You are on page 1of 5

Case 5:14-cv-01793-VAP-DTB Document 86 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:687

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865)


epr@manningllp.com
2 Tony M. Sain (State Bar No. 251626)
tms@manningllp.com
3 Angela Powell (State Bar No. 191876)
amp@manningllp.com
4 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER
LLP
th

5 801 S. Figueroa St, 15 Floor


Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
6 Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
7
Attorneys for Defendant,
8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

11
12 A.P. and I.P., by and through their
guardian ad litem Diana Ms. Perez, in
13 each case individually and as successors
in interest to Luis Morin, Jr., deceased;
14 J.M. and E.M., by and through their
guardian ad litem Fabiola Velasquez, in
15 each case individually and as successors
in interest to Luis Morin Jr., deceased;
16 MARIA GOMEZ; and LUIS MORIN,,

Case No. 5:14-CV-01793-VAP-DTBx


[Hon. Virginia A. Phillips, Dist. Judge;
Hon. David T. Bristow, Mag. Judge]
DISCOVERY MATTER
REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS'
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO
REDEPOSE DIANA MS. PEREZ
PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 8, 2015
MEDIATION DATE

Plaintiffs,

17
v.

18

19 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; OSCAR


DEPUTY RODRIGUEZ; and DOES 120 10, Inclusive,

Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:

August 29, 2014


February 2, 2016

Defendants.

21
22
23

Defendant COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE submits the following Reply To Plaintiffs'

24 Opposition To Ex Parte Application Of Defendant County Of Riverside To Redepose


25 Diana Ms. Perez Prior To The October 8, 2015 Mediation Date.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx

Case 5:14-cv-01793-VAP-DTB Document 86 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:688

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2 1.

THERE IS GOOD CAUSE FOR THIS COURT TO GRANT

DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REDEPOSE PLAINTIFF

DIANA MS. PEREZ.

Plaintiffs' counsel dropped a bombshell during plaintiffs' deposition of Deputy

6 Deputy Rodriguez of a new theory of premeditated murder on the part of Deputy


7 Rodriguez and now refuses to agree to allow the County to redepose Ms. Perez in order
8 to question her about the very serious allegations raised. During Deputy Rodriguez's
9 deposition, plaintiffs' counsel asked a number of questions suggesting that Deputy
10 Rodriguez and one of decedent's girlfriends, guardian ad litem Diana Ms. Perez (mother
11 to plaintiffs A.P. & I.P.), was having an affair with Deputy Rodriguez and ambushed
12 decedent Morin out of jealousy when Ms. Perez ended their romantic engagement. This
13 bombshell has necessitated the reopening of Ms. Perez's deposition in order to question
14 her about these serious allegations. None of plaintiffs' reasons for opposing the
15 redeposing of Ms. Perez withstands scrutiny:
16

1)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that a prior interrogatory covers the same area

17 because it asked about prior contacts between Deputy Rodriguez and Ms. Perez.
18 However, Interrogatory No. 3 (Doc. 85-1) does not cover any personal allegedly sexual
19 relationship between Deputy Rodriguez and Ms. Perez, which subject was brought up
20 through questioning of Deputy Rodriguez during his deposition. Defendant County has
21 the right to question Ms. Perez about these allegations of a sexual relationship raised by
22 plaintiffs' counsel.
23

2)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that Ms. Perez need not be deposed because

24 the deposition of decedent's mother, Maria Gomez, covers the same area or put
25 Defendant on notice of Deputy Rodriguez's relationship with Ms. Perez. However, as
26 Ms. Gomez answered that she did not know that the deputy involved had contact with a
27 family member (Doc. 85-2), there was no reason to question her further about this
28 subject matter. Moreover, the deposition testimony of Maria Gomez cannot cover the
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx

Case 5:14-cv-01793-VAP-DTB Document 86 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:689

1 same ground as the personal knowledge of Ms. Perez about her relationship with
2 Deputy Rodriguez. Nobody but Ms. Perez herself can answer the questions that were
3 raised by plaintiffs' counsel during Deputy Rodriguez's deposition, such as whether Ms.
4 Perez and Deputy Rodriguez were involved in a romantic and sexual relationship;
5 whether Deputy Rodriguez sent a text message to Ms. Perez a few hours before the
6 subject incident; whether Ms. Perez gave information of a public location to Deputy
7 Rodriguez in which to "lure "Luis Morin; whether Ms. Perez provided Deputy
8 Rodriguez with the Coachella address where Luis Morin was "murdered "in the days
9 and weeks prior to January 27, 2014; or whether Ms. Perez sent a text message to
10 Deputy Rodriguez later in the evening on January 27, 2014, after Luis Morin had been
11 "murdered." The only person who can testify about these matters is Ms. Perez.
12

3)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that they "may" agree to the deposition of Ms.

13 Perez if necessary to a settlement. However, such conditional agreement is useless.


14 Under FRCP 26(b)(2)(C), Defendant has met the three factors to reopen a deposition
15 and are entitled to question Ms. Perez about the serious allegations raised by plaintiffs'
16 counsel. The burden or expense of the proposed discovery does not outweigh the likely
17 benefit, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of
18 the discovery in resolving the issues. Defendant County will be severely prejudiced
19 unless it is allowed to fully examine Ms. Perez on these serious allegations, which will
20 impact the entire case. The only option offered by plaintiffs' counsel was to offer Ms.
21 Perez's affidavit in support of the allegations suggested by the cross-examination of
22 Deputy Rodriguez at his deposition and to submit it prior to the mediation. However,
23 this is not acceptable to defense counsel who would be unable to cross-examine Ms.
24 Perez.
25

4)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the County need not depose Ms. Perez

26 because it has the number of her cell telephone and plaintiffs will "soon" have
27 subpoenaed records from the hotels showing the sexual relationship between Ms. Perez
28 and Deputy Rodriguez. This assertion is ludicrous because the County still will need to
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx

Case 5:14-cv-01793-VAP-DTB Document 86 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:690

1 depose Ms. Perez about her communications and relationship with Deputy Rodriguez.
2 The records alone are not sufficient. Moreover, to date plaintiffs have not produced any
3 such records to Defendant.
4

5)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the County need not depose Ms. Perez

5 because Deputy Rodriguez should be redeposed instead. This is another ludicrous


6 assertion on its face because assuming, arguendo, that Deputy Rodriguez was
7 redeposed, the County still would need to question Ms. Perez about the questions raised
8 by plaintiffs' counsel.
9

6)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that the County had ample opportunity to

10 obtain the requested information at Ms. Perez's prior deposition. This is incorrect as
11 defense counsel just recently was notified of the serious allegations raised by plaintiffs
12 during the September 9, 2015, deposition of Defendant Deputy Rodriguez.
13

7)

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that plaintiffs were deprived of an opportunity

14 to question Deputy Rodriguez about statements he made in the internal affairs


15 investigation report which was not produced until the day after Deputy Rodriguez's
16 deposition. However, plaintiffs were aware that the report had not yet been produced
17 when they deposed Deputy Rodriguez and could have easily asked for a continuance of
18 Deputy Rodriguez's deposition date, but failed to do so.
19

Plaintiffs have failed to give a legitimate reason for not allowing the County to

20 redepose Ms. Perez about the subject matters raised in the deposition of Deputy
21 Rodriguez. Absent ex parte and expedited relief, Defendant County will suffer undue
22 prejudice in not being able to participate in a meaningful mediation on October 8, 2015,
23 without being able to first re-depose Ms. Perez about the allegations suggested by the
24 cross-examination of Deputy Rodriguez at his deposition. Accordingly, Defendant
25 respectfully requests that the Court order the redeposition of Diana Perez prior to the
26 October 8, 2015 mediation date. If the suggested date of October 6, 2015, is not
27 available, Defendant seeks an order to re-depose Ms. Perez at a time and place within
28 four weeks from the date the Order is signed, prior to the discovery cut-off date of
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx

Case 5:14-cv-01793-VAP-DTB Document 86 Filed 09/30/15 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:691

1 December 3, 2015.
2
3 2.

CONCLUSION.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant

5 the Ex Parte Application To Redepose Diana Perez.


6 DATED: September 30, 2015
7

MANNING & KASS


ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13

By:

/s/ Angela M. Powell


Eugene P. Ramirez, Esq.
Tony M. Sain, Esq.
Angela M. Powell, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\docsdata\EPR\A.P.-Perez, Diana v. Riverside 4410-50549\Pleadings\Reply to Ex Parte to ReDepose Perez.docx