Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1561 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

cwang@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

6
7
8
9
10

Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15
16
17

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

18
19
20

v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT MARICOPA
COUNTYS MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF COSTS
INCURRED

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1561 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
asegura@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

pdodson@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-5996
Facsimile: (202) 778-5996

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

alai@law.uci.edu
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

jcastillo@maldef.org
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

syoung@cov.com
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
mmorin@cov.com
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
hbyun@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

talbarran@cov.com
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
lpedley@cov.com
Rebecca A. Jacobs (Pro Hac Vice)
rjacobs@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1561 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 5

Plaintiffs respond to Maricopa Countys Motion for Judicial Notice as follows.

First, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Court may take judicial notice of the

amounts invoiced by the Monitor and the fees and nontaxable costs awarded to

Plaintiffs to date, as stated in the Courts prior orders, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 201(b). However, the Countys Exhibit A itself (as a document,

distinguished from the information summarized in it) is not a proper subject for

judicial notice. Moreover, Plaintiffs are unable to verify that Exhibit A to the

Countys motion accurately reflects the Monitors invoiced charges. Exhibit A also

contains alleged payment amounts that are in some cases different from the Billed

10

Charges. Plaintiffs are unable to verify the accuracy of the Countys summary of

11

payments, and do not believe that the payment amounts or the payment schedule

12

reflected in Exhibit A are the proper subjects of judicial notice. Accordingly, if the

13

Court is inclined to take judicial notice of the amounts invoiced by the Monitor,

14

Plaintiffs request that the Monitors actual invoices should be relied upon by the Court,

15

rather than the summary exhibit prepared by Maricopa County.

16

Second, although Plaintiffs agree that Rule 201(b) applies here, Plaintiffs renew

17

their objection, on relevance grounds, and urge the Court not to accord this material

18

any evidentiary weight. See, e.g., Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51 (1990); Milliken

19

v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 288-91 (1977); Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968

20

F.2d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 1992); Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis, Mo., 491 F.

21

Supp. 351, 357-58 (E.D. Mo. 1980), affd, 667 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs also

22

note that Defendant Maricopa County has failed to state why it believes this

23

information is relevant to the issues before the Court in the contempt hearing.

24

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of November, 2015.

25
26

By: /s/ Michelle L. Morin

27

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation

28
1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1561 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 5

Immigrants Rights Project

Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona

3
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Michelle L. Morin (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)
Rebecca A. Jacobs (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP

5
6
7
8
9
10

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1561 Filed 11/17/15 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 17, 2015 I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
caused the attached document to be served via the CM/ECF System on all counsel of
record.

6
7
/s/ Michelle L. Morin

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3