25-LSC-04116 – Pre-Trial – Saucedo v. An Unknown Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) Police Officer, Staff Officers of the LSPD

[Kotwica]

SEALED - CONFIDENTIAL CHAMBERS FILING

The Chambers of Judge Stoessel
Antonin Scalia Courthouse
Market, Los Santos, SA.

CC:
Ibrahem Davis, Esq.
Los Santos Police Department
NOTIFIED VIA E-MAIL.

REF: Case No. 25-LSC-04116.

Your Honor, in reference to your May 1st order, the plaintiff has not yet received the discovery items. However, I did receive questions from the Los Santos Police Department Internal Affairs Group for my client. Those questions I am providing to you under seal to not compromise any information that the defendant may find privileged. In my personal opinion I do not believe any of the questions are privileged. However, I will leave that to your determination.

My larger concern is the relevance of these questions and the tone of these questions. We have alleged that my client was battered by a uniformed police officer. I view these questions to be substantially unrelated to an administrative or legal determination by the internal affairs group. What my client was doing at East Los Santos, if my client was aware of a police operation, etc., and the other questions are irrelevant. My concern is that the defendant is using this request to somehow substitute or obtain information from my client to support their legal defense, which if that is the case, should be filed to this court and subjected to the rules of evidence. 

Additionally, the fact that the Los Santos Police Department is performing an internal affairs investigation suggests that they know who the unnamed officer in this lawsuit is, and which you ordered them to reveal. I would like to note my objection on the record to the following questions and notify the court of what I believe the actual purpose of this request.

** The following document is sealed in an inner enveloped and marked with "REQUESTED TO BE SEALED UNTIL A DETERMINATION OF THE COURT" **

Spoiler

• Question: Why were you at or near the East Los Santos S-Curve on the day of the incident?
  Response:
  
  Question: Were you aware that a police operation or crime scene was active at that time?
  Response:
  
  Question: Did you hear or receive any instructions from any law enforcement officers? If so, what were they?
  Response:
  
  Question: How did you respond to those instructions?
  Response:
  
  Question: Can you describe exactly what the officer(s) did to you during the interaction?
  Response:
  
  Question: Did you suffer any injuries as a result? If yes, did you receive medical treatment?
  Response:
  
  Question: Have you had any previous contact with any of the law enforcement officers you encountered during this incident?
  Response:

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle
Attorney for the Plaintiff

 

SEALED - CONFIDENTIAL CHAMBERS FILING

Edited May 7 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

Alan Saucedo v. An Unknown Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) Police Officer, The Staff Officers of the LSPD.

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04112

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STAFF OFFICERS OF THE LSPD, IMPOUNDMENT OF PERSONNEL FILES, AND SANCTIONS

 

The Plaintiffs requests sanctions, impoundment of personnel and internal affairs files,, and a default judgment against the Los Santos Police Department Staff Officers.

 

The defendants have failed to produce any of the information which they have been compelled to supply. The court is permitted to grant a default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37, and Sardini Group, Inc. v. Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC, 1:20-cv-00007 (D.N. Mar. I. Sept. 30, 2023).

 

Additionally, the plaintiff requests that this court order, or pursue criminal charges against Mr Ibraheem Davis for contempt of court for his blatant disregard for this courts orders.

 

Additionally, the plaintiff requests an impoundment order for all personnel files, internal affairs files, as well as the compelled information requested in this lawsuit, and for an increase in punitive damages to account for the time it will take the plaintiff to identify the police officer. The plaintiff requests this impoundment order of electronic files be executed by the Los Santos Sheriff’s Department on the Los Santos Police Department’s data servers, and on the work computer of Captain Miller, Commander of the Internal Affairs Group. The plaintiff requests then that either the court or the plaintiffs counsel inspect the electronically stored information to obtain the requested information. This order is appropriate based on this courts findings of the good cause for the requested information, and the plaintiff has exhausted all other remedies to obtain the requested information.

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     ALAN SAUCEDO,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04117 ───────────── RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, SANCTIONS, AND IMPOUNDMENT ─────────────   Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1578 Station Ave, 2nd Floor Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 179-9901   Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS     I.       INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. II.      JURISDICTION................................................................................................................ III.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................... IV.     LEGAL ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................           A.      No Willful Disobedience or Bad Faith Exists......................................................       B.      Sanctions or Default Judgement Would Be Procedurally and Substantively Improper........................,,,,,.......................................................................................           C.      Plaintiff's Request for Data Seizure and Impoundment is Extreme and Unwarranted........ V.    CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................       I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD:    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") by and through counsel, submit this Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement, Sanctions, and Impoundment filed on May 7, 2025. While Defendants acknowledge a delay in producing discovery in compliance with the Court's May 1, 2025 Order, such delay was not the result of bad faith, willful disobedience, or any intent to undermine judicial authority. Discovery production has now been completed in full, and Defendants respectfully request this Court deny Plaintiff's extreme requests and permit the matter to proceed on the merits.     II.      JURISDICTION ᅠᅠ  This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and 42 U.S.C § 1983.   III.      FACTUAL BACKGROUND ᅠᅠ  On May 1, 2025, this Court issued an Order compelling Defendants to produce seven categories of discovery and prohibiting closure of the internal affairs (IA) investigation without providing written questions and a response period to Plaintiff.   Defendants promptly issued IA-related questions to Plaintiff on May 1, 2025. However due to internal administrative oversight and miscommunication regarding redaction procedures, full discovery was not transmitted by the May 6, 2025, deadline.   As of May 9, 2025, Defendants have fully produced all ordered discovery, including: 1. Identification of the involved officer (Exhibit A) 2. Unredacted IA records (Exhibit B) 3. Full training and recertification records (Exhibit C) 4. Current use-of-force training materials (Exhibit D) 5. Affidavit from the Professional Standards Bureau summarizing use-of-force reports (Exhibit E) 6. Departmental statement on First Amendment obligations (Exhibit F) 7. Affidavit from the In-Service Training Group on perimeter and scene management (Exhibit G)   All materials are appropriately labeled "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER". A Certificate of Compliance as been filed concurrently.   IV.      LEGAL ARGUMENT ᅠᅠ  A. No Willful Disobedience or Bad Faith Exists Courts may impose sanctions under Rule 37 only where a party has willfully disobeyed an order or acted in bad faith. Here, Defendants acted in good faith throughout. The delay was not evasive or strategic, but instead stemmed from internal coordination issues. The Department immediately complied once the delay was discovered, and no lasting prejudice to Plaintiff exists.   B. Sanctions or Default Judgement Would Be Procedurally and Substantively Improper Default judgement is the most extreme remedy available under civil procedure, reserved for litigants who have intentionally obstructed proceedings. In Shen v. Department of Health (2002), 41 San.App.4th 721 held that even where discovery is delayed, good faith compliance cures procedural error unless prejudice is shown. Here, Plaintiff has suffered no actual harm, and now possesses all documents ordered.   C. Plaintiff's Request for Data Seizure and Impoundment Is Extreme and Unwarranted Plaintiff's request to authorize the Los Santos Sheriff's Department to impound digital servers and seize internal personnel files is unprecedented, disproportionate, and unsupported by controlling law. There is no finding of contempt, no protective order violation, and no evidence that Defendants destroyed, altered, or withheld data in bad faith.   Permitting external forensic inspection of LSPD's systems would raise grave privacy, chain of custody, and separation-of-powers concerns, particularly in the absence of any spoliation or discovery abuse.   V.      CONCLUSION ᅠᅠ  Defendants take this Court's orders seriously and acknowledge the delay in production. However, as of May 9, 2025, Defendants have fully complied with the Court's May 1, Order, producing all compelled materials marked and delivered as required. A Certificate of Compliance has been filed. Further, Defendants note that while the Court required Plaintiff to be provided written Internal Affairs questions and afforded no fewer than ten(10) calendar days to respond before the investigation could close, Plaintiff has declined to answer those questions and instead submitted them under seal with an objection. As of May 9, 2025, no substantive answers have been received, and the ten-day window is set to expire on May 11, 2025, at which point the injunction automatically lapses per the Court's own terms.    In light of full compliance by Defendants and noncompliance by Plaintiff, no prejudice has occurred. Defendants respectfully request that Court: 1. DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement 2. DENY Plaintiff's request for sanctions or contempt proceedings 3. DENY Plaintiff's request for data seizure or impoundment 4. CONFIRM that the Court's May 1, 2025 Order has been satisfied. 5. AUTHORIZE closure of the Internal Affairs investigation if no further responses are received from Plaintiff by May 11, 2025.     DATED:  May 09, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

[Kotwica]

Alan Saucedo v. An Unknown Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) Police Officer, The Staff Officers of the LSPD.

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04112

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STAFF OFFICERS OF THE LSPD, IMPOUNDMENT OFPERSONNEL FILES, AND SANCTIONS
 

 

The plaintiff is not in possession of any of the records mentioned by the defendant at the time of the original filing or at the time of this filing.

 

We renew our request for a default judgment, impoundment, and sanctions. Even if they complied with the order (which they did not), they have unnecessarily delayed this trial, and continue to do so.

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

   

ALAN SAUCEDO,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.   Defendants.

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04117

─────────────

DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE

─────────────

 

Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067

[email protected]

1578 Station Ave, 2^nd Floor

Los Santos, San Andreas 90071

179-9901

 

Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

EXHIBIT A - Officer Identification
Police Officer II Bob Boulevard, Serial No. 41665

 

EXHIBIT B - Internal Affairs Files (Unredacted)

(( CHATLOG FROM INTERVIEW I CAN SEND OVER FORUM PM AS IT IS TOO LONG ))

 

EXHIBIT C - Officer's Boulevard Training & Certification History

EXHIBIT D - Use-Of-Force Training Materials

EXHIBIT E - Affidavit, CO of Professional Standards Bureau, Use-of-Force Incidents Summary

EXHIBIT F - Department's Memorandum on Constitutional Obligations

EXHIBIT G - Affidavit, CO of In-Service Training Group, Observation of Outside Police Perimeter and Public Filming

EXHIBIT H - IA Questions sent to Plaintiff on May 1, 2025

[Kotwica]

FILED - CASE STATUS UPDATE

 

The Chambers of Judge Stoessel
Antonin Scalia Courthouse
Market, Los Santos, SA.

CC:
Ibrahem Davis, Esq.
Los Santos Police Department
NOTIFIED VIA E-MAIL.

REF: Case No. 25-LSC-04116.

Your honor, have requested the following clarifications from Mister Ibraheem Davis.

(1) Exhibit B shows only an internal affairs report from the incident of this lawsuit. We requested "The full unredacted internal affairs records of the unknown Los Santos Police Department Police Officer." In Officers Boulevard's career has he only had one internal affairs report? If he has more you did not comply with our production request.
(2) Exhibit C does not comply with the request for "Full unredacted training history of the unknown Los Santos Police Department Police Officer (including dates of recertification)." This is only a picture of a badge and unknown ribbons.
(3) Exhibit F, when was this issued? A date is required with all of these requests.

If you would please instruct your clerk to amend the proceeding title to Saucedo v. Officer Boulevard and the LSPD Staff Officers. In regards to the internal affairs request; I have consulted with my client and returned the LSPD internal affairs request for information with our objections noted above. 


/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle.

 

[Kotwica]

** Proof of service updated via E-File **

((

))

[elgreco]

Subject:  Response to Clarification Request

From: [email protected]

CC: Juan Tzompaxtle, Esq.

 

Dear Judge Stoessel,

 

I write on behalf of Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") in the matter of Saucedo v. Los Santos Police Department, et al. Case No. 25-LSC-04116, currently pending before Your Honor.

 

Pursuant to Plaintiff's request for clarification regarding Exhibits B, C, F, Defendants attach the following affidavits and revised exhibit:

 

1. Exhibit B-1 Affidavit of Captain Steve Miller — Commanding Officer, Internal Affairs Group

Confirms that Police Officer II Bob Boulevard has only the single Internal Affairs case already produced in Exhibit B, initiated in response to this lawsuit.

2. Exhibit C-1 Affidavit of Commander Isaac Gilbert — Commanding Officer, In-Service Training Group

Explains the archival limitation for Officer Boulevard's early-career training records and provides a complete recertification timeline through January 2025.

3. Exhibit F-1 Dated Department Memorandum on Constitutional Filming Guidance

The same memo previously produced as Exhibit F, now revised to show an issuance date of April 21, 2025.

 

Thank you for Your Honor's time and consideration 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Ibraheem A. Davis

Ibraheem Davis

Chief Counsel

LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

REF: 25-LSC-04116

EXHIBIT B-1



EXHIBIT C-1

Edited May 17 by elgreco

[elgreco]

Subject:  Response to Clarification Request

From: [email protected]

CC: Juan Tzompaxtle, Esq.

 

Dear Judge Stoessel,

 

Pursuant to this Court's Order dates May 8, 2025, Defendants hereby supplement their prior discovery production with the Department's Notice of Termination of Police Officer II Bob Boulevard (REF CF No, 25-13426), attached under seal as Exhibit H. This exhibit reflects the final disciplinary action taken following sustained findings in the Internal Affairs investigation.

 

All materials remain subject to the Protective Order and retain the designation "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER". 

 

Defendants trust this supplementation fully satisfies the Court's discovery directives.

 

Thank you for Your Honor's time and consideration 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Ibraheem A. Davis

Ibraheem Davis

Chief Counsel

LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

REF: 25-LSC-04116

EXHIBIT H

[Bob_Boulevard]

Your honor, at this point I'd like to call Mr. Toby Broakskrup to the stand.

[n0de101]

(( As per the recent announcement from LFM, courts are being placed on an indefinite hold effective immediately. As such all ongoing court proceedings are being terminated. ))