Plaintiffs' Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Depositions Of ...

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Brisslinger to stay in the Tahoe. See Polo Interview, Exhibit 16 to the Hiepler Decl., 13, p. 106.Officer Polo said that he got a mini-cassette recorder from Brisslinger and began recording. Id. He saidhe did not want to miss anything that was going on. Id. He went to the location of Ms. Conolly, andlearned that she was dead. Id. He then began calling for additional support personnel, such as a TrafficInvestigator, a Chaplain, and other units. Id.Officer Polo stated that he later gave the mini-cassette of his recording to his colleague, SergeantCole. Polo Interview, Exhibit 16 to the Hiepler Decl., 13, p. 106. Officer Jimenez and Officer Penalater listened to the mini-cassette, and stated that “[a]t one point in the recording [of the events recordedby Polo at the scene of the incident] the cassette tape was turned off, then on, then off again.” Id. at 107.When the tape recorder was reactivated, Polo was telling someone, “he didn’t listen,” and the nextphrase was erased. . . . Id. Polo stated that he did not know why this had occurred. Id.There was no further inquiry or investigation into transpired while the tape recorder was off.Plaintiffs would like to know exactly what said in that interim. Moreover, why was the tape recorderturned off? What was being covered up?Plaintiffs submit that only through the deposition process will a thorough examination of theevents giving rise to this action be obtained. Thus, the Motion to Compel must be granted and theseOfficers must be forced to testify, under oath, to the events surrounding Cindy Conolly’s death.C. Defendant City Of Oxnard Failed To Serve Any Objection To The DepositionNotices, Thereby Waiving Any ObjectionsIn the present case, plaintiffs served valid deposition notices, setting the depositions of the twoOfficers, who were an “employee of a party.” See Exhibits 1 and 2. Defendant City of Oxnard failedto serve any objection to either deposition notice under Section 2025.210. Hiepler Decl., 9.Procedurally, they have waived any right to object to the depositions process.D. The City of Oxnard’s Offer To Stipulate To Liability Was Refused, And DoesNot Entitle The City To Avoid Having The Responsible City Employees AppearAnd Testify Under Oath At A DepositionDefendant City of Oxnard contends that because it has offered to stipulate to liability, thedepositions of the Officers are unnecessary. This contention is wholly without merit. As the followingrule poignantly states in Corpus Juris Secundum: “It does not lie in the power of one party to prevent______________________________________________________________________________11Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Depositions Of Defendant City Of Oxnard EmployeesOfficer Frank Brisslinger And Officer Martin Polo; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities;Request For $4,618.80 in Sanctions