Plaintiffs' Reply To Defendant's Opposition To Motion To Compel ...

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The present case does not involve plaintiff moving to strike defendant’s answer nor a motion to
enter default. The present case does not involve depriving defendant of its right to contest any aspect of
plaintiff’s damages. Thus, Thomas does not apply to support denying plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
C. Thomas v. Luong Did Not Involve A Governmental Entity
Third, Thomas does not apply to support denying plaintiffs’ Motion because the case did not
involve any governmental entities. Rather, the Thomas case involved a motor vehicle accident between
two private parties. Neither party was a governmental entity. On the contrary, in the present case the
defendant is a governmental entity – the City of Oxnard. It is axiomatic that a public entity is subject to
a higher standard with respect to the dissemination of information regarding the entity’s actions. See,
e.g. California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq. Again, Thomas
does not apply to defeat the Motion.
Thus, any one of three arguments establishes that Thomas v. Luong does not apply to defeat
plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.
IV.
AT LEAST ONE OF THE OFFICERS INVOLVED HAS BEEN KNOWN TO GIVE FALSE
STATEMENTS IN AN INVESTIGATION, AND LATER CHANGE HIS STATEMENT UNDER
OATH; THUS PLAINTIFFS MUST BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION
THE OFFICERS UNDER OATH, ABOUT CINDY CONOLLY’S DEATH
Defendant’s Opposition suggests the “extensive” Oxnard Police Department and Ventura County
District Attorney reports “already detail how the accident occurred.” Opposition, p. 2:6-7. Defendant,
however, fails to point to any sworn testimony setting forth those “details,” and offers no suggestion that
the Officers directly involved – nor anyone – has ever provided sworn testimony regarding the death of
Ms. Conolly. It is undisputed that the statements provided by Officer Brisslinger and Officer Polo
during the investigation in this case were not given under oath.
Plaintiff has discovered that that there is at least one other case in which Officer Polo both gave a
statement during an investigation and also wrote a police report which said one thing, and then later –
under oath – admitted that his statement was not true:
///
______________________________________________________________________________
4
Plaintiffs’ Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Motion To Compel Depositions Of
Officer Frank Brisslinger And Officer Martin Polo