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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728justice that the report prepared by the Oxnard Police Department does not contain a statement providedby either Officer involved under oath, in which they are sworn to tell the truth, but instead contains only“interviews” of the officers. See Exhibit 15 and 16 to the Hiepler Decl., 12, 13.It simply cannot be said that justice has truly been served regarding Cindy Conolly’s death whenthe two people primarily responsible for that death have never been questioned under oath about thosetragic events.The depositions under oath of the two officers have never been taken by plaintiffs’counsel, the Oxnard Police Department, nor any governmental organization. Whether the City ofOxnard admits liability or not, Cindy Conolly’s children must be afforded the opportunity to questionthese Officers and to have them provide sworn answers under oath to tell the truth.In addition, the public will not be protected until the truth about this tragedy is uncovered. Thefacts at issue in this case involve not only the events leading to Ms. Conolly’s death, but also involve theOxnard Police Department’s failure to properly train its officers in how to safely and properly patrol thepublic beaches in police vehicles – in particular, 6,500 pound sport utility vehicles. The public, as wellas plaintiffs, have a right to know the details behind the training – or lack thereof – in order to gain anunderstanding of how future incidents can be prevented. Only then will the public be adequatelyprotected. The Oxnard Police Department must not be allowed to hide the details of this case.On balance, any burden to the Officers by compelling them to provide a few hours of depositiontestimony is far outweighed by plaintiffs’ – and the public’s -- right to the truth, to protect, prevent anddeter such acts in the future. The limited burden imposed on the Officers is far outweighed by thebenefits to the plaintiffs and the public, and plaintiffs are not unreasonable in demanding this discovery.Defendant’s admission of liability does not protect the public on our beaches from future harm.Plaintiffs submit that only by allowing an outside entity to question the Officers, under oath, can theretruly be a change in policy effectuated to protect others from similar harm.F. Plaintiffs, Acting In Good Faith, Elected Not To Initially Name The IndividualOfficers In A Lawsuit, But Instead Chose To Wait Until They Could Confront TheOfficers At Their Depositions; Thus, Compelling The Officers’ Depositions NowMay Avoid Subjecting Them To Individual LiabilityIn the instant civil action for wrongful death, plaintiffs elected not to pursue the two policeofficers individually at the time of filing the complaint. Plaintiffs, acting in good faith, fully expected to______________________________________________________________________________13Plaintiffs’ 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