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

[Kotwica]

"Your honor opposing counsel is contradicting their initial statement where the court reporter can report that the terminology used is "We are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mr. Castillo." Any discussion with my client relating this case or anything that could prove to provide an appearance of relation to this case requires opposing counsel to speak to me. My questions have put the question of unlawful administrative proceedings and termination squarely at issue. The fact that opposing counsel is communicating with my client related to these issues is extraordinarily problematic. Again we move this court for sanctions."

(( @Michael, @almightybounter))

Edited August 30 by Kotwica

[Michael]

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.

[Kotwica]

 

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright
 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the below mentioned attorney requests the representative of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department to produce all documents from any member of the opposing counsel, or the defendant organization relating to the so called settlement discussion or negotiation from the period of 08/01/2024 to the current date. This request is made in accordance with Model Rules of Professional Responsibility Rule 4.2 where counsel for the plaintiff should have been engaged. Additionally this request serves as an official record of potential misconduct for the purpose of any appeal.
 

_______________________________________________

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 30 day of August, 2024 by:

 

/s/ DONALD J. WRIGHT

Donald J. Wright

 

[Michael]

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.

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, a limited production is not appropriate as opposing counsel is aware of all documents and has violated their ethical responsibility to alert opposing counsel. As there is a negotiation that placed on the record and there is an appearance of misconduct the entire file is ripe for review. Any law student would understand that opposing counsel should be made aware and kept aware of any discussion relating to a settlement.

We also note for the record that in the opposing counsels response the opposing counsel states that there was settlement offers submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration. As this counsel is aware of the submission and did not alert myself the violation is clearly established."

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

[Michael]

Your honour, opposing counsel is twisting my words to try to manipulate the court. We requested for the scope of the production order to be limited to settlement documents actually submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration. This doesn't mean that any were submitted, your honour, only that the production order be limited to that scope. For the record, we will be submitting nothing if the scope is limited to only documents that were actually intended for and submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration.

 

(( @Kotwica, @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, opposing counsel is making an outrageous statement that I am being disingenious to the court. The opposing represent the Los Santos Sheriff's Department in all aspects regarding this case, if the opposing counsel was aware of negotiations he has an obligation to make me and the court aware. Instead of communicating to me and to the court, we have heard nothing from the witness and the opposing counsel of this settlement. As for the opposing counsel's wanting to limit the information, our position is that it would be inappopriate to limit the request as at this point there has been a break down of collegiality with such a blatant violation and an ex parte communication which is impermissible. I am concerned about coercion, and questionable actions as evidenced in the information produced in discovery. I am able to proffer the document we were working to admit with this witness before the unannounced pause in these proceedings based off of the witness and this court not responding to my request to compel the witness to answer the question.

As opposing counsel has mentioned the settlement on the record without making opposing counsel aware, it is now part of the case and I am asking for all aspects of the settlement as it is relevant to an ex parte communication. If opposing counsel approached me before discovery and asked to engage in a discussion about my client and his wishes and as part of that discussion agree that it would not be admissible we would be in a different situation. This is why most attorneys speak directly through another attorney. Opposing counsel did not do that, therefore we request the totality of the discussion. As I have not been engaged in a settlement discussion this is an ex parte communication with my client related to this case and I am entitled to this information as I was never put on notice of any settlement and waived nothing."

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

[Michael]

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?

 

(( @Kotwica, @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

"My motion outlines my request. The opposing counsel has stated on the record that they "are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mister Castillo as we speak." As this is extraordinarily inappropriate for counsel to engage or allow their client to engage with a party in an ongoing court case without notification and approval of the opposing counsel. As soon as the opposing counsel was made aware of this negotiation she has an obligation not only to make me aware but make this court aware. Instead, we waited two weeks for them to ask for a continuance. 

 

Additionally, as my second chair identified this court cannot force my client to negotiate or settle. He will make a decision with my counsel and this goes to the same issue presented by the defense."

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

Edited August 30 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, this is becoming to be excessive. The court's inability or unwillingness to address our requests or address the issues in front of this court has done nothing but draw out this case.  The court denied our motion for summary judgment months ago, now the court is absent and will not instruct a witness to answer, or answer our request regarding the conduct of opposing counsel. At this point we would formally request that the Judge Hockenbeyer be removed from this case and that the clerk return a copy to the plaintiff counsel for filing of a grievance against Judge Hockenbeyer. We will also petition the court for reasonable mileage payment and gas funds due to my continual travel back and forth from San Fierro to attend to this case."

(( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

[Fabi]

*  The case is reassigned to the docket of Judge Sergio Robleto. *

 

I'm Judge Robleto and I have been reassigned to preside over the matter of Stefan Castillo versus the LSSD. Counselors, please re-state your appearances for the record and re-file any motions or requests that are still pending and you do not wish to abandon.

 

@Kotwica @Michael

Edited September 13 by Fabi

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, Donald J. Wright for the plaintiff Mr. Stefan Castillo. I am not barred within this court but practice in San Fierro. I was given permission to practice by the previous judge.

Your honor we have two issues. The first issue is that the defense has communicated with my client ex parte, without my knowledge. This is a violation of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 4.2. Since this was not an agreed upon negotiation we did not waive any admissibility of the proposed settlement. As the defense violated the ethical code we believe this is keeping with the theory of our case I filed a motion to compel on August 30th requesting that the Los Santos Sheriff's Department produce all documents from any member of the opposing counsel, or the defendant organization relating to the so called settlement discussion  or negotiation from August 1 through the 30th. As this court did not properly address our motion I would ask that it be extended.

Additionally, we have waited a month at this point for the court to instruct the witness to answer our questions. I have roughly one hundred and fifty more questions for this witness and am conscience of the time it will take to fully examine this witness. Additionally, I will make a motion at this time for the court to admonish opposing counsel for their ethical violation, violating Rule 4.2 and at this point also Rule 3.2 as opposing counsel has been non-responsive."

(( @Fabi, @Michael )) 

Edited September 13 by Kotwica

[Michael]

Your honor, I have not been non-responsive - I do not see the merit in bickering back and forth, polluting the record of this court. I will voluntarily provide the settlement document that I drafted and sent to the LSSD's executive staff - a document which is not yet intended for Mr. Castillo, nor has yet been submitted to Mr. Castillo or his attorney for consideration - if it pleases the counsel for plaintiff as he seriously believes that he truly must see all internal documents between myself and my client that relate to a possible settlement that we might offer.

 

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.

 

* Sophie Thyne submits a printed copy of an electronic document addressed to Elise Crawford.

 

[Fabi]

"I find it reasonable to believe that the Defendant's counsel didn't word that initial phrase -- "we are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mister Castillo" -- accordingly, therefore resulting in confusion. But as a result of the given explanations and especially due to the provided document in good faith, I find the motion to compel unnecessary hence it will be denied. The Plaintiff can file a request for reconsideration or another motion if they deem it necessary, however, from my current understanding, no negotiations have been conducted with Mister Castillo ex parte.

 

Moving on, the witness is instructed to answer questions 31-to-35. Should there be any other requests or motions, not related to the witness examination, please file them as soon as we conclude with the aforementioned questions, as they have been pending for too long... unless, of course, they require urgency.

(( @Kotwica @Michael @Kayayday Questions on the previous page ))

 

[Kotwica]

“Your honor we request that the copy provided to the court be admitted as evidence as a business record marking it as exhibit Plaintiff Exhibit 1.
 

Additionally, if no offer was made - why did we go for almost a month without any progression in this case? Why would opposing counsel put on the record they are negotiating a settlement with my client as “we speak?” The story only changed once I outlined the ethical violation. We believe a motion to compel is appropriate and ask the court to reconsider.

 

(( @Fabi, @Michael ))