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

[Kayayday]

"I think we misunderstood each other. You asked if I keep records of my interactions with deputies, as in record all interactions with deputies. I do not. We only record stuff like interviews, for example. The people who has access to all Internal Affairs Bureau records is, Internal Affairs Bureau and Executive Staff."

(( @Kotwica, @Michael,  @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

"Thank you.

Q14. Who are the current members of Executive Staff?
Q15. Were you alerted to an event that occurred on June 26?
Q16. If so, how were you alerted?
Q17. Did you respond to a scene?
Q18. If so, where did you respond?
Q19. Did you respond to the scene with other members of internal affairs, or meet members of internal affairs at the scene?
Q20. Who else from internal affairs were on scene?

Q21. What did you observe when you arrived on the scene?
Q22. How many deputies were on scene when you arrived?
Q23. Did you make contact with a Deputy Castillo when you arrived on scene?
Q24. Why did you make contact with Deputy Castillo?"

 

@Michael @Kayayday @almightybounter

Edited August 11 by Kotwica

[Kayayday]

Q14. Who are the current members of Executive Staff?:
"Sheriff Roderick Hayward. Undersheriff Francis Hopkins. Division Chief Timothy Knight."
Q15. Were you alerted to an event that occurred on June 26?:
"Yes."
Q16. If so, how were you alerted?
"Pager."
Q17. Did you respond to a scene?
"Yes."
Q18. If so, where did you respond?
"All Saints General Hospital."
Q19. Did you respond to the scene with other members of internal affairs, or meet members of internal affairs at the scene?:
"I responded with other members of the internal affairs bureau."
Q20. Who else from internal affairs were on scene?:
"Sergeant Brandon Dukes and Sergeant Robert Geisbauer."
Q21. What did you observe when you arrived on the scene?:
"LSSD members were present at the hospital and waiting for us."
Q22. How many deputies were on scene when you arrived?:
"Two, as far I recall."
Q23. Did you make contact with a Deputy Castillo when you arrived on scene?:
"I did not immediately. I had to wait for him."
Q24. Why did you make contact with Deputy Castillo?:
"Cause of the pager."

(( @Michaelm @Kotwica, @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

“Q29. What did the pager say Lieutenant?

Q30. What did you and Stefan Castillo discuss? 

Q31. What was your impression of Mr. Castillo?

Q32. Why did you select Mr Castillo as opposed to the other individuals on scene to speak to?

Q33. When you spoke to Mr Castillo did you intend to conduct an investigation?

Q34. Did you Mirandize or Garrity warn Mr Castillo in the hospital?

Q35. What if anything did Mr Castillo admit to or deny during your conversation at All Saints?

Q36. Did you request an interview in a different location? If so, where?

Q37. When did you request a second interview?”

 

(( @almightybounter, @Michael, @Kayayday ))

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honor...

 

Objection to Q31. IAB investigators are impartial by their very nature and do not make up subjective impressions during the course of their duty.

Objection to Q32. Evidence submitted in pre-trial establishes that Mr. Castillo was the only deputy on scene, thus the only one capable of giving a field interview.

Objection to Q33, asked and answered. It has already been established on 02-07-2024 that intent to begin an investigation is established after the field interviews are complete.

Objection to Q34. It has already been established that Mr. Castillo was not under any investigation and was not under threat or administrative or criminal charges at the time of the force investigation field interview, so neither a Miranda or Garrity warning were necessary.

Objection to Q35. Evidence submitted in pre-trial shows that Mr. Castillo refused any field interview, so nothing was admitted to or denied.

[Kotwica]

“You honor, in response to the objections in Question 31 counsel is testifying, this is an improper objection outside the rules of evidence.

 

In response to the object in Question 32, no evidence has yet been offered. I’m laying foundation to work with the exhibit in question.

 

Question 33, was not asked and answered. I am asking what the intent of the investigation was. This is a unique question that has not been asked.

 

Question 35, counsel is testifying, this is an improper objection outside the rules of evidence. I believe counsel is confusing pre trial documentation and the required admission of said evidence in trial for it to be part of the record.

 

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

 

Edited August 17 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

Objection to Q31: Overruled. IAB investigators are typically expected to maintain impartiality, the question is directed at the witness's personal impression, which is relevant to understanding the context of the investigation. However, the witness should clarify that their impression does not imply bias or prejudice.

Objection to Q32: Sustained. If evidence has been presented establishing that Mr. Castillo was the only deputy on scene, the question is redundant. The foundation for the witness's choice to speak with Mr. Castillo has already been laid by this evidence. Therefore, there’s no need for further inquiry on this point unless there’s new evidence being introduced

Objection to Q33: Overruled. The question of intent to conduct an investigation is distinct from whether the investigation was initiated or not. The question aims to understand the purpose or objective behind the conversation with Mr. Castillo, which is a valid line of inquiry.

Objection to Q34: Sustained. If it has been established that Mr. Castillo was neither under investigation nor facing any administrative or criminal charges at the time, then a Miranda or Garrity warning would not be necessary. Thus, the question is irrelevant to the established facts.

Objection to Q35: Overruled. The objection that counsel is testifying is not valid here. The question aims to clarify the content of Mr. Castillo’s responses or lack thereof, which is relevant to the case. If evidence was provided that Mr. Castillo refused the field interview, it is still important to document what, if anything, was discussed or admitted.

 

(( @Kotwica @Michael @Kayayday )) 

[Kotwica]

“Your Honor, no documents have been offered for admission. I am unsure what “evidence” this court and opposing counsel is referencing in sustaining objection 32. 
 

As to objection 34, the testimony of this witness seems to highlight that IAB was there to investigate, they made contact with my client. Again, this court is referring to documents that have not been admitted as evidence.”

 

(( @Michael @almightybounter))

 

[almightybounter]

"Counsel for the defense, I must reiterate that while discovery provides a foundation for the case, the evidentiary weight lies in the testimony and exhibits presented in court. Mere assertions based on pre-trial findings without supporting evidence are insufficient."

Objection to Q31: Overruled

The objection is overruled. The question seeks the witness's personal perception, which can be relevant to their actions and decision-making process.

Objection to Q32: Overruled

The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented any evidence to corroborate the claim that Mr. Castillo was the only deputy on scene. Therefore, the question remains relevant.

Objection to Q33: Overruled

The objection is overruled. The question seeks to clarify the witness's state of mind at a specific point in time and is not repetitive.

Objection to Q34: Overruled

The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented evidence to support the assertion that Mr. Castillo was not under investigation or threat. Therefore, the question is relevant to determining if appropriate warnings were given.

Objection to Q35: Overruled

The objection is overruled. The defense has not presented evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Castillo refused a field interview. The witness may have relevant testimony.
 

Please proceed with the examination."

 

(( @Michael @Kayayday @Kotwica ))

Edited August 19 by almightybounter

[Kotwica]

“We would ask the court to instruct the witness to answer.”

 

(( @Kayayday @Michael @almightybounter ))

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, 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.

 

(( ScubaStef is on leave of absence and we cannot finalise this until he has returned. ))

[almightybounter]

“Counsel, I appreciate your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. However, the court has an obligation to ensure that cases proceed in a timely manner. I am willing to grant a brief continuance if you can provide a clear timeline for the negotiations. How much time do you anticipate needing to finalize the settlement?”

[almightybounter]

“Counsel for the plaintiff, the court has been informed of ongoing settlement negotiations. I must remind you that your client's active participation is essential for these discussions to proceed effectively. If you are unable to reach your client and facilitate their involvement in these negotiations, the court may consider dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.

 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. This includes situations where a plaintiff is unresponsive or otherwise fails to move their case forward. The court is empowered to dismiss the case with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances.

 

Please ensure that you are able to communicate with your client promptly, as failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action.”

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, I am appalled that opposing counsel is negotiating with my client without my knowledge or concurrence. I refer the court to the American Bar Association's Model Rules for Professional Conduct Rule 4.2, it reads:

"In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order." 

 

As opposing counsel has taken an extensive period of time to respond, and now at this point is violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, I am moving this court to impose sanctions upon the opposing counsel as this is a clear violation of the rule. It is unheard of for opposing counsel not to communicate with a clients counsel in any stage of negotiation. This has taken me by surprise as I am completely unaware of the opposing counsel's intent and actions.

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

Edited August 30 by Kotwica

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, 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.