8, 74:2l-75:2 . 602. .
were a peaceful 
25 hunger Istr1l<e and were evrdence. FRE 403.
to speak With 
26 IC of?c1als and GEO There IS no ev1dence to
supervrsors. sup ort the contentron that
27 the. etter explained that
Plarntiffs? ?would be 1n a
28 hunger unt1l a EO
BURKE, S: 
LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 3 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5'






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

 

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 4 of 73 Page ID #:4414

 

No.

STATED
FACTS 

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT



 

 

 

 

 

or ICE supervisor would
address their com laints.?
To the contrary, 
ev1dence demonstrates that
P1a1nt1ffs presented a two-
page letter 1n_Span1sh that
explained therr demands
and a second p1ece of
paper that was a list of
their name. See Doc. 
111-1 [Diaz and Cam os
Se arate Statement], 03.
9- 1 (Citing Ex. 
ECastillo Depo.] at 72:2-
0, 73:7-19, 7725-15
Officer
was una 1e to read
or understand the list of
gemaads??g?r? 11575: 
x. e?ia 0. at
6117-62: 5; Ex. 
Rodri uez De at
9:16? 0:14, x. [Copy
of list of demands], 81 
82:25 [Translation of List
of Demands]; Ex. 
gGarc1a Depo.] at 34:16-
625 (ex lalmng that
Of?cer who only
spoke English, was
informed that they wanted
someone to respond to
their 11st of demands Ex.
gDiaz Depo] at 0:19-
51:2 62219-6313; 78:2?
7_9:l3 (stating second_
piece of Eaper was a 11st of
namesf; x. [Martlnez
Depo. at 78:24?80z2
(stating the detainee was
asked to translate the list
of demands, which did not
mention the hun er strike,
to Of?cer Gillon Ex. 
Gillon Depo] at 14:1-4
con?rming he cannot
speak Spanish), 86:11-20
(acknowledging that he
recerved the 11st of
demands), 14226?21.

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 V1



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5 18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 5 of 73 Page ID #:4415

o. (S1 SSTATED REPLY
2
3 4. The second pa of the Ex. 23, Castillo Dep. Undisputed for purposes
letter consiste of . 73:20-74:25; Ex. 3, of this motion.
4 Plaintiffs list of grievances List of Grievances.
and issues the wanted to
5 raisew1thIC and GEO
offic1als.
6 5. On the morning of June Ex. 23, Castillo De . Undisputed that a letter
7 12,2017, they presented 73:1?8, 73220-7522 written in Spanish was
their letter to Officer EX. F, [Video, Views resented to Of?cer
8 Gillon, the dorm officer, C-2 and at illon.
who was stationed at the 06:22:24 am. to
9 podium in the dayrooni. 6:23 :01 am.
6. Because Plaintiffs only Ex. 30, Rodriguez Undisputed for purposes
10 speak Spanish, they asked Dep. 95 29?22. of this motion.
other detainees to translate
1 1 for them With the Of?cer
12 Gillon.
7_ Plaintiffs, through the Ex. 17, Gillon Dep. Undisputed that the
13 detainee?interpreter, told 86:1 187: 15, 87:25- plaintiffs used a third party
Officer Gillon that they 88:2. detainee to translate.
14 wlelre 0% a hunger staiie
W- en pr esente 1m However there is no
15 the etter. evidence to support the
1 6 contention that a third
1(3)arty detainee explained to
17 fficer Gillon that
Plaintiffs were 
part1c1 ating in a unger
18 strike. IlVIisstates ev1dence.
19 FRE 403. Contrary to
Plaintiffs? assertion, the
20 eVidence c1ted by
Plaintiffs demonstrates.
21 that Gillonthought during
his depOSition that he .
22 learned of a hunger strike
from the letter that he was
23 handed; however, he
admittedthat he had no
24 recollection of the_contents
of the letter and, given he
25 cannot read Spanish, this
IS Simply 1mp0351ble:
26 What do you
mean when you say
27 that you're not sure
what the letter said?
28
BURKE, 
SORENSENI LLP vi - 5 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Los ANGELES

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLF
ATTORNEYS Ar LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 6 of 73 Page ID #:4416

 

No. STATED

FACTS

EVIDENTIARY

SUPPORT

DEFENDAN REPLY

 

 

 

 

 

A I don't remember
what it sa1d on
there.

So you don't
recall as you s1t here
today what the letter
sa1d.



But you do recall
that 1_t was 1n
English?

A Yeah.

As you sit here
toda 2 do on recall
anyt in at was
sa1d1nt letter?

A No.

Additionally, Plaintiffs?
contention IS based on
speculat1on as Plaintiffs
adm1tted that the are
uessmg that Of icer
1110n was informed and
knew they. were on a
hunger strike. See Doc. 
111-1 [Diaz and Cam os
Separate Statement o.
13 (citing Ex. ejra
Depo.] at 58:15- 9:14,
60:11-14, 6323-216728?
11, 159:7?24 
that the papers that were
given to Of?cer did
not mention the hunger
strike, but he assumes that
someone yerball told
Officer Gillon); x. 
[7Rodrrguez Depo.] at 95 
Ex. Garc1a De 
at 38:20?2 EX. [531512
De 0] at 50:4--102 73: ?14,
77: 37783; Ex. 
gMartmez De 0. .at 78:24-
0:2; Ex. 111011
Depo] at 92:2 -93:3

 

 

LA #4829?2817-4510 v1



6 DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5






28

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

'18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 7 of 73 Page ID #:4417

 

 

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
.. FACTS SUPPORT .

I (demonstratin that he was
never toldver ally of the
hunger str1ke)).

8. At ap roximately 6:29:59 Ex. 18, indi Dep. Undisputed for purposes

 

 

Watch supervisor on the
mornmg of June 12, 2017.

91:6-8; Ex. 18, Jindi
Dep. 35:4?8.

f?cer Jindi arrived 58:23-25. ofthis motion.
to the dorm to relieve
Of?cer Gillon.

9_ When Of?cer Gillon was Ex. 17, Gillon Dep. Undisputed that Of?cer
relieved from his post as 90:19-21, 90:25- Gillon was relieved by
dorm of?cer, he reported 91:11. Of?cer indi.
the letter that Plaintiffs
gave him to supervrsor, However, the evidence

t. Dlaz. Cited by Plaintiffs does not
supportPlain?uffsf
content1on that G1llon took
the letter to Lt. Diaz.
Mischaracterizes evidence.
FRE 403. 
evidence demonstrates that
Gillon did not know if he

ave Lt. Diaz the letter.
oreover, the evidence
demonstrates .Lt. Diaz only
received the 11st of names.
See Diaz Decl. ll 9.
10. Lt. Diaz was the First Ex. 17, Gillon Dep. Undisputed for purposes

of this motion.

 

ll.

 

 

At ap roximately 6:32:57
t. Diaz entered 2?
Charlie With a grou of
of?cers and medica staff,
waiving a canlster of OC
Spray in her hand.

 

Ex. F, [Video, View
C?l] at 6:32:57 am;
EX. 18, Jindi De .
63:18-64z5, 64: 7-23,
6525-9; Ex. 16, Lt.
Diaz Dep. 319:2?14.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. RE
402, 403.

Mischaracterizes the
evidence. ERE 403. The
ev1dence Cited by
demonstrates
that from the time Lt. Diaz
entered the dorm 6:32:51
am. to the time 

reac ed the tables where
Plaintiffs were sittin she
raised her arm with 
camster three times.

See Defs.? EX. F, [Video,
View C-l] at 6:32:57 am.

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5






28

'18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 8 of 73 Page ID #:4418

 

No.

STATED
.

EVIDENTIARY
ESUPPORT- . . .

REPLY

 

12.

GEO policy requires its
of?cers to eep their OC
canisters holstered unless a
situationhas arisen that
requires its use.

EX. 16, Lt. Diaz D'ep.
319:15-22.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
SummarBJudgment,
because laz, who was not
deSignated as 

erson most

owledgeable of 

policies and procedures,

rOVided her opinion as to

policy. FRE 402,
403. Improper opinion.
Lacks foundation.
Moreover, this ?fact? is
not material for purposes
of this motion.

 

13.

 

 

No GEO Group polic
permits the use of 
spray in response to a
hunger strike.

 

Ex. 8, GEO Group
Hunger Strike
Response Plan (11310.
15) at 2-3 Sec. 
Ex. H, GE Group
Use of Force Policy
No. 10.2.15) at 9
Sec. 

 

Com ound.

Misc aracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403. .
Incomplete hypothetical.
Improper inionand
conclusmn yPlaintiffs?
counsel.

Plaintiffs ignore their
Exhibit 1, which are
training materials
and state ?Chemical agents
may be useful to control
the following situations: 
In self?defense or in
defense of other persons;
To uell a disturbance
that is 1i _e1y to develop
into a serious disorder or
riot; - To compel an
inmate/detainee in a
contained area to comply
with direct orders. . . 

Additiona11_, use
of force po icy states that
the use of chemical agents
or non?lethal wea ons,
may be authorize when
the situation is such that
the detainee:

Is armed and/or

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5 18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 9 of 73 Page ID #:4419
1
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 . FACTS SUPPORT
3 barricaded; or
4 Cannot be approached
Without danger to self or
5 others; and
It is determined that a
6 delayin bringing the
Situation un er control
7 would constitute a serious
hazard to the detainee or
8 others, or would result in a
major disturbance or
9 serious property damage.
See Doc. 
10 and Diaz A pendix of
Exhibits X. 
11 Use of orce policy .
GEO policy cate orizes EX. H, GEO Grou Undis uted for oses
12 14 the deployment ogf Use of Force Policioy of thispmotion. rp
13 chemical agents. OC (No. 10.2.15) at 3.
rayorce.?
15. Unless ?immediate use? is EX. H, GEO Group Irrelevant and immaterial
15 necessary, GEO policy Use of Force Polic to Defendants? Motion for
requires an of?cer to No. 10.2.15) at 3 9 Summary Judgment _as an
16 obtain authorization from Sec. Ex. 1, alleged policy Violation is
the F?ac1lity Administrator EO Group Use of not a per se Violation of .
17 (or his deSignee) before Force Training . the law; thus, this ?fact? is
usmg OC spray in the Presentation, lide not material. FRE 402,
18 Palm ity. 32. 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
19 Cir. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. award, 109
20 117.9357 427, 430 (8th Cir.
21 
Mischaracterizes the
22 evidence. FRE 403.
Incomplete hypothetical.
23 Improper inionand
concluSion yPlaintiffs?
24 counsel.
25 Per. GEO policy, ?[t]he
ma} or use of force
26 [inclu]ding the yuse luf OC
5 ra 18 Spec; ica 
27 when there is
28 imminent and immediate
BURKE, WILLIAMS 8: 
SORENSENI LA #4829?2817~4510 v1 - 9 DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los Moms RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case L11 J??n DJ in? CD

28

BURKE, WILLIAMS ct:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

l8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 10 of 73 Page ID #:4420

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

danger of physical injury
to emplo ees, detalnees
and/or ot _er persons,
to maintaln or regain
control of a facility or in
the event of a rebellion,
riot or disturbance and
when all of the following
conditions exrst:
Minor use of force would
be insuf?cient to manage
the situation.
- All reasonable actions
have been taken to
stabilize the situation, and
to bring in additional staff
to help 1n to
the situation. See EX. 
Use of Force
at 3 of 17
I(Demp asis added). In other
words, once authorlzed to
use OC ray, an
individua is authorized
to use OC spray.

Moreover, the Facility
Administrator explamed
staff that are trained with
OC spray are authorized
to use OC spra . See
Aguado Decl. SO Reply,
Ex. Janecka Dep.] at
6114-1 1.. here are no
GEO policies that
thereafter require
additional authorization
from the Facilit
Administrator. 82 eg,
Doc. #111?2 [Campos and
Drag Appendlx of
EX ?H?f 
Use of Force pohcy].

 

16.

A facility supervisor, or
?Administrator of the
Day? IS always available
on-call.

Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.
268:10-269210; Ex.
11, anecka Dep.
5927-60220.

Undisputed for purposes
of this motion.

 

l7.

 

 

In addition, an
Administrative Duty

 

Ex. 11, Janecka


 

Undisputed for purposes
of th1s motlon.

 

 

LA #4829n2817-4510 V1

-10..



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

-8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 11 of 73 Page ID #:4421

 

No.

STATED
1 FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

Officer an individual who
carried the administrative
duties through the
weekends and after hours 
was. always stationed at the
aoility.

 

18.

 

 

Pursuant to GEO policy,
the Paellity Administrator
ma authorize the use of
spray. only when the
Situation is such that the
detainee: (1) is armed
and/or barricaded, or (2)
cannot be approached
without dan er to self or
others; and 53) it is
determined that a delay in
bringing the Situation
under control would
constitute a serious hazard
to the detainee or others, or
would result in a major
disturbance or serious
property damage.

 

EX. H, GEO Group
Use of Force Polic
10-2.15) at 9

Sec. 

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this ?fact? is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, i070 (9th
Cir. 2009)( uoting
Gardner v. award, 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)).

Misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs? cited evidence
provrdes an incom lete
summation of GE ?3 use
of force policy.

Plaintiffs ignore their
Exhibit 1, which are
training materials
and state ?Chemical agents
may be useful to control
the following situations: 
In self?defense or in
defense of other persons;
To uell a disturbance
that is 11 ely to develop
into a serious disorder or
not; - To compel an
inmate/detainee in a
contained area to comply
with direct orders. . 

Additionally, per. GEO
major use of
orce [including the use of

OC spray;1 is speCifically

authorize when there is

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP

LA #4829-2817?45 10 v1

-11-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 5:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANcilezs

 

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 12 of 73 Page ID #:4422

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
1'

EVIDENTIARY I

SUPPORT



 

imminent and immediate
danger ofphy31ca11njury
to emplo ees, detainees
and/or ot _er persons,

to maintain or regain
control of a famlity or in
the event of a rebellion,
not or disturbance and
when all of the following
conditions ex1st:

- Minor use of force would
be insuf?cient to manage
the Situation.

- All reasonable actions
have been taken to 
stabilize the situation, and
to bring in additional staff
to help in responding to
the situation. See Ex. 
Use of Force
policy] at 3 of 17.

 

19.

GEO polic speci?cally
sets forth t_ at the use of
OC spray IS ?not to be
taken and that
each an every staff
member present must
ensure that all other stages
of the continuum-of?force
have been ?fully .
exhausted? before making
a decision to use the
chemical agent.

Ex. H, GEO Group
Use of Force Policy
No. 10.2.15 at 10
Sec. 
emphasm 1n

orrg1nal)).

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy violation is
not a per se Violation of .
the law; thus, this ?fact? IS
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
C1r. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th On.
1997)).

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

motion.

20. GEO policy requiresthe EX. H, GEO Group Irrelevant and immaterial
staff member deploying Use of Force Policy to Defendants? Motlon for
the OC spray to (1) . 102.15) at 9 Summary Judgment as an
verbally warn the detainee Sec. alleged pohcy Violation is
that they W111 be raylng, not a per se Violation of .
and (2) warn the etalnee the law; thus, this ?fact? is
about the effects of the not material. FRE 402,
chemical agent. 403; Cousins v. Lockyer

568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th


LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 12 DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS (S:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 13 of 73 Page ID #:4423

 

No.?

STATED
.FACTS 

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT - 

REPLY

 

Cir. 2009) (21?1?ng
Gardner v. award 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th 0a.
1997)).

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

21.

Of?cers must stand at least
?ve feet avvay from the
target detainee(s) when
they are deploying OC

spray.

Ex. 1, GEO Group
Use of Force Training
Presentation, Slide

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this ?fact? is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) (pfuoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th at?.
1997)).

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

22.

Lt. Diaz and Sgt. Campos
both deployed OC 3 ra' in
the dayroom of 2-C ar ie
381%?: morning of June 12,

Defendants? Exhibit
[Serious Incident
Re ort, noti?cation
an emails to GEO
Corporate] at 7, 9.

Undisputed for purposes
of this motion.

 

23.

Lt. Diaz did not contact the
Facility Administrator (or
his designee) to receive
authorization before usmg
90C1 7spray on June 12,

EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.
219:4?220r7.

Undisputed that Lt. Diaz
did not contact the FaCility
Administrator rior to her
deployment 0 OC spray.

Mischaracterizes the
evidence and lacks
foundation that Lt. Diaz
was required to contact the
Faculty Administrator for
additional authorization
once she received training
on and authorization to use
OC spray. FRE 403.
Improper inion and
conclusion yPlaintiffs?

 

 

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

 

-13..

 



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 14 of 73 Page ID #:4424

 

l-d

No. PLAINTIFF STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT

 

counsel.

Per GEO policy, ?[t]he
ma} or use of force
[including the use of OC
spray] is specifically 
authorized when there is
imminent and immediate
danger of phy51cal injury
to emplo ees, detainees
and/or ot . er persons,
to maintain or regain 
control of a facdity or in
the event of a rebellion,
not or disturbance and
when all of the following
11 conditions exist:
0 Minor use of force would
12 be insufficient to manage
the Situation.
13 - All reasonable actions
have been taken to
14 stabilize the situation, and
to bring in additional staff
15 to help in responding to

the situation. See Ex. 
16 Use of Force

ol1c ]at 3 of17

17 I(Demp a31s added). In other
words, once authorized to
18 use OC 3 ray, an
individua is authorized
19 to use OC spray.



y?n
CD

20 Moreover, the Facility
Administrator explained
21 staff that are trained with
DC spray are authorized
22 to use OC spra . See
Aguado Decl. SO Reply,
23 EX. Janecka Dep.] at
6114-11. . here are no

24 GEO policies that
thereafter require

25 additional authorization
from the acilit

26 Administrator. 66 
Doc. #111?2 [Campos and
27 Diaz Appendix of

28 Exhibits] Ex 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 125-813
LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 14 DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT 

L03 Aug-ms RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 15 of 73 Page ID #:4425
1 .
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY . REPLY
2 FACTS SUPPORT .
3 Use of Force policy].
4 24. Sgt. Campos didnot EX. 14, t. Cam os Undisputed that Sgt.
contact. the Fac1lit?1_ Dep. 51: 8-20, 5 :25? Cam os did not contact
5 Admimstrator (or IS 52:3. the acility Administrator
desrgnee) to receive . to his de loyment of
6 authorizat1on before usmg sgray. Un is uted that
OC spray on June 12, Sgt. am 93 dep oyed 0C
7 2017. He deployed the spray th a minute of
spray a minute of entermg the dorm and
8 entermg the room. witnessmg a major
disturbance.
9 Mischaracterizes the
10 ev1dence and lacks
foundatlon that Sgt.
11 Campos was re. urred to
contact the ac1 1ty
12 Administrator for 
authonzatlon
13 once he recetyed trammg
on and authorization to use
14 OC spray. FEE 403.
Improper lmonand
15 conclusron 
counsel.
16
17 Per. GEO policy, ?[t]he
major use of force
18 [mcluding the use of OC
spray] is specifically .
19 authorized when there is
Imminent and 1mmed1ate
20 danger of phy31ca1 injury
to emplo ees,deta1nees
21 and/or ot . er persons,
to maintain or r'egaln 
22 control of a fac1lity or in
the event of a rebellion,
23 not or d1sturbance and
when all of the followmg
24 condltions ex1st:
use of force would
25 be 1n.suf?.c1ent to manage
the Situatlon. 
26 0 All reasonable actions
have been taken to
27 stab111ze_the Sltuatlon, and
to 1n add1tlonal staff
28 to help 111 respondmg to
BURKE, 8r 125-31D
v1 15 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 Mamas RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS is:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 16 of 73 Page ID #:4426

 

No.

PLAINTIFFS STATED
. .

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

the situation.? See EX. 
Use of Force
at 3 of 17
Femp added). In other
words, once authorized to
useQC ray, an 
1nd1v1dua 1s authorized
to use OC spray.

Moreoyer, the Facility
Admmistrator explained
staff that are trained with
OC spray are authorized
to use OC spra . See
Aguado Decl. SO Reply,
EX. Janecka Dep.] at
61:4-11. here are no
GEO pohcres that
thereafter require
additional authorization
from the Facilit
Administrator. 86 
Doc. #111-2 [Campos and
Diaz Appendix of
EXhiblts.] EX 
Use of Force policy].

 

25.

 

 

No GEO staff member
present on June 12; 2017
ever warned 
about the effects of the
chemical a ent prior to Lt.
Diaz?s dep oyment of the
OC spray.

 

EX. 20, GEO
Martinez De . 90:5-
X. 28;

EX. 25, Come 0 Dep.
4721848211; X. 23,
Castillo De . 82:17-
8315, 84:4? 84:18-

142:24~143:7; EX. 27,
Dep. 90:24-

 

lrrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. RE
402, 403.

Lacks foundation that a
warnm of the effects was
require .

Misstates/mischaracterizes
the cited evidence. FRE
403. Plaintiffs placed their
heads down on the table
Immediately before Lt.
Dlaz rayed OC 3 ray
down middle 0 the
table that they were seated
out; thus indicatin they
were well aware the
effects. See Diaz Decl. 
25; Doc. 111-2 [Campos
and Diaz A end1X of
Exhibits], X. [Video
recordmg], 6:42:21.

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-16-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 17 of 73 Page ID #:4427

 

 

 

Plaintiffs had ever seen
OC_spra deplo ed at the
Faculty efore une 12,
2017.

lg/lartinez Dep. 96:7-

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT -- 
26. There is no evidence that Ex. 20, GEO Undisputed for purposes

of this motion.

 

27.

Before June 12, 2017,
none of the Pla1ntiffs had
ever been sprayed w1th OC
spray at the 

Ex. 28, Mejia Dep
74:5-8.

Undisputed for purposes
of motion.

 

28.

 

 

Lt. Diaz deployed her OC
sipray at from a

istance of approxunately
one foot.

 

EX. 27, Martinez Dep.
93:10-20; .Ex. F,
[V1deo, V1ews C-3
and C-1 at 06:37:24
am. to :38:15 am.

 

To the extent that 
are attempting to
demonstrate Lt. D1az was
in_violation of a olicy,
this ?fact? IS 1rre evant and
1mmater1al to Defendants?
Motion for Summary
Judgment as an alleged
poltcy v_1olat_1on1s not a

er se Violation of the law.

RE 402, 403; Cousins v.
Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063,
1070 _(9th Cir. 2009)
?uotm Gardner v.

owar 109 F.3d 427,
430 (8th Cir. 1997)).

Misstates/rnischaracterizes
206301ted ev1dence. FRE

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
of the 1n01de.nt.
that 1S attached as EXh1b1t
which demonstrates
D1az dial notocgft?rec?tilyz)
ra any a1nt1 an

tllije distance: that Diaz
stood away from the
when she
deployed the spra . See
Scott v. Harris, 5 0 US.
372, 378?80 (2007) .
(?Respondent?s vers1on of
events IS so utterly
discredited by the record
that no reasonable jury

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-17-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:1






28

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 18 of 73 Page ID #:4428

 

No.

STATED
. . FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT -

REPLY

 

could have believed him.
The Court of Appeals
should not have relied on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts 1n the deplcted
by the 

 

29.

Sgt. Campos deployed his
OC spray at P1a1nt1ffs from
very close range, less than
five feet away.

Ex. F, [Video, View
at 06:46:45 am.
to 6:47:23 am.

To the extent that
Plalntiffs are attempting to
demonstrate Sgt. Campos
was 111 Violation of a
pohcy, th1s ?fact? IS
Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged pohcy Vlolat1on IS
not a per se v1olat10n of
the law. FRE 402, 403;
Cousins v. Loc er, 568
F.3d 1063, 107 (9th Cir.
2009) (guotm Gardner v.
Howar 109 .3d 427,
430 (8th CH. 1997)).

Misstates/mischaracterizes
hibe3c1ted evrdence. FRE

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
ver31on of events 1s so
utterly by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts 1n the depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

30.

 

 

Sgt. Campos was not
aware that spraying at

 

Ex. 14, t. Cam os
Dep. 16: 0?12; 2 ?22.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Mot1on for

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS ti:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANCELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-18-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 19 of 73 Page ID #:4429
1
No. PLAINTIFF STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 FACTS SUPPORT
3 three feet was out of policy Summary Judgment as an
and was trained that he alleged policy violation is
4 could spray at three to five not a per se violation of 
feet. the law; thus, this ?fact? 18
5 not mater1a1. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
6 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uotlng
7 Gardner v. award 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th on:
8 1997)).
9 a -
M1sstates/mischaractenzes
10 the Cited ev1dence. FRE
403.
11 Plaintiffs? cited evidence
12 demonstrates that Campos
stated that during his tzme
13 in the military, it was
acceptable to deploy 0C
14 ?pray when he was 3?5
eet away. However, he
15 could not recall the
distance that he was
16 trained GEO. See Pls.
Ex. 14 t. Campos Dep.]
17 16:4?1 . _dd1tlona11y
ignore that Sgt.
18 Campos has. not worked
GEO Since 2017. See
19 Campos Decl. 11 2.
In fact 31' moved ar%und thIe) table to Dep. 1 151g15?24. 
get closer to the detainees 403 Th 't 'd
21 and deploy spray against (1 01 ev1hence
the detainees. sup ortt IS
22 fact. t. ampos stated,
And went around so
23 I can control this Side also,
and I de loiged OC spray
24 there.? 66 ls.? Ex. 4
ESgt. Campos Dep.],
25 1 215-24.
26 32? Medical staff arrived at the Ex. 18, indi De . Undisputed for purposes
same t1me as Lt. Diaz 1n 65:10?23; Ex. 2 of this motion.
27 case the s1tuation escalated Jones De . 85:2-22,
and there was a need for a 8736-11; F,
28 medical evaluation. [V1deo, View at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-19-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 20 of 73 Page ID #:4430
1
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 . FACTS SUPPORT - . 
3 06:32:33_ Of?cer 1nd1 announced EX. 5, Logbook at 3. Undisputed for purposes
5 that it was time to prepare EX. 18, J1r1d1 Dep. of this motion
for count at6: 30 am 40: 16.
6 34. From the time Of?cer EX. 18, 1nd1 Dep. Undisputed for purposes
1nd1 announced rep for 40: 17- 20; EX. of this motion.
7 count Plaintiffs ad a 10- Video View C- 3]at
minute grace period to 6:32:58. Nevertheless
8 return to their bunks before mischaracterizes the
count might begin. During evidence as Plaintiffs
9 that time as seen 1n the made clear that they had
video, other detainees were no intent to return tyo their
10 still wandering around the bunks on the date of the
dorm and at least one 1n01dent. FRE 403; see See
11 detainee was in the Doc. 111- 1 [Diaz and
showers. Campos Separate
12 Statement Nos. 18? 19
(EX. Cornejo Depo. 
13 at73. 13- 16 EX. 
llCam os De at 97. 5-
1-4 4:6; EX. 
Castillo Depo.] at 78:7-
15 94 801813 8217?
83. 20, 842-7 14, 84. 18? 25,
16 EX. ?Meaia Depo ;]Eat
70[Rodriguez Depo] at 83: 2 3 Because
we were already there. We
19 needed to f1 ht for it, to
Etrug 1e, to heard.? 
20 ?Martinez Depo.]
21 aEt X87: 1- 8:
35. Per GEO polic, the dorm EX. 18, 1nd1 Dep. Irrelevant :nd immaterial
22 officer cannot in count 21Defendants? Motion for
until the utility ?cer IS Diaz Dep. 302: 24- Summary Judgment as an
23 present in the dorm. 303: 12. alleged policy violation IS
not a per se violation of
24 the law; thus, this ?fact? is
not material. FRE 402,
25 403, Cousins v. Locky kyer
568 F. 3d 1063, 1070 (9t9h
26 Cir. 2009) (gluoting10
Gardner v. award
27 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Grog
1997)). Moreover, this
28

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 20 -

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

[.05 ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 21 of 73 Page ID #:4431

 

N0.

STATED
FACTS 

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

?fact? is irrelevant and
immaterial as indi, who
was not designated as
erson most 
knowle geable, provrded
her opinion on the pollcy.

Nevertheless,
mischaracterizes the
ev1dence as Plaintiffs
made clear that they had
no intent to return to their
bunks in compliance on
the count rocedures on
the date 0 the incident.
FRE 403; see See Doc. 
111-1[Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement 
Nos. 18-19 (Ex. 
HCorneJo De at 73:13?

6; Ex. Campos
De at 9725-12, 103111-
10 Ex. Castillo
De 0% at 78:7- 9:4, 80:1?
81: 2:17?83:20, 84:7-
14, 84:18?25; Ex. 
[7M3na De at 70:1-

1: 52 73: 
gRodriguez Depolgit 97:2?

6; EX. [Diaz epo] at
83:2-3 (?Because we were
already there. We needed
to fight for it to stru 1e,
to be heard.?3; Ex. 
Depo.] at 87:1-

 

36.

 

 

Although _Lt. Diaz was told
multiple times that
Plaintiffs announced they
were going on a hunger
strike, she never .
considered calling medica
staff. 7

 

EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.
201224-202216.

 

Incomplete and
m1scharacterizes the
evidence. FRE 403. Lacks
foundation that Lt. Diaz
was re uired to contact
medica staff when she
was aware that medical
staff was already present
at the incrdent which
Plaintiffs admit. See Doc.
123 [Pls. Se arate
Statement] at 21, No. 11
. .Lt. Dlaz entered 2-

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-21-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:





28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 22 of 73 Page ID #:4432

 

No.

STATED
- FACTS .

EVIDENTIARY

SUPPORT 

REPLY

 

Charlie with a group of
of?cers and Medical
staff. . 

To the extent that
Plaintiffs are attempting to
use ?fact? to
demonstrate a violation of
policy, this ?fact? IS
irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged pollcy Violation IS
not a per se Violatlon of
the law. FRE 402, 403;
Cousins v. L00 er, 568
F.3d 1063, 107 (9th C1r.
2009) (guotln Gardner v.
Howar 109 .3d 427,
430 (8th C1r. 1997)).

 

37.

When Lt. Diaz entered the
dorm, she was. car mg a
copy _ofPla1nt1ffs? etter. In
addition, Plaintiffs had
copies of then written
demands on the table in
front of them.

EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.

321:17?19Ex. F,
[V1deo, Vlews C-2
and C-33 at 06:33:22
am. to :33:29 am.

Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs? cited evidence
demonstrates Lt. Diaz
stated she had t]he list of
See ls. Ex. 15
[Lt.D1az Dep.] 321217-19.

 

38.

Lt_. Diaz entered the dorm
yv1th her 0C spray canlster
in her hand.

Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.

31922-24.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
4022 403. Nevertheless,
undisputed for purposes of
this motion.

 

39.

 

 

Lt. Diaz immediately
began yellin at the
detainees 

 

Ex. 21, Jones De .
98:6?9926; EX. 1 
Reyes De .?80z7-11;
Ex. 28, ejra Dep.
7125?15.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

Misstates and
m1scharacterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs? cited evidence
demonstrates that neither
Jones nor Re .es stated
?D1azrmme lately began
ellmg. See Pls. Ex. 21
{Jones Dep.] 9826-9926;

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-22-

5: i 125-81j

DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 6:
SORENSEN, LLP

ATTURN

L05 ANGELES

111's AT LAW

 

 

8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 23 of 73 Page ID #:4433

 

No.

STATED
.1FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

113? 16 [Reyes Dep.] 80:7-

Moreover, whether Diaz
was speaking English 1s
immaterial because
Plaintiffs nevertheless
admitted that they knew
Lt. Diaz and the
res onding GEO of?cers
or ered them to return to
their bunks and/or leave
the tables. See Doc. 111-
1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement1,No.
18 (Ex. [CorneJo
Depoa at 73: 13- 16; Ex.
astillo Dego Jat
7882:17- 83: 20, 84: 7? 14,
84: 18- 25; Ex. [Mejia
Depo.]at 70: 1 -7 1,25
73: 16? 18; Ex. 
ngdriguez De 0. 1 at 97:2-
6 Ex artlnez
Depo.] at 8721-893).

 

40.

 

 

Lt. Diaz does not speak
any Spanish.

 

Ex 16, Lt Diaz Dep.

39: 12 13; Ex. 20,
GEO Martinez Dep.
71. 6? 9.

Undisputed for purposes
of this motion.

Mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.
Whether Diaz was
speaking English IS
immaterial because
Plaintiffs admitted that
they knew Lt Diaz and the
res onding GEO of?cers
or ered them to return to
their bunks and/or leave
the tables. See Doc. 111?
1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement1,No.
18 (Ex. [CorneJo

De ed at 73. 13- 16; Ex.
astillo Dego lat
7882: 17- 83: 20, 84:-7 14,

84: 18? 25, EX. ?2[Mej Jia


73:16- 18, EX. 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-23-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:1






28

t8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 24 of 73 Page ID #:4434

 

No.

STATED 
.H

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT 

REPLY

 

HRodriguez De 10.] at 97:2?
6; Ex. artinez
Depo.] at 8721-8913).

 

41.

Only one of?cer was
present who spoke any
panish to the detainees
the morning of June 12,
2017, Of?cer Martinez.

EX. 20, GEO
Martinez De . 13:10?
12, 46:18-4 EX.
16, Reyes De .43z7-
14,18 223-1 2:6,
183:2518426.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

Mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs admitted that
they knew Lt. Diaz and the
res ending GEO officers
or ered them to return to
their bunks and/or leave
the tables. See Doc. 111-
1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement}, No.
. 18 (Ex. [CorneJo
De ca EX.
Depol at
78:7-79:4, 80:1? 1: 
82:17?83:20, 84:7-14,
84:18?25; Ex. ?Ql?Z[Mejia
Depo.] at 70:1-7 5
73:16:18; Ex. 
ERodriguez De at 97:2?
6; Ex. artmez
Depo.] at 8721-89z3).

Additionally, Sgt. Campos
fjpokemS ants to
a1nt1ffs. ee Aguado
Repl 
t. am 03 . at

111:18-24.

 

42.

 

 

Of?cer Martinez did not

translate for Lt. Diaz, but
simply; told the detainees
to go ack to then: bunks.

 

Ex. 20, GEO
Martinez De . 61:1-
63:19; Ex. 1 ,Re es
Dep., X.
23, Dep.
82217-8325; 8424-6,

143z7, 143:20144:2;
Ex. 14, t. Campos
Dep. 91: 5?9225,
942113; Ex. 30,
Rodriguez Dep.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

Mischaracterizes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs admitted that
they knew Lt. Diaz and the
res onding GEO of?cers
or ered them to return to
their bunks and/or leave

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 5:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-24-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 5:
SORENSEN, LLP
A NEYS AT LAW
Los ANGELES

 

 

8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 25 of 73 Page ID #:4435

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

DEFEN DAN REPLY

 



the tables. See Doc. 111?
1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement1,No.
18 (Ex. 
Depoa at 73: 13- 16; EX.
astillo Dego lat
7882: 17- 83: 20, 84:-7 14,
84:18?25; EX. Mejia
Dep ]at 70: 1~ 7:
73:16- 18; EX. 
ERodriguez De 0. at 97:2-
6 EX arttnez
Depo. at 87. 1- 89. 3).
Moreover, Re es stated he
translated for iaz. See
Doc. 111- -1[Diaz and
Campos Separate
Statement ,No. 16 (Ex.
Martinez
Depo. at 54: 10- 17).

Additionally, Plaintiffs
state that no one other than
Martinez spoke Spanish,
thus, Casti lo and

Rodri uez would be

speou ating as to what
Martinez said 1n Spanish.

 

43.

 

 

Due to the hostilit of the
situation, Plaintifs swere
afraid to get from the
tables where ey were
seated.

 

EX. 30, Rodri uez
De. 1412:l- 42:5
14 :13 21, 143: 4? 7;
EX. 23, Castillo Dep.
144: 3 18; Ex. 25,
Cornejo Dep. 63 :24-
65: 2.

Egagp and ambiguous as
ostilit of the
situation.? acks
foundation that the
situation was ?hostile.?
Mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs admitted they
had no intention of
complyin with the
comman to get up from
the table unless force was
used as this would help
them garner more attention
for their strike. See Doc. 
111-2 [Cam os and Diaz
fgpendix Exhibits], EX.
Cam os 1De ]at
97: 5?[12, 1 3:1 04: 6;
EX. [Diaz Depo] at

 

 

LA #4829?2817*4510 v1

-25-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 26 of 73 Page ID #:4436

 

No.

STATED 


EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

 

 

 

8322?3 (?Because we were
already there. We needed
to ?ght for 1t to struggle,
to be heard.?3.

Additionally, GEO
Of?cers Martinez, who
speaks Spanish ?uently,
and Reyes unsuccessfully
tr1ed to negotiate and
reason with 
They explamed that ICE
was not present at the
Facilit thus, Plaintiffs
shoul return to their
bunks for count and revisit
their strike/protest after
count, when ICE. was
present. But, 
refused and re eated they
wanted to see CE. See
Doc. 111-1 [Diaz and
Campos Separate
Statement], No. 17 (EX.
Depo] at
163: 
Martinez
Depo. at 1316-12, 45:12?
25,4 :21-47z4, 47:5?9
602161213, 
6524?18, 72:6~73:8, 94:23?
95:8 99:17-100:18; EX.
EReyes De at
92:1 ?24, 147: 3?18;
149:2-150:25, 164:7-25;
183219-24).

Plaintiffs admitted they
had no intention of
w1th the
comman not because of
the alleged ?hostile
situation? but because they
wanted attention. See Doc.
111-1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statement], No.
19 (Ex. [Campos

De at 97:5-12, 103111?
10 Ex. [Dlaz
Depol at 83:2?3 (?Because

 

 

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-26-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 

\Oooqc'nmh-wNH




28

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 27 of 73 Page ID #:4437

 

No.

STATED
 

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

we were already there. We
needed to f1 ht for 1t, to
struggle, to heard?).

 

44.

Pursuant to GEO olicy
and practice, no EO
of?cer would have laid
hands on Plaintiffs on June
12_, 2017, without Lt?
Diaz?s spem?c dlrective.

Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.
20,
GEO Martinez De .
76:20-23, 78213-1 
90:16-22.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Vlolation is
not a per se Violatlon of
the law; thus, this ?fact? is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. award 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th er.
1997)).

Moreover, Plaintiffs? cited

evidence is further

irrelevant and immaterial

because Diaz_ and Martinez

gowdedtherr opinions on
E0 policy.

Vague and ambiguous as
to time and scope.

 

45.

 

 

When Lt. Diaz ordered
Of?cer Martinez to use
force a ainst Plaintiffs on
June .1 2017, he was
and had not
expected the command.

 

Ex. 20, GEO
Egartmez Dep. 90:5?

Mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

Ar umentative. Irrelevant
an immaterial to
Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as
Of?cer Martinez?s
emotions are not a
material issue. FRE 402,
403. Improper le a1
conclusron that orce?
was used.

Plaintiffs cited evidence
does not state that .
Martinez was ?surprised?
by the directive to
?remove? the laintiffs.
See Pls. EX. 2 GEO
Martlnez Dep.] 025-25.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v]

-27-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

 

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 28 of 73 Page ID #:4438

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhibit
which demonstrates
the onl persons that used
?force? were Cam os and
Diaz. See Scott v. arris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
vers1on of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have beheved

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have Viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

46.

When Lt. Diaz ordered the
GEO of?cers to use force
on Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs
posed no threat to
themselves or others.

Declaof Schwartz 
6, 7 (incorporating
Expert Report).

Vague and ambiguous as
to time. Improper legal
argument and conc1u31on.
Argumentative. Lacks
foundation. Speculation.

The declaration of
Schwartz and his report
are improper expert
opinion based on
eculation and lack of
oundation. Lack of
foundation/speculauon.
Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Unreliable expert inion.
Fed. R. EVid. 702. ee
Daubert v. Merrell Dow 
Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
1311,1315, 132111. 17
(9th C1r. 1995).

CC

 

47.

 

 

When Lt. Diaz ordered the
GEO officers to use force
on Plaintiffs, there was no
ma) or or 861101.18.
disturbance w1th1n 2-

Charlie.

 

Declnof Schwartz 1
6, 7 (incorporating

Expert Report); Ex.
10, McCusker De .
111322?4419, 46:1 -

Vague and ambiguous as
to time. Improper legal
argument and conclusmn.
Argumentative. Lacks
foundation. Speculation.

The declarationof
Schwartz and report
are improper expert

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANCELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-28-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 29 of 73 Page ID #:4439

 

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

 

 

 

opinion based on
eculation and lack of
oundation. Lack of
foundation/speculation.
Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Unreliable expert inion.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. 66
Dauberr v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
1311,1315,1321n.17
(9th Cir. 1995).

Incomplete and .
rnisstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Misleading. Plaintiffs?
cited evidence refers to
Mc?Cusker describing
which box to check on an
inCident report when
categorizing the re ort.
See ls. Ex. 10T[h cCusker
Pep-1 44,-46. i? e.
incident in its totality can
be Just a use-of-force .
ineldent, such as this, With
the detainees being pepper
zprayed. If the terrn
isturbance was 0mg to
be used, it very li ely
would be coined as a
disturbance by the Facility
Administrator beforeit
was reported as a fac1lity
disturbance?).

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhibit
which demonstrates
Plaintiffs did cause a

ma} or disturbance. See
Scott v. Harris, 550 US
372, 378?80 (2007) .
(?Respondent?s vers1on of
events is so utterly
discredited by the record
that no reasonable jury

 

 

 

 

BURKE, 3:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANCELES

LA #4829~2817-4510 v1

-29-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS ti:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 30 of 73 Page ID #:4440

 

No.

STATED


EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

could have believed him.
The Court of Appeals
should not have relied on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have .Viewed the
facts 1n the depicted
by the 

Plaintiff Rodriguez
acknowledged other
detainees 1n dorm were
yelling IS a ma or
distur ance. See Doc.
111-1[D1az and Cam os
Separate Statementl, o.
42 (Diaz Decl. 11 27:
Cam os Decl. 4-5; Ex.
ERodri uez epo] at
100: 2-24 acknow edged
other detainees in dorm
were yelling} Ex. 
Jones Depojxat 103220-
04:10; Ex. J1nd1
De 0. at 46:8?4 Ex.
EO Martinez
De at 131:24-132:12,
13 

 

48.

 

 

When Lt. Diaz deployed
0C spra at Pla1nt1ffs,
Plaintif osed no threat
to themse ves or others.

 



ecl. of

Schwartle 6, 7

Encorporating Expert

eport).

Vague and ambiguous as
to time. Improper legal
argument and concluswn.
Argumentative. Lacks
foundatlon. Speculation.

The declaration of
Schwartz and his report
are unproper expert
opimon based on
eculatlon and lack of
oundation. Lack of
foundation/speculatlon.
Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Unreliable expert inion.
Fed. R. EVid. 702. 66
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
1311,1315,1321n. 17
(9th Cir. 1995).

 

Plaintiffs? assertion

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-30-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

 

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 31 of 73 Page ID #:4441

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

contradicts the video
recording of the inCident
that is attached as Exhibit
which demonstrates
the onl persons that used
?force? were Cam os and
Diaz. See Scott v. arm's,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
verSion of events 18 so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

irn. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

49.

 

 

When Lt. Diaz first
deployed OC spray at
Plaintiffs, there was no
maj or or serious

disturbance within 2?
Charlie.

 

Decl._of Schwartz 
6, 7 (incorporating
Expert Report); Ex.
10, McCusker De .
A5222-44zl9, 46:1 

 

Improper legal argument
an conclusion.
Argumentative. Lacks
foundation. Speculation.
Incomplete and
misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Misleading.

The declaration'of
Schwartz and his report
are improper expert
opinion based on
eculation and lack of
oundation. Lack of
foundation/speculation.
Fed. R. Evid. 602. 
Unreliable expert inion.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. 88
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
1311,1315, 1321n. 17
(9th Cir. 1995).

The admissible evidence
demonstrates that
Plaintiffs were causing not
on] a major disturbance
int eir dorm but .
throughout the entire
Facility. See eg, Doc. 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 vi





DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP


L05

RNEYS AT LAW
ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 32 of 73 Page ID #:4442

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

1 11-1 [Diaz and Campos
Separate Statementl,
Nos. 6-7, 21?33 (citing, in
art, Diaz Dec]. 1T 7.7:
am os Decl. 11 4~5; Ex.
?R??Rodr1 uez epo] at
100: 2-24 acknow edged
other detainees 1n dorm
were yelling} Ex. 
Jones Depojxat 103:20?
04:10; Ex.? Jindi
De 0. at 4618-4 Ex.
E0 Martinez
De at 131:24-132:12,
13 

 

50.

 

 

There was no justi?cation
under GEO pohc the
PNBS, or genera ly
accepted correctlonal
ractices for Lt. Dlaz or
gt. Cam os to deploy 0C
spray at lamtiffs.

 

Decluof Schwartz Vii
6, 7 (incorporating
Expert Report).

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary ludgment as an
alleged policy Vlolatlon 18
not a per se Vlolatton of .
the law; thus, this ?fact? 13
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uotmg
Gardner v. award, .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)).

Improper legal argument
an conclusion.
Argumentatlve. Lacks
foundation. Speculatron.

The declarationof
Schwartz and l?llS report
are improper expert
opmlon based on
eculation and lack of
oundatlon. Lack of
foundation/speculatlon.
Fed. R. EVid. 602. 
Unrehable expert tnron.
Fed. R. EVid. 702. 66
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
1311, 1315,1321n. 17
(9th Cir. 1995).

 

Misstates/mischaracterizes

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817?4510 v1

-32-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:





28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELHS

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 33 of 73 Page ID #:4443

 

No.

STATED
.

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

the evidence. FRE 403.
Misleading.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the 1nc1dent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
versmn of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have belleved

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

51.

Of?cer Reyes testified that
he and his partner were
able to get detainees away
from the table us1r3g
pressure pornts an by
pulling them.

EX. 16, Re es Dep.
168:6?11, 68:21?
169:1.

Undisputed for purposes
of th1s motion.

 

52.

 

 

The uncontroverted video
evidence shows that
Plaintiffs only began to
link arms once force was
used on them by the GEO
of?cers.

 

EX. F, [Video, Views
0-1 and 0-3] at
06:37:55 am. to 6:3
8:13 am.

 

Undis uted that Plaintiffs
linlge arms in a form of
active res1stance.

Vague and ambiguous as
to time.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the inordent
that is attached as Exhibit
which demonstrates
the onl persons that used
?force? were Cam os and
Diaz. See Scott v. arm's,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
versmn of events 18 so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed
1m. The Court of Appeals

 

 

 

LA #4829~2817?4510 v1

-33-

5: 

DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 34 of 73 Page ID #:4444

 

No.

STATED
.FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

should not have relied on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the videotape?).

 

53.

Plaintiffs were shockedby
the GEO officers? reaction
and scared that if they got
up the other Plalntif 
would be more drastically
punished.

Ex. 24, Cam os Dep.
92:3-9313, 9 
96:6-17, 97:8-12,


Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as
Plaintiffs opinions are not
Toa?terial issues. FRE 402,

Misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Mlsleading. Incomplete.

Plaintiffs admitted they
had no intention of
With the
comman to get up from
the table unless force was
used as this would help .
them garner more attention
for their strike. See Doc. 
Ill-2 [Cam 05 and Diaz
Appendix 0 Exh1b1ts],
Ex. ECampos Depog
at 9725-1 ,10 :1 1-1 4: 
EX. Diaz Depo] at
83:2?3 ecause we were
already there. We needed

to f1 ht for it to stru le,
to begheard.?3. gg

 

54.

 

 

Plaintiff Martinez testified
that Lt. Diaz approached
him while he was seated at
the table, stretched .out her
arm, and sprayed him.

 

Ex. 27, Martinez Dep.
38:24?91:11, 93:10?

 

Misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 
Incomplete summat1on of
the ev1dence.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
recording of the incrdent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
ver51on of events IS so
utterly discredlted by the
record that no reasonable

 

 

 

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP

ATT

ORNEYS AT LAW
L0 

5 :5

LA #4829-2817?4510 v1

-34-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 35 of 73 Page ID #:4445
. .
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 FACTS SUPPORT . 
3 Lury could have believed
1m. The Court of Ap eals
4 should. not have?relie on
such Visible ?ctlon; 1t
5 should have .Viewed the
facts 1n the light depicted
6 by the Videotape?).
7 The evidence .
demonstrates that Diaz
8 only deploged OC ray
once. See oc. ll ?1
9 D1212 and Campos
eparate Statementl. Mn,
10 35 (Diaz Decl. 25-27;
EX. [der at
11 49:24-50:23; Ex. 
EGEO Martinez Depo.] at
12 4:20-85:7, 9823-5); see
Aguado Decl. ISO Reply,
13 Ex. [D1az Dep. at
345214-24, 35313-1 .
14 55. GEO officers grabbed Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Undisputed that GEO
15 Martinez and 94215?9515; Ex. 49, of?cers pulled Plaintiff
1nJured him whlle dorng Decl. of Hussam Turk Martinez so as to escort
16 so. documenting him out of the dorm.
. la1nt1ffMart1nez?s .
17 injuries after the The declaratlon of Hussain
1nc1dent). Turk relies on hearsay and
18 speculat1on. Additionally,
1t1.s 1mproper opmlon
19 eV1dence' thus, any ?facts?
derived therefrom,
20 includln ?facts? related to
Plamtlf artinez?s
21 in} urles, are irrelevant and
immaterial to Defendants?
22 Motion for Summar
Judgment. FRE 402, 403.
23
56. Plaintiff Rodriguez, who Ex. 30, Rodri uez Misstates/mischaracterizes
24 was seated nextto De . 145:24- 5, the ev1dence. FRE 403.
Martmez, l1kew1setest1f1ed 15 :12-24. Incomplete summation of
25 that Lt. Diaz initially the ev1dence.
sprayed the OC spray three . 
26 or four tunes. Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
27 of the incrdent
28 that 1s attached as Exhibit

m? v2 - 35 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
L05 ANGELES

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

t8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 36 of 73 Page ID #:4446

 

No.

STATED
FACTS 

EVIDENTIARY

REPLY
. . . .

 

See Scott v. Harris,

550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
versron of events 1S so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
'ury could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not haverelie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

The evidence

on ray
once. Sge Igoc. 11 -l
Diaz and Campos
eparate Statern entl. No.
35 (Diaz D_ecl_. 11311 25-27;
EX. [Jindi at
49:24?50:23; Ex. 
EGEO Martinez Depo.] at
420?8527, see
Aguado Decl. ISO Reply,
EX. [Diaz Dep. at
345:14-24, 353:3-1 .

 

57.

 

 

The video evidence shows
Lt. Diaz aiming her OC
canister at Plaintiffs while
they were beln restrained
by the grou of?cers,
and P1a1nt1 fs 
responding to the OC

spray.

 

Ex. F, [Video, Views
C-1 and at
6:38:04 to 6:38:28;
Ex. 27, Martinez Dep.
90:24-91:11, 93:10-
20; EX. 28, Mejia
Dep. 75:19?76:13.
EX. 23, Castillo Dep.
91:13?3; EX. 30,
uez Dep.
152:1 24.

 

Vague and ambi uous as
to tune and 1y
responding.? Incomplete
summatlon of the
evidence. Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the incrdent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott 12. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
versmn of events IS so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed
im. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible fiction; it

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817?4510 V1

?36-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

 

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 37 of 73 Page ID #:4447

 

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

DEFENDANT REPLY

 

should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the videotape?).

The evidence
deiinocil?istiiates 351E Diaz
on ep 0 ray
once. See goo. 11 -l
Diaz and Campos
eparate Statementl. No.
35 (Diaz Decl. Em 25?27;
Ex. [Jindi at
49:24-50:23; Ex. 
Martinez Depo.] at
4120?8527, see
Aguado Decl. ISO Reply,
Ex. [Diaz Dep. at
345214?24, 35323-1 .

 

58.

GEO of?cers hit Plaintiff
Rodriguez in the ribs.

Ex. 30, Rodri uez
Dep. 145:24- 5.

Moisstates and
mischaracterizes the
eVidence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
recording of the inCident
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
verSion of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

59.

 

 

After handcuffing Plaintiff
Rodri uez, GEO of?cers
force. ully lifted Plaintiff
Rodri uez?s arms up .
behin his back, injuring
his shoulders.

 

EX. 30, Rodriguez
Dep. 153:2?4.

Undisputed that Plaintiff
Rodriguez was handcuffed
with his hands behind his

back.

Rodri uez?s opinions
regar ing his alleged
in} uries are irrelevant and
immaterial to Defendants?

Motion for Summary

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS (SI
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 VI

-37-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law

L05 ANGELES

1.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 38 of 73 Page ID #:4448

 

No.

STATED


EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

Judgment. FRE 402, 403.

Additionally, a hysical
examination of laintiff
Rodrlguez completed by a
medical professronal
revealed he hadno
reportable 1n uries. (See
Pls. Ex. ?Medlcal
Report on Injuries/Non-
Injuries].)

 

60.

After handcuffing Plaintiff
Rodriguez, GEO of?cers
walked to the
basketball court. While en
route they twice pushed
him forward,? causmg his
face to slam into the wall.

Ex. 30, Rodri uez

De .109224- 10:7,
13 
24, 

Undisputed that Plaintiff
was walked out of the
dorm to the recreatlon
area.

Misstates and
mischaracterlzes the
evidence. FRE 403. The
evidence demonstrates that
the only force used was
1ns1de the dorm room. See
Doc. 111-2 [Campos and
Diaz_ Ap endiX of
Ex. [Use of
Force Report].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61. When Plaintiff Rodriguez Ex. 30, Rodri uez Undisputed that Plaintiff
was ?nally seen by a Dep. 176: 17- 0. Rodriguez was examtned
medical professmnal after by a nurse.
the incident, he tried to . 
communicate to the nurse Irrelevant and 1mmater1al
that his ears and head were to Defendants? Motion for
injured and he had Summar Jud merit as to
scratches on his arm. what Plaintiff odriguez

communicated to the
nurse. FRE 402, 403.
Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
ev1dence. FRE 403. A
phys1cal examination of
la1nt1ffRodr1guez .
com leted by a medical
ro essional revealed he
ad no reportable 1nJuries
nor did he communicate
any injuries. (See Pls. Ex.
5: 18-CV-01 125-SP
LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 38 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 39 of 73 Page ID #:4449

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

. REPLY

 

[Medical Report on
Injuries/Non-Injuries] .)

 

62.

Nurse Jones onl noted
that he had an a rasmn on
his left ear.

Ex. 7, Medical
Reports at 6.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
4022 403. Nevertheless,
undisputed that Nurse
Jones documented
Plaintiff Rodriguez?s
injuries.

 

63.

 

 

Plaintiff Martinez?s nose
was. broken as a result of
the mc1dent.

 

Ex. 22, Medrano Dep.

93:9?15.

Misstates and
mischaracterlzes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

Incomplete.

The evidence
demonstrates that Plaintiff
Martinez had a broken
nose while at the Facility
but it is uncertain and
speculative that he broke
hisnose as a result of the
meldent; espec1ally, glven
he did not make any 
complaints regarding his
nose after the incident. See
Pls. Ex. [Medical
Report on In uries/Non-
Injuries] at E0 02242.

Additionally, Plaintiffs?
olted ev1dence
demonstrates Plaintiff
Martinez had a broken
nose on or around Jul 5,
2017. See Pls.? Ex. 2
[Medrano Dep.] 93:9-15.
A complete reading of Dr.
Medrano?s testlmony
demonstrates that Plaintiff
Martinez did not make any
complaints regardm his
nose immediately a er the
incrdent and reported that
a detainee broke his nose.
See Aguado Decl. ISO
Repl EX. Medrano
Dep.; at 86:16- 2; 87:12-

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLEAMS ti:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-39-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 40 of 73 Page ID #:4450
1 .
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY DEFENDANT REPLY
2 FACTS . SUPPORT . 
3 18, 
4 91:24-25, 9 24?21.
5 64. After being sprayed with Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Undisputed that Plaintiff
OC. spra at close range, 93:10-96:8, 99: 19? Martinez was walked out
6 Plaintif Martinez was 100: 17. of the dorm to the 
grabbed and mistreated by recreation area With his
7 two officers as the arms behind his back.
dragged him. out the .
8 ?orrgi behind Vagde and ambigudius as
is ac . icers to ose ran e? an
9 slammed him against the ?mistreated.? Misstates
wall in the hallway, and mischaracterizes the
10 ldcnocliing out his tooth and eVidence. FRE 403.
enta crown.
11 The evidence
demonstrates that the only
12 force used was inSide the
dorm room. See Doc. 
13 111?2 [Cam os and Diaz
Alp?pendix Exhibits], Ex.
14 [Use of Force Report].
15 Plaintiffs? assertion that
Plaintiff Mardinez was
aijid xmistreated?. 
17 contradicts the video
recording of the inordent
18 that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
19 550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
20 verSion of events is so
utterly discredited by the
21 record that no reasonable
ury could have believed
22 rm. The Court of Ap eals
should not haverelie on
23 such Visible fiction; it
should have yiewed the
24 facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).
25 The evidence .
26 demonstrates that Diaz
only deplolyed OC 8 ray
27 once. See 00. ll -1
. EDiaz and Campos
28 eparate Statement], No.
BURKE, WILLIAMS 125-81)
LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 40 - DiAz AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANCELES

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 41 of 73 Page ID #:4451

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT
35 (Diaz Decl. ?19] 25?27;
Ex. [dei at
49:24-50:23; EX. 
EGEO Martinez Depo.] at
4:20-85:7, 9813-5); see
Aguado Deicl. ISO Reply,
EX. [Diaz Dep. at
345:14?24, 35313?1 .
65. Officer Martinez could not Ex. 20, GEO Misstates and
remember whether he or Martlnez De . 74:15-? mischaracterizes the
anyone else had given 21, 75: 13?7 ev1dence. FRE 403.
Martinez any 76:20-77:19, 78:2-7; Speculation.
verbal commands. Ex. 17, Gillon Dep.
164: 23-16523, The evidence
166:22-167 :1 (could demonstrates verbal
not remember commands were given to
whether he gave more Plaintiffs and they chose
than one command to to 1 nore the commands.
?get up? at this See 00. 111-1 [Diaz
pomt). and Campos Separate
Statement], Nos. 18-19.
66. Officer Martinez also Ex. 20, GEO Undisputed for purposes
testl?ed that he had not Martinez De . 74: 15- of motion.
tried to use ressure 21, 75213-7 
oints? on aintiff 76:20?77:19, 78:2-7;
artinez before attempting Ex. 17, Gillon Dep.
to remove him from the 164: 23-1653,
table. 166222-2 (could not
remember whether he
gave more than one
command to ?get up?
at this pornt).
67. Plaintiffs were unable to EX. 23, Castillo De . Misstates and
understand the GEO 79221-8029, 144:3- 8; mischaracterizes the
of?cers? commands. EX. 24, Cam os Dep. ev1dence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs were not g1ven 91225?925, .
commands in Spanish. Ex. 30, Rodrr uez See Doc. #111?1 [Diaz and
Dep. 144:14- 8. Campos Separate
Statement ,Nos 18-19
(Ex. Cornejo Depo.]
at 
Castillo Depo.] at 78:7-
9:4, 8011-8123, 82:17-

X. e'ia 0. at
7021-71225, 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 41 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

18-cv-01125?SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 42 of 73 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT
[Rodri uez De at
97:2-16; 
gMartinez Depo.] at 87:1?

68. After the incident, Sgt. Ex._4, General Irrelevant and immaterial
Cam os falsely re o_rted InCident Re orts at to Defendants? Motion for
that observed aintiffs 10; EX. 16, t. Diaz Summary Judgment. FRE
?being combative? and Dep. 254210-2589. 402, 403.

?striking staff Wlt_h 

elbows? as a fpartial Misstates and

justification or his use of mischaracterizes the

OC spray. Lt. Diaz did not eyidence. FRE 403. The
document that in an Cited evidence Sim 1y does
re orts, but testifie .to that not support Plainti fs?

ect at her deposrtion. contention; instead, it
That claim is not sup orted demonstrates that it was
by any ev1dence, inc ud1n reported to Lt. Diaz that
any of the reports authore Plaintiffs were being

by the GEO officers combative. See Pls. Ex.
involved in the moldent. I?t. Diaz Dep.] 254:10-

69. Plaintiffs deny having Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Plaintiffs? denial is .
struck or elbowed any 74:4-21. irrelevant and immaterial
GEO officers at any time. to Defendants? Motion for

Summary Judgment. FRE
402,403.

70. An assault .on an of?cer by Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Undisputed for purposes
a detainee is an incredibly 160: 13-162z8, of this motion.
serious offense. It would 254110-25829; Decl.
most certainly result in . of Schwartz
discipline at the Fac111ty, if ?ncorporatin Expert
not an arrest by the San eport at 13- 4).

Bernardino County
Sheriff?s Of?ce and the
imposnion of criminal
charges.

71. No Plaintiff was written up Ex. 2, Plaintiffs? Undisputed for purposes
for, or disc1plined for, an Segregation Orders. of this motion.
assault on an officer.

72. When Plaintiff Martinez Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Plaintiff Martinez?s after
was being dragged awa 102: l-5. the fact Justification for
from the tables _he trie to resisting is, ultimately,
hold on to his friend irrelevant and immaterial
because he could not see to Defendants? Motion for
and was in pain from the Summary Judgment. FRE

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-42-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 43 of 73 Page ID #:4453
1
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 - . FACTS . SUPPORT
3 OC spray. 402, 403.
4 M'isstates and
the
5 ev1dence. FRE 403. See
Doc. 111-1 [Diaz and
6 Campos Separate 
Statementl. No. 25 Dlaz
7 Decl. 1] 18; Ex. Video
recordrn at 6:38:5 to
8 6:39:07; x. gDiaZ
De 0%at 83:17?2 
9 111011 Deppj] at
168: 5?19;Ex. 
10 gMartmez Depo.] at 89: 10-
1:19, 9314-9426, 94:11-
11 95:5; Ex. 
Martinez Depo. at 74:7-
12 75:14, 75222?7 79:22-
80:2, 80:6-21, 80:22-
13 81:24, 84:2-85zl6, 87:20?
88:24, 88:25-8922, 89:3-4;
14 Ex. {Jones Depo.] at
110:11-2 
15 73. Plaintiff Martinez?s Ex. 7, Medical Undisputed for purposes
16 medical records Reports at 3. of this motion.
demonstrate that
17 tmmed1ate1y after the
moldent, he complamed of
18 a. tooth and 1nJured
right shoulder.
19 74? At the time, Plaintiff EX. 27, Martinez Dep. Plaintiff Martinez?s after
Martinez. could not feel the 10221-16. the fact explanatlon for not
20 pain in his nose due. to the hrs_alleged
overwhelming burning 1111 one 1S, .
21 sensation caused by the irrelevant and 1mmater1al
OC spray. to Defendants? Motlon for
22 Summary Judgment. FRE
402,403.
23
Misstates and
24 the
ev1dence. FRE 403.
25 P1a1nt1ffs? c1ted evidence
demonstrates Plal?tlff
26 Martmez had a broken
nose on or around July 5,
27 2017. See Pls.? Ex. 22
28 [Medrano Dep.] 93 :9-15.
BURKE, 
SORENSENI 1? mien-28174510 v1 - 43 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los Meats RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 44 of 73 Page ID #:4454

 

No.

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

A complete reading of Dr.
Medrano?s testimony
demonstrates that Plaintiff
Martinez did not make any
comptlalnts regardin his
nose immediately a er the
1ncrdent and reported that
a detainee broke his nose.
See Aguado Decl. ISO
Repl Ex. Medrano
Dep.?at 86:16? 2; 87:12?
18, 8 216?24, 91:13-18,
91:24-25, 93:4-21.

 

75.

 

 

GEO officers pulled, .
ushed, and hit Plaintiff
arcia - including in the
ribs after he was blinded
by the OC spray, and the
pushed agalnst a wa 1,
causm him to bang h1s
head. was also pushed
against a wall a second

t1me in the hallway, after
being handcuffed.

 

Ex. 29, Garcia Dep.


Misstates and
mischaracterrzes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

The evidence
demonstrates none of the
Plaintiffs were struck. See
Doc. 111-1[Diaz and
Campos Separate
Statement], No. 71 (EX.
Gillon De 0 at
165: Ex. Jones
De at 101:23- 5,

ll :1 ?21, 11414-10,
11728?13, 120:25-121:8,


Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
of the 1nc1dent
that is attached as Exhib1t
wh1ch depicts that 
Plaintiff Gar01a place his
head down to avord being
sprayed in the face, he was
completel unfazed by the
spray, an he was never
ushed 1nto a wall. See
0017? v. Harris, 550 US.
372, 378?80 (2007) .
(?Respondent?s ver31on of
events IS so utterly
discredited by the record
that no reasonable Jury
could have believed hlm.
The Court of Appeals
should not have relied on

 

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 V1

-44-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 45 of 73 Page ID #:4455
1
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 . FACTS SUPPORT
3 such Visible ?ction; it
should have the
4 facts in the depicted
5 by the Videotape?).
The evidence
6 demonstrates that the only
force used was 1n31de the
7 dorm room. See Doc. 
111-2 [Cam os and Dlaz
8 Alppendlx Exhibits], Ex.
[Use of Force Report].
9 76. Plaintiff Garcia had marks Ex. 29, Garcia Dep. Misstates and
10 on his body from the GEO 47:2-10. mischaracterizes the
of?cers? use of force. ewdence. FRE 403.
11 Plaintiff Garciahad no
12 reportable injuries after
being evaluated by a
13 med1cal professional. See
Pls. Ex. [Medical
1 4 Reports].
77_ GEO officers threw Ex. 24, Campos Deip. Misstates and
15 Plalntiff Campos to the 106220-107: Ex. mischaracterizes the
ground after he was [V1deo, Views C?l ev1dence. FRE 403.
16 subjected to. OC spray and and at 6:47:09 to . .
revented him from tism 6:47:56. Plamtiff Campos admitted
17 is hands to try to Wipe that he fell on his own. See
OC spray from face. Doc. and
18 Dian Ap endix of
EX. 
19 ECampos Dep.] at 110:25~
11:4 (?And then after that
20 once we were ulled apart,
that's when I ell down to
21 the ground, and was
to clean 
22 face. . 113:20?23 
first I ell down?) see
23 also oc. 111-1 [Diaz
and Campos Separate
24 Statement], Nos. 61-63.
25
Plaintiffs? assertion
26 contradicts the Video
recording of the incident
27 that 18 attached as Exhibit
28 See Scott v. Harris,

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS ti:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELEE


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 45 -

Case 5:18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 46 of 73 Page ID #:4456






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS ti:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

 

PLAINTIFF STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
versron of events 1S so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
Liry could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

 

78.

 

One GEO. of?cer violently
put Plaintiff Cam os .

a ainst the wall, endin

ampos?sIright arm an
injuring his shoulder10813?12. 

Misstates and

mischaracterizes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

Plaintiff Campos admitted
that he was never struclg,
kicked, or punched during
the entire incident, and he
admits that he was never
?brutally beaten? as .
allegedm his 0 erative
complaint. See oc. 

1 11?1 [Diaz and Cam os
Separate Statement], 08.
6 1 ~63

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
verSion of events 1S so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the videotape?).

Plaintiff Campos had no
reportable iniuries after

 

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 vl

-46-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEVS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 47 of 73 Page ID #:4457

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

being evaluatedby a
medical professronal. See
Pls. EX. [Medical
Reports].

 

79.

A second GEO of?cer
rabbed Plaintiff
ampos?s stomach and a
third rabbed one of his
feet, orc1ng to hop on
one foot.

Ex. 24, Campos Dep.

108215-19.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

 

80.

Lt. Diaz deployed OC onto
Plaintiff Mejla?s face and
shoulders.

EX.
76:1
79,77:1 




4;


L09

Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
recording of the incident
that is attached as 
which demonstrates
that Diaz did not spra any

laintiff 1n the face. 88

cart v. Harris, 550 US.
372, 378?80 (2007) 
(?Respondent?s vers1on of
eyents 1.3 so utterly
discredited by the record
that no reasonable Jury
could have believed h1rn.
The Court of Appeals
should. not have relied on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have .Viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

81.

 

 

After Lt. Diaz de loyed
OC spra onto a1ntif_f
Mejia, EO officers hit
him on his ribs and behind
his ears and twisted his
arms backwards painfully
before takin him away
from the tab e.

 

Ex. 28, Mejia De .
76:16-77z4, 77:1 
79:13.

 

Misstates and
the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhibit
which demonstrates
that Diaz did not spra any
laintiff in the face. Sbe/e
coir v. Harris, 550 US.

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 vi

-47-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 48 of 73 Page ID #:4458
1
o. STATED EVIDENTIARY DEFENDAN REPLY
2 FACTS SUPPORT 
3 372, 378?80 (2007) .
(?Respondent?s versron of
4 events 1.5 so utterly
discredited by the record
5 that no reasonable Jury
could have believed hlm.
6 The Court of Appeals
shouldnot haverelied on
7 such Visible ?ction; it
should have Viewed the
8 facts in the light depicted
9 by the Videotape?).
10 82. Two GEO officers and Ex. F, [Video, Views Misstates and
Sgt. Cam osshoved C?l and at the
11 E_3_]1a into a wall, 6:46:18 to 6:46:22; ev1dence. FRE 403.
wherethe right Side of his Ex. 28, Mepa Dep. . .
12 face h1t the wall. 81:17-82:24. Plalntiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
13 recordmg of the 1nc1de_nt_
that IS attached as Exhiblt
14 demonstrates
no one was shoved rnto a
15 wall. See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
16 (2007) (?Respondent?s
versron of events 1S so
17 utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
18 ury could have believed
1m. The Court of Ap eals
19 should. not haverelre on
such Visible fiction; 1t
20 should have viewed the
facts in the light depleted
21 by the Videotape?).
22 83. In removing Plaintiff EX. 23, Castillo Dep. Misstates and
Castillo from the table, 88: 12-89: 10, 89:15~? the
23 two GEO of?cers unched 24. ev1dence. FRE 403.
him in the ribs closed . . .
24 ?sts and a third GEO Plalntiffs? assertion
of?cerleaned over the the video
25 other Side of the table and recording of the ineldent
dug her nails in the back of that 1s attached as Exhiblt
26 his ears. See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
27 (2007) (?Respondent?s
28 versron of events is so

 

 

 

 

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

ANGELES


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 48 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANCELES

-8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 49 of 73 Page ID #:4459

 

No.

STATED
.FACTS -

EVIDENTIARY- .-
SUPPORT.

REPLY

 

utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed
1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts 1n the depicted
by the videotape.? see
a so Doc. Diaz
and Campos Separate
Statement], No. 71.

 

84.

After Plaintiff Castillo was

carried away from the

table, he was taken near

the stair ralhng and thrown

eftgalnst glass, 1nJur1ng 
ace.

EX. 23, Castillo Dep.
F,
Vldeo, View at
6:46:23 am. to
06:46:54 am.

Misstates and
m1_scharacterlzes the
ev1dence. FRE 403.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the incrdent
that rs attached as Exhiblt
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
ver31on of events IS so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have beheved

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have _v1ewed the
facts in the depicted
by the v1deotape.?)

 

85.

 

 

The officers did not tell
Plaintiff CorneJo why they
were pulhn him or what
they wante him to do in
response.

 

EX. 25, Cornejo Dep.
68:16-69:14.

 

Incomplete and .
misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Misleading.

Plaintiffs admitted that
they knew Lt. Draz and the
res onding GEO officers
or ered them in 
and Spanish to return to
their bunks and/or leave
the tables. They also
understood that there
would be consequences,

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 V1

-49-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS ii:
SORENSEN, 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 50 of 73 Page ID #:4460
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT .
including the .use of QC
spray, for their dec131on to
i nore the commands. See
oc. [Diaz and
Campos Separate
Statement], No. 18.
86. Plaintiff Cornejo was not Ex. F, [Video, View
resrsting and was merely C-1, C-3, and 0-4] 
Sitting at the table, trying 6:47:09-6247224. the evidence FRE 403
to clean his face with his Misleadin 
shirt and protect himself g.
from the overwhelming
amount 0 pepper spray Plaintiffs? assertion
that t' Campgs hagjust contradicts the video
irect spraye on 1m. recording of the incident
that is attached as Exhiblt
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
versmn of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
'ury could have believed
im. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape.? see
a so 
and Campos Separate
Statement], Nos. 5365,
59, 66-69.
87. While GEO guards were Ex. 25, Comejo Dep. Incomplete and
ulling attglal?tltf? 73'25'75'11' misstates/mischaracterizes
ey 1 1 the evrdence. FRE 403.
abdomen against the table Misl adin
edge multiple times and g.
then tl?rew him Olil' the
roun causing 1m to Plaintiffs? assertion
E51391 from his alligomend contradicts the video
11H tiring 18 ee an recording of the incident
0? er. that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 3
version of events is so
utterly discredited by the

LA #4829-2817-4510 vl - 50 DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 51 of 73 Page ID #:4461

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

DEFENDANT REPLY

 

record that no reasonable
ury could have belleved

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have Viewed the
facts 1n the light depicted
by the Videotape?) see
a so Doc. 111-1 fDiaz
and Campos Separate
Statement], Nos. 53-55,
59, 66?69.

 

88.

After Plaintiff Diaz was

rayed 1n the face w1th
spray he 1got up

screaming, 1nde by the

spray that had gone 1nto

eyes and mouth.

Ex. 26, Diaz Dep.
58:15?5928.

Incomplete and .
m1sstates/rnischaracterizes
the ev1dence. FRE 403.

Misleading.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the moldent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s
ver31on of events IS so
utterly discredlted by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have beheved

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such Visible ?ction; it
should have yiewed the
facts 1n the dep1cted
by the Videotape?).

 

89.

 

GEO uards du their nails
behin Plaintif .1az.?s
ears, du the1r nalls into
his han squeezed .
palnfully between 
thumb and (pomter finger,
and pinche and pulledthe
Sign on Sides near h1s

r1 3.

 

Ex. 26, Diaz Dep.
5529?5625, 57:6?10.

 

Incomplete and .

the ev1dence. FRE 403.
Mlsleading.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the Video
of the incrdent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent?s

 

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-51-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

 

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 52 of 73 Page ID #:4462

 

No.

STATE
.-.

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

DEFEN DAN REPLY

 

version of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

1111. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have viewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

At most, Plaintiff Diaz
alleges that the of?cers
?pinched:a him, ulled on
his arms in an fort to
selparate him from the

ot er plaintiffs, and .
applied pressure behind
his ears; but admitted that
no one ever punched him.
see also Doc. 
l[D1az and Campos
Separate Statement], Nos.

 

90.

 

 

GEO of?cers injured
Plaintiff Diaz as the
removed him from 
table, hurting his arms
before handcuf?ng him.

 

Ex. 26, Diaz Dep.
59:12-17.

Incomplete and .
misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Misleading.

Plaintiffs? assertion
contradicts the video
recording of the inCIdent
that is attached as Exhibit
See Scott v. Harris,
550 US. 372, 378?80
(2007) (?Respondent? 
ver31on of events is so
utterly discredited by the
record that no reasonable
ury could have believed

1m. The Court of Ap eals
should not have relie on
such visible ?ction; it
should have 'v1ewed the
facts in the light depicted
by the Videotape?).

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-52-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, 8:
SORENSEN, LLP

1.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 53 of 73 Page ID #:4463

 

No.

STATED


EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

91.

All Plaintiffs were
handcuffed and taken to
the recreation yard.

Lt. Diaz De . 237214-
17, 23826?1 23,
Castillo De . 95:8-
96:21, 102: EX.
28, Mejia Dep. 8312-3

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403. Nevertheless,
undisputed for purposes of
this motion.

 

92.

GEO policy states that
hard restraints steel
handcuffs) shal be used
only after soft restraints
prove Sor have preViously
proven ineffective.

Ex. H, GEO Group
Use of Force Policy
No. 10.2.15 ,at1

Sec. .

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009)( noting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

93.

GEO policy requires staff
to document their
attempt(s) to use soft
restraints prior to hard
restraints in a use of force
report. 

EX. H, GEO Group
Use of Force Policy
No. 10.2.15), at 2

Sec. 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uotmg
Gardner v. oward, 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

94.

 

 

On June 12, 2017, Lt. Diaz
directed the GEO officers
to handcuff Plaintiffs

 

Lt. Diaz De . 237:14-
17, 23826-1 ;Ex. 23,
Castillo Dep. 95:8-

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-53-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

[.05 ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 54 of 73 Page ID #:4464

 

No.

STATE
. FACTS 

EVIDENTIARY 

SUPPORT - 1

REPLY

 

without first directing.
them to use soft restraints.


3.8, Mejia Dep. 83:2-

alleged policy violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
56_8 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) (Ejuoting
Gardner v. oward .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th at.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

Lacks foundation that Diaz
could have ordered the use
of soft restraints iven she
testified the Faci tty does
not have soft restraints.
See Pls. Ex. 15 j?Lt. Diaz
Dep.] 237:14?1 .

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

95.

 

 

The Use of Force report
Lt. Diaz authored
regarding the June 12,
2017 force ineldent made
no mention of any attempt
by any staff member to use
soft restraints.

 

Ex. B, Diaz Use of
Force Report.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 10709111
Cir. 2009) (gluoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th er.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

Lacks foundation that Diaz
could have ordered the use
of soft restraints iven she
testified the Faci ity does

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-54-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 55 of 73 Page ID #:4465

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

not have soft restraints.
See Pls. Ex. 15 ?Lt. Diaz
Dep.] 237:l4~1 .

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

96.

GEO polio requires the
Facility A ministrator?s
approval forthe continued
use of restraints 
handcuffs), if they are
considered necessary, after
a detainee is under control.

Ex. H, GEO Group
Use of Force Policy
No. 10.2.15), at 2

Sec. 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. oward .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th er.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Nevertheless, undisputed
for purposes of this
motion.

 

97.

 

 

GEO policy and ractice
requires that han cuffs be
removed from .a detainee
as soonas the imminent
danger is over.

 

EX. l6, Lt. Diaz Dep.
244:10-13.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as an
alleged policy Violation is
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
558 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009)( uoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th ca.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Additionally, this ?fact? is
Diaz?s opinion. and, thus,
irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. RE
402, 403.

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-55-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8t
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 56 of 73 Page ID #:4466
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT

98. Following the incident in Ex. 23, Castillo Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
the dayroorn, Plaintiffs 102: 13-103 to Defendants? Motion for
were ke in handcuffs for 104: 1 87105: 10; Ex. Summary Judgment as an
several ours, including 28, Me 13. Dep. 8_7:4- alleged policy Violation is
while they were 8; Ex. 5, Cornejo not a per se Violation of
undisputedly ?under De . 75:12-15; the law; thus, this fact IS
control? in a cell, Without 75: 3-25, EX. 27 not material. FRE 402,
any GEO staff member Martinez De . 59:17 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
seeking the Facrlity 60:11; Ex. 2 GarCia 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Administrator?s approval. Dep. 48:21-25; EX. Cir. 2009) (Eiotmg

30, Rodr1 uez Dip. Gardner v. award .109
112122 ;Ex. 2 F.3d 427,430 (8th Cir.
Campos Dep. 127: 16? 1997)). Moreover, this
19. ?fact does not relate to
any material issue.
Lacks foundation that
approval was required.

99. Not only did. Lt. Diaz not Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
seek the FaCility 244: 10-18, 258: 16? to Defendants? Motion for
Administrator?s approval 259: 14; 274217-21, Summary Judgment as an
to keep Plaintiffs 275 16-276:25, alleged policy Violation is
handcuffed after they were 277: 12-17, 277:25- not a per se Violatlon of
undisputedly ?under . 278:23. the law; thus, this fact 13
control,? but she also did not material. FRE 402,
not monitor whether or 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
when Plaintiffs? handcuffs 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
were removed. Cir. 2009) uotmg

Gardner v. award 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

Lacks foundation that

a proval was required and
at she requrred to
monitor when the
handcuffs were removed.

100. Plaintiffs were kept in EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
handcuffs until at least 277225?278: 12. to Defendants? Motion for
or Summary Judgment. FRE

402, 403.

Speculation. Lacks
foundation. The evidence
demonstrates Lt. Diaz had
no further contact With
Plaintiffs after they left the

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

~56-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1,05 ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 57 of 73 Page ID #:4467
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
- .F ACTS SUPPORT
dorm. See Doc. 111-1
Diaz and Campos
7gelrparate Statement], No.

101. On .June 12, 2017Irrelevant and immaterial
that its Force Policy No. to Defendants? Motion for
staff Videotape all 10.2.15 at 1 (Sec. Summary Judgment as an
calculated use of force Ex. 1, GEO alleged policy Violation is
inCidents. Use 0 orce Training not a per se Violation of

Presentation, Slides the law; thus, this fact is

44-56; EX. 10, not material. FRE 402,

McCusker Dep. 54:8- 403; Cousins v. Lockyer

17. 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

102. On June 12, 2017Irrelevant and immaterial
policy required that its Force Policy No. to Defendants? Motion for
staff videotape all 10.2.15), at 1 -13 Summary Judgment as an
spontaneous or ESec. Ex. 1, alleged policy Violation is
unantiCipated use of force EO .Use 0 orce. not a per se Violation of
incidents as soon as Trainin Presentation, the law; thus, this fact is
possible and speCifically Slides 4-56; EX. 10, not material. FRE 402,
set forth that once control McCusker Dep. 54:8- 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
ofthe Situation had been 17. 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
obtained, staff were to Cir. 2009) uoting
record information about Gardner v. award, _109
injuries, a description of F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
the Circumstances that 1997)). Moreover, this
gave use to the need for ?fact does not relate to
immediate use of force, any material issue.
and the identification of
the detainees, staff and
others involved.

103. On June 12, 2017 GEO Ex. H, GEO Use of Irrelevant and immaterial
required two staff Force Policy gNo. to Defendants? Motion for
members (at a minimum) 10.2.15), at 1 Summary Judgment as an
to be designated as g?Video Taping alleged policy Violation 15
?camera operators? on rocedures x. 1, not a per se Violation of
their shift. GEO .Use 0 Force. the law; thus, this fact is

Trainin Presentation, not material. FRE 402,

Slide 4 . 403; Cousins v. Loo/(yer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) (quoting

 

 

 

LA #4829?2817-4510 v1

-57-

5: 18-CV-01 125-SP

DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 0:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 58 of 73 Page ID #:4468
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY . REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT .-
Gardner v. Howard .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Gir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

104. On June 12, 2017, GEO EX. 1, of Irrelevant and immaterial
re uired staff to request Force Training . to Defendants? Motion for
V1 eo equipment ?any time Presentation, lide Summary Judgment as an
an employee expects _a alleged policy Violation is
confrontationaI Situation.? not a per se Violation of

the law; thus, this fact is
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) (Iqluoting
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th oil?.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

105 On June 12, 2017, GEO Ex. 1, of Irrelevant and immaterial
re uired staff to request Force Training to Defendants? Motion for
v1 eo e. uipment ?as soon Presentation, lide Summary Judgment as an
as poss1 1e after an 47. alleged policy Violation is
unexpected. confrontational not a per se Violation of
Situation arises.? the law; thus, this fact is

not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1.070 (9th
Cir. 2009) uoting
Gardner v. oward, .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

106. At no time on June 12, Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
2017, did Lt. Diaz request 241 13-15;. EX. 20, to Defendants? Motion for
Video uiprnent or direct GEO Martinez Dep. Summary Judgment as an
any of officers she 35: 25-34:11, 41 :14- alleged policy Violation is
de51gnated as camera 21. not a per se Violation of
operators to record the law; thus, this fact is
anythin relating to not material. FRE 402,
Plaintif or the use of 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
force. 568 F.3d 1063, 1.070 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-58-

125?81)

DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 59 of 73 Page ID #:4469

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS {it
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

No. PLAINTIFF STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
. FACTS SUPPORT .. . 3 - . .
Gardner v. Howard 109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th cir.
1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

107, Lt. Diaz?s reasons for not Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
directing a camera 241 13-242: 17; EX. to Defendants? Motion for
operator to record the H, GEO Use of Force Summary Judgment as an
moident on June 12, 2017 - Policy gNo. 10.2.15), alleged policy Violation is
because it was an at 12-1 gee. not a per se Violation of
?emergency? and because X. 1, GEO the law; thus, this fact is
there were surveillance Use 0 orce Training not material. FRE 402,
cameras in the faCility that Presentation, Slides 403; Cousins v. Lockyer
may have recorded what 44?56; Ex. 10, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
occurred are not McCusker Dep. 54:8- Cir. 2009) uotrng
su ported by any GEO 17. Gardner v. award, .109
po icy or training. F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.

1997)). Moreover, this
?fact does not relate to
any material issue.

108. Lt. Dilaz stated that a EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Undisputed that Lt. Diaz
rebellion was occurring 348:6-18. stated that the ineldent
that warranted a ma} or use constituted a rebellion or a
of force under Geo riot.

Group?s policy.

109_ Sgt. Campos believed that Ex. 14, Sgt. Campos Irrelevant and immaterial
en even a small grou De . 141 :22-142z3, to Defendants? Motion for
gave ?no compliance?, at 14 210-18. Summary Judgment, as
was a rebellion. Campos was g1v1ng h1s

opimorz. FRE 402, 403.
Sgt. Cam os never Ex110' received gny traiaing on Dep. 81: 4-82z2.p 

what a rebellion was. Summary Judgment, 3.13
Campos wasg1v1r1gh1s
0 imorz on his training.
EB 402, 403.
Misstates/mischaracterizes
the evidence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs omit that
Campos later rov1ded an
ex. lanation the term
re ellion. See Pls. Ex. 14


LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 59 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 5t
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 60 of 73 Page ID #:4470

 

No.

STATED


EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

DEFENDANT REPLY

 

ES t. Camgos Dep.] at

4 :22-14 
Additionally, while he was
not trained on a prec1se
de?nition, he was trained
to reco nize one. See Pls.
EX. 14 Campos Dep.]
at 81 :1 3.

McCusker ex lained that a
?dlsturbance? or ?riot?
?would have been
dlscussed in traininsg?.?
See Agua Decl. I .
Repl Ex. [McCusker
Dep._ at 61-62.

 

111.

After Plaintiffs were taken
out of the day room, GEO
staff found that there was
so much OC spray in the
dormitory areas 
compr1s1ng four large
rooms adjacent to day
room, spanning two stories
and two Wings that they
had to evacuate all staff
and detainees so that it
could be decontaminated.

Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

Moreover, misstates and
mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.
Plaintiffs? cited evidence
does not support this
contention.

 

112.

The detainees who were
not involved in the use of
force and who were simply
in the dormito. area
durlng the ent were
also examined by medlcal
staff when thely were
evacuated to yard.

Ex. 18, Jindi Dep.
56:6-12; EX. 4,
General Incident
Reports at 2.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

 

113.

Those 90 detainees were
counted in the recreation
yard, the count cleared
without issue, and
Plaintiffs were ?out
counted.?

Ex._4, General
Inc1dent Reports at 2;
Ex. 5, Logbook at 3.

Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

 

 

114.

 

Of?cer Jindi testified that
she had to go out to the
yard so she could breathe
and further testified that
?everyone was coughing.?

 

EX. 18, Jindi Dep.
52:18-23, 55:18?24.

Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. RE
402, 403.

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-60-


DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:1






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 61 of 73 Page ID #:4471

 

 

 

 

placed in a cell with a sign
1ndicat1ng a maxrmum
occupancy of three (3)
whlle they waited to be
seen by medical staff.

8 .


No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
- .- . SUPPORT

115_ On June 12, 2017, GEO Ex. 1, of Undisputed.
requrred that followmg the Force Trainlng
use of a chemical agent, Presentation, lide
the exposed detamee_(s)
had to recelve a medlcal
examination ?as soon as
possible after the chemical
agent has been used, but
not to exceed one hour
after the ?rst exposure.?

116. On June 12, 2017, all Ex. 7, Medical Mischaracterizes the
Plaintiffs were forced to Reports; Ex. 21, eVidence. FRE 403.
wait at least 2 1/2 hours Jones Dep. 176: 1 1- Plaintiffs? cited ev1dence
(and some more than 3 15, 177: 18-25, does not support the
hours) after they were 205125-2063. contention as there is no
ex osed to OC spra information as to the time
be ore they receive any that Plaintiffs were
sort of medical decontaminated within
examination. Plaintiffs? Exhibit 7

medical re orts] or
xhibit 21 deposrtion of
Nurse Jones].
117_ Plamtiffs, nine men, were Ex. 23, Castillo Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for

Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

 

 

118.

 

Plaintiffs were forced to.
shower in hot water, while
fully clothed and drenched
1n pepper 3 ray, and
handcuffe contrary to
accepted practices.

 

Decl. of Venters
Encorporatin Expert

eport at 5-6 . Ex.
19, Juarez De .
43:15-17' 45: 46:13;
Ex. 25, C?ornego Dep.
77:2?78z24, 8 :91 
8022581 Ex. 30,
Rodrl uez Dep.
112:1 ?113:4; Ex. 23,
Castillo De . 104:18-
10617; Dec . of
Castillo ll 4.

 

Undisputed that the
of?cers laced some of the
plaintif into showers for
purposes of 
decontamination while the
plaintiffs were fully
clothed.

Vague and ambiguous as
to accepted practice.?

Plaintiffs cited evidence
relies on speculatlon that
the temperate of the water
was ?hot.? The evrdence
demonstrates that some
plaintiffs were placed 1n
showers with cold water

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 VI

-61-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 62 of 73 Page ID #:4472
1
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
2 FACTS SUPPORT .
3 A uado Decl. ISO Re 1 
[Juarez Dep.] 
4 61?62) and that water,
irrespective of the
5 temperature of the water,
may reactivate the 
6 sensation from the spray.
See D1az Decl. 1] 41.
7
8 The declaration of Venters
and 1118 attached report
9 rely on unrehable ert
inion. Fed. R. EV1 . 702.
10 ee Dauberr v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., Inc. 43 F.3d
11 (1311163131159,9153)21 n. 17
11?. .
12
13 119. Some Plaintiffs, after. Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Undisputed that some
seeing the extreme patn_ 55:6;25; Ex. 28, plaintiffs refused to be
14 their riends were suffering Dep. 90:9- decontaminated.
in the hot water, refused to 92:4; Ex. 29, Garc1a
15 Shower- Dep- 48-15'20- Plaintiffs cited evidence
16 relles on speculation that
the of thce1 water
was ot.? evi ence
17 demonstrates that some
18 were placed in
sgoweas 
gua ec . ep y,
19 Ex. [Juarez Dep.] at
20 _61-62) and that water,
1rrespect1ve of the
21 temperature of the water,
may react1fvate tl?e tingling
22 sensation romt spray.
See Dlaz Decl. 41.
23
Plaintiffs were not iven Ex. 23, Castillo De . -
24 120' new clothing to wegr until 104:18?106:7; Ex. 5, Egg?iff?e?ggeat new
after they were seen by Cornejo De . 81 :15? uniforms after 
25 medical staff and after they 82:17; EX. 4, incident
were taken to the showers Cam 03 De . 12_8:7- 
26 on June 12, 2017. 1130; 2195?? ogriguez
- -
. Whether the were wen
27 16 '13'16? .29? new clothingbeforegor
Gar01a Dgp. 48'16' after the were seen 
28 25; Ex. 2 Diaz Dep. 
BURKE, WILLIAMS 
LA 14482948174510 v1 - 62 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

moms RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELIES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 63 of 73 Page ID #:4473

 

 

 

 

 

she was shownt video
ev1dence and given the

 

342:4-23, 343:23?
345:25, 346:1-15,

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY - DEFENDANT REPLY
- FACTS SUPPORT .
I 88:14?21. medical staff is irrelevant

and immaterial to
Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

121. At Lt. Diaz?s de osition, Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Jud ment that

 

 

 

portunit to identify 353 :3-12. Diaz correcte her
en she _e loyed OC testimony at her
spray. She 1 entlfied three deposmon. FRE 402, 403.
times when she e1ther .
sprayed Plaintiffs .
or definitively stated she Misstates and
did. She ?rst testi?ed that the
it was that she ev1dence. FRE 403.
deployed OC spray . . .
between apprommately At her de os1tron, Diaz
06:38:41? before stated af 1rmat1vely and
ultlmately concludlng she repeatedly that she only
didnot recalln She next 3 ra ed once. See Aguado
testi?ed de?mtrvel that ec . ISO Repl Ex. 
she spra ed the tab Diaz Dep.] at 4528-25
where were ater, Diaz requested to go
Sitting at 06:39:21. through the entire video
Immedtatel after that and revised her testimony
testimony, er counsel after she was shown the .
took a break and, upon one 1nstance where she 
their return, Lt. Diaz asked 111 fact deploy her DC
to ?revise? her testimony spray (at around 6:42:25),
to state that she d1d not which she was clearly able
deploy: OCspray at that to recognize on the v1deo
time. t. Dlaz then once 1t was pla ed. See
testr?ed that the ?one Aguado Dec]. SO Reply,
time? she sprayed the Ex. [Diaz Dep.] at
Plaintiffs was at 06:42:25. 345210-23. She ex ained
at her depos1t10n at she
knew she deployed OC
8 ray 1n that 1nstance
?Fb]ecause the of?cers
moved.? See Aguado Decl.
ISO Repl Ex. [Diaz
Dep.] at. 5323?15. In her
declaration, she expanded
on her statement and
explalned:
would never
spray 1f there is an

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1 - 63 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS ?2
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 64 of 73 Page ID #:4474

 

No.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY 
SUPPORT

DEFENDAN REPLY

 

of?cer in very close
of the
target of my spray
because I would not
want an of?cer to be
1mpacted by the
spray. Instead,
based on my
training Iwould
adyise that I am
gomg to use my

5 ray and instruct

of?cers to step
away.?

See Diaz Decl. ll 26.

 

122.

Lt. Diaz and Sgt. Cam 03
were requlred, er GE
policy, to weig thelr OC
canisters every sh1ft on
retrlevrng them from 
safe where they were kept
and before them
to the safe at the end of
every shift, and to record
the weights on a log.

Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz De .

143:7-144, 146:8?1 

of

Schwartz .

?ncorporattng Expert
eport at 17).

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motlon for
Summary Judgment 'as an
alleged pol1cy Vlolatton IS
not a per se Violation of
the law; thus, this fact IS
not material. FRE 402,
403; Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (91:11
2009)( uotmg
Gardner v. award .109
F.3d 427, 430 (8th ctr.
1997)): 
?fact IS not matertal.

The declaration'of
Schwartz and 1118 report
are 1mproper expert
optnlon based on
eculation and lack of
oundation. Lack of
foundation/speculatlon.
Fed. R. Evid. 602. . .
Unreltable expert 0 1111011.
Fed. R. EVid. 702. 66
Dauberz? v. Merrell Dow
Pharms. Inc. 43 F.3d
1311,1315,1321n. 17
(9th C1r. 1995).

 

 

123.

 

The document logging the
welght of each canister
were mamtalned 1n the

 

Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep.
146:8-19.

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

~64-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:1





28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 65 of 73 Page ID #:4475
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY - REPLY
- FACTS SUPPORT . . .
same, secured safe as the 402, 403.
canisters.

124_ The safe containing the Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Irrelevant and immaterial
3 ray canisters and the 145210?20. to Defendants? Motion for
weig log was 1n the Summary Judgment. RE
watch commander?s of?ce 402, 403.
and requlred a code to
open.

Lt. Diaz carried OC spray Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. - -

125' 011i} her at adl trilm?es when 145:7-9. gr (33351551133 ,1n?rgg?gerr1tagr
wor 1 at
Adelanto Detention 481012111418? Judgment. RE
Fac111ty. 

Lt. Diaz did not wei the EX. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. -

126' OC canisters every ay, 145 :7-146z4. 
only frequently Summary Judgment. FRE

402, 403.
Lt. Diaz does not recall Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. - .

127- gl?ether she weighed the 146:5-7. 517333135 

canistert at 
eheehee out on the $39123? Judgment FRE
mornmg of June 12, 2017. 
GEO has not been able to EX. 40, - .

128? ?nd the log documenting Supplemental 
the weights of the OC Response to Summar Jud ment FRE
canisters Lt. Diaz or t. P1a1nt1ffs? Request for 402 403y 
gain 03 used on June 2, Productlon No. 79. 

129' As required by GEO, the Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Undisputed that the
of?cers that were mvolved 101 :2-20; EX. 4, of?cers that were 1nvolved
in the June 12, 2017 General Inc1dent in the June 12, 2017
1ncident wrote General . Reports. incident wrote General
Incident Reports, Including In01dent Reports.
all relevant detalls.

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment as
Cited evrdence
ls D1a1z?s 0 1_ 
regar mg 3 1c1es
25% procedures. FIRE 402,

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

?65?



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 





28

.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 66 of 73 Page ID #:4476

 

 

 

 

Incident Re ort, which he
com leted ollowin the
inci ent, con?rms at he
learned of the hunger
strike when Plaintiffs gave
him their letter.

 

Incident Reports at l.

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY . REPLY
FACTS . . SUPPORT 
130 Of?cer Gillon?s General EX. 4, General Irrelevant and immaterial

to Defendants? Motion for

Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.

M'isstates and 
mischaracterlzes the
evrdence. FRE 403.

There is no evidence to

su port the contention that
at 1rd party detainee .
explained to Of?cer Gillon
that Plaintiffs were

part1c1 atmg in a hunger
strike. 1sstates ev1dence.
FRE 403. Contrary to
Plaintiffs? assertion, the
evidence cited by
Plaintiffs demonstrates.
that Gillonthought during
h1s deposrtion that he .
learned of a hunger strIke
from the letter that he was
handed; however, he
admitted that he had no
recollection of thecontents
of the letter and, g1ven he
cannot read Spanish, th1s
1s s1mply 1mposs1ble:

What do you
mean when you say
that you're not sure
what the letter saId?

A I don't remember
What it sa1d on
there.

So you don't
recall as you s1t here
today what the letter
sa1d.

A No.

But you do recall
that it was 1n

 

 

 

BURKE, 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 VI

-66-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANCELES

18-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 67 of 73 Page ID #:4477

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY - REPLY
AFACTS SUPPORT .

English?
A Yeah.
As you sit here
toda do on recall
anyt . 1n at was
sa1d1nt letter?
A No.

131. Lt. Diaz signed an order Ex. 16, Lt. Diaz Dep. Undisputed for purposes
placmg Plaintiffs in . 243:10-20, 262: 1 1? of this motion.
segregatlon. 263:17' Ex. 2,


Segregauon Orders.

132' Plaintiffs were not given Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. Misstates and
an opportunity to be 154312-21; Ex. 28, the
present at then Mejlla Dep. 161 :19- evrdence. FRE 403; see

instead, Plaintif 16 EX. 23, also Doc. 111-1[D1az
remained 1n . Castillo Dep. 111:25? and Campos Separate
112:5. (unaware of Statement], Nos. 79-81.
se regation and were later any disc1p11nary
in orrned of the outcome hearing and could not
of the investigatlon, recall attendmg one);
including the orderthat EX. 25, Come 0 Dep.
they remain in (11861 llnary 86:19-20, 87: -19,
segregation for 10 ays. 882128919, (spoke to
an of?cer about a

1nvest1gat10n,but not
during a hearlng EX.
26, Diaz De .9 :14-
23; EX. 29, arcia
Dep. 56:2-4; Ex. 30,
Rodriguez Dep.
157 :9?16.
After Plaintiffs were EX. 41, Nicole Ramos - - -

133' laced in 36 re ation, Letter; Ex. 42, Belt 

EO staff 00 ed V01cema11; EX. 27, Lacks foundation 
telephone numbers that Martlnez Dep. 157:4- cul ati on 
Plaintiffs regularly 8, 15822-15923; Ex. -
contacted, E3, ?ail/{162' Kites;
attorne 5, arm y, rren s, x. artinez - - - -
and adgocates. Audio Recordin Ex. epnt 121?; 15182106

26, Diaz De . 9 :24? 63? 11:20? 0 am
95:5 99219?122;Ex. mm 81.0?. 

23, ?astmo De- 
22'1'23'10? 11 '23" calls were blocked for

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 V1

-67-

125-81J

DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 68 of 73 Page ID #:4478

 

 

 

 

 

Ex. 25, Cornejo De .
1,
9722?6, 97:2198z6,



 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
FACTS SUPPORT
I 113:19; EX. 45, en?aging in three-way
Blocked Numbers; ca 5 an conversatlons

that demonstrated safety
concerns. See Aguado
Decl. ISO eply, EX. 
LPhone Lo 5] at .
a so omltot at
dunng the tune period that
Plaintiffs claim their calls
were blocked (after the
June 12, 2017, the
evidence demonstrates
they made numerous callsPlaintiff Campos admitted
that he had no issues
contacting attorney
while in se regation, and
stated that only had an
lssue h1s attorney
for one da yet, he never
1nformed E0 of the
alleged issue. See Defs.?
Ex. [Campos Depo.]
14129-12, 142115-18,
145:9-24, 146213-17,
202:21-203:12, 204:1-11.

Plaintiff Garcia claimed
that he was not permuted
to contact attorney
after the moldent; yet, he
was permuted to W1th
attorney. After the
Visit, Plaintiff Garcia?s
attorney gave h1rn a new
number to call and he was
able to contact his
attorney. See Defs.? Ex.
[Gar01a Depo. at
58:6-59223, 64:6- 5:4.

Plaintiff Diaz stated that
he had an issue contact his
attorney; however, once
attorney spoke to GEO
staff about the issue (since

 

 

 

LA #4829-28174510 v1

-68-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, WILLIAMS 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

1.8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 69 of 73 Page ID #:4479

 

No.

STATED
. FACTS

EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT

REPLY

 

Diaz never raised the issue
with GEO the issue was
resolved. 62 Defs.? Ex.
?T?9[Diaz Depo at 94:19-
21, 0:1-3.

Plaintiff Martinez claimed
that GEO staff restricted
his ability to contact his
attorney and as soon as he
raised the issue to GEO
staff the issue was
resolved. See Defs.? EX.
{Martinez De 04] at
156: 6-158z7, 15 :1 
159:3

Plaintiffs Cornejo and
Castillo admitted that they
did not have issues
contacting their attorneys.
See Defs. Ex. 
[)Cornejo De 0. at 94:4?
5:11, 97:2- 7 stating he
only had issues contacting
his friend after the
incident 9822-6, 10021?4,
100:1.1- 1; Ex. 
[Castillo Depo.] 2221-8
permitted to make calls
while in se regation to
persons on is ?aspilaroved
call list?], 112:1 13:5.

 

 

134.

 

Just prior to this incident,
during the overnight shift
that began on June 11,
2017 and ended on the
morning of June 12, 2017,
it took one hour and
twenty-one minutes to 
clear count at the FaCility.
The evidence demonstrates
that count was ultimately
cleared Without
discrepanCies or an.
emergency declaration. No
ev1dence indicates that
ICE was notified of the

 

Ex. 5, Lo book at
GE00519 .

 

Irrelevant and immaterial
to Defendants? Motion for
Summary Judgment. FRE
402 403. eculation.
Lacl<s foun ation.
Misstates and
mischaracterizes the
evidence. FRE 403.

 

 

 

LA 34482948174510 v1

-69-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

t8?cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 70 of 73 Page ID #:4480

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
. . FACTS SUPPORT . - 
delay.
Plaintiff Castillo now feels Ex. 23, Castillo De . - -
135' nervous whenever he sees 117:6?19; Ex. 36, 
law enforcement of?cers . Castillo Resp, Summar lid. 0 
or someone 1n uniform, Interrogatory No. 11. 402 403y gmen 
heart races, he feels faint, 
and it brings back
memories of when he was
detained and mistreated by
GEO of?cers.
Plaintiff Castillo continues EX. 23, Castillo Dep. . -
136' to have nightmares that 117:21-118:15, 
cause him to lose sleep. 120:19?23, 121:1-14. Summary Judgment FRE
402, 403.
Plaintiff Castillo feels that Ex. 23, Castillo De . - -
137' he is .not able to engage in 123:21-25, 124:8-2Il. 
certain hobbies like he Summar ent FRE
before, such as walkm or 402 403)! 
dr1vmg eacefully, w1t out 9 
fearlng aw enforcement or
Feople that re resent the
aw, like GE of?cers.
To this day, Plaintiff EX. 25, Corne'o De . - -
138' Cornejo remembers seeing 111:5: 1 12:3; Ex. 32?, 
and fr1ends Resp, Summar Jud ment FRE
in pain from 121118. Interrogatory No. 11. 402 4035/ 
moident and recalls feeling 
helpless and defenseless.
Plaintiff Cornejo recalls EX. 25, Cornejo De . - .
139' this being a yery difficult 1112511 1 1 :23; EX. 8, ?332,335 
time in life and he . Cornejo Resp, Summar ?3113 me FRE
about often. It IS Interrogatory No. ll. 402 403y 
very upsetting and the 3 
memorles come back to
him repeatedly and
frequently.
Followin the incident140' Plaintiff ampos'felt 170:22?171:?, 177: ?rgg?gg?g?g??mgge?gr
traumatized, afraid, and 23. umm ar gilt FRE
depressed. 402 4033? 8 -
While detained 141' Adelanto after the incident, 181:10u18. Irrelevant and immater1al

 

 

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 6:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOSE ANGELHS

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-70..



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

'l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 71 of 73 Page ID #:4481
N0. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
. FACTS SUPPORT
Plaintiff Campos would to Defendants? Motion for
feel nervous every tlme he Summary Judgment. FRE
saw GEO officers. He . 402, 403.
would start shaking and his
hands would start to sweat.
42. Plaintiff Campos continues Exsuffer from stress and 176: - grgg?tiggl?gr?gau?glggeglgr
anxiety as a result of this 25; EX. 37, Campos Summar Jud ment FRE
incrdent, causes h1m Resp., Interrogatory 402 403y 
headaches. Thestress and No. 11. 
anx1ety cause h1m
headaches.

Plaintiff Cam os also EX. 24, Campos Dep. - 

143' continues to eel depressed 178:9-22. 
as a result of th1s moident Summar Jud ent FRE
and no a daily hams, he 402 40337 
struggles sleeping at mght. 

Plaintiff Diaz has recurring Ex. 26, Diaz De . - .

144? nightmares as a result of 101: 9?14, 103: 0-12. 
ineldent cause Summa Jud ment FRE
h1m to wake up screaming 402 403y 
and feel1ng scared. 

Plaintiff Diaz also suffers EX. 26, Diaz Dep. - -

145? fromheadaches as a result 101: 9?14. 
Of this mcrdent. Summary Judgment. FRE

402, 403.
4 . Plaintiff Mejia suffers Ex. 33, Mejia Resp, - -

1 6 from anx1ety as a result of Interrogatory No. 11. igrgg?fg??fl?gal?rggf?l??r
thismmdent and on aIdally Summar Jud ment 
basrs, he worries that if he 402 4033? 
were. detained he would be 
attacked agam.

Plaintiff Martinez Ex. 27, Martinez De . -

147? experienced emotional 161 :21-162:2, Ex. 3 
distress when he was Martinez Resp\.f Summar Jud ent FRE
harmed by the uards Interrogatory o. 11. 402 403y 
during the met ant and . 3 
wh11e he was restricted 1n
the segregation unit.

148 Plaintiff Martinez EX. 34, Martinez I 1 . . 1

continues to think about Res ., lnterro ator rre evant an 91mmater1a
this incident frequently No.p11. to Defendants Motion for

 

 

LA #4829?2817-45 10 v1

-71-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 5:






28

BURKE, 8:
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 72 of 73 Page ID #:4482
No. STATED EVIDENTIARY REPLY
1 '3 FACTS - . 5 - - 
and fears that he will be I I Summary Judgment. FRE
detalned agaln. 402, 403.
Plaintiff Martinez has had Ex. 27, Martinez Dep. - 
149' difficulty sleeping because 
he has awake at n1ght Summary Judgment RE
about this 402 403 
meldent. 
Plaintiff Garcia felt angry Ex. 32, Garcia Res ., - .
150' and distressed after the Interrogatory No. l. 
1nc1dent. Summary Judgment. FRE
402, 403.
Plaintiff Garcia felt alone Ex. 32, Garcia Res ., - -
151- while he. was 1121 Interrogatory No. 1. 
se re ation an was
by the brutal. ?31831?8?y Judgment. FRE
treatment that _he received 
during the meldent
because he thought the
United States was the land
of freedom.
Plaintiff Garcia still things Ex. 29, Garcia Dep. - .
152' about this incident EX. 32, gr?sg?ff?l?g?gal?g?ge??r
frequently cause Garc1a Resp., Summar Jud ment FRE
him and Interrogatory No. 11. 402 4033? 
difficu ty sleepmg. 9 
When he thinks of this Ex. 32, Garcia Res ., - -
153' incident, Plaintiff Garcia?s Interrogatory No. l. 
heart starts rac1ng and he Summa Jud ent FRE
feels afraid of being 402 40? 
detained again. 
Plaintiff Rodri uez has EX. 35, Rodriguez . -
154' dif?culty sleepgifrfig, find ?esp1.,11nterrogatory 
continues to su er rom o. .
stress and anxiety as a Egg?lggy Judgment. FRE
result of this 1nc1dent. 
Plaintiff Rodri uez has EX. 35, Rodriguez . -
155' ongoing headaghes and Resp., lnterrogatory ig?g??g??r?gal?rgg?gg 
fee of depressmn. o. 1. Summary Judgment FRE

 

 

 

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

-72-



DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Case 






28

 

8-cv-01125-SP Document 132-3 Filed 12/06/19 Page 73 of 73 Page ID #:4483

 

N0.

STATED
FACTS

EVIDENTIARY REPLY
SUPPORT

 

 

 

 

402, 403.

 

 

Dated: December 6, 2019

 

BURKE, WILLIAMS 
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L05 ANGELES

LA #4829-2817-4510 v1

BURKE, WILLIAMS SORENSEN, LLP

By: Carmen M. Aguado

Susan E. Coleman
Carmen M. Aguado

 

Attorne for Defendants
THE GROUP, INC, DIAZ,
CAMPOS and CITY OF ADELANTO


- 73 - DIAZ AND ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO STATEMENT OF FACTS