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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1234567891011121314compelling attendance and testimony at deposition of Defendant CITY OF OXNARD employees FrankBrisslinger and Martin Polo.Please take further notice that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section2025.450(c)(1), plaintiffs seek $4,618.80 in sanctions against defendant CITY OF OXNARD.This Motion is made upon the grounds that Plaintiffs provided proper notice of the deponents’depositions in a timely manner in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.010 et seq.,and defendant CITY OF OXNARD refuses to produce these witnesses for deposition.This Motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, theDeclarations of Mark O. Hiepler and Terry L. Tron, together with supporting evidence, filedconcurrently herewith, and upon all the pleadings, records, and papers on file herein, as well as, anydocuments incorporated by reference, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presentedat the hearing on this Motion.DATED: May 7, 2007HIEPLER & HIEPLERA Professional Partnership151617181920By: __________________________MARK O. HIEPLERTERRY L. TRONAttorneys for Plaintiffs21222324252627282______________________________________________________________________________Plaintiffs’ 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... 1I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1II. STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................... 1III.IV.i______________________________________________________________________________Plaintiffs’ 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 SanctionsPageA. Cindy Conolly’s Tragic And Inexplicable Death............................................................. 1B. Cindy Conolly’s Children Begin Their Search For The Truth About HowOfficers Brisslinger And Polo Could Possibly Have Run Over And KilledTheir Mother Without Realizing What They Had Done................................................... 3C. Over 180 Days Passed, And Still The City Of Oxnard Did Not Provide AnyPolice Report Regarding The Death Of Cindy Conolly; They Did Not ProvideAny Statements Of The Officers Involved And They Did Not Allow Plaintiffs’Counsel To Question The Officers.................................................................................. 4D. 215 Days After Ms. Conolly’s Death, A Police Report Is Finally Released ToPlaintiffs -- But The Report Surprisingly Does Not Contain Any StatementsUnder Oath Of Either Officer Involved; Instead, The Officers Had Only Been“Interviewed” By Fellow Officers................................................................................... 4E. The District Attorneys’ Office Also Conducted An “Investigation,” But TheyAlso Did Not Obtain Any Statements Under Oath, Nor Even Interview TheOfficers Again; Instead, They Merely Relied Upon The Interviews Conducted ByOxnard Police Which Were Not Conducted Under Oath ................................................. 5F. Plaintiffs Therefore Continue To Request To Take The Officers’ Depositions,To Discover The Officers’ Sworn Testimony About How They Came To RunOver And Kill Cindy Conolly And To Evaluate The Officers’ Credibility AndDemeanor ....................................................................................................................... 6G. Defendant City Of Oxnard Steadfastly Refused To Produce The Officers ForDeposition, Despite Plaintiffs’ Multiple “Meet and Confer” Efforts ................................ 7THE OFFICERS’ DEPOSITIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS MOTIONWERE PROPERLY NOTICED ................................................................................................. 8PLAINTIFFS’ EFFORTS TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING THIS DISPUTEHAVE BEEN REJECTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL .............................................................. 9
Page 1: 12345678910HIEPLER & HIEPLERA Profe
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES12345678910Case
Page 7 and 8: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 9 and 10: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 11 and 12: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 13 and 14: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 15 and 16: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 17 and 18: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 19 and 20: 12345678910111213141516171819202122
Page 21: 12345678910111213141516171819202122

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?