25-LSC-04117 - Pre-Trial – Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.

Plaintiff Attorney: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[X] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• $100,000 in attorney fees.

• An injunction against the Los Santos Police Department from denying media licenses without a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve those ends;

• Issuance of a media card to Laura Montblanc;

• $2,500,000.00 in compensatory damages;

• $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages; and

• $1,500,000.00 in nominal damages.

_______________________________________________

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 20 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ Laura Montblanc
Laura Montblanc

Plaintiff

 

/S/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. The Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Comes now, Laura Montblanc (Ms. Montblanc) through legal counsel brings forth this lawsuit before this court. This court has proper jurisdiction under the San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure (S.A.C.C.P) 410.10 (2024), due to the denial of a media pass by the Los Santos Police Department.
 

2. The United States Supreme Court in City of Los Santos v. Lyons 461 U.S. 95 (1983), provides grounds for a court to grant a civil claim for constitutional violations committed by a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

 

3. Ms. Montblanc filed a Media Identification Card Application on April 18, 2025. The application identified all required information. Ms. Montblanc identified that she was an influencer and self-employed, serving as an editor-in-chief and explained her justification which includes “exclusive access.” The type of exclusive access identified by Ms. Montblanc is the types of exclusive access which LSPD grants the Media Card for.

4. On the day Ms. Montblanc filed a lawsuit against the Los Santos Police Department her Media Card application was denied, two days after it was filed, without an explanation.

 

5. Ms. Montblanc is a journalist, and Freedom of the Press is a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Los Santos Police Department denied the access of Ms. Montblanc without substantive due process, and it is the contention of the plaintiff the reason for the denial is because of the lawsuit filed against the LSPD.

6. The Los Santos Police Department by depriving Ms. Montblanc of her media pass in the manner provided is in violation of Sherill v. Knight, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the United States Secret Service denied a journalist a media pass to the White House. The opinion outlined that the journalist was entitled to notice, an opportunity to rebut, and a written decision.

 

7. The Los Santos Police Department issued a written decision. However, the written decision also violates Sherill v. Knight. The D.C. Circuit requires that “[…] the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (1977).

 

8. The Los Santos Police Department’s denial is unconstitutional as it fails to provide a notice and for an opportunity to rebut. Rather, the Los Santos Police Department has chosen to serve as both the judge, jury, and executioner.

 

9. By denying Ms. Montblanc the access to film news stories on unconstitutional grounds, the Los Santos Police Department has satisfied the plausibility requirement for damages required by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

 

10. The Los Santos Police Department is not entitled for grievances to be brought to their attention if they are unlawful. The proper median to prevent unlawful conduct and to recover damages is the judiciary.

 

 

Exhibits

1. Application

(( https://imgur.com/K2NPGYK ))

 

2. Denial

(( https://imgur.com/qLtdLtH )) 

...

 

_______________________________________________

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 20 day of April 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

 

Edited April 20 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. The Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

_______________________________________________
 

- All information related to the denial of Laura Montblanc's Media Card;

- All procedures, policies, and information related to the decision making process to grant or deny a Media Card;
- All SWAT deployments, large scale incidents (defined as any incident where three or more officers responded), gang interactions, and other information that in the discretion of the Los Santos Police Department is "newsworthy," from April 18, 2025 to April 20, 2025;

- All policies, procedures, and trainings offered by the Los Santos Police Department related to Freedom of Press;
- All internal affairs records of the Los Santos Police Department employees related to the denial of Ms. Montblanc's Media Card;
- A list of all Media Cards that have been requested of the Los Santos Police Department along with the determination; and

- A list of the applicants of Media Cards and their employer at the time of requesting the Media Card.
 

_______________________________________________

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 20 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

 

Edited April 20 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

** The court would receive an amended complaint with an addition of punitive damages. **

[Tungsten]

** The court filing is accepted and assigned docket number 25-LSC-04117; Florence Weathers-Peterson, Presiding

[Tungsten]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS, <CRIMINAL/CIVIL/PROBATE> DIVISION

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04117

In the Matter of Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

COURT ORDER

 

Pursuant to San Andreas Court Rule 3.300, Related Cases, this court finds sufficient relation in the matters of this case and of Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department, 25-LSC-04115. By order of this court and with authorization of the Clerk of Courts, this court declares the two Related Cases and joins these two matters into a single case under the docket 25-LSC-04117, Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department, et al.

 

 

Signed,

 

FLORENCE WEATHERS-PETERSON

Judge

Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos

 

ENTERED: April 22nd, 2025 01:13 AM

 

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Ms. Montblanc through her legal representative requests this court to grant summary judgment against all named parties.

The plaintiff has alleged sufficient plausible facts to that meet the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007) standard. Without the defendant’s filing an appearance, have raised no triable issue of material fact as required under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c). Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law under the aforementioned section.

The plaintiff further requests the relief requested under this lawsuit and the joined lawsuit. By failing to respond to this lawsuit, the plaintiff believes that the named parties have acted with malice and requests punitive damages and payment of attorney fees.

_______________________________________________

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 24 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

Edited April 24 by Kotwica

[elgreco]

Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.

 

Case number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Ibraheem A. Davis

 

DEFENDANT's MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Defendant respectfully requests a temporary stay of proceedings in the above-captioned matter, pending the completion of the ongoing Internal Affairs investigation related to the conduct of Officer Akhmad. This motion is not intended to delay proceedings unduly, but rather to ensure the Court is presented with the most complete and accurate factual record possible. The outcome of said investigation bears directly upon material issues in dispute.

 

I. Judicial Economy and Efficiency

Courts have long recognized the authority to stay civil proceedings when doing so would serve judicial economy, conserve resources, or avoid conflicting outcomes. In Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that "n the exercise of its sound discretion, a court may hold one lawsuit in abeyance to abide the outcome of another which may substantially affect it or be dispositive of the issues."

 

II. Importance of Internal Investigative Findings in Law Enforcement Cases

In Allen v. City of Oakland (N.D. Cal.), the court underscored the critical role of internal police investigations when systemic misconduct was alleged. The resulting reforms and oversight shaped the resolution of civil claims, demonstrating that deferring litigation to await investigatory findings may enhance both accuracy and fairness.

Similarly, in O'Brien v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police ([2005] UKHL 26), the House of Lords acknowledged the probative value of internal disciplinary findings in civil claims concerning police conduct. The judgment highlighted that internal reviews often yield essential context and factual clarification relevant to civil proceedings

III. Risk of Premature or Fragmented Litigation

Absent a stay, the parties risk engaging in premature motion practice and discovery based on incomplete or evolving factual circumstances. This may result in the need for amendments, redundant motions, or the revisiting of rulings, all of which impose additional burdens on the Court and litigants.

IV. Good Faith Request

Defendant emphasizes that this request is made in good faith and is narrowly tailored. The requested stay is limited in scope and duration, only until the Internal Affairs Group concludes its review. The intent is not to delay this litigation indefinitely, but to ensure adjudication proceeds on a full and reliable evidentiary foundation.

V. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Court:

 

1. GRANT a temporary stay of proceedings pending the conclusion of the Internal Affairs investigation;
2. SET a status review date to evaluate the investigation’s progress and reassess the stay’s necessity;
3. RETAIN full discretion to lift or modify the stay as appropriate.

 

Respectfully submitted,  
 

/s/ IBRAHEEM A, DAVIS

Ibraheem A. Davis

Legal Representative
Los Santos Police Department

 

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

JOINT MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AND CENSURE OF IBRAHEEM DAVIS.

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Ms. Montblanc through her legal representative requests this court deny the defendant's motion as untimely and censure Ibraheem Davis for use of AI tools.

Mister Davis filed this exact motion in Alan Saucedo v. An Unknown Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) Police Officer, The Staff Officers of the LSPD. Due to his use of AI tools and this being the same argument I will respond with the same response to avoid charging my client additional fees.

The defendant outlines six arguments for a stay of proceedings, all of these requests are untimely and were filed after a motion for summary judgment. The defendant does not raise any substantive arguments that would defeat the requirements for a summary judgment motion, namely the defendant does not raise a triable issue of material fact as required under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c), and the plaintiff remains entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The defendant only asks for a stay after failing to meet the court imposed requirements of filing an answer, the plaintiff has waited six-days for a response, three-days more than required.

The Court of Appeals addressed a similar problem in Aheroni v. Maxwell, 205 S.An. App. 3d 284 (1988), where a defendant moves to vacate a default judgment. The case identifies the following as the key question "whether the successful party has by inequitable conduct, either direct or insidious in nature, lulled the other party into a state of false security, thus causing the latter to refrain from appearing in court or asserting legal rights." Colich v. United Concrete Pipe Corp. 145 S. An. App.2d 102, 107 (1956). The plaintiff has not directly or insidiously lulled any party into any sense of security. The defendant's inactions speak for themselves, paired with the disingenuous filing identified below, this court should deny this request.

 

Mister Davis has acted in bad faith. Mister Davis has utilized artificial intelligence in drafting his response to this court. I became concerned when Mister Davis cited a United Kingdom House of Lords statement, failed to number his motion correctly (the use of two Roman numeral threes), in support of his motion. I decided to utilize QuillBot to detect whether the filing was genuine. It is not (emphasis added), 91 percent of the response is "AI generated." This defeats the truly the only substantial argument that the defendant raised, namely that it is a good faith request.  
 

_______________________________________________

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 25 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

Copies provided to the court and e-filed:

Edited April 25 by Kotwica

[elgreco]

Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.

 

Case number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Ibraheem A. Davis

 

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND CENSURE THE DEFENDANT FOR THE USE OF AI TOOLS

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

COMES NOW, Ibraheem Davis, legal representative for the Los Santos Police Department (LSPD), and respectfully submits this response to Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion of Stay of Proceedings.

 

I. Introduction

Plaintiff's counsel has made several unfounded accusations that warrant immediate address. Most egregiously, counsel alleges that I have utilized artificial intelligence to draft my motions and has declared, without substantive evidence, that the "91 percent" of my filing is "AI Generated" based solely on a proprietary algorithm with known reliability issues. This allegation is both factually wrong and legally irrelevant to the merits of LSPD's motion. 

 

II. Response to Allegations

1. The AI Detection Claim is Unreliable and Legally Irrelevant

Plaintiff's counsel relies on "Quillbot", a text analysis tool with documented limitations. Courts have consistently recognized that such AI detection tools produce unreliable results with false positive rates exceeding 25% in peer-reviewed studied. Even one of the most if not popular AI Detection tools "Turnitin" claimed themselves that their product produce false positives. The San Andreas Bar Association has not established any prohibition against drafting assistance tools, which many attorneys utilize for formatting, citation checking and language refinement; Practices equivalent to traditional tools like spelling and grammar checkers. As held in Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp v. Raines, "Courts have never required attorneys to compose all materials from scratch"

 

The typing errors noted by the opposing counsel (Duplicate Roman Numbers) actually contradict their allegation of AI usage, as such errors are characteristic of human drafting. These minor typographical errors in no way diminish the substantive legal arguments presented on behalf of the LSPD. In Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, the Court held that "procedural rules should not be applied in a way that created meaningless procedural traps".

 

2. The UK Citation is Both Relevant and Appropriate

Plaintiff's objection to my citation of a House of Lords decision demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of comparative law principles. While not binding, persuasive authority from respected common law jurisdictions in routinely cited in complex procedural matters where San Andreas precedent is developing. In American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, where Justice Holmes noted that "the Court may appropriately look to decisions of English courts for persuasive value in interpreting common law principles".

 

III. Defense Against Plaintiff's Claim of Untimeliness

Defendant acknowledges that the motion in question was filed after the court-imposed deadline for responses. However, Defendant respectfully submits that the delay was caused by reasonable circumstance and show not result in a dismissal of the motion.

 

More specifically:

1. Good Cause for Delay:
   • The delay in filling was due to extenuating circumstances, including an unavoidable personal matter that temporarily impacted the preparation and filing of the motion. Defendant, through counsel, takes full responsibility for this oversight but emphasizes that the delay did not prejudice the Plaintiff or harm the integrity of the judicial process. As such, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion and allow the motion to proceed on the merits
2. No Prejudice to Plaintiff
   • The Plaintiff has not shown, and cannot show, any material prejudice caused by the delay. The issues raised in the motion remain relevant, and there is no indication that the delay has affected the Plaintiff's ability to respond or prepare for trial. Denying the motion on procedural grounds alone would serve no legitimate purpose and would frustrate the interests of justice.
3. Substantial Compliance
   • Defendant has made substantial compliance with the requirements set forth by the court, and any minor delay should be excused in light of the circumstances, particularly when no harm has been done to the Plaintiff's case.

IV. Conclusion

I respectfully request that this Court:

1. Disregard plaintiff's unfounded allegations regarding drafting methods;
2. Consider the substantive merits of the stay request as outlined in our original motion;
3. Admonish plaintiff's counsel for engaging in personal attacks rather than addressing legal substance; and
4. Grant the requested stay of proceedings for the reasons outlined in our initial filing.

 

Respectfully submitted,  
 

/s/ IBRAHEEM A, DAVIS

Ibraheem A. Davis

Legal Representative
Los Santos Police Department

[Tungsten]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS, <CRIMINAL/CIVIL/PROBATE> DIVISION

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04117

In the Matter of Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

MEMORANDUM

 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is overruled. It is the position of this court that it is in the best interest of public justice to hear this matter in its entirety in order to ascertain facts. The public has a right to know through these proceedings whether the allegations are true. Motion to stay proceedings is granted; this court will stay proceedings until April 30th, 2025. Defense is ordered to produce all discovery before that time or file another motion to stay if necessary.

 

Signed,

 

FLORENCE WEATHERS-PETERSON

Judge

Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos

 

ENTERED: April 25th, 2025 03:13 PM

[Tungsten]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS, <CRIMINAL/CIVIL/PROBATE> DIVISION

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04117

In the Matter of Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

MEMORANDUM

 

Plaintiff's Motion for Sanction and Censure of opposing counsel for use of artificial intelligence tools is denied. While this court does not recommend the use of artificial intelligence tools for drafting documents, such is not prohibited under the rules of court as long as confidential information is not input into a public system. If such information was provided to an artificial intelligence tool, sanctions and censure would not be within this court's jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of the State Bar of San Andreas. This court recognizes the helpfulness of artificial intelligence tools provided that the attorney signing off on the document has proofread the document – this court will not permit retraction of documents if any errors of argument are later found to have been caused by the use of artificial intelligence.

 

Signed,

 

FLORENCE WEATHERS-PETERSON

Judge

Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos

 

ENTERED: April 25th, 2025 08:00 PM

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Shakhzadov, Los Santos Police Department, et al.
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04117

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION TO COMPEL

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the plaintiff, through his counsel requests this honorable court to compel the discovery of the below mentioned items that a subpoena duces tecum was issued by Juan Tzompaxtle in this court filings on April 20, 2025. The defendant's counsel has willfully not complied with the order and has thereby unnecessarily prolonged the pretrial period of this case.

The plaintiff requests the court to order the plaintiff to release the following discovery items:

- All information related to the denial of Laura Montblanc's Media Card;

- All procedures, policies, and information related to the decision making process to grant or deny a Media Card;
- All SWAT deployments, large scale incidents (defined as any incident where three or more officers responded), gang interactions, and other information that in the discretion of the Los Santos Police Department is "newsworthy," from April 18, 2025 to today's date; (AMENDED FROM SUBPOENA REQUEST TO ACCOUNT FOR DELAY)

- All policies, procedures, and trainings offered by the Los Santos Police Department related to Freedom of Press;
- All internal affairs records of the Los Santos Police Department employees related to the denial of Ms. Montblanc's Media Card;
- A list of all Media Cards that have been requested of the Los Santos Police Department along with the determination; and

- A list of the applicants of Media Cards and their employer at the time of requesting the Media Card.

The plaintiff further requests that if the defendants counsel does not release the aforementioned items timely (at the discretion of the court) he be sanctioned and the court allow for additional punitive damages.

_______________________________________________

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 April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

 

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     MONTBLANC,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER AKHMAD SHAKHZADOV (ret.), et al.   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04117 ───────────── DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ─────────────   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 STANDARD....................................................................................................... V.      LEGAL ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................           A.      The IA Records Are Not Discoverable Under Federal Law....................................           B.      Plaintiff's Requests are Overbroad and Unduly Burdensome.................................           C.      Personnel Records and Application Files Implicate Privacy Interests....................           D.      No Basis for Sanctions Exists.................................................................................           E.      Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages is Unsupported........................................ VI.    CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................     I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD"), by and through counsel, respectfully submits this Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel production of certain categories of documents pursuant to Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum dated April 20, 2025. The Motion is overbroad, procedurally improper, and seeks information that is irrelevant, privileged, and outside the scope of permissible discovery under applicable federal and San Andreas Law. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks sanctions based on an incorrect characterization of Defendants' conduct during discovery.   For the reasons detailed herein, the Court should deny the Motion to Compel in its entirety and decline to impose any sanctions on defense counsel.     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  This action arises from an alleged incident on April 18, 2025, in which former Officer Shakhzadov, while on duty, allegedly used a taser on Plaintiff Laura Montblanc, who was purportedly recording a police activity from a public space. The Plaintiff claims civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and related causes of action.   At the time of the incident, Officer Shakhzadov was employed by the Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") and was under two pending Internal Affairs ("IA") investigations. On April 28, 2025, Officer Shakhzadov tendered his resignation. In accordance with LSPD internal policy, an officer who resigned while under active IA investigation is automatically designated as "terminated" from service.   Both IA cases were administratively closed as a result of his termination. Neither investigation reached a sustained finding, nor did either proceed to adjudication or result in the imposition of discipline.   Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, Defendants have not yet engaged in a meet-and-confer process nor have they produced incident-related materials such as the incident report, or use-of-force documentation. Plaintiff now seeks to compel production of broad categories of unrelated and privileged information without having exhausted proper discovery channels.     IV.       LEGAL STANDARD ᅠᅠ  Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery only of matters that are "relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Courts are empowered to limit discovery that is unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, or that invades protected privileges.   Additionally, under San Andreas law, peace officer personnel records and internal affairs are protected by Pitchess statutes. Disclosure is permitted only when there is a sustained finding of misconduct and when proper procedural requirements have been met.   V.       LEGAL ARGUMENT ᅠᅠ  A. The IA Records Are Not Discoverable Under Federal or State Law  Plaintiff demands production of all IA records pertaining to Officer Shakhzadov and others allegedly involved in the denial of a Media Card to Plaintiff. However, these requests must be denied because: 1. The IA investigations concerning Officer Shakhzadov were never concluded and did not result in any sustained findings of misconduct. 2. Officer Shakhzadov is no longer employed by LSPD, and no disciplinary action was adjudicated or enforced besides the termination. 3. Under § 832.7 and SB 1421, only IA records that result in sustained findings of specific types of misconduct (e.g., dishonesty, excessive force causing great bodily injury, sexual assault) are subject to public disclosure. None of these apply here. 4. Additionally, Plaintiff has not filed a proper Pitchess motion, which is the exclusive method for obtaining confidential peace officer personnel records in litigation. Accordingly, any request to produce IA or personnel records is procedurally improper and substantively meritless under both state and federal standards.   B. Plaintiff's Requests Are Overbroad and Unduly Burdensome Plaintiff seeks: 1. All SWAT deployments and "newsworthy" incidents from April 18 to present; 2. All Media Card applications and determination; 3. Names of all applicants and their employers; All policies and procedures related to Freedom of the Press. These requests are overbroad, lack temporal and subject-matter specificity, and seek information wholly unrelated to Plaintiff's incident. Courts routinely deny such "fishing expedition" requests, especially when no Monell pattern has been alleged with specificity. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S 662 (2009).   C. Personnel Records and Application Files Implicate Privacy Interests The production of records relating to other individuals' Media Card applications, determinations, and employers raises significant privacy and confidentiality concerns, particularly as these individuals are not parties to this action. Under Gov. § 6254(c) and the San Andreas Constitution's right to privacy, such records may not be disclosed absent a compelling need and protective measures.   Defendant's assert that the privacy rights of third parties far outweigh any minimal relevance these requests may hold and request a protective order against their disclosure.   D. No Basis for Sanctions Exists While it is accurate that Defendant's have not yet produced incident-related materials or conducted a meet-and-confer, there has been no willful delay, and counsel remains willing to confer with Plaintiff's counsel in good faith regarding discovery scope. Courts will only issue sanctions under Rule 37 when there is clear evidence of bad faith or unjustified resistance to discovery. That threshold is not met here.   VI.       CONCLUSION ᅠᅠ    For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court: 1. DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Compel in its entirety; 2. ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER limiting discovery to materials directly related to the April 18, 2025 incident; 3. DECLINE TO ISSUE SANCTIONS against defense counsel; 4. Enforce Pitchess requirements and privacy protections for all IA and personnel materials; and 5. If necessary, permit in camera review of any disputed IA materials prior to any compelled disclosure.     DATED:  May 01, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     MONTBLANC,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER AKHMAD SHAKHZADOV (ret.), et al.   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04117 ───────────── DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY [FRCP 12(b)(6)] ─────────────   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.      The Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege Municipal Liability.................................       B.      The Retaliatory Denial of the Media Card Is Not Casually Connected to a Constitutional Violation...............................................................................................................           C.      Claims Against the Department Must Still Meet Federal Pleading Standards........           D.      Individual Liability Remains with the Officer, Not the Department....................... 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, hereby move this Court to dismiss Plaintiff Laura Montblanc's Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.     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 Upon internal review of the incident, Defendants acknowledge that Officer Shakhzadov's conduct deviated from department policy. Specifically: 1. Plaintiff Montblanc was standing a considerable distance from the tactical scene, not posing an immediate threat or interference with law enforcement activity. 2. Officer Shakhzadov closed distance with Montblanc and deployed a taser unnecessarily, in violation of LSPD's use-of-force escalation guidelines. 3. The incident was not properly recorded or preserved, as no department-authorized scene tape was in place to mark or enforce a perimeter. 4. Shakhzadov proceeded to read Miranda rights to Montblanc without clear custodial interrogation, indicating a lack of legal necessity and training.   While Officer Shakhzadov is no longer employed by the Los Santos Police Department, it is the position of the department that had the internal affairs investigations been completed, they would likely have resulted in a sustained policy violation or termination.   Accordingly, Defendants are not seeking to shield Officer Shakhzadov's conduct but rather to clarify that the City is not liable under federal constitutional standards or Monell, as outlined bellow.   IV.     LEGAL ARGUMENTS ᅠᅠ  A. The Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege Municipal Liability  Even where individual misconduct is established, municipal liability under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S 658 (1978), does not attach unless the alleged constitutional violation was the result of official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference. Here, there is no factual allegation of widespread departmental policy encouraging the use of force against non-interfering bystanders. To the contrary, Shakhzadov's actions, as clarified above, were a deviation from LSPD training and procedure.   B. The Retaliatory Denial of Plaintiff's Media Card Is Not Causally Connected to a Constitutional Violation Plaintiff also alleges that her application for a Media Card was denied in retaliation for filming the April 18, 2025 incident. However, the denial letter issued by the LSPD's Media Relations Division, signed by Captain Daniel White, clearly indicated that the decision was made following routine evaluation procedures and provides an administrative avenue to appeal, an option Plaintiff declined to pursue.   "RE: NEWS MEDIA IDENTIFICATION CARD APPLICATION After careful consideration of your application and review of the relevant criteria set forth by the Media Relations Division, we regret to inform you that your News Media Identification Card application has been denied. ...If you have any questions or require further clarification regarding the outcome of your application, please do not hesitate to contact the Officer-in-Charge, Media Relations Section."   This process was neutral, standardized, and applied consistently. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff never appealed the denial or contacted the person in-charge for clarification. Her decision to sue rather than engage the appeals process undercuts any claim that the denial was based on improper motives.   The denial off credentials, without more, is insufficient to establish a constitutional claim unless the government action was  a. Retaliatory, b. targeted at protected conduct, and c. causally linked to an adverse impact. See Nieves v. Bartless, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019). Plaintiff provides no evidence beyond correlation and speculation. She fails to allege that any decision maker was even aware of her pending lawsuit of the denial.   Moreover, refusing to issue a media card does not prevent a person from reporting, recording, publishing, or speaking, all of which are the core protections afforded by the First Amendment. The media credential is not a prerequisite for engaging in journalism, it is a facilitative tool for indetification in chaotic or restricted areas, not a constitutional gateway. Plaintiff continued to exercise her right before and after the denial, recording and publishing freely.   Plaintiff relies on Sherill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977), to support her theory that denial of a media credential constitutes unconstitutional retaliation. But Sherill dealt with credentialing for the White House press room, a government-controlled forum where consistent press access is required to fulfill a federal transparency function.   That case has no bearing on local law enforcement. The LSPD is not the White House. The department does not hold official executive briefings, nor does it restrict media access to a select group of individuals. The LSPD's media card system is a basic identification program, designed to help officers recognize legitimate press in fast-moving or dangerous scenes. It is not a system of licensing journalism.   Even if Sherill were somehow applicable, Plaintiff received more that the due process outlined in that case, including a written denial and the option to appeal. She failed to exercise those rights.   To the extent Plaintiff's complaint arises under 42 U.S.C § 1983, Defendants invoke qualified immunity. There is no clearly established federal law requiring municipal police departments to issue media credentials, nor holding that denial of such credentials, particularly with an appeal process available and unused, constitutes retaliation or prior restraint.   Public officials, including those evaluating press applications, are entitled to discretion and legal protection for good-faith administrative decisions. Qualified immunity exists to protect officials from litigation when no clearly established legal duty was violated. Here, the denial was administrative and non-punitive in nature, and did not inhibit Plaintiff's ability to film or report, which she continued to do. This case does not rise to the level of constitutional retaliation.   C. Claims Against the Department Must Still Meet Federal Pleading Standards A complaint that merely describes unconstitutional conduct by a single officer, without tying it to a broader departmental failure, does not survive scrutiny. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S 554 (2007). Because Officer Shakhzadov acted in clear breach of policy, and because the department did not ratify or authorize his behavior, Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the Los Santos Police Department fails as a matter of law.   D. Individual Liability Remains with the Officer, Not the Department Plaintiff may still pursue claims directly against the now-former officer. However, the City respectfully requests that the claims against it be dismissed with prejudice given the lack of Monell compliance, the lawful and discretionary nature of the credentialing decision, and because Shakhzadov's misconduct, while serious, was not institutionally endorsed.   V.     CONCLUSION ᅠᅠ Defendants do not dispute that Officer Shakhzadov's conduct may have been improper. However, such conduct does not give rise to liability on the part of the Los Santos Police Department absent a showing of official endorsement, policy, or deliberate indifference. Nor does the denial of Plaintiff's Media Card, absent any substantiated retaliatory policy or plausible factual basis, suffice to establish a viable constitutional claim.   Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss all claims against the Los Santos Police Department with prejudice and allow Plaintiff to proceed, if at all, solely against the indivdually named officer.   DATED:  May 02, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT