Preview
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
FlLED/ENDORSED
2 ibriscoe@mavallaw.com
3
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard APR 18 mi
Stockton, California 95207-8253
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 By:.__. H PFMELTOM
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 SeDyty Clerk
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE
11 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
12 INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE;
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; REQUEST FOR MONETARY
13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. SANCTIONS
14 Defendants. Date: May 10, 2022
15 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: 53
16 Res.: 2636452
17
18
19
20 I, John P. Briscoe, declare,
21 1. 1 am an attorney authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a
22 shareholder with Mayall Huriey P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). 1 have
23 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would
24 competently testify thereto.
25 2. In this matter, Ridge alleges that he suffered a physical disability—a cumulative
26 back and lower body injury—which he alleges was caused in part by years of duty as a highway
27 patrolman, wearing heavy personal equipment on a leather duty belt (aka Sam Brown belt).
28 Ridge alleges that Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP") denied him
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 1 of 7
reasonable accommodation by refusing to permit him to wear an external load bearing vest in
2 lieu of the duty belt. CHP has averred, in discovery, that this was not a reasonable
3 accommodation because the requested vest did not confirm to CHP's Uniform Policy, and
4 because of amorphous "safety, appearance, and operational factors". Put differently, CHP
5 contends that the external load bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation for Ridge,
6 because it is not a reasonable thing for CHP officers to wear generally. Therefore, the general
7 reasonableness of CHP's Uniform Policy, at least insofar as it forecloses all patrolmen from
8 wearing external load bearing vests, is at issue in this case.
9 3. Through extensive discovery, 1 identified Officer Erik Mallory, an employee of
10 Defendant California Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP"), as a material witness. Officer
11 Mallory's name was disclosed in unredacteddocuments produced by CHP, in which he vividly
12 conveyed his hope that CHP would allow its officers to wear external load-bearing vests, and his
13 belief that it would result in fewer lower back injuries. (He even cited Labor Code section
14 3213.2, which reflects a recognition by the State Legislature that duty belts contribute to lower
15 back impairments).
16 4. Officer Mallory's deposition proceeded on December 15, 2021. He was
17 represented at said deposition by counsel for Defendant, James Curran. At his deposition, Officer
18 Mallory testified, at length, as to CHP's policy that officers may not wear weight-bearing vests
19 (aka load-bearing vests, external load bearing vests, or external vest carriers). Officer Mallory
20 testified, inter alia, as follows:
21 Officer Mallory, in 2015, proposed to CHP that weight-bearing vests should
22 be approved as a uniform item in lieu of the traditional, leather, "Sam
23 Browne" belt. This 26-page submission included statements from himself,
24 physicians, and others, such as:
25 o "Lower back injuries are the leading cause of both short-term and
26 long-term disability in law enforcement"
27 o "The introduction of the daily use of load-bearing vests would serve to
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 2 of?
1 dramatically decrease taxpayer costs associated with back injuries"
2 o "The use of a load bearing vest transfers some of the items off the
3 service belt to the vest carrier while distributing some of the weight to
4 the officer's shoulders and not solely concentrating weight on the
5 lower levels of the spine. This will reduce forces on the lower spine
6 and prevent cumulative and repetitive trauma in the lumbar spine."
7 o The use of weight-bearing vests means that CHP officers would be
8 "less likely to have lower back surgery or routine chiropractic visits
9 for lower back issues in regards to duty belt weight trauma"
10 o The weight of CHP officer's standard equipment (worn on their belt)
11 has increased from 8 to 20 pounds. (25:22-26:3, internal exhibit GG.)
12 Though he submitted a proposal to CHP that weight-bearing vests be
13 permitted as a uniform item, he never received an official response. (8:4-7.)
14 CHP's refiisal to allow this vest for patrol officers, regardless of the
15 circumstances, was apparently attributable to the dictates of CHP's
16 Commissioner himself (8:8-22.)
17 Officer Mallory has suffered substantial back pain that he attributes to
18 wearing the standard, leather, "Sam Browne" belt with his personal equipment
19 (sidearm, radio, etc.). (7:15-11:19.)
20 Officer Mallory, pursuant to his own research (e.g., consulting with other law
21 enforcement agencies) believes that weight-bearing vests should be an
22 approved uniform item for CHP patrolmen because it would alleviate lower
23 back stress and increase officer safety and save the State money on medical
24 payouts. (12:10-14:8.)
25 As to why CHP doesn't want its officers wearing weight-bearing vests.
26 Officer Mallory heard from CHP that "it appears too tactical and doesn't look
27 like our traditional uniform." (17:3-23.)
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 3 of 7
So as to advocate for weight-bearing vests as an approved uniform item,
2 Officer Mallory and others went surveys around the state which asked (a) "in
3 the event [load-bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your own?";
4 (b) "Do you currently have back stress while wearing a duty belt?"; and (c)
5 "Do you believe [load-bearing vests] would benefit employees & the
6 department?" Of437 responses, 385 CHP officers said they would pay for
7 their own weight-bearing vests i f the opportunity was available. This was not
8 an official survey; this was Officer Mallory's "baby." He still has the survey
9 responses in his possession. (19:1-20:24.)
10 Officer Mallory believes that CHP doesn V want officers to wear weight-
11 bearing vests "just because ofthe way they look" and "[bjecause it's not
12 traditional. CHP prides itself on our tan uniform. And anything that
13 compromises that, does not align. "(31:13-33:22.)
14 A true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the deposition transcript of Officer Mallory,
15 including internal Exhibit GG, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
16 5. CHP and its attomey, James Curran, refused to produce unredacted copies of the
17 aforementioned survey responses even though, per Mr. Curran, the documents did not belong to
18 CHP but to Officer Mallory. As such, 1 was forced to file a motion to compel production of those
19 documents. Only after filing that motion did CHP and Mr. Curran agree to produce those
20 documents and that, "confidential" designation notwithstanding, 1 would not be required to file
21 those documents under seal. (The motion was withdrawn per agreement of counsel.) True and
22 correct copies of these survey responses are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As can be seen, most
23 of the responding officers responded affirmatively to the following questions:
24 "In the event [load bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your
25 own?"
26 - "Do you currently have back stress while wearing a duty belt?"
27
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 4 of7
"Do you believe [approval of load bearing vests] would benefit employees
2 and the Department?"
3 6. However, the produced documents provide no contact information for any of the
4 officers who elected to respond to this unofficial survey. As such, on February 28, 2022 1 caused
5 to be served Special Interrogatories, Set Three, a true and correct copy of which is attached
6 hereto as Exhibit 3. Interrogatory No. 10 seeks the names and contact information for all persons
7 who responded to Officer Mallory's unofficial survey. Interrogatory No. 9 seeks the names and
8 contact information for all officers who, in the past twenty years, told CHP's Uniform
9 Committee that extemal load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item for CHP patrol
10 officers.
11 7. On or around March 29, 2022, 1 received CHP's responses to Special
12 Interrogatories, Set Three, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
13 Immediately after reviewing the interrogatory responses, 1 emailed Mr. Curran to set up a call to
14 discuss the responses.
15 8. On March 31, 2022,1 spoke with Mr. Curran regarding the subject discovery
16 responses. 1 explained, in detail, our contention that the officers who responded to the unofficial
17 survey were witnesses on a relevant matter and thus their contact information was discoverable. I
18 set forth my position that we were not willing to settle for a small "sampling" of responsive
19 officers, nor for only their work contact information. 1 also explained that, with regard to Special
20 Interrogatory No. 9, CHP had answered evasively (only disclosing those officers who presented
21 load bearing vest prototypes to the Uniform Committee). I also offered to stipulate to a further,
22 formal protective order to the effect that (1)1 would not use names or contact information
23 outside of this litigation and (2) I would not file personal contact information in the public
24 record. Mr. Curran said he would get back to me.
25 9. On April 5, 2022,1 received an email from Mr. Curran. Despite our phone call,
26 Mr. Curran again "offered" nothing more than a "sampling" of those officers that voluntarily
27 responded to the unofficial survey, and continued to refuse to provide their personal contact
28
Declaration of John. P. Briscoe in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 5 of?
information. He also maintained that CHP would not provide personal contact information for
2 officers who told the Uniform Committee that load bearing vests should be an approved item. 1
3 replied the next day that we would file a motion to compel, as CHP and Mr. Curran appeared to
4 be doing little more than concealing witness information and he had apparently disregarded my
5 offer of a further protective order.
6 10. On April 6, 2022, 1 received another email from Mr. Curran, in which he again
7 offered nothing more than a sampling of responsive officers {20 out of an estimated 519) and
8 would provide their work contact information only. He also wrote that CHP "simply is not
9 legally allowed to divulge the personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, aliases, or
10 residential addresses of its officers." I replied that same day and, again, declined his proposal. 1
11 also asked which law prohibited disclosure of the sought contact information. As of the signing
12 of this declaration, Mr. Curran has not replied.
13 11. A true and correct copy of the aforementioned email chain is attached hereto as
14 Exhibit 5.
15 12. In this matter, for purposes of this motion only, the appropriate hourly rate for an
16 associate attorney is $400 per hour, as guided by previous sanctions awarded by courts of
17 Califomia in the granting of such motions.
18 13. The total time which 1 spent reviewing the subject interrogatory responses,
19 corresponding and speaking with James Curran regarding this discovery dispute, conducting
20 research and analysis germane to this Motion, and drafting the Notice of this Motion, the
21 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Proposed Order, the Separate Statement, and this
22 Declaration (and compiling exhibits thereto) is in excess of nine hours. (1 can produce
23 contemporaneously-kept billing records upon request.) I anticipate that reviewing, analyzing,
24 and replying to the opposition to this Motion will take approximately three hours, and that
25 preparing for and appearing for a hearing on this motion will take approximately one hour.
26
27
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 6 of 7
14. Pursuant to sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.300 ofthe Code of Civil
2 Procedure, 1 request monetary sanctions against Defendant California Highway Patrol and James
3 Curran, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,200.
4 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the
5 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this seventh day of April, 2022, in Lodi, California.
6
7
JOHN P. BRISCOE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT 1
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 .SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
'3 pOo
.4
DAVID RIDGE', an i n d i v i d u a l ,
.5
Plaintiff,
6
vs . Case No: 34-2019-00265393
7
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
:8 PATROL;; and DOES 1-100.,
incius.iy.e'.
;9:
Defendants;
10
11.
12 VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF ERIK MALLORY
13 Wednesday, December 15, 2021
14' 10:08 a..m.-
15
16
17 TAKEN VIA. VIDEOCONFERENCE
18
19
2:0
•2-1
22'
23;
24-
25 REPORTED .BY: Andrene G a t t i , CSR 13851
VVWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposifion of, Erik Mallory 12/15/2G21
1 APPEARANCES:
2 FOR PLAINTIFF;
3 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
BY: JOHN BRISCOE,, ATTORNEY AT LAW
4 2.453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Second F l o o r
S t o c k t o n , C a l i f o r n i a 95207.-8253
5. P: 209:-477-38.33
F:. 2 09-473-4818
6 Jbr i s c oe®may a 11 a w-,-c om;
-7 FOR DEFENDANT:
8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BY: JAMES CURRAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
9 1300 I S t r e e t , S u i t e 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
;ib P: 916-210-6113
F: 916-324-5567
11 James.CurranOdoj.ca.gpv
12
13,
14;
15
1.6
17
.18
19
20 ALSO PRESENT:.
21 Andrene G a t t i - Reporter
22;
23:
2A.
.2:5
CALpEP
wwVy/.^LbEP.toM
IDepbisitidri of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2 BY PAGE
3' Mr. B r i s c o e 4
4 Mir. Curran 37
5 oOo
6- INDEX OF EXHIBITS
7- EXHIBIT PAGE
e. E x h i b i t GG 25
E x h i b i t HH 27
10 Exhibit I I 29
11 :Exhibit J J 36
12 OOO---
;i3
14
15
16
17
18.
19'
20
21
22
23
.24
25
CALPEP
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deppsitipn of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15:, 2021/. VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE
2 10 : 08. a.m.
3 *. * *
4; ERIK MALLORY,
5 •the deponent h e r e i n , having been sworn .by t h e d e p o s i t i o n
6 o f f i c e r , testiiEie;d as follows-:
7 THE WITNESS: Yes., ma'am.
8
?
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY ;MR.. BRISCOE:
12 Q. Good morning.;, O f f i c e r M a l l o r y ;
13 A, Good morning.
14 ,Q. And one does address ybu as O f f i c e r Mallory,-
15 correct?
16 A. C o r r e c t .
17 Q. Okay; My name i s John B r i s c o e , I rispresent David
18 Ridge i n a l a w s u i t t h a t he has b r o u g h t against. C a l i f o r n i a
.19 Highway P a t r o l .
'20 You are employed w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ;
21, correct?
22. A., Yes, s i r .
23 Q:. .Okay, And what I s your p o s i t i o n ?
.24 ,A. I'm an o f f i c e r and a p i l o t .
25 Q. Do you have, any o t h e r o f f i c i a l t i t l e - o r rank w i t h
WWW.CAL
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol.?
2 A,. NO;..
3' ,Q. Have you, had your deposition taken before?
4 ,A. I have not i n t h i s respect,, I've t e s t i f i e d i n
5 court. But r, . .
6 Q. Understood.
7 But you've never sat f o r a deposition, though;
8 correct?
9 A. Correct.
.10 Q,. Understood.
11 ;DO you f e e l that you adequately understand the
i?. procedure?
13; A. I f e e l so, yes...-
14 Q... Okay., You under.s.tand t h a t you're under oath under
15 penalty of p e r j u r y ; correct?
.16 A. Yes.
,17 Q. You understand that's the same oath that you would
IB: take . i f you. were t e s t i f y i n g i n open court; correct?-
19. A. Yes.
20 Q". And f o r the duration, of the depoaition, when I say
21 "CHP," I w i l l mean C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l , you
22 understand t h a t ; correct?
,2-3 A.. Yes .
:24 Q. How l o n g have you. been etriploy.ed w i t h CHP?
25 A. Since 2006.
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Depositioli of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 Q. And have you been a p i l o t t h a t e n t i r e time?
2 A. No.
3' Q. How long have you been a p i l o t , w i t h CHP?
4 A. About two years.
•5: •Q. And what were you doing b e f o r e t h a t ?
.6: A.. Working t h e road.
7 Q. And I assume t h a t means d r i v i n g a c r u i s e r on
8 highways, e n f o r c i n g the v e h i c l e ^ code and o t h e r la:ws?
9 .A. Correct..
10 Q. Were you i n a c a r o r on a motorcycle?
11 A,. I n a car .
12 Q. And now you f l . y , I'm assuming, a h e l i c o p t e r ?
13; A. Correct-
14 Q. Do you f l y a f i x e d winged a i r c r a f t , too?
15 A. P r i v a t e l y , but: h o t f o r CHP.
1:6 Q; Okay. So i f I understand c o r r e c t l y , f r o m 2006 up
:1.?' u : h t i l r o u g h l y two years a;gp; you were on the; road as a
1.8 highway patrolman; .correct?
19: A. C o r r e c t .
20 ;Q. Have you done a n y t h i n g t o prepare f o r today's
21 deposition?
2-2 A. I reviewed t h e amended d e p o s i t i o n and went over my
23 ,load-bearing vest, p r o p o s a l t h a t I had s u b m i t t e d t o t h e
24 department.
25 Q. And t h a t p r o p o s a l you s u b m i t t e d , when was t h a t ?
CALPEP
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Depbsitipn of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1. MR. CTJRRAN-: Vague.. When d i d he. Submit, i t ?
2 MR. BRISCOE: Correct.
'3 THE WITNESS: X finished, i t i n 2,015.
.4' MR. BRISCOE: Q. And that was a w r i t t e n proposal?
5' A. Correct.
:.6.: Q... And d i d you submit tha't t o the uniform committee;?
7 A... .1 :submit'ted . i t through the channels t o the: uniform
8 icommifctee:,. as well as ocGupatlpnal ;safety.
9 Q. Do you know i f -- w e l l , s t r i k e t h a t ;
10 So I want t o make sure I understand, when we t a l k
11 about weight-bearing vests or load-bearing vests or
12.:' 'weight-distributing V(ss,l:;s„. my understanding i"s that we are
13 t a l k i n g ;abpUt| a type of t a c t i c a l vest that one wears: oyer
14 •thefr shirt; br jacket , or' whatever., t o which, t h e i r
standard equipment i s attached, meaning.- you know, side
i£ ^rm. radio.-, pepper spray, maybe taser, handcuffs, things
of t h a t nature; i s that-vourunderstanding as well?
ia A. Correct.
jj O'. Beca;ui3e otherwise:; highway patrolmen weay the Sam
Browne -belt: which c a r r i e s a l l t h e i r equipment; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 0. .And when you were a patrolman on the road, you
,11 wore, the Sam^ Browne b e l t ; correct?
,24 A. Yes.
•25.. 0. What wa^ the r e s u l t of your submitted- proposal?
7
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of ErikMallory 12/15/2021
1, A. I n about 2017. I was i n v i t e d t o attend a uniform
.2 committee meeting where I presented i t t o the uniform
,1. " committee: -- do ybu want the whole timeline?
•i Q. Well, l e t me .ask you t h i s : Your proposal., was i t
rejected?
A. I never received an o f f i c i a l confirmation or
• 7
1
rejection.
0. Okay• Did you receive any kind of u n o f f i c i a l
response, d i d anybody t e l l yoxi what the response would be
IQ. or' was t o .your proppsai?
.•li A. So a f t e r numerous meetings- w i t h the uniform
.ia committee and occupational safety, i t was forwarded t o the
il commissioner's o f f i c e . And I received an u n o f f i c i a l
ii- :notiGe. from ah informal conversation I had w i t h someone.
i5 that attended a union reb meeting where- Warren Stanley,
the commissioner .at -the time, b a s i c a l l y addressed the
17, audience. saying that the load-bearing vest would not: be
ia, approved during h i s time aa commissioner. But I never
i9 received anything o f f i c i a l , i f i t was r e j e c t e d and f o r
•m why'-
•21 O. What i s Commissioner Stanley's f i r s t .name?
m- A.. Warren.
21, 0. And i f I understand you c o r r e c t l y , you were not
2i present yourself, personally., at aqy meeting or s i m i l a r
25 t h i n g where- Commissioner Stanley made these remarks t h a t
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
i :yoU' -jugt, described?
-2c A-. That' s- correct,. I was not preserit.
"i. O'. Who relayed that vou; who d i d you hear that from?
,A A. Irdon't remember. I t was j u s t a l i g h t
conversation I had with somebody a t one time w i t h i n the
3.-
i, 0. Okay.- And you don'''t remember who that person was?
8 •h ., -.X dori ' t -,
0; Did anybody ever give you any kind of explanation
:iO: •ap t o why your proposal was not accepted?
ii :A- NO.
il ;Q. Do you have • any understanding ais t o why your
,iS proposal was nPt accepted?"
14: A.- No.
•15: 0. Your p r o p o s a l tha,t. you s u b m i t t e d , d i d you pr_epare
,i£: • i t yourself?
12' A. My wife and I d i d .
ia 0-. What's your wife's name?':
A. Kadee.-
M 0. And, that's K-a-d-e-e?
21 A. YQS^
,22 0.. ^And i s her l a s t name- Mallory?-
.21^ A. Ygs;
• 2A. 0. And vou two are, l e g a l l y married. I 'assume?-
A. Yea.
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik;Mallory 12/15/2021
i, Q. How long .have you, been married?
2 .A. Ten years..
0. I s she also w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol?
± h : NP.^
5- O. Was she w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol?
6 -A, No-
•1 g, l:s^ ahe J,h ,.l.avL„6ii£srsMLeafc?
I A. JNO-
•S. Q. Has- she ever been i n law enforcement?
M A. NQ.
il Q.-. What i s her occupation?
12 A. Stay-at-home wife.
.12 Q,-: I s there any p a r t i c u l a r reason that she assisted
ii -you i n preparing^ the proppsal?
15, A. She knows how much i t rpeana t o .^me and she would
i&. iriib my back when i t h u r t f r o m s t r e s s arid she, j u s t supports
12 lite..
iai O. Okay- So you wore the Sam Browne b e l t foy q u i t e a
ia- while; correct?
20 .An Yes.
.M. 0. Now, when you are on the road wearing the Sam
22, Browne b e l t . are vou' working f ive days a week?
•f^. I t has varied because of- d i f f e r e n t s h i f t s . I
21 started out, on 8-^hour s h i f t s i n Castro Valley and we went
to i2-hour s h i f t s and then t o 9-hour s h i f t s , so i t ' s
10
WWWCALDEP.GOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
,i, varied.
2 0. On average, how many hours p e r week would you work
1 a,s a highway p^atrolman wearing t h e Sam Browne b e l t ?
•± MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vaaue as t o time.
•£ MR. BRISCOE: Q. J u s t over t h e d u r a t i o n , a rough
average.
1- Av I guess' 4O r
0; Okay•• And so i f I hear you c o r r e c t l y , wearing t h e
S.. Same Browne b e l t w i t h t h e equipment, you b e l i e v e that
ifl , c o n t r i b u t e d t o ^a' ' l o t o f p a i n and d i s c o m f o r t on your bapk?
ii A. . Oh my lower back.- yes .
.0-. And I assume well, strike that.
Did you c o n s u l t w i t h any p h y s i c i a n a t any time
.14, r e l a t e d t o t h a t lower back pain?
pL. Not mine, no.
i£ Q. B u t . i t was-your b e l i e f t h a t wearing t h e b e l t w i t h
the-'equipment' c d h t r i b u t e d t o vour lower back p a i n ;
ia, correct?
la- A. I would say yes.
20 And your l a s t q u e s t i o n , I do b e l i e v e I saw a -^ what
21 dp ypu c a l l them? Not p h y s i c a l therapy, a c h i r o p r a c t o r t o
22;: get ray-back worked ph.. But i t made i t worse, so I. d i d n ' t
2'3 .go back.
24 Q. Understood;.
25 And t h i s c h i r o p r a c t o r , d i d he o r she express an
CALPEP 11
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Ma.llory 12/15/2021
1 ppiriibn as t o what was causing your lower back pain?
2. A. No.
3, Q,.; Has any physician or any medical professional
4' expressed an opinion t o you as t o what wa:s causing t h a t
5 lower back pain?
6 A. Not: my lower back pain, np i
7 Q. Okay. Have. yoU ever f i l e d a workers' compensation
8 ciaira r e l a t e d t o the lower back pain?
9 A. No.
.0. DP -you believe .that weight-bearing vests should be
ii ari-api3'roved item f o r the uniform f o r CHP patrolmen?
i2: MR. CURRAN; ^Objection. Calls 'for an improper
il dpinioh testimony and perhaps a l e g a l conclusion.
14 And I could not hear the question, there, were' parts
iS^ •of- i t i n the middle that I t h i n k I misoed. May I ask the
,i£ reporter t o read i t back, please?
:i2 •(Reporter read back, question.)
la, :MR. BRISCOE: ,0. You can answer, s i r .
ii.. A. I do believe so. yes.
10 Q. And why i s that?
21 MR. CURRAN: Obiection. Ca:ils f o r an improper
22^ opinion testimony, perhaps a l e g a l conclusion. Vague and
23.' ambiguous.
^ Please answer;
.25.. THE. WITNESS: I believe through my research, that
CALPEP 12
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 d i s t r i b u t i n g the weight, the required gear from the b e l t
,2, .to- a load-bearing vest would a l l e v i a t e lower back stress
' i. and increase o f f i c e r safety and save the: State money on
•medi'cai :pavQuts. basieal-ly.;
MR. BRiSCOE-:. 0.. And generally, - what research have
s. you done?
1 A. So i n 2015 the, proposal was f i n i s h e d . Prior t o
a t h a t , we- had, contacted numerous law enforcement agencies-..
:numerous medical professionals, and .spoke w i t h the
ia manufacturer of a vest company. And through a l l of t h a t
ii research, that is-what- I formulated my- opinions oh.
12 0. And-when you say — I believe you said vou
13 consulted w i t h other law enforcement agencies; i s t h a t
correct?,
•23:. A'. YQS .
ie 0>. Which ,agehcies?-
12 •A. .Primarily A u s t r a l i a n p o l i c e force, they went t o an
la; external .carrier t o d i s t r i b u t e the weight of: t h e i r gear.
ia, And they have, a p o l i c e force of — roughly s i m i l a r t o
ours, severa;! thous'a;n;d.-'and'they- d i d a very b i g write-up.
21 as f a r as the research and planningi p u b l i c perception.
22 ;meidiGai payout savings-.
22: And I've spoken, w i t h l o c a l p o l i c e departments that
24 have gone t o the load-bearing vests, and they say t h a t
as they l i k e them. They sav t h e i r back stress i s reduced.
13
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
.1 MR. CURRAN; I ' l l reserve my r i g h t on CHP's behalf
2 tp, .tnoye t o s t r i k e part of the witness:'s' angler as
1; nonresporis i v e .
4 MR. BRISCOE: 0-. Which l o c a l agencies d i d you
speak or correspdnd with?
a A. Yreka Police Department and Siskiyou County
2 S h e r i f f 's o f f i c e . tha;t was where I was assigned f o r the
t last: ten years p r i o r t o coming t o a i r opts.
9' Q., Prior t o , I ' m :sorry?
10 A. Prior t p coming, t o the a v i a t i o n u n i t .
11 Q. And the a v i a t i o n u n i t i s i n Redding?
.12 A. Correct-
13 Q. So when you^ say that's where yoU were previously,
14' you, mean t h a t you were i n the CHP,,, assigned w i t h i n
15': Siskiyou County?
IS- A.- Correct.
17 Q;i A l l r i g h t . And s.b i t . i a your understanding that
i8 both Yreka Police Department and .Siskiyou County S h e r i f f ' s
:i9. Dep.a'rtmfent both used these external vest carriers'?
2:0 A. They d i d .
21 :Q; Okay. And when we say "external vest c a r r i e r , " we
22: are talki-ng about the same, thing as a load-bearing vest or
•2i3' the weight-bear.irig vest; correct?
24: A. Correct.
25 Q. .They're: a l l interchangable terms, t o your
14
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 understaxLd'irig?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Was there a certain, person at the Yreka Police
4 Department that you spoke w i t h about vest carriers?
5 A.: Not o f f i c i a l l y , j u s t i n passing.
6 Q;. Well, do you remember the name o f any person that
1 yb'U;.spoke ^with, i f ^ only i n ;pas_sing?:
:8 A.. Probably Cash Hasemeyer.
Q;.. F i r s t name i s Gash?-
10 A. Cash.
11 Q, e-a-s-h?
.12 A. Either C or K.
13 :Q. What's that l a s t name?
14 A. Hasemeyer, H-a-s-e-m-e-y-e-r.
15' Q. And i s that pernon s t i l l with the Yreka Police
16: Departmient?
17 A. I believe so.
18: 0;. :'DO you knpw>: is; t h i s ,a man?
19: A. I'.m sorry,, can. you ;repeat?
20 Q. This i s a man?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. DO you know that person's rank or t i t l e ?
23 •A. He was an. pfficfer while I was there.,
^2,4 Q. Arid what d i d Mr. Hasemeyer t e l l ypu w i t h regard t o
25 vest carriers'?
CALPEP 15
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
i A. That he l i k e d wearing : i t b e t t e r t h a n a b e l t .
2 Q. Okay. Have you. exchanged any t e x t o r e-mails w i t h
3 Mr.; Hasemeyer .regarding v e s t c a r r i e r s ?
4 A, No.
5 Q. Who a;t S i s k i y o u County S h e r i f f ' s Department d i d
6 you speak o r correspond w i t h about v e s t c a r r i e r s ?
1 A. I'm t r y i n g .to remember his' name. i t eludes, me,
fi I 'm^ s o r r y .
9 .Q. Okay. When i t . comes t o A u s t r a l i a ' s police
10' f o r c e -- i s t h i s a f e d e r a l ;pplice f o r c e , to. your
11 understanding?
12 A. I b e l i e v e so.
13' Q. Okay. D i d yoU ever speak o r correspond w i t h
:i,4' 'anybody a t t h a t agency,, s p e c i f i c a l l y ; 'with r e g a r d t o v e s t
15 carriers?
16 A. Yes. .
17 ;Q'. Do you know who ybu spoke w i t h ?
18- A.- I would have: to. go .back on my e-mails, . i t ' s been
19 •close tp. e i g h t t o t e n years .
20 Q:. Okay ; -So have ,;y6u -- y6,u, have exchanged some
.21 e-raaii w i t h some member- o f t h i s A u s t r a l i a p o l i c e f o r c e ?
22 A. Yes.
•23 Q. DP you s t i l l have those e-mails?
24 A . I 'm n o t sure..
25' .Q;. :Okay. You have: riot looked- f o r those e-mails
16
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition; of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
•1 recently; correct?
2 A. I have not looked f o r them recently.
1 O. Has anybody ever given you what vou think i s a
1^ good explanation as t o why iaw enforcement o f f i c e r s should
a- not wear vest carriers?
a MR. CURRAN: Qb-iection. Vague arid ambiguous.
2, ,Calls f o r improper opiriion testimony. Seeks information
a outside the scope of discovery.
Please answer.
IQ THE WITNESS; I've heard people say t h a t i t ' s going
il. to but stress ori your shoulders' arid your upper back, and
.12 I've heard- people say that the grab handle i n the back of
13 the c a r r i e r could be grabbed by criminals i n a f i g h t ,
,14 Are you asking about how highway p a t r o l . why they
IS say Lhey,, don't- want, i t also?
ii MR. BRISCOE: Sure.
12 A'. I've' heard from CHP that i t appears too t a c t i c a l
la; and doesn-'t look l i k e our t r a d i t i o n a l uriiform.
p.. Okav. And none of these arguments have changed
2o; •your opinion. thoUgh; correct?
.21 ^MR. CURRAN: Obiection. Vague- and ambiguous.
22- Calls f o r improper opiriion testimony. Legal conclusion.
r2a, THE WITNESS;, No.'
'24 MR. CURRAN: And sorry t o i n t e r r u p t , I was too busy
25 taking notes. I heard the witness's response, which was
,1.7
WWWCALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 no,, I would ask t h a t the r e p o r t e r read .back the response
2 t o the; q u e s t i o n before- the l a s t q u e s t i b r i , please.
3 MR'. BRISCOE: Cburisel,. I ' m not going t o have you
4 d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r what t o do. We are doing a
5 d e p o s i t i o n here, and - - y o u kriow, I can't keep doing t h i s ,
6. so ,1 hope you understand that.
7 MR. CURRAN:' No, 1 dori't understand t h a t . IfI
8' :need' a response ;read back, I'm a s k i n g --
9 (Unrepbrtable c r o s s t a l k ; )
10 MR. BRISCbE: YoU can take notes, b u t I'm not g o i n g
li to* have her s t o p p i n g my examination and r e a d i n g back every
1.2 gUesti.ori and .answer' a t your whim.:
13, MR. CURRAN': I understand t h a t . Counsel. Calm
i4. dovm,. I t ' s riot g o i n g t o be :every g u e s t i o r i . I f ' I need t:he
15: r e p o r t e r t o :read back a .response, as you know from many
16: years o f experierice., t h a t ' s my r i g h t . 'You're. w a s t i n g t i m e
17 'by i n s t r u c t i n g ' a simple e f f p r t .
18 I would, agairi, r e s p e c t f u l l y request t h a t the; :court
i'9 r e p o r t e r reiad back the second t o 'the l a s t response.,
:2'0 MR'. BR;ISCdE': Okay. W e l l , I'm a s k i n g her not t o .
,21 MR. CURRAN: I woUld a g a i n ask t h e r e p o r t e r t o do
22, i t , please.. I t w i l l take teri secorids.
23: MR. BRISCOE: Go ahead. I n d u l g e t h e man,
24; (Reporter read, back q u e s t i o n :an.d answer.):
,2'5. MR..OTRRAN::Thank you.- Go ahead, Counsel.
.18
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 1.2/15/2021
,i MR; BRISCOE: Do VOU know o f any c o l l e a g u e s ,
2 any o t h e r person i n t h e CHP. t h a t shares your o p i n i o n t h a t
'.1,. v e s t c a r r i e r s should be an, approved i t e m f o r wear?
.4. MR. CURRAN:: Objection.. Improper opinion:
1 :testimony. Legal coriciu'sion.
6 THE WITNESS: W i t h our' proposal-. we- t r i e d t o send
surveys around t h e S t a t e t o see i f o f f i c e r s would p r e f e r
2 ^or purchase,- t h e i r own. And t h e numbers a r e i n my
proposa!!.. b u t we r e c e i v e d a c o r i s i d e r a b l e amount o f people:
1 t h a t do share my o p i r i i o n t h a t -would purchase arid :wear:
la.:
t h e i r own., i f they were g i v e r i t h e o p p o r t u n i t y .
•ii:
MR. BRISCOE; 0- Do vou know how many o t h e r
-ll o f f i c e r s responded i n t h a t f a s h i o n ?
ii A. - I can check t h e proposal., i f you would l i k e .
•la Q; Yea.'please.
i£ A. Okay. So - We;, r e c e i v e d 437 responses . And: p f those
,11, 437.- 3 85; s t a t e d t h e y would, purchase t h e i r own i f t h e
la o p p o r t u n i t v was a v a i l a b l e .
11 .0. So surveys were- s e n t o u t ; c o r r e c t ?
2a A; I sent surveys W i t h a member o f t h e - r t h e r e p ,
21. l i k e a r e p member', he was supposed t o dispeirse: them t o
22 everyone. They d i d n ' t make i t t o everyone .- b u t those were
23- the ones t h a t I r e c e i v e d back.
21 0. When you say "rep member." what do you mean?
25: A. So CHP has a u n i o n r e p . I sent him w i t h t h e
19
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 surveys t o hand out, assuming that every o f f i c e had a rep,
2 meeting or a rep person there..
2 O. y^hat's. the name of t h i s s p e c i f i c person?
4 A-. Oh. gosh.. I believe i t would have, been O f f i c e r
5, 'Chilton.
6 O. Do. you know that person's f i r s t name?
2 A. Jason.
a iO; I s - O f f i c e r Chilton s t i l l w i t h CHP?
1 A; I 'm not sure., He was i n Yrek;a.
ia O. Now, the surveys that were- sent out, was t h i s your
,li idea?
,12' A. Yes.:
11 0. And you personally -- s t r i k e t h a t .
•ii. ^So t h i s was not an o f f i c i a l CHP survey, i f I
'ia.. linr^erstand. t h i s was kind of your baby.: more or less?
A. Correct.
12. ,0. Okay. And d i d vou yourself mail out these
la. surveys?
.19; A... I sent, a stack of them :With the rep f o r our o f f i c e
.2a: to take t o the- union, meeting' to. harid oUt. I d i d not mail
21 them..
tl 0. Do you ha-ve the-actual responses i n your
23 pbssession?
,24 A. Yes.
25 Have ,ybu turned those ;over t o CHP's attorneys i n
CALPEP 20
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 t h i s matter?
2 • A. No.
•3 Q. Are those responses: on, your persona!!, computer?
,4 ,A. No.
5 Q.. where are the responses specifically?
6 A. ;in a f i l e f o l d e r . They are paper.
7 Q. Okay. UnderstPod.
8' .:And are these -- s t r i k e t h a t .
9 Are you t e s t i f y i n g from an o f f i c e r i g h t now?
l'b> A. Yiss;
11. Q. .Are those responses i n the v e r y same o f f i c e ?
12 A., Yes.
13 Q . I ',m going t o ask you t o preserve those and
14 h b i j e f u l l y ' l .can get them rfrom you, s h o r t l y ; okay?
15 A. That'.q f i r i e .
16 Q. I''-m going' t o share a document, i t '.s a l r e a d y been,
;i7 marked E x h i b i t FF. Bear w i t h me, please.
18; This i s E x h i b i t FF, are you a b l e t o see the document
19 dri the screen?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q.. Okay. So f o r the: r e c o r d -- excuse me, t h i s has
22 been: marked DiD, "D" as i n dog.. "D" as i n dog. E x h i b i t DD
-23 i s a 57-page e x h i b i t , and I'm g o i n g t o s c r o l l down.
24 Okay. So we are on Page CHP00359, which i s the-
:25 2'bth :page' of E x h i b i t DD. ThiS; i s an e-mail that- you sent
21
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/1,5/2021
1 pn :Septemb,er 14th, 2021;; correct?'
'2; A. Yes.
'3 Q. And d i d you prepare t h i s e-mail on your own?
4 A. Yes.
5 Can you s c r o l l dPwn t o 'make sure t h e r e s t o f t h e
6 e,-mail. . .
7 Q. Sure.. And i f ypu want, you can review t h i s
8 e-mail, j u s t t e l l me when you're: ready t o proceed;
9 A. That's f i n e . Thank you.
ro 'Q. Would you say ypu s t a n d by e v e r y t h i n g you Wrote i n
11-, t h i s e-mail?
i? MR, CURRAN;!: Obje.Ctipn. Compound:. Improper
13 ;opiriiori testimony.. Vague and ambiguous.
d4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I s t a n d by t h a t .e-mail.
15 MR. BRISCOK: Q. Now,
Preview
MAYALL HURLEY P.C. JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) FlLED/ENDORSED 2 ibriscoe@mavallaw.com 3 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard APR 18 mi Stockton, California 95207-8253 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 By:.__. H PFMELTOM Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 SeDyty Clerk 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE 11 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 12 INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE; THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; REQUEST FOR MONETARY 13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. SANCTIONS 14 Defendants. Date: May 10, 2022 15 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 53 16 Res.: 2636452 17 18 19 20 I, John P. Briscoe, declare, 21 1. 1 am an attorney authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a 22 shareholder with Mayall Huriey P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). 1 have 23 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would 24 competently testify thereto. 25 2. In this matter, Ridge alleges that he suffered a physical disability—a cumulative 26 back and lower body injury—which he alleges was caused in part by years of duty as a highway 27 patrolman, wearing heavy personal equipment on a leather duty belt (aka Sam Brown belt). 28 Ridge alleges that Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP") denied him Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 1 of 7 reasonable accommodation by refusing to permit him to wear an external load bearing vest in 2 lieu of the duty belt. CHP has averred, in discovery, that this was not a reasonable 3 accommodation because the requested vest did not confirm to CHP's Uniform Policy, and 4 because of amorphous "safety, appearance, and operational factors". Put differently, CHP 5 contends that the external load bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation for Ridge, 6 because it is not a reasonable thing for CHP officers to wear generally. Therefore, the general 7 reasonableness of CHP's Uniform Policy, at least insofar as it forecloses all patrolmen from 8 wearing external load bearing vests, is at issue in this case. 9 3. Through extensive discovery, 1 identified Officer Erik Mallory, an employee of 10 Defendant California Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP"), as a material witness. Officer 11 Mallory's name was disclosed in unredacteddocuments produced by CHP, in which he vividly 12 conveyed his hope that CHP would allow its officers to wear external load-bearing vests, and his 13 belief that it would result in fewer lower back injuries. (He even cited Labor Code section 14 3213.2, which reflects a recognition by the State Legislature that duty belts contribute to lower 15 back impairments). 16 4. Officer Mallory's deposition proceeded on December 15, 2021. He was 17 represented at said deposition by counsel for Defendant, James Curran. At his deposition, Officer 18 Mallory testified, at length, as to CHP's policy that officers may not wear weight-bearing vests 19 (aka load-bearing vests, external load bearing vests, or external vest carriers). Officer Mallory 20 testified, inter alia, as follows: 21 Officer Mallory, in 2015, proposed to CHP that weight-bearing vests should 22 be approved as a uniform item in lieu of the traditional, leather, "Sam 23 Browne" belt. This 26-page submission included statements from himself, 24 physicians, and others, such as: 25 o "Lower back injuries are the leading cause of both short-term and 26 long-term disability in law enforcement" 27 o "The introduction of the daily use of load-bearing vests would serve to 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 2 of? 1 dramatically decrease taxpayer costs associated with back injuries" 2 o "The use of a load bearing vest transfers some of the items off the 3 service belt to the vest carrier while distributing some of the weight to 4 the officer's shoulders and not solely concentrating weight on the 5 lower levels of the spine. This will reduce forces on the lower spine 6 and prevent cumulative and repetitive trauma in the lumbar spine." 7 o The use of weight-bearing vests means that CHP officers would be 8 "less likely to have lower back surgery or routine chiropractic visits 9 for lower back issues in regards to duty belt weight trauma" 10 o The weight of CHP officer's standard equipment (worn on their belt) 11 has increased from 8 to 20 pounds. (25:22-26:3, internal exhibit GG.) 12 Though he submitted a proposal to CHP that weight-bearing vests be 13 permitted as a uniform item, he never received an official response. (8:4-7.) 14 CHP's refiisal to allow this vest for patrol officers, regardless of the 15 circumstances, was apparently attributable to the dictates of CHP's 16 Commissioner himself (8:8-22.) 17 Officer Mallory has suffered substantial back pain that he attributes to 18 wearing the standard, leather, "Sam Browne" belt with his personal equipment 19 (sidearm, radio, etc.). (7:15-11:19.) 20 Officer Mallory, pursuant to his own research (e.g., consulting with other law 21 enforcement agencies) believes that weight-bearing vests should be an 22 approved uniform item for CHP patrolmen because it would alleviate lower 23 back stress and increase officer safety and save the State money on medical 24 payouts. (12:10-14:8.) 25 As to why CHP doesn't want its officers wearing weight-bearing vests. 26 Officer Mallory heard from CHP that "it appears too tactical and doesn't look 27 like our traditional uniform." (17:3-23.) 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 3 of 7 So as to advocate for weight-bearing vests as an approved uniform item, 2 Officer Mallory and others went surveys around the state which asked (a) "in 3 the event [load-bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your own?"; 4 (b) "Do you currently have back stress while wearing a duty belt?"; and (c) 5 "Do you believe [load-bearing vests] would benefit employees & the 6 department?" Of437 responses, 385 CHP officers said they would pay for 7 their own weight-bearing vests i f the opportunity was available. This was not 8 an official survey; this was Officer Mallory's "baby." He still has the survey 9 responses in his possession. (19:1-20:24.) 10 Officer Mallory believes that CHP doesn V want officers to wear weight- 11 bearing vests "just because ofthe way they look" and "[bjecause it's not 12 traditional. CHP prides itself on our tan uniform. And anything that 13 compromises that, does not align. "(31:13-33:22.) 14 A true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the deposition transcript of Officer Mallory, 15 including internal Exhibit GG, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 16 5. CHP and its attomey, James Curran, refused to produce unredacted copies of the 17 aforementioned survey responses even though, per Mr. Curran, the documents did not belong to 18 CHP but to Officer Mallory. As such, 1 was forced to file a motion to compel production of those 19 documents. Only after filing that motion did CHP and Mr. Curran agree to produce those 20 documents and that, "confidential" designation notwithstanding, 1 would not be required to file 21 those documents under seal. (The motion was withdrawn per agreement of counsel.) True and 22 correct copies of these survey responses are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As can be seen, most 23 of the responding officers responded affirmatively to the following questions: 24 "In the event [load bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your 25 own?" 26 - "Do you currently have back stress while wearing a duty belt?" 27 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 4 of7 "Do you believe [approval of load bearing vests] would benefit employees 2 and the Department?" 3 6. However, the produced documents provide no contact information for any of the 4 officers who elected to respond to this unofficial survey. As such, on February 28, 2022 1 caused 5 to be served Special Interrogatories, Set Three, a true and correct copy of which is attached 6 hereto as Exhibit 3. Interrogatory No. 10 seeks the names and contact information for all persons 7 who responded to Officer Mallory's unofficial survey. Interrogatory No. 9 seeks the names and 8 contact information for all officers who, in the past twenty years, told CHP's Uniform 9 Committee that extemal load-bearing vests should be an approved uniform item for CHP patrol 10 officers. 11 7. On or around March 29, 2022, 1 received CHP's responses to Special 12 Interrogatories, Set Three, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 13 Immediately after reviewing the interrogatory responses, 1 emailed Mr. Curran to set up a call to 14 discuss the responses. 15 8. On March 31, 2022,1 spoke with Mr. Curran regarding the subject discovery 16 responses. 1 explained, in detail, our contention that the officers who responded to the unofficial 17 survey were witnesses on a relevant matter and thus their contact information was discoverable. I 18 set forth my position that we were not willing to settle for a small "sampling" of responsive 19 officers, nor for only their work contact information. 1 also explained that, with regard to Special 20 Interrogatory No. 9, CHP had answered evasively (only disclosing those officers who presented 21 load bearing vest prototypes to the Uniform Committee). I also offered to stipulate to a further, 22 formal protective order to the effect that (1)1 would not use names or contact information 23 outside of this litigation and (2) I would not file personal contact information in the public 24 record. Mr. Curran said he would get back to me. 25 9. On April 5, 2022,1 received an email from Mr. Curran. Despite our phone call, 26 Mr. Curran again "offered" nothing more than a "sampling" of those officers that voluntarily 27 responded to the unofficial survey, and continued to refuse to provide their personal contact 28 Declaration of John. P. Briscoe in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 5 of? information. He also maintained that CHP would not provide personal contact information for 2 officers who told the Uniform Committee that load bearing vests should be an approved item. 1 3 replied the next day that we would file a motion to compel, as CHP and Mr. Curran appeared to 4 be doing little more than concealing witness information and he had apparently disregarded my 5 offer of a further protective order. 6 10. On April 6, 2022, 1 received another email from Mr. Curran, in which he again 7 offered nothing more than a sampling of responsive officers {20 out of an estimated 519) and 8 would provide their work contact information only. He also wrote that CHP "simply is not 9 legally allowed to divulge the personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, aliases, or 10 residential addresses of its officers." I replied that same day and, again, declined his proposal. 1 11 also asked which law prohibited disclosure of the sought contact information. As of the signing 12 of this declaration, Mr. Curran has not replied. 13 11. A true and correct copy of the aforementioned email chain is attached hereto as 14 Exhibit 5. 15 12. In this matter, for purposes of this motion only, the appropriate hourly rate for an 16 associate attorney is $400 per hour, as guided by previous sanctions awarded by courts of 17 Califomia in the granting of such motions. 18 13. The total time which 1 spent reviewing the subject interrogatory responses, 19 corresponding and speaking with James Curran regarding this discovery dispute, conducting 20 research and analysis germane to this Motion, and drafting the Notice of this Motion, the 21 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Proposed Order, the Separate Statement, and this 22 Declaration (and compiling exhibits thereto) is in excess of nine hours. (1 can produce 23 contemporaneously-kept billing records upon request.) I anticipate that reviewing, analyzing, 24 and replying to the opposition to this Motion will take approximately three hours, and that 25 preparing for and appearing for a hearing on this motion will take approximately one hour. 26 27 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 6 of 7 14. Pursuant to sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.300 ofthe Code of Civil 2 Procedure, 1 request monetary sanctions against Defendant California Highway Patrol and James 3 Curran, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,200. 4 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the 5 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this seventh day of April, 2022, in Lodi, California. 6 7 JOHN P. BRISCOE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe In Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Monetary Sanctions Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 1 Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 .SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO '3 pOo .4 DAVID RIDGE', an i n d i v i d u a l , .5 Plaintiff, 6 vs . Case No: 34-2019-00265393 7 THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY :8 PATROL;; and DOES 1-100., incius.iy.e'. ;9: Defendants; 10 11. 12 VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF ERIK MALLORY 13 Wednesday, December 15, 2021 14' 10:08 a..m.- 15 16 17 TAKEN VIA. VIDEOCONFERENCE 18 19 2:0 •2-1 22' 23; 24- 25 REPORTED .BY: Andrene G a t t i , CSR 13851 VVWW.CALDEP.COM Deposifion of, Erik Mallory 12/15/2G21 1 APPEARANCES: 2 FOR PLAINTIFF; 3 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. BY: JOHN BRISCOE,, ATTORNEY AT LAW 4 2.453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Second F l o o r S t o c k t o n , C a l i f o r n i a 95207.-8253 5. P: 209:-477-38.33 F:. 2 09-473-4818 6 Jbr i s c oe®may a 11 a w-,-c om; -7 FOR DEFENDANT: 8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY: JAMES CURRAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 9 1300 I S t r e e t , S u i t e 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 ;ib P: 916-210-6113 F: 916-324-5567 11 James.CurranOdoj.ca.gpv 12 13, 14; 15 1.6 17 .18 19 20 ALSO PRESENT:. 21 Andrene G a t t i - Reporter 22; 23: 2A. .2:5 CALpEP wwVy/.^LbEP.toM IDepbisitidri of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 BY PAGE 3' Mr. B r i s c o e 4 4 Mir. Curran 37 5 oOo 6- INDEX OF EXHIBITS 7- EXHIBIT PAGE e. E x h i b i t GG 25 E x h i b i t HH 27 10 Exhibit I I 29 11 :Exhibit J J 36 12 OOO--- ;i3 14 15 16 17 18. 19' 20 21 22 23 .24 25 CALPEP WWW.CALDEP.COM Deppsitipn of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15:, 2021/. VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE 2 10 : 08. a.m. 3 *. * * 4; ERIK MALLORY, 5 •the deponent h e r e i n , having been sworn .by t h e d e p o s i t i o n 6 o f f i c e r , testiiEie;d as follows-: 7 THE WITNESS: Yes., ma'am. 8 ? 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY ;MR.. BRISCOE: 12 Q. Good morning.;, O f f i c e r M a l l o r y ; 13 A, Good morning. 14 ,Q. And one does address ybu as O f f i c e r Mallory,- 15 correct? 16 A. C o r r e c t . 17 Q. Okay; My name i s John B r i s c o e , I rispresent David 18 Ridge i n a l a w s u i t t h a t he has b r o u g h t against. C a l i f o r n i a .19 Highway P a t r o l . '20 You are employed w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ; 21, correct? 22. A., Yes, s i r . 23 Q:. .Okay, And what I s your p o s i t i o n ? .24 ,A. I'm an o f f i c e r and a p i l o t . 25 Q. Do you have, any o t h e r o f f i c i a l t i t l e - o r rank w i t h WWW.CAL Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol.? 2 A,. NO;.. 3' ,Q. Have you, had your deposition taken before? 4 ,A. I have not i n t h i s respect,, I've t e s t i f i e d i n 5 court. But r, . . 6 Q. Understood. 7 But you've never sat f o r a deposition, though; 8 correct? 9 A. Correct. .10 Q,. Understood. 11 ;DO you f e e l that you adequately understand the i?. procedure? 13; A. I f e e l so, yes...- 14 Q... Okay., You under.s.tand t h a t you're under oath under 15 penalty of p e r j u r y ; correct? .16 A. Yes. ,17 Q. You understand that's the same oath that you would IB: take . i f you. were t e s t i f y i n g i n open court; correct?- 19. A. Yes. 20 Q". And f o r the duration, of the depoaition, when I say 21 "CHP," I w i l l mean C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l , you 22 understand t h a t ; correct? ,2-3 A.. Yes . :24 Q. How l o n g have you. been etriploy.ed w i t h CHP? 25 A. Since 2006. WWW.CALDEP.COM Depositioli of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 Q. And have you been a p i l o t t h a t e n t i r e time? 2 A. No. 3' Q. How long have you been a p i l o t , w i t h CHP? 4 A. About two years. •5: •Q. And what were you doing b e f o r e t h a t ? .6: A.. Working t h e road. 7 Q. And I assume t h a t means d r i v i n g a c r u i s e r on 8 highways, e n f o r c i n g the v e h i c l e ^ code and o t h e r la:ws? 9 .A. Correct.. 10 Q. Were you i n a c a r o r on a motorcycle? 11 A,. I n a car . 12 Q. And now you f l . y , I'm assuming, a h e l i c o p t e r ? 13; A. Correct- 14 Q. Do you f l y a f i x e d winged a i r c r a f t , too? 15 A. P r i v a t e l y , but: h o t f o r CHP. 1:6 Q; Okay. So i f I understand c o r r e c t l y , f r o m 2006 up :1.?' u : h t i l r o u g h l y two years a;gp; you were on the; road as a 1.8 highway patrolman; .correct? 19: A. C o r r e c t . 20 ;Q. Have you done a n y t h i n g t o prepare f o r today's 21 deposition? 2-2 A. I reviewed t h e amended d e p o s i t i o n and went over my 23 ,load-bearing vest, p r o p o s a l t h a t I had s u b m i t t e d t o t h e 24 department. 25 Q. And t h a t p r o p o s a l you s u b m i t t e d , when was t h a t ? CALPEP WWW.CALDEP.COM Depbsitipn of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1. MR. CTJRRAN-: Vague.. When d i d he. Submit, i t ? 2 MR. BRISCOE: Correct. '3 THE WITNESS: X finished, i t i n 2,015. .4' MR. BRISCOE: Q. And that was a w r i t t e n proposal? 5' A. Correct. :.6.: Q... And d i d you submit tha't t o the uniform committee;? 7 A... .1 :submit'ted . i t through the channels t o the: uniform 8 icommifctee:,. as well as ocGupatlpnal ;safety. 9 Q. Do you know i f -- w e l l , s t r i k e t h a t ; 10 So I want t o make sure I understand, when we t a l k 11 about weight-bearing vests or load-bearing vests or 12.:' 'weight-distributing V(ss,l:;s„. my understanding i"s that we are 13 t a l k i n g ;abpUt| a type of t a c t i c a l vest that one wears: oyer 14 •thefr shirt; br jacket , or' whatever., t o which, t h e i r standard equipment i s attached, meaning.- you know, side i£ ^rm. radio.-, pepper spray, maybe taser, handcuffs, things of t h a t nature; i s that-vourunderstanding as well? ia A. Correct. jj O'. Beca;ui3e otherwise:; highway patrolmen weay the Sam Browne -belt: which c a r r i e s a l l t h e i r equipment; correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 0. .And when you were a patrolman on the road, you ,11 wore, the Sam^ Browne b e l t ; correct? ,24 A. Yes. •25.. 0. What wa^ the r e s u l t of your submitted- proposal? 7 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of ErikMallory 12/15/2021 1, A. I n about 2017. I was i n v i t e d t o attend a uniform .2 committee meeting where I presented i t t o the uniform ,1. " committee: -- do ybu want the whole timeline? •i Q. Well, l e t me .ask you t h i s : Your proposal., was i t rejected? A. I never received an o f f i c i a l confirmation or • 7 1 rejection. 0. Okay• Did you receive any kind of u n o f f i c i a l response, d i d anybody t e l l yoxi what the response would be IQ. or' was t o .your proppsai? .•li A. So a f t e r numerous meetings- w i t h the uniform .ia committee and occupational safety, i t was forwarded t o the il commissioner's o f f i c e . And I received an u n o f f i c i a l ii- :notiGe. from ah informal conversation I had w i t h someone. i5 that attended a union reb meeting where- Warren Stanley, the commissioner .at -the time, b a s i c a l l y addressed the 17, audience. saying that the load-bearing vest would not: be ia, approved during h i s time aa commissioner. But I never i9 received anything o f f i c i a l , i f i t was r e j e c t e d and f o r •m why'- •21 O. What i s Commissioner Stanley's f i r s t .name? m- A.. Warren. 21, 0. And i f I understand you c o r r e c t l y , you were not 2i present yourself, personally., at aqy meeting or s i m i l a r 25 t h i n g where- Commissioner Stanley made these remarks t h a t WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 i :yoU' -jugt, described? -2c A-. That' s- correct,. I was not preserit. "i. O'. Who relayed that vou; who d i d you hear that from? ,A A. Irdon't remember. I t was j u s t a l i g h t conversation I had with somebody a t one time w i t h i n the 3.- i, 0. Okay.- And you don'''t remember who that person was? 8 •h ., -.X dori ' t -, 0; Did anybody ever give you any kind of explanation :iO: •ap t o why your proposal was not accepted? ii :A- NO. il ;Q. Do you have • any understanding ais t o why your ,iS proposal was nPt accepted?" 14: A.- No. •15: 0. Your p r o p o s a l tha,t. you s u b m i t t e d , d i d you pr_epare ,i£: • i t yourself? 12' A. My wife and I d i d . ia 0-. What's your wife's name?': A. Kadee.- M 0. And, that's K-a-d-e-e? 21 A. YQS^ ,22 0.. ^And i s her l a s t name- Mallory?- .21^ A. Ygs; • 2A. 0. And vou two are, l e g a l l y married. I 'assume?- A. Yea. WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik;Mallory 12/15/2021 i, Q. How long .have you, been married? 2 .A. Ten years.. 0. I s she also w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol? ± h : NP.^ 5- O. Was she w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol? 6 -A, No- •1 g, l:s^ ahe J,h ,.l.avL„6ii£srsMLeafc? I A. JNO- •S. Q. Has- she ever been i n law enforcement? M A. NQ. il Q.-. What i s her occupation? 12 A. Stay-at-home wife. .12 Q,-: I s there any p a r t i c u l a r reason that she assisted ii -you i n preparing^ the proppsal? 15, A. She knows how much i t rpeana t o .^me and she would i&. iriib my back when i t h u r t f r o m s t r e s s arid she, j u s t supports 12 lite.. iai O. Okay- So you wore the Sam Browne b e l t foy q u i t e a ia- while; correct? 20 .An Yes. .M. 0. Now, when you are on the road wearing the Sam 22, Browne b e l t . are vou' working f ive days a week? •f^. I t has varied because of- d i f f e r e n t s h i f t s . I 21 started out, on 8-^hour s h i f t s i n Castro Valley and we went to i2-hour s h i f t s and then t o 9-hour s h i f t s , so i t ' s 10 WWWCALDEP.GOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 ,i, varied. 2 0. On average, how many hours p e r week would you work 1 a,s a highway p^atrolman wearing t h e Sam Browne b e l t ? •± MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vaaue as t o time. •£ MR. BRISCOE: Q. J u s t over t h e d u r a t i o n , a rough average. 1- Av I guess' 4O r 0; Okay•• And so i f I hear you c o r r e c t l y , wearing t h e S.. Same Browne b e l t w i t h t h e equipment, you b e l i e v e that ifl , c o n t r i b u t e d t o ^a' ' l o t o f p a i n and d i s c o m f o r t on your bapk? ii A. . Oh my lower back.- yes . .0-. And I assume well, strike that. Did you c o n s u l t w i t h any p h y s i c i a n a t any time .14, r e l a t e d t o t h a t lower back pain? pL. Not mine, no. i£ Q. B u t . i t was-your b e l i e f t h a t wearing t h e b e l t w i t h the-'equipment' c d h t r i b u t e d t o vour lower back p a i n ; ia, correct? la- A. I would say yes. 20 And your l a s t q u e s t i o n , I do b e l i e v e I saw a -^ what 21 dp ypu c a l l them? Not p h y s i c a l therapy, a c h i r o p r a c t o r t o 22;: get ray-back worked ph.. But i t made i t worse, so I. d i d n ' t 2'3 .go back. 24 Q. Understood;. 25 And t h i s c h i r o p r a c t o r , d i d he o r she express an CALPEP 11 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Ma.llory 12/15/2021 1 ppiriibn as t o what was causing your lower back pain? 2. A. No. 3, Q,.; Has any physician or any medical professional 4' expressed an opinion t o you as t o what wa:s causing t h a t 5 lower back pain? 6 A. Not: my lower back pain, np i 7 Q. Okay. Have. yoU ever f i l e d a workers' compensation 8 ciaira r e l a t e d t o the lower back pain? 9 A. No. .0. DP -you believe .that weight-bearing vests should be ii ari-api3'roved item f o r the uniform f o r CHP patrolmen? i2: MR. CURRAN; ^Objection. Calls 'for an improper il dpinioh testimony and perhaps a l e g a l conclusion. 14 And I could not hear the question, there, were' parts iS^ •of- i t i n the middle that I t h i n k I misoed. May I ask the ,i£ reporter t o read i t back, please? :i2 •(Reporter read back, question.) la, :MR. BRISCOE: ,0. You can answer, s i r . ii.. A. I do believe so. yes. 10 Q. And why i s that? 21 MR. CURRAN: Obiection. Ca:ils f o r an improper 22^ opinion testimony, perhaps a l e g a l conclusion. Vague and 23.' ambiguous. ^ Please answer; .25.. THE. WITNESS: I believe through my research, that CALPEP 12 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 d i s t r i b u t i n g the weight, the required gear from the b e l t ,2, .to- a load-bearing vest would a l l e v i a t e lower back stress ' i. and increase o f f i c e r safety and save the: State money on •medi'cai :pavQuts. basieal-ly.; MR. BRiSCOE-:. 0.. And generally, - what research have s. you done? 1 A. So i n 2015 the, proposal was f i n i s h e d . Prior t o a t h a t , we- had, contacted numerous law enforcement agencies-.. :numerous medical professionals, and .spoke w i t h the ia manufacturer of a vest company. And through a l l of t h a t ii research, that is-what- I formulated my- opinions oh. 12 0. And-when you say — I believe you said vou 13 consulted w i t h other law enforcement agencies; i s t h a t correct?, •23:. A'. YQS . ie 0>. Which ,agehcies?- 12 •A. .Primarily A u s t r a l i a n p o l i c e force, they went t o an la; external .carrier t o d i s t r i b u t e the weight of: t h e i r gear. ia, And they have, a p o l i c e force of — roughly s i m i l a r t o ours, severa;! thous'a;n;d.-'and'they- d i d a very b i g write-up. 21 as f a r as the research and planningi p u b l i c perception. 22 ;meidiGai payout savings-. 22: And I've spoken, w i t h l o c a l p o l i c e departments that 24 have gone t o the load-bearing vests, and they say t h a t as they l i k e them. They sav t h e i r back stress i s reduced. 13 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 .1 MR. CURRAN; I ' l l reserve my r i g h t on CHP's behalf 2 tp, .tnoye t o s t r i k e part of the witness:'s' angler as 1; nonresporis i v e . 4 MR. BRISCOE: 0-. Which l o c a l agencies d i d you speak or correspdnd with? a A. Yreka Police Department and Siskiyou County 2 S h e r i f f 's o f f i c e . tha;t was where I was assigned f o r the t last: ten years p r i o r t o coming t o a i r opts. 9' Q., Prior t o , I ' m :sorry? 10 A. Prior t p coming, t o the a v i a t i o n u n i t . 11 Q. And the a v i a t i o n u n i t i s i n Redding? .12 A. Correct- 13 Q. So when you^ say that's where yoU were previously, 14' you, mean t h a t you were i n the CHP,,, assigned w i t h i n 15': Siskiyou County? IS- A.- Correct. 17 Q;i A l l r i g h t . And s.b i t . i a your understanding that i8 both Yreka Police Department and .Siskiyou County S h e r i f f ' s :i9. Dep.a'rtmfent both used these external vest carriers'? 2:0 A. They d i d . 21 :Q; Okay. And when we say "external vest c a r r i e r , " we 22: are talki-ng about the same, thing as a load-bearing vest or •2i3' the weight-bear.irig vest; correct? 24: A. Correct. 25 Q. .They're: a l l interchangable terms, t o your 14 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 understaxLd'irig? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Was there a certain, person at the Yreka Police 4 Department that you spoke w i t h about vest carriers? 5 A.: Not o f f i c i a l l y , j u s t i n passing. 6 Q;. Well, do you remember the name o f any person that 1 yb'U;.spoke ^with, i f ^ only i n ;pas_sing?: :8 A.. Probably Cash Hasemeyer. Q;.. F i r s t name i s Gash?- 10 A. Cash. 11 Q, e-a-s-h? .12 A. Either C or K. 13 :Q. What's that l a s t name? 14 A. Hasemeyer, H-a-s-e-m-e-y-e-r. 15' Q. And i s that pernon s t i l l with the Yreka Police 16: Departmient? 17 A. I believe so. 18: 0;. :'DO you knpw>: is; t h i s ,a man? 19: A. I'.m sorry,, can. you ;repeat? 20 Q. This i s a man? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. DO you know that person's rank or t i t l e ? 23 •A. He was an. pfficfer while I was there., ^2,4 Q. Arid what d i d Mr. Hasemeyer t e l l ypu w i t h regard t o 25 vest carriers'? CALPEP 15 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 i A. That he l i k e d wearing : i t b e t t e r t h a n a b e l t . 2 Q. Okay. Have you. exchanged any t e x t o r e-mails w i t h 3 Mr.; Hasemeyer .regarding v e s t c a r r i e r s ? 4 A, No. 5 Q. Who a;t S i s k i y o u County S h e r i f f ' s Department d i d 6 you speak o r correspond w i t h about v e s t c a r r i e r s ? 1 A. I'm t r y i n g .to remember his' name. i t eludes, me, fi I 'm^ s o r r y . 9 .Q. Okay. When i t . comes t o A u s t r a l i a ' s police 10' f o r c e -- i s t h i s a f e d e r a l ;pplice f o r c e , to. your 11 understanding? 12 A. I b e l i e v e so. 13' Q. Okay. D i d yoU ever speak o r correspond w i t h :i,4' 'anybody a t t h a t agency,, s p e c i f i c a l l y ; 'with r e g a r d t o v e s t 15 carriers? 16 A. Yes. . 17 ;Q'. Do you know who ybu spoke w i t h ? 18- A.- I would have: to. go .back on my e-mails, . i t ' s been 19 •close tp. e i g h t t o t e n years . 20 Q:. Okay ; -So have ,;y6u -- y6,u, have exchanged some .21 e-raaii w i t h some member- o f t h i s A u s t r a l i a p o l i c e f o r c e ? 22 A. Yes. •23 Q. DP you s t i l l have those e-mails? 24 A . I 'm n o t sure.. 25' .Q;. :Okay. You have: riot looked- f o r those e-mails 16 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition; of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 •1 recently; correct? 2 A. I have not looked f o r them recently. 1 O. Has anybody ever given you what vou think i s a 1^ good explanation as t o why iaw enforcement o f f i c e r s should a- not wear vest carriers? a MR. CURRAN: Qb-iection. Vague arid ambiguous. 2, ,Calls f o r improper opiriion testimony. Seeks information a outside the scope of discovery. Please answer. IQ THE WITNESS; I've heard people say t h a t i t ' s going il. to but stress ori your shoulders' arid your upper back, and .12 I've heard- people say that the grab handle i n the back of 13 the c a r r i e r could be grabbed by criminals i n a f i g h t , ,14 Are you asking about how highway p a t r o l . why they IS say Lhey,, don't- want, i t also? ii MR. BRISCOE: Sure. 12 A'. I've' heard from CHP that i t appears too t a c t i c a l la; and doesn-'t look l i k e our t r a d i t i o n a l uriiform. p.. Okav. And none of these arguments have changed 2o; •your opinion. thoUgh; correct? .21 ^MR. CURRAN: Obiection. Vague- and ambiguous. 22- Calls f o r improper opiriion testimony. Legal conclusion. r2a, THE WITNESS;, No.' '24 MR. CURRAN: And sorry t o i n t e r r u p t , I was too busy 25 taking notes. I heard the witness's response, which was ,1.7 WWWCALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 no,, I would ask t h a t the r e p o r t e r read .back the response 2 t o the; q u e s t i o n before- the l a s t q u e s t i b r i , please. 3 MR'. BRISCOE: Cburisel,. I ' m not going t o have you 4 d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r what t o do. We are doing a 5 d e p o s i t i o n here, and - - y o u kriow, I can't keep doing t h i s , 6. so ,1 hope you understand that. 7 MR. CURRAN:' No, 1 dori't understand t h a t . IfI 8' :need' a response ;read back, I'm a s k i n g -- 9 (Unrepbrtable c r o s s t a l k ; ) 10 MR. BRISCbE: YoU can take notes, b u t I'm not g o i n g li to* have her s t o p p i n g my examination and r e a d i n g back every 1.2 gUesti.ori and .answer' a t your whim.: 13, MR. CURRAN': I understand t h a t . Counsel. Calm i4. dovm,. I t ' s riot g o i n g t o be :every g u e s t i o r i . I f ' I need t:he 15: r e p o r t e r t o :read back a .response, as you know from many 16: years o f experierice., t h a t ' s my r i g h t . 'You're. w a s t i n g t i m e 17 'by i n s t r u c t i n g ' a simple e f f p r t . 18 I would, agairi, r e s p e c t f u l l y request t h a t the; :court i'9 r e p o r t e r reiad back the second t o 'the l a s t response., :2'0 MR'. BR;ISCdE': Okay. W e l l , I'm a s k i n g her not t o . ,21 MR. CURRAN: I woUld a g a i n ask t h e r e p o r t e r t o do 22, i t , please.. I t w i l l take teri secorids. 23: MR. BRISCOE: Go ahead. I n d u l g e t h e man, 24; (Reporter read, back q u e s t i o n :an.d answer.): ,2'5. MR..OTRRAN::Thank you.- Go ahead, Counsel. .18 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 1.2/15/2021 ,i MR; BRISCOE: Do VOU know o f any c o l l e a g u e s , 2 any o t h e r person i n t h e CHP. t h a t shares your o p i n i o n t h a t '.1,. v e s t c a r r i e r s should be an, approved i t e m f o r wear? .4. MR. CURRAN:: Objection.. Improper opinion: 1 :testimony. Legal coriciu'sion. 6 THE WITNESS: W i t h our' proposal-. we- t r i e d t o send surveys around t h e S t a t e t o see i f o f f i c e r s would p r e f e r 2 ^or purchase,- t h e i r own. And t h e numbers a r e i n my proposa!!.. b u t we r e c e i v e d a c o r i s i d e r a b l e amount o f people: 1 t h a t do share my o p i r i i o n t h a t -would purchase arid :wear: la.: t h e i r own., i f they were g i v e r i t h e o p p o r t u n i t y . •ii: MR. BRISCOE; 0- Do vou know how many o t h e r -ll o f f i c e r s responded i n t h a t f a s h i o n ? ii A. - I can check t h e proposal., i f you would l i k e . •la Q; Yea.'please. i£ A. Okay. So - We;, r e c e i v e d 437 responses . And: p f those ,11, 437.- 3 85; s t a t e d t h e y would, purchase t h e i r own i f t h e la o p p o r t u n i t v was a v a i l a b l e . 11 .0. So surveys were- s e n t o u t ; c o r r e c t ? 2a A; I sent surveys W i t h a member o f t h e - r t h e r e p , 21. l i k e a r e p member', he was supposed t o dispeirse: them t o 22 everyone. They d i d n ' t make i t t o everyone .- b u t those were 23- the ones t h a t I r e c e i v e d back. 21 0. When you say "rep member." what do you mean? 25: A. So CHP has a u n i o n r e p . I sent him w i t h t h e 19 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 surveys t o hand out, assuming that every o f f i c e had a rep, 2 meeting or a rep person there.. 2 O. y^hat's. the name of t h i s s p e c i f i c person? 4 A-. Oh. gosh.. I believe i t would have, been O f f i c e r 5, 'Chilton. 6 O. Do. you know that person's f i r s t name? 2 A. Jason. a iO; I s - O f f i c e r Chilton s t i l l w i t h CHP? 1 A; I 'm not sure., He was i n Yrek;a. ia O. Now, the surveys that were- sent out, was t h i s your ,li idea? ,12' A. Yes.: 11 0. And you personally -- s t r i k e t h a t . •ii. ^So t h i s was not an o f f i c i a l CHP survey, i f I 'ia.. linr^erstand. t h i s was kind of your baby.: more or less? A. Correct. 12. ,0. Okay. And d i d vou yourself mail out these la. surveys? .19; A... I sent, a stack of them :With the rep f o r our o f f i c e .2a: to take t o the- union, meeting' to. harid oUt. I d i d not mail 21 them.. tl 0. Do you ha-ve the-actual responses i n your 23 pbssession? ,24 A. Yes. 25 Have ,ybu turned those ;over t o CHP's attorneys i n CALPEP 20 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 t h i s matter? 2 • A. No. •3 Q. Are those responses: on, your persona!!, computer? ,4 ,A. No. 5 Q.. where are the responses specifically? 6 A. ;in a f i l e f o l d e r . They are paper. 7 Q. Okay. UnderstPod. 8' .:And are these -- s t r i k e t h a t . 9 Are you t e s t i f y i n g from an o f f i c e r i g h t now? l'b> A. Yiss; 11. Q. .Are those responses i n the v e r y same o f f i c e ? 12 A., Yes. 13 Q . I ',m going t o ask you t o preserve those and 14 h b i j e f u l l y ' l .can get them rfrom you, s h o r t l y ; okay? 15 A. That'.q f i r i e . 16 Q. I''-m going' t o share a document, i t '.s a l r e a d y been, ;i7 marked E x h i b i t FF. Bear w i t h me, please. 18; This i s E x h i b i t FF, are you a b l e t o see the document 19 dri the screen? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q.. Okay. So f o r the: r e c o r d -- excuse me, t h i s has 22 been: marked DiD, "D" as i n dog.. "D" as i n dog. E x h i b i t DD -23 i s a 57-page e x h i b i t , and I'm g o i n g t o s c r o l l down. 24 Okay. So we are on Page CHP00359, which i s the- :25 2'bth :page' of E x h i b i t DD. ThiS; i s an e-mail that- you sent 21 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/1,5/2021 1 pn :Septemb,er 14th, 2021;; correct?' '2; A. Yes. '3 Q. And d i d you prepare t h i s e-mail on your own? 4 A. Yes. 5 Can you s c r o l l dPwn t o 'make sure t h e r e s t o f t h e 6 e,-mail. . . 7 Q. Sure.. And i f ypu want, you can review t h i s 8 e-mail, j u s t t e l l me when you're: ready t o proceed; 9 A. That's f i n e . Thank you. ro 'Q. Would you say ypu s t a n d by e v e r y t h i n g you Wrote i n 11-, t h i s e-mail? i? MR, CURRAN;!: Obje.Ctipn. Compound:. Improper 13 ;opiriiori testimony.. Vague and ambiguous. d4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I s t a n d by t h a t .e-mail. 15 MR. BRISCOK: Q. Now,