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
Thus, on at least one other occasion – in a case in which Officer Polo was not even potentially
liable for his conduct -- Officer Polo has said one thing during an investigation, and then later admitted
lying when he was questioned under oath. In the present case – where Officer Polo is potentially liable
for his conduct -- it is therefore entirely conceivable that he would not tell the truth to investigators.
It is therefore imperative that these officers be forced to submit to an examination under oath, so
that the truth about this incident can be discovered.
V.
DEFENDANTS ARGUMENT THAT DEPOSING THE OFFICERS WILL “ADD ENORMOUS
MENTAL GRIEF AND DISTRESS” TO THEM WHOLLY FAILS TO DEFEAT THE MOTION
Defendant’s contention in its opposition that “it is inconceivable what such depositions could
achieve, other than adding enormous mental grief and distress to the already remorseful officers” is
without merit. See Opposition, p. 4:4-6. Plaintiffs acknowledge that it may be emotional for these
officers to have to provide sworn deposition testimony, but any distress they may suffer is far
outweighed by the distress plaintiffs have suffered in not being able to question these officers under oath
about how their mother died. Plaintiffs must be afforded the right to know the truth about how their
mother died, and the public has the right to know the facts surrounding this case as well. Plaintiffs, from
the beginning, have insisted that the Officers’ depositions under oath are a condition precedent to
resolution of this case outside of trial. These Officers’ testimony, under oath, may allow the public and
the plaintiffs – as well as the defendant and these two officers -- to initiate the first steps towards
closure in this tragic death case.
In addition, if plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is denied, plaintiffs will have no alternative but to
sue the officers individually, because if their conduct rose to the level of intentional or reckless disregard
for the rights and safety of others, plaintiffs are entitled to additional compensation from the officers
individually, including but not limited to punitive damages. As set forth in the Motion, and not
addressed at all in defendant’s Opposition, plaintiffs elected to not pursue the officers individually at the
outset of this case, when they readily could have. Instead, plaintiffs elected to give the officers the
opportunity to first testify under oath. Plaintiffs elected to wait until such time as they were afforded the
officers’ depositions, to confront them with evidence and seek their honest explanations, to determine
______________________________________________________________________________
6
Plaintiffs’ Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Motion To Compel Depositions Of
Officer Frank Brisslinger And Officer Martin Polo