LCS-CV-2024-001 - Post-Award - Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Kotwica]

“Your honor, can I ask for a fifteen minute recess? I have been notified by my co counsel of an issue that needs my attention.”

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, I just spoke with my client Mister Castillo. Mister Castillo has provided me with a copy of an e-mail he received on his official government e-mail address from the defense counsel. This item is identical to the proposed exhibit Plaintiff 1. We ask this exhibit be marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 2. 

Your honor, this is deeply troubling that an officer of the court would make a statement as unequivocally as the defense counsel has that is factually inaccurate. The representation that the defense counsel has presented to this court has been nothing but a lie. We believe that this would fall under Contempt of Court, if not Corruption of Public Office."

** Donald J. Wright hands over a freshly printed copy from the law library printer to the court. **

(( Tyler Bouc is Stefan Castillo's new LSSD character name

@Michael, @Fabi)).

 

[Fabi]

* Sergio Robleto accepts the copy from the bailiff, darting his eyes around its contents briefly before settling it on his bench. He sighs, pinching the bridge of his nose. *

 

We're going to pause on the witness examination until we conclude with all issues related to the alleged settlement negotiations, as I do not wish this to turn into chaos.

 

Counselor Thyne, please provide your response to the Plaintiff's attorney.

 

Counselor Wright, your requests regarding Plaintiff's exhibits one and two are granted. Do you still wish to pursue a reconsideration for your motion to compel? If so, I'd ask that you opt to amend the motion and re-file it so we avoid any further confusion in regard to what you wish to compel. Should you wish to now abandon the reconsideration, please state so accordingly, for the record.

 

(( @Michael @Kotwica ))

 

 

[ImperiumXVII]

As I have already told the court, your honor, and I can have the stenographer read this back to the court - any discussions with Mr. Castillo have been entirely related to the Internal Affairs Bureau's internal policies and how employees perceive them in the interest of internal reviews and changes that are happening totally independently of this case. I have not denied ever speaking with Mr. Castillo, however I am one hundred percent correct in saying that the document received by Mr. Castillo is not to be considered as an official communication, and thus is not actually a settlement negotiation with Mr. Castillo, and so whatever Mr. Wright says about it being a breach of regulation is not actually factual. Mr. Castillo was communicated with entirely as a former LSSD deputy that has been on the wrong side of the Internal Affairs Bureau, not as the plaintiff of this case.

 

The counsel for plaintiff, if Mr. Castillo told him everything, will confirm that Mr. Castillo himself tried to negotiate with LSSD executive staff and was totally ignored precisely because this document was not submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration as a participant in this case but was merely shown to him as a former Department employee that had recently been the subject of certain IAB actions. The fact that Mr. Castillo also happens to be the plaintiff in this case is entirely and wholly immaterial to the - and I emphasise this strongly - partially written document being circulated to just an employee that happened to be subjected to IAB so-claimed mistreatment in recent times.

 

Mr. Castillo has not - and again I emphasise this strongly - has not been sent any official settlement offers, nor has he taken part in any kind of settlement negotiations, nor has any settlement negotiation actually been approved by any party including the defence. The document that Mr. Castillo received is entirely within the scope of the Department's right to communicate with its own employees and former employees and outside the scope of this case.

[Kotwica]

** Donald motions to his paralegal who approaches with a uPad. Donald looks at it as he speaks. **

"Your Honor, let's do exactly what opposing counsel referenced. On August 28th we were notified that the defendant in this matter was seeking to settle the claim. However, Plaintiff Exhibit 2 shows the transmitting four days earlier on the 24.

When I raised that this was a violation of Rule 4.2 opposing counsel on the 28th stated: "We would like to ask for a continuance. We are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mr. Castillo as we speak and would appreciate the time to get this finalised before we waste any more of the court's time." Emphasizing the word "we" as it identifies opposing counsel as a member of that negotiation.

After this statement I raised that this violated Rule 4.2, at which point opposing counsel changes their story to: 

"Communications with Mr. Castillo have not been related to the subject of this lawsuit and his claim that he was unfairly terminated from employment. Opposing counsel can rest assured that we will not be communicating with Mr. Castillo about the subject of this lawsuit without going through opposing counsel, but that we reserve the right to communicate with his as a former employee of the Department about matters that may be related to - but are not - the subject of opposing counsel's representation.

 

Any discussions with Mr. Castillo have been entirely related to the Internal Affairs Bureau's internal policies and how employees perceive them in the interest of internal reviews and changes that are happening totally independently of this case."

I outlined that this statement was a contradiction of their initial statement, and the story continued, opposing counsel then stated:
"Your honour, we are negotiating with the LSSD's executive staff - to make a settlement offer to Mr. Castillo. I am not authorised to make any changes myself and the Department will not just accept any change we might want to offer Mr. Castillo.

 

If opposing counsel wishes for us to communicate through him anything that might - and I quote - "provide an appearance of relation" without it actually being directly in relation to the case, he should have asked that before. We are happy to inform Mr. Castillo that we won't be communicating with him at all regarding his own tenure as an employee of the LSSD and his experiences in his last few weeks as an employee if this is what opposing counsel wishes."

We again can look at Plaintiff Exhibit Two and see that opposing counsel is lying to the court as she transmitted an e-mail to Mister Castillo stating in part "Regarding civil case number" followed by this cases assigned identifier.

I then made a motion for production in which the opposing counsel responded: "

"Your honour, Plaintiff's request asks for any document in relation to the settlement discussion. This includes documents that have been sent to IAB and LSSD executive staff that are not ready for viewing by Stefan Castillo or opposing counsel as negotiations are still underway internally between IAB and LSSD executive staff.

 

I ask that the request is limited only to settlement offers actually intended for, and submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration."

Again, another factual misrepresentation. Opposing counsel transmitted the e-mail dated August 24, six days earlier, how are they not ready for viewing if it was already transmitted? Why did opposing counsel not notify me, or this court that they transmitted an offer?

Opposing counsel then put on the record that I was attempting to manipulate the court. Eery to say the least.

Again on August 30th opposing counsel states:
"Your honour, am I to understand that Mr. Wright wants to see the working document that we are yet to finalise, that is being worked on currently with the cooperation of LSSD department management, that has not yet been submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration? I want to reiterate - would Mr. Wright like to see a document that was proposed to the Internal Affairs Bureau that has not yet been actioned or approved, merely because I asked for - and was not granted - a continuance while we waited for LSSD department management to action this request between myself and my own client?"

Yet to finalize? The item was previously transmitted, it was finalized enough to transmit to my client. If the document was previously transmitted by a timestamp in the e-mail, why are they petitioning a court for a continuance? Prior to this dialogue they remained mute with the court for two weeks.

Then again today, the defense put on another factual misrepresentation in stating:
"I want to make it clear again that this is an internal document sent to LSSD's executive staff through their IAB, and has not yet been approved for submission to Mr. Castillo, and in voluntarily providing this document to the court I hope that counsel for plaintiff will understand that the LSSD is acting in the interest of not only the public good but the good of Mr. Castillo himself. We are showing our hand here, counselor, I do hope that you don't take advantage of this gesture of goodwill for personal benefit and you think only of Mr. Castillo who has undoubtedly been through an ordeal.

 

Any 'negotiations' regarding a 'settlement with Stefan Castillo' are entirely negotiations between myself and my client as I have not been authorised to make such offers on their behalf without the review and approval of my client. I want to reiterate that Mr. Castillo is not involved in any kind of settlement negotiation between myself and my client. If such private communications with my own client are a breach of ethics, I will gladly take the admonishment and apologise duly to Mr. Wright.

 

This is, as of the 13th of September of the year 2024, the only electronic document that has been passed between myself and my client regarding this settlement negotiation. As I mentioned many times before, the department's executive staff are mulling over this document quite slowly and I am requesting the continuance specifically because of this slow progress from my client."

Opposing counsel transmitted a message to my client on the 24th, the exact document that they offered to the court as a "draft negotiation." And stated that this was the ONLY electronic document that has been passed between herself and her client. She is twisting her own words to make it seem as if she abided by my request for production while failing to identify once again that she transmitted an offer to my client.

Opposing counsel has put on multiple factual misrepresentations. These factual misrepresentations are in keeping with our case theory that the Los Santos Sheriff's Department performs shotty  investigations, violates laws and ethical boundaries to "get the job done." However, I would never have imagined that opposing counsel, an officer of the court, would lie so many times in order to attempt to save themselves from public embarrassment or win a case. This country relies on attorneys providing all information whether it is of benefit to them or not before the court and opposing counsel. We also believe at this point opposing counsel violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, specifically 11(b). In this case there is no possible excuse for the amount of factual misrepresentations besides a motive to subvert this court, myself, and my client. We believe this goes beyond sanctions and we are prepared to file a Motion for Contempt at this time if the court so pleases.

We reiterate to the court that our case theory was to prove that the defendant performs shotty investigations that undermine the rules and laws established by the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court. Opposing counsel has shown through her actions that it does not merely stop with their investigators, this behavior is prevalent all the way to the top."

(( @Fabi, @Michael ))

Edited September 14 by Kotwica
forgot to tag fabi and michael luls

[Fabi]

"Counselor Thyne, I do not really understand how the document that has been sent to the Plaintiff constitutes intra-departmental correspondence, looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit two. It is reasonable to believe that it is a settlement officer sent to Mister Castillo. Out of courtesy, I will only issue an admonishment to the counsel for the Defendant, on the record, for contemptous conduct by violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b). Further similar conduct will result in a citation for contempt.

 

Counselor Wright, please file your motion.

 

(( @Kotwica @Michael ))

 

 

Edited September 14 by Fabi

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, with exhibit two - will the court find the defenses writing as an admission of improper conduct on behalf of their investigator as the defense has lied on the record regarding my motion to compel production? Additionally, we request that the sanctions be awarded to the plaintiff. For the purposes of appeal we object to the courts ruling of the citation as an abuse in discretion."

(( @Fabi, @Michael ))

Edited September 14 by Kotwica

[ImperiumXVII]

Very well, your honour.

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number:  LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright
 

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT OF SOPHIE THYNE

_______________________________________________

Comes now, through the Plaintiff's counsel the Plaintiff moves this honorable court to hold the Defense Attorney, Sophie Thyne a representative of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department while employed by the Los Santos Police Department in contempt of court.

Sophie Thyne in her representation has provided false information misleading both this court and the Plaintiff counsel for personal gain. On multiple occasions Sophie Thyne has changed the Defendant's position relating to a settlement conference. It has been brought to light that Sophie Thyne on behalf of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department has violated Model Rule of Professional Responsibility Rule 4.2 by contacting Stefan Castillo while knowing he is being represented by an attorney. Sophie Thyne refused to acknowledge that she transmitted a settlement document to Stefan Castillo on August 24th. Instead, Sophie Thyne made multiple assertions to this court that she did not provide any documentation or communicate with Stefan Castillo, rather she was preparing a document on behalf of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department Executive Staff. This behavior disrespected the decorum of the court, and infringed upon due process of the plaintiff.

 

On September 14th Sophie Thyne offered a document to the court which listed a member of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department Executive Staff in the address line. The Defense was made aware that this document was familiar to the plaintiff who provided an e-mail received from Sophie Thyne identical to the offered document. The plaintiff produced this document and the document was admitted as Plaintiff Exhibit Two. 

As Sophie Thyne has violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal, 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal,  4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others, 4.2 Communications with Person Represented by Counsel, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions, specifically 11(b). The plaintiff moves this prays that this court will  impose a warrant for arrest on Sophie Thyne for violating San Andreas Criminal Code 622 Contempt of Court.

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 14 day of September, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright
Donald J. Wright

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour this is ridiculous, at no point did I ever deny that communications had taken place with Mr. Castillo and in fact I  openly said  that there were discussions, but were solely in respect of his previous tenure as a Department employee. I acknowledge that a reasonable person might mistake our communications with Mr. Castillo as a settlement offer - which I strenuously affirm that it was not - and this was a mistake on the part of the defence. 

 

I want to make it clear that Mr. Castillo himself then tried to communicate with the defence, regarding the document, trying to negotiate settlement terms himself and was wholly ignored as it was not a settlement offer, but was a draft that was shared with simply a recently discharged employee who had been the target of an IAB investigation. It is not our fault that Mr. Castillo tried himself to negotiate a settlement without involving his attorney, but this attempt was ignored anyway.

 

Ask the court reporter your honour - I never once said that I have not communicated with Mr. Castillo. In fact, the reporter will tell you that I have in fact acknowledged that communications existed, and I explained what they were. Counsel for plaintiff is, respectfully your honour, trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

[Fabi]

"Counselor Wright, I have already ruled on the incident of contempt and I shall maintain my decision, hence your motion is hereby denied. Ths includes the request for damages. Additionally, this Court does not find the aforementioned writing as an admission to improper conduct per se, due to the lack of basis for such an action.

 

This is the last time I am going to request you to file your motion to compel you've mentioned or we are going to move forward with the witness examinations.

 

(( @Michael @Kotwica ))

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, if you have made a ruling on damages and contempt there is no point to compel. What is ridiculous is the amount of times the opposing counsel has attempted to mislead this court and myself the record will indicate as such. My client contacting anyone has nothing to do with opposing counsel stating that they didn't communicate with him blatantly.

Your Honor we have 150 or so questions to get through with the witness that was previously called before opposing counsel decided to take weeks off without making mention of it. We ask you recall the witness for the purpose of examination."

(( @Michael, @Fabi ))

[Fabi]

"Very well. This Court recalls Miss Crawford for the purpose of examination. Begin with the aforementioned questions, meaning questions 29-to-37."

(( @Kayayday @Michael @Kotwica ))

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, as the witness approaches the stand - permission to treat the witness as hostile?"

(( @Fabi, @Michael ))

[Fabi]

** Sergio Robleto briefly bops his head. **

 

"That is fine, counselor. You may do so."

 

(( @Kayayday @Michael @Kotwica ))