Preview
1 MAY ALL HURLEY P.C.
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) FiLED/ENDOFISED
2 ibriscoe@inavallaw.coin
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
3
Stockton, California 95207-8253
JUN 2 3 2022
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 By:. H. PEhflELTfiN
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 Deputy Clbrk
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 FOR
vs. DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PENAL
12 CODE SECTION 832.7 AND EVIDENCE
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; CODE SECTION 1043
13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
14 Date: July 20, 2022
Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m.
15 Dept.: 53
Res.: 2647614
16
17
18
19
I, John P. Biiscoe, declare,
20
1. I am an attomey authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a
21
shareholder with Mayall Hurley P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). I have
22
personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would .
23
competently testify thereto.
24
2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Ridge's Motion for Discovery
25
Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Pursuant to this motion,
26
Ridge seeks an order directing Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP") to
27
give a fiill and complete response to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 10, previously
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in §, of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 1 of 7
1 served. This interrogatory states "IDENTIFY each person that responded to Officer Erik
2 Mallory's survey of DEFENDANT'S officers regarding extemal load-bearing vests."' Good
3 cause exists for disclosure of all such percipient witnesses, as set forth below.
4 3. In this employment case. Ridge alleges that he was denied a reasonable
5 accommodation for his lower body injuries—permission to wear his law enforcement equipment
6 on an extemal load-bearing vest. CHP denied this accommodation, and has since taken the
7 position in this litigation that an extemal load-bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation
8 because of amorphous "safety, operational, and appearance factors", and because it did not
9 conform to CHP's uniform policy. This comports with what Ridge was told at the time—that
10 CHP's leadership (going all the way to the Commissioner) simply prefers the appearance of the
11 traditional "Sam Browne" belt (the heavy leather belt on which law enforcement officers have
12 traditionally carried their considerable load of personal equipment). Incidentally, the Legislature
13 itself has recognized that these duty belts contribute to lower back impairments. (See Lab. Code,
14 § 3213.2.)
15 4. To put CHP's defense as simply as possible: CHP contends that an external
16 load-bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation for Officer Ridge, because such a vest
17 does not conform to CHP's Uniform Policy, and that policy reflects the fact that it is not
18 reasonable for a CHP patrolman to wear such a vest as a general matter. Therefore, the
19 reasonableness of this ironclad uniform policy (distinct from the reasonableness of the sought
20 accommodation) is at issue.
21 5. Through discovery, I identified one Officer Erik Mallory, who has, for some time,
22 bravely and vociferously protested CHP's "no-vest" rule and advocated for change. Officer
23 Mallory was deposed (a true and correct copy ofthe transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 1)
24 and he testified that CHP doesn't want officers to wear load-bearing vests '''just because of the
25 way they look" and "fbjecause it's not traditional CHP prides itself on our tan uniform. And
26
27 ' Per the served interrogatories, a request to "IDENTIFY" an individual person calls for that person's full name, job
title, any Icnown aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all known email
28 addresses. "DEFENDANT" means Defendant The Califomia Highway Patrol.
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 2 of 7
1 anything that compromises that, does not align." (Exhibit 1, 31:13-33:22, emphasis added.)
2 This corroborates what Ridge alleges he himself was told: That the vest just doesn't look right
3 and the leadership will not compromise the appearance of the standard uniform. Officer Mallory
4 fiirther testified as follows (emphasis added):
5 Officer Mallory, in 2015, proposed to CHP that load-bearing vests should be
6 approved as a uniform item in lieu of the traditional, leather, "Sam Browne" belt.
7 This 26-page submission included statements from himself, physicians, and others,
8 such as:
9 o "Lower back injuries are the leading cause of both short-term and long-term
10 disability in law enforcement"
11 o "The introduction of the daily use of load-bearing vests would serve to
12 dramatically decrease taxpayer costs associated with back injuries"
13 o "The use of a load bearing vest transfers some ofthe items off the service belt to
14 the vest carrier while distributing some of the weight to the officer's shoulders
15 and not solely concentrating weight on the lower levels of the spine. This will
16 reduce forces on the lower spine and prevent cumulative and repetitive trauma
17 in the lumbar spine."
18 o The use of load-bearing vests means that CHP officers would be "less likely to
19 have lower back surgery or routine chiropractic visits for lower back issues in
20 regards to duty belt weight trauma"
21 o The weight of CHP officer's standard equipment (worn on their belt) has
22 increased from 8 to 20 pounds. (Exhibit 1, 25:22-26:3, intemal exhibit GG.)
23 Though he submitted a proposal to CHP that load-bearing vests be permitted as a
24 uniform item, he never received an official response. (Id., 8:4-7.)
25 CHP's refusal to allow this vest for patrol officers, regardless of the circumstances,
26 was apparently attributable to the dictates of CHP's Commissioner himself. (Id.,
27 8:8-22.)
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 3 of 7
1 Officer Mallory has suffered substantial back pain that he attributes to wearing the
2 standard, leather, "Sam Browne" belt with his personal equipment (sidearm, radio,
3 etc.). ( M , 7:15-11:19.)
4 Officer Mallory, pursuant to his own research (e.g., consulting with other law
5 enforcement agencies) believes that load-bearing vests should be an approved
6 uniform item for CHP patrolmen because it would alleviate lower back stress and
7 increase officer safety and save the State money on medical payouts. {Id., 12:10-
8 14:8.)
9 As to why CHP doesn't want its officers wearing load-bearing vests, Officer Mallory
10 heard from CHP that "it appears too tactical and doesn't look like our traditional
11 uniform." {Id., 17:3-23.)
12 So as to advocate for load-bearing vests as an approved uniform item, Officer
13 Mallory and others went surveys around the state which asked (a) "in the event [load-
14 bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your own?"; (b) "Do you currently
15 have back stress while wearing a duty belt?"; and (c) "Do you believe [load-bearing
16 vests] would benefit employees & the department?" Of437 responses, 385 CHP
17 officers said they would pay f o r their own load-bearing vests i f the opportunity was
18 available. This was not an official survey; this was Officer Mallory's "baby." {Id.,
19 19:1-20:24.)
20 Officer Mallory believes that CHP doesn't want officers to wear load-bearing vests
21 "just because o f the way they look" and "fbjecause it's not traditional. CHP prides
22 itself on our tan uniform. And anything that compromises that, does not align."
23 (31:13-33:22.)
24 Subsequently, CHP produced copies of the survey responses which Officer Mallory
25 discussed at deposition. A true and correct copy of these documents is attached hereto as Exhibit
26 2. As can be seen, the overwhelming lot of these officers responded (though they were under no
27 obligation to respond at all) that they believed that extemal load-bearing vests would benefit CHP
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 4 of 7
1 and its officers, and also that they are experiencing back stress while wearing the standard duty
2 belt. (Exhibit 2.) By any stretch, this would tend to undercut CHP's official line that a load-bearing
3 vest was not a reasonable accommodation because of "safety, operational, and appearance factors".
4 After all, these are the very officers who are bound by the ironclad uniform policy and are asked
5 to wear heavy equipment on their waist, every workday, for years or even decades. Their opinion
6 on the reasonableness of this policy, and also their own experience adhering to that policy, is
7 relevant. It is self-evident that CHP's own officers—the very persons who are required to conform
8 to the Uniform Policy, every single workday—can testily from their own perception and
9 experience whether the rigid no-vest policy makes any bit of sense, not on paper but in the real
10 world. They might, as did Officer Erik Mallory, testify that wearing the Sam Browne leather duty
11 belt, with approximately 20 pounds of equipment, over a period of years or even decades is
12 extremely uncomfortable and has contributed to back stress. They might also testify, as did Officer
13 Erik Mallory, that based on their time in service, wearing an extemal load-bearing vest would not
14 likely form a physical disadvantage were an officer engaged in a violent struggle with a criminal
15 suspect. They may further testify to the general effect—as did Officer Erik Mallory—that the no-
16 vest policy makes no practical sense outside ofa purely cosmetic standpoint. (See Evid. Code, §
17 800, subd. (a) [witness may testify based on his or her own perception].) CHP may make the mles,
18 but it is the rank-and-file which have to obey those mles. If CHP is going to claim that it couldn't
19 grant a certain requested accommodation because '''them's the rules", then the reasonableness of
20 the rules themselves are thus at issue and the officers themselves, clearly, have something to say
21 on this issue. CHP should not be permitted to hide these persons just because it doesn't like what
22 they have to say.
23 6. The aforementioned survey responses do not provide contact information for any
24 of these percipient witnesses. Ridge then served Special Interrogatories, Set Three, seeking such
25 information (and also for those officers that have advocated to CHP's Uniform Committee to
26 allow the wearing of extemal weight-bearing vests). A tme and correct copy of these
27 interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit 3,
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 5 of 7.
1 7. On or around March 29, 2022,1 received CHP's responses to Special
2 Interrogatories, Set Three, a tme and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
3 Immediately after reviewing the interrogatory responses, I emailed Mr. Curran to set up a call to
4 discuss the responses. The parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute informally.
5 8. Subsequently, I filed a motion to compel further interrogatory responses, pursuant
6 to the Civil Discovery Act. On May 12, 2022, after oral argument, the motion was granted in part
7 and denied in part, without prejudice to Ridge to bring a "Pitchess"^ motion like the one
8 submitted herewith.
9 9. On June 20, 2022,1 received CHP's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories,
10 Set Three. A tme and correct copy of these responses, with verification and attached spreadsheet,
11 are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 5. As can be seen, this spreadsheet does not provide
12 any contact information for former CHP employees. Per counsel for CHP, while contact
13 information is provided for current employees, it is only work contact information.
14 10. Good cause for disclosure of the fiill names and contact information of those
15 persons who are set forth in the Notice of Motion. This is because, as set forth above, these
16 persons are percipient witnesses per Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, and there exists
17 no other way for my office to obtain this information, except for disclosure by Defendant. No
18 sensitive medical information is being sought.
19 11. Furthermore, the right to discovery in Califomia is a broad one. Courts have
20 liberally constmed the discovery statutes, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever
21 possible. {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.) The primary
22 limitation on discovery is that the information sought must be (1) not privileged, (2) relevant to
23 the subject matter of the action, and (3) either itself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to
24 the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.) Importantly, admissibility
25 is not the test for discovery; the test is whether the information sought might at least reasonably
26
27
See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 897.
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 6 of 7
1 lead to other evidence that would be admissible. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010; Davies v.
2 Superior Court (1984) 36 Ca.3d 291, 401; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006)
3 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490-1491.) The "relevance to the subject matter" and "reasonably
4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" standards are applied liberally, and
5 any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. {Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
6 Co. V. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
7 12. Clearly, one of the core fimctions of discovery is to identify and locate witnesses.
8 "Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
9 discoverable matter[.]" (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010; see also Puerto v. Superior Court
10 (2008) 158 Cal.App.4"^ 1242, 1249-1250.) CHP has taken the posifion that the requested
11 accommodation (an external load bearing vest) was not a reasonable accommodation because it
12 contravenes the uniform policy and would pose some kind of hazard. Again, it must be
13 emphasized that CHP contends that the external weight-bearing vest was not a reasonable
14 accommodation for Ridge because it's not reasonable to let patrolmen wear such a vest, as a
15 general policy. That general policy is thus at issue.
16 13. Hundreds of CHP officers took it upon themselves to voluntarily respond to an
17 unofficial survey, and freely express their willingness to pay f o r their own vests, i f approved, and
18 that they believe wearing vests would benefit CHP and its officers. (Exhibits 1 (19:1-20:24), 2.)
19 Most of these officers also attested that they are presently experiencing back stress while wearing
20 a duty belt. {Id., Exhibit 2.) If CHP is going to contend that its Uniform Policy foreclosed
21 Ridge's sought accommodation, and that said policy is a reasonable one, then it must concede
22 that the opinions of its own officers is of relevance. Simply put, these officers are wimesses on a
23 relevant matter, and thus their identities, per statute, are discoverable.
24 14. I believe, reasonably, that CHP has the names and contact information of its own
25 officers, as are sought pursuant to this motion. This should be self-evident, i f only because (1)
26 every employer needs to know who its employees are, and how to reach them, and (2) CHP has
27 explicitly objected that it should not have to disclose the names and personal contact information
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 7 of 7
1 for these officers, thus implying that it has that information.
2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Califomia that the
3 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed this twenty-first day of June, 2022, in Lodi, Califomia.
4
5
JOHN P. BRISCOE
6
7
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 For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and
Evidence Code section 1043.
Page 8 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" ---oOo
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,
inclusive.
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
20
21
22
23
24
25 REPORTED BY: Andrene G a t t i , CSR 13 851
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 APPEARANCES:
2 FOR PLAINTIFF:
3 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
BY: JOHN BRISCOE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
4 2453 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: 209-477-3833
F: 209-473-4818
6 JbriscoeOmayallaw.com
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
10 P: 916-210-6113
F: 916-324-5567
11 James.Curran@doj.ca.gov
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 Andrene G a t t i - Reporter
22
23
24
25
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2 BY PAGE
3 Mr. Briscoe 4
4 Mr. Curran 37
5 oOo
6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
7 EXHIBIT PAGE
8 E x h i b i t GG 25
9 E x h i b i t HH 27
10 Exhibit I I 29
11 Exhibit JJ 36
12 -oOo--
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2021, VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE
I
2 10:08 a.m.
3 * * *
4 ERIK MALLORY,
5 t h e 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 officer, t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s :
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
8
9
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 you as O f f i c e r M a l l o r y ;
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 represent David
18 Ridge i n a l a w s u i t t h a t he has brought a g a i n s t 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
WVy/W.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you had your d e p o s i t i o n taken before?
4 A. I have n o t i n t h i s r e s p e c t , I ' v e t e s t i f i e d i n
5 court. But...
6 Q. Understood.
7 But you've never s a t f o r a d e p o s i t i o n , though;
8 correct?
9 A. C o r r e c t .
10 Q. Understood.
11 Do you f e e l t h a t you a d e q u a t e l y understand t h e
12 procedure?
13 A. I f e e l so, yes.
14 Q. Okay. You understand t h a t you're under o a t h under
15 penalty of perjury; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You understand t h a t ' s t h e same o a t h t h a t you would
18 take i f you were t e s t i f y i n g i n open c o u r t ; c o r r e c t ?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n , 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?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How long have you been employed w i t h CHP?
25 A. Since 2006.
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 A. I n about 2 017, I was i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d a u n i f o r m
2 committee meeting where I presented i t t o the uniform
"l committee -- do you want t h e whole t i m e l i n e ?
4 0. W e l l , l e t me ask you t h i s : Your p r o p o s a l , was i t
5 rejected?
6 A. I never r e c e i v e d an o f f i c i a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o r
7 rei ectioh.
8 0. Okay. D i d you r e c e i v e any k i n d o f u n o f f i c i a l
9 response, d i d anybody t e l l you what t h e response would be
13. o r was t o your proposal?
11 A. So a f t e r numerous meetings w i t h t h e u n i f o r m
12 coTnmittee and o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y , i t was forwarded t o the
13 commissioner's o f f i c e . And I r e c e i v e d an u n o f f i c i a l
14 n o t i c e from an i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n I had w i t h someone
15 t h a t a t t e n d e d a u n i o n rep meeting where Warren S t a n l e y ,
16 t h e commissioner a t t h e time, b a s i c a l l y addressed t h e
11 audience, saying t h a t t h e l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t would n o t be
M approved d u r i n g h i s time as commissioner. But I never
19 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
20 why.
21 O. What i s Commissioner Stanley's f i r s t name?
22 A. Warren.
23 0. And i f I understand you c o r r e c t l y , you were n o t
24 present y o u r s e l f , p e r s o n a l l y , a t any meeting o r s i m i l a r
25 t h i n g where Commissioner S t a n l e y made these remarks t h a t
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
i you j u s t described?
2 A. That's c o r r e c t . I was n o t p r e s e n t .
"l O. Who r e l a y e d t h a t vou; who d i d you hear t h a t from?
4 A. I don't remember. I t was j u s t a l i g h t
5 c o n v e r s a t i o n I had w i t h somebody a t one time w i t h i n t h e
6 l a s t p r o b a b l y two years.
7 0. Okay. And you don't remember who t h a t person was?
8 A. I don't.
1 0. D i d anybody ever g i v e you any k i n d o f e x p l a n a t i o n
10 as t o why vour p r o p o s a l was n o t accepted?
11 A. No.
12 0. Do you have any u n d e r s t a n d i n g as t o why your
13 p r o p o s a l was n o t accepted?
14 A. No.
15 O. Your p r o p o s a l t h a t you s u b m i t t e d , d i d you prepare
16. i t yourself?
17 A. My w i f e and I d i d .
18 0. What's your w i f e ' s name?
12 A. Kadee.
20 .0. And t h a t ' s K-a-d-e-e?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And i s h e r l a s t name M a l l o r y ?
II A. Yes.
24 0. And you two a r e l e g a l l y m a r r i e d . I assume?
25 A. Yes.
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition 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.
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 t h e v e h i c l e code and o t h e r laws?
9 A. C o r r e c t . '
10 Q. Were you i n a c a r o r on a motorcycle?
11 A. I n a c a r .
12 Q. And now you f l y , I'm assuming, a h e l i c o p t e r ?
13 A. C o r r e c t .
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 , b u t n o t f o r CHP.
16 Q. Okay. So i f I understand c o r r e c t l y , from 2 0 06 up
17 u n t i l r o u g h l y two years ago, you were on t h e road as a
18 highway patrolman; c o r r e c t ?
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?
22 A . - I reviewed t h e amended d e p o s i t i o n and went over my
23 l o a d - b e a r i n g vest p r o p o s a l t h a t I had submitted 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.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 MR. CURRAN: Vague. When d i d he submit i t ?
2 MR. BRISCOE: Correct.
3 THE WITNESS: I f i n i s h e d i t i n 2015.
4 MR. BRISCOE: Q. And t h a t was a w r i t t e n proposal?
5 A. C o r r e c t .
6 Q. And d i d you submit t h a t t o t h e u n i f o r m committee?
7 A. I s u b m i t t e d i t through t h e channels t o t h e u n i f o r m
8 committee, as w e l l as o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y .
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 w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t s o r l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t s o r
12 w e i g h t - d i s t r i b u t i n g v e s t s , my understanding i s t h a t we a r e
13 t a l k i n g about a type o f t a c t i c a l v e s t t h a t one wears over
14 t h e i r s h i r t o r j a c k e t , o r whatever, t o which t h e i r
15 s t a n d a r d equipment i s a t t a c h e d , meaning, you know, s i d e
16 arm, r a d i o , pepper spray, maybe t a s e r . handcuffs, t h i n g s
12 of t h a t n a t u r e ; i s t h a t your understanding as w e l l ?
1& A. C o r r e c t .
19 O. Because o t h e r w i s e , highway patrolmen wear t h e Sam
20 Browne b e l t which c a r r i e s a l l t h e i r equipment; c o r r e c t ?
21 A. Yes.
22 0. And when you were a patrolman on t h e road, you
23. wore t h e Sam Browne b e l t ; c o r r e c t ?
24 A. Yes.
25 0. What was t h e r e s u l t o f your s u b m i t t e d proposal?
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 O. How l o n g have you been married?
2 A. Ten y e a r s .
3 O. I s she a l s o w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ?
4 A. No.
5 O. Was she w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ?
6 A. No.
7 O. I s she i n law enforcement?
8 A. No.
1 O. Has she ever been i n law enforcement?
10 A. No.
11 O. What i s her occupation?
12 A. Stay-at-home w i f e .
13 O. I s t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r reason t h a t she a s s i s t e d
14 you i n p r e p a r i n g t h e proposal?
15 A. She knows how much i t means t o me and she would
16 rub mv back when i t h u r t from s t r e s s and she j u s t s u p p o r t s
11 me.
18 0. Okay. So you wore t h e Sam Browne b e l t f o r q u i t e a
la while; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 O. Now, when you a r e on t h e road wearing t h e Sam
22 Browne b e l t , a r e you w o r k i n g f i v e days a week?
23 A. I t has v a r i e d because o f d i f f e r e n t s h i f t s . I .
24 s t a r t e d o u t on 8-hour s h i f t s i n Castro V a l l e y and we went
25 t o 12-hour s h i f t s and t h e n t o 9-hour s h i f t s , so i t ' s
10
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 varied.
2 0. On average, how many hours p e r week would you work
1 as a highway patrolman wearing t h e Sam Browne b e l t ?
4 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague as t o time.
5 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Just over t h e d u r a t i o n , a rough
6 average.
7 A. I guess 40.
8 0. Okay• And so i f I hear you c o r r e c t l y , wearing t h e
9 Same Browne b e l t w i t h t h e equipment, you b e l i e v e that
IQ 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 back?
11 A. On my lower back, ves.
12 0. And I assume -- w e l l , s t r i k e t h a t .
13 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?
15 A. Not mine, no.
16 0. But 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
17 the equipment c o n t r i b u t e d t o your lower back p a i n ;
18 correct?
19 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 do you 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 my back worked on. But i t made i t worse, so I d i d n ' t
23 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
11
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 o p i n i o n as t o what was causing your lower back pain?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Has any p h y s i c i a n o r any medical p r o f e s s i o n a l
4 expressed an o p i n i o n t o you as t o what was causing t h a t
5 lower back pain?
6 A. Not my lower back p a i n , no.
7 Q. Okay. Have you ever f i l e d a workers' compensation
8 c l a i m r e l a t e d t o t h e lower back pain?
9 A. No.
10 0. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t s should be
11 an approved i t e m f o r t h e u n i f o r m f o r CHP patrolmen?
12 MR. CURRAN: Objection. C a l l s f o r an improper
11 o p i n i o n testimony and perhaps a l e g a l conclusion.
li And I could n o t hear t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e r e were p a r t s
15 of i t i n t h e middle t h a t I t h i n k I missed. May I ask t h e
16 r e p o r t e r t o read i t back, please?
12 (Reporter read back question.)
18 MR. BRISCOE: Q. You can answer, s i r .
19 A. I do b e l i e v e so. y e s .
20 0. And why i s t h a t ?
21 MR• CURRAN: Objection. C a l l s f o r an improper
22. o p i n i o n testimony, perhaps a l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n . Vague and
23 ambiguous.
24 Please answer.
25
THE WITNESS: I b e l i e v e t h r o u g h my research, that
12
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e weight, t h e r e q u i r e d gear from the b e l t
2 t o a l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t would a l l e v i a t e lower back s t r e s s
3 and increase o f f i c e r s a f e t y and save t h e State money on
4 medical payouts, basically.
5 MR. BRISCOE: 0. And g e n e r a l l y , what research have
you done?
7 A. So i n 2015 t h e proposal was f i n i s h e d . Prior t o
8 t h a t , we had c o n t a c t e d numerous law enforcement agencies,
9 numerous medical p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and spoke w i t h t h e
10 manufacturer o f a v e s t company. And through a l l o f t h a t
11 research, t h a t i s what I f o r m u l a t e d my o p i n i o n s on.
12 0. And when you say -- I b e l i e v e you s a i d you
13 c o n s u l t e d w i t h o t h e r law enforcement agencies; i s that
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 0. Which agencies?
12 A. P r i m a r i l y A u s t r a l i a n p o l i c e f o r c e , they went t o an
18 e x t e r n a l c a r r i e r t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e weight o f t h e i r gear.
19 And they have a p o l i c e f o r c e o f -- r o u g h l y s i m i l a r t o
20 ours, s e v e r a l thousand, and t h e y d i d a v e r y b i g w r i t e - u p .
21 as f a r as t h e research and p l a n n i n g , p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n ,
22 medical payout savings.
23 And I've spoken w i t h l o c a l p o l i c e departments t h a t
24 have gone t o t h e l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t s , and they sav t h a t
25 they l i k e them. They sav t h e i r back s t r e s s i s reduced.
CALPEP 13
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 MR. CURRAN: I ' l l r e s e r v e my r i g h t on CHP's b e h a l f
2 t o move t o s t r i k e p a r t o f t h e witness's answer as
~i rionresponsive.
4 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Which l o c a l agencies d i d you
5 speak o r correspond with?
6 A. Yreka P o l i c e Department and S i s k i y o u County
2 S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , t h a t was where I was assigned f o r the
8 l a s t t e n years p r i o r t o coming t o a i r o p t s .
9 Q. P r i o r t o , I'm s o r r y ?
10 A. P r i o r t o coming t o t h e a v i a t i o n u n i t ,
11 Q. And t h e a v i a t i o n u n i t i s i n Redding?
12 A. C o r r e c t .
13 Q. So when you say t h a t ' s where you were p r e v i o u s l y ,
14 you mean t h a t you were i n t h e CHP, assigned within
15 S i s k i y o u County?
16 A. C o r r e c t .
17 Q. A l l r i g h t . And so i t i s your understanding that
18
b o t h Yreka P o l i c e Department and S i s k i y o u County S h e r i f f ' s
19
Department b o t h used these e x t e r n a l v e s t c a r r i e r s ?
20
A. They d i d .
21
Q. Okay. And when we say " e x t e r n a l v e s t c a r r i e r , " we
22
are t a l k i n g about t h e same t h i n g as a l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t o r
23
the w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t ; c o r r e c t ?
24
A. C o r r e c t .
25
Q. They're a l l i n t e r c h a n g a b l e terms, t o y o u r
14
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 understanding?
2 A. R i g h t .
3 Q. Was t h e r e a c e r t a i n person a t t h e Yreka Police
4 Department t h a t you spoke w i t h about v e s t carriers?
5 A. Not o f f i c i a l l y , j u s t i n passing.
6 Q. W e l l , do you remember t h e name o f any person t h a t
7 you spoke w i t h , i f o n l y i n passing?
8 A. Probably Cash Hasemeyer.
9 Q. F i r s t name i s Cash?
10 A. Cash.
11 Q. C-a-s-h?
12 A. E i t h e r C o r K.
13 Q. What's t h a t l a s t name?
14 A. Hasemeyer, H-a-s-e-m-e-y-e-r.
15 Q. And i s t h a t person s t i l l w i t h t h e Yreka Police
16 Department?
17 A. I b e l i e v e so.
18
Q. Do you know, i s t h i s a man?
19
A. I'm s o r r y , can you repeat?
20
Q. T h i s i s a man?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Do you know t h a t person's rank o r t i t l e ?
23
A. He was an o f f i c e r w h i l e I was t h e r e .
24
Q. And what d i d Mr. Hasemeyer t e l l you w i t h r e g a r d t o
25
vest carriers?
15
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 A. That he l i k e d wearing i t b e t t e r than 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 r e g a r d i n g 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 ?
7 A. I'm t r y i n g t o remember h i s name. I t eludes me,
8 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 p o l i c e f o r c e , t o 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
14 anybody a t t h a t agency, s p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h r e g a r d t o v e s t
15 carriers?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know who you spoke w i t h ?
18 A. I would have t o go back on my e-mails, i t ' s been
19 close t o eight t o t e n years.
20 Q. Okay. So have you -- you have exchanged some
21 e-mail 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. Do you s t i l l have those e-mails?
24 A. I'm n o t sure.
25
Q. Okay. You have n o t looked f o r those e-mails
CALPEP 16
WWW.CALDEP.COM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 recently; correct?
2 A. I have n o t looked f o r them r e c e n t l y .
3 O. Has anybody ever g i v e n you what you t h i n k i s a
4 good e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why law enforcement o f f i c e r s s h o u l d
5 not wear v e s t c a r r i e r s ?
6 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
7 C a l l s f o r improper o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y . Seeks i n f o r m a t i o n
8 o u t s i d e t h e scope o f d i s c o v e r y .
3. Please answer.
10 THE WITNESS: I've heard people say t h a t i t ' s g o i n g
11 t o p u t s t r e s s on your shoulders and your upper back, and
12 I've heard people sav t h a t t h e grab handle i n t h e back o f
13 the c a r r i e r c o u l d be grabbed by c r i m i n a l s i n a f i g h t .
li Are you a s k i n g about how highway p a t r o l , why t h e y
15 say t h e y don't want i t also?
16 MR. BRISCOE: Q„.. Sure.
12 A. I've heard from CHP t h a t i t appears t o o t a c t i c a l
18 and doesn't l o o k l i k e o u r t r a d i t i o n a l u n i f o r m .
11 O. Okay. And none o f these arguments have changed
20 your o p i n i o n , though; c o r r e c t ?
21 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
22 C a l l s f o r improper o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y . Legal c o n c l u s i o n .
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 MR. CURRAN: And s o r r y t o i n t e r r u p t , I was t o o busy
25 t a k i n g notes. I heard the w i t n e s s ' s response, which was
17
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
no, I would ask t h a t t h e r e p o r t e r read back t h e response
t o t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e l a s t q u e s t i o n , please.
3 MR. BRISCOE: Counsel, I'm not going t o have y o u
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 -- you know, I can't keep doing t h i s ,
6 so I hope you understand that.
7 MR. CURRAN: No, I don't understand t h a t . IfI
8 need a response read back, I'm a s k i n g --
9 (Unreportable c r o s s t a l k . )
10 MR. BRISCOE: You can take notes, b u t I'm not g o i n g
11 t o have h e r s t o p p i n g my examination and r e a d i n g back every
12 q u e s t i o n and answer a t your whim.
13 MR. CURRAN: I understand t h a t . Counsel. Calm
14 down. I t ' s n o t going t o be every q u e s t i o n . I f I need t h e
15 r e p o r t e r t o read back a response, as you know from many
16 years o f experience, t h a t ' s my r i g h t . You're w a s t i n g time
17 by i n s t r u c t i n g a simple e f f o r t .
18 I would, again, r e s p e c t f u l l y request t h a t t h e c o u r t
19 r e p o r t e r read back t h e second t o t h e l a s t response,
20 MR. BRISCOE: Okay. W e l l , I'm a s k i n g her. not t o .
21 MR. CURRAN: I would again 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 t e n seconds.
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 and answer.)
25 MR. CURRAN: Thank you. Go ahead. Counsel.
18
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 MR. BRISCOE: 0- Do you 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
3 v e s t c a r r i e r s should be an approved item f o r wear?
4 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Improper o p i n i o n
5 testimony. Legal c o n c l u s i o n .
6 THE WITNESS: With our p r o p o s a l , we t r i e d t o send
7 surveys around t h e State t o see i f o f f i c e r s would p r e f e r
8 and/or purchase t h e i r own. And t h e numbers a r e i n my
2 p r o p o s a l , b u t we r e c e i v e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f people
10 t h a t do share my o p i n i o n t h a t would purchase and wear
11 t h e i r own, i f they were g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y .
12 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Do you know how many o t h e r
13 o f f i c e r s responded i n t h a t fashion?
li A. I can check t h e p r o p o s a l , i f you would l i k e .
15. O. Yes, please.
16. A. Okay. So we r e c e i v e d 437 responses. And o f those
12 437. 385 s t a t e d they would purchase t h e i r own i f t h e
la o p p o r t u n i t y was a v a i l a b l e .
11 0. So surveys were sent o u t ; c o r r e c t ?
2fi A. I sent surveys w i t h a member o f t h e -- t h e r e p ,
21 l i k e a r e p member, he was supposed t o d i s p e r s e 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.
24 0. When you say "rep member." what do you mean?
25 A. So CHP has a u n i o n rep. I sent him w i t h t h e
19
WWW.CALDERCOM
Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021
1 surveys t o hand o u t , assuming t h a t every o f f i c e had a r e p
2 meeting o r a r e p person t h e r e .
3 O. What's t h e name o f t h i s s p e c i f i c person?
4 A. Oh. gosh. I b e l i e v e i t would have been O f f i c e r
5 Chilton.
6 O. Do you know t h a t person's f i r s t name?
2 A. Jason.
8 0. I s O f f i c e r C h i l t o n s t i l l w i t h CHP?
1 A. I'm n o t sure. He was i n Yreka.
10 0. Now, t h e surveys t h a t were sent out, was t h i s your
11 idea?
12 A. Yes.
13 O. And you p e r s o n a l l y -- s t r i k e that.
li So t h i s was n o t an o f f i c i a
Preview
1 MAY ALL HURLEY P.C. JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) FiLED/ENDOFISED 2 ibriscoe@inavallaw.coin 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 3 Stockton, California 95207-8253 JUN 2 3 2022 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 By:. H. PEhflELTfiN Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 Deputy Clbrk 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 FOR vs. DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PENAL 12 CODE SECTION 832.7 AND EVIDENCE THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; CODE SECTION 1043 13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. 14 Date: July 20, 2022 Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m. 15 Dept.: 53 Res.: 2647614 16 17 18 19 I, John P. Biiscoe, declare, 20 1. I am an attomey authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a 21 shareholder with Mayall Hurley P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). I have 22 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would . 23 competently testify thereto. 24 2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Ridge's Motion for Discovery 25 Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Pursuant to this motion, 26 Ridge seeks an order directing Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant" or "CHP") to 27 give a fiill and complete response to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 10, previously 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in §, of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 1 of 7 1 served. This interrogatory states "IDENTIFY each person that responded to Officer Erik 2 Mallory's survey of DEFENDANT'S officers regarding extemal load-bearing vests."' Good 3 cause exists for disclosure of all such percipient witnesses, as set forth below. 4 3. In this employment case. Ridge alleges that he was denied a reasonable 5 accommodation for his lower body injuries—permission to wear his law enforcement equipment 6 on an extemal load-bearing vest. CHP denied this accommodation, and has since taken the 7 position in this litigation that an extemal load-bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation 8 because of amorphous "safety, operational, and appearance factors", and because it did not 9 conform to CHP's uniform policy. This comports with what Ridge was told at the time—that 10 CHP's leadership (going all the way to the Commissioner) simply prefers the appearance of the 11 traditional "Sam Browne" belt (the heavy leather belt on which law enforcement officers have 12 traditionally carried their considerable load of personal equipment). Incidentally, the Legislature 13 itself has recognized that these duty belts contribute to lower back impairments. (See Lab. Code, 14 § 3213.2.) 15 4. To put CHP's defense as simply as possible: CHP contends that an external 16 load-bearing vest was not a reasonable accommodation for Officer Ridge, because such a vest 17 does not conform to CHP's Uniform Policy, and that policy reflects the fact that it is not 18 reasonable for a CHP patrolman to wear such a vest as a general matter. Therefore, the 19 reasonableness of this ironclad uniform policy (distinct from the reasonableness of the sought 20 accommodation) is at issue. 21 5. Through discovery, I identified one Officer Erik Mallory, who has, for some time, 22 bravely and vociferously protested CHP's "no-vest" rule and advocated for change. Officer 23 Mallory was deposed (a true and correct copy ofthe transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 1) 24 and he testified that CHP doesn't want officers to wear load-bearing vests '''just because of the 25 way they look" and "fbjecause it's not traditional CHP prides itself on our tan uniform. And 26 27 ' Per the served interrogatories, a request to "IDENTIFY" an individual person calls for that person's full name, job title, any Icnown aliases, last known residential address, all known telephone numbers, and all known email 28 addresses. "DEFENDANT" means Defendant The Califomia Highway Patrol. Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 2 of 7 1 anything that compromises that, does not align." (Exhibit 1, 31:13-33:22, emphasis added.) 2 This corroborates what Ridge alleges he himself was told: That the vest just doesn't look right 3 and the leadership will not compromise the appearance of the standard uniform. Officer Mallory 4 fiirther testified as follows (emphasis added): 5 Officer Mallory, in 2015, proposed to CHP that load-bearing vests should be 6 approved as a uniform item in lieu of the traditional, leather, "Sam Browne" belt. 7 This 26-page submission included statements from himself, physicians, and others, 8 such as: 9 o "Lower back injuries are the leading cause of both short-term and long-term 10 disability in law enforcement" 11 o "The introduction of the daily use of load-bearing vests would serve to 12 dramatically decrease taxpayer costs associated with back injuries" 13 o "The use of a load bearing vest transfers some ofthe items off the service belt to 14 the vest carrier while distributing some of the weight to the officer's shoulders 15 and not solely concentrating weight on the lower levels of the spine. This will 16 reduce forces on the lower spine and prevent cumulative and repetitive trauma 17 in the lumbar spine." 18 o The use of load-bearing vests means that CHP officers would be "less likely to 19 have lower back surgery or routine chiropractic visits for lower back issues in 20 regards to duty belt weight trauma" 21 o The weight of CHP officer's standard equipment (worn on their belt) has 22 increased from 8 to 20 pounds. (Exhibit 1, 25:22-26:3, intemal exhibit GG.) 23 Though he submitted a proposal to CHP that load-bearing vests be permitted as a 24 uniform item, he never received an official response. (Id., 8:4-7.) 25 CHP's refusal to allow this vest for patrol officers, regardless of the circumstances, 26 was apparently attributable to the dictates of CHP's Commissioner himself. (Id., 27 8:8-22.) 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 3 of 7 1 Officer Mallory has suffered substantial back pain that he attributes to wearing the 2 standard, leather, "Sam Browne" belt with his personal equipment (sidearm, radio, 3 etc.). ( M , 7:15-11:19.) 4 Officer Mallory, pursuant to his own research (e.g., consulting with other law 5 enforcement agencies) believes that load-bearing vests should be an approved 6 uniform item for CHP patrolmen because it would alleviate lower back stress and 7 increase officer safety and save the State money on medical payouts. {Id., 12:10- 8 14:8.) 9 As to why CHP doesn't want its officers wearing load-bearing vests, Officer Mallory 10 heard from CHP that "it appears too tactical and doesn't look like our traditional 11 uniform." {Id., 17:3-23.) 12 So as to advocate for load-bearing vests as an approved uniform item, Officer 13 Mallory and others went surveys around the state which asked (a) "in the event [load- 14 bearing vests] are approved, would you purchase your own?"; (b) "Do you currently 15 have back stress while wearing a duty belt?"; and (c) "Do you believe [load-bearing 16 vests] would benefit employees & the department?" Of437 responses, 385 CHP 17 officers said they would pay f o r their own load-bearing vests i f the opportunity was 18 available. This was not an official survey; this was Officer Mallory's "baby." {Id., 19 19:1-20:24.) 20 Officer Mallory believes that CHP doesn't want officers to wear load-bearing vests 21 "just because o f the way they look" and "fbjecause it's not traditional. CHP prides 22 itself on our tan uniform. And anything that compromises that, does not align." 23 (31:13-33:22.) 24 Subsequently, CHP produced copies of the survey responses which Officer Mallory 25 discussed at deposition. A true and correct copy of these documents is attached hereto as Exhibit 26 2. As can be seen, the overwhelming lot of these officers responded (though they were under no 27 obligation to respond at all) that they believed that extemal load-bearing vests would benefit CHP 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 4 of 7 1 and its officers, and also that they are experiencing back stress while wearing the standard duty 2 belt. (Exhibit 2.) By any stretch, this would tend to undercut CHP's official line that a load-bearing 3 vest was not a reasonable accommodation because of "safety, operational, and appearance factors". 4 After all, these are the very officers who are bound by the ironclad uniform policy and are asked 5 to wear heavy equipment on their waist, every workday, for years or even decades. Their opinion 6 on the reasonableness of this policy, and also their own experience adhering to that policy, is 7 relevant. It is self-evident that CHP's own officers—the very persons who are required to conform 8 to the Uniform Policy, every single workday—can testily from their own perception and 9 experience whether the rigid no-vest policy makes any bit of sense, not on paper but in the real 10 world. They might, as did Officer Erik Mallory, testify that wearing the Sam Browne leather duty 11 belt, with approximately 20 pounds of equipment, over a period of years or even decades is 12 extremely uncomfortable and has contributed to back stress. They might also testify, as did Officer 13 Erik Mallory, that based on their time in service, wearing an extemal load-bearing vest would not 14 likely form a physical disadvantage were an officer engaged in a violent struggle with a criminal 15 suspect. They may further testify to the general effect—as did Officer Erik Mallory—that the no- 16 vest policy makes no practical sense outside ofa purely cosmetic standpoint. (See Evid. Code, § 17 800, subd. (a) [witness may testify based on his or her own perception].) CHP may make the mles, 18 but it is the rank-and-file which have to obey those mles. If CHP is going to claim that it couldn't 19 grant a certain requested accommodation because '''them's the rules", then the reasonableness of 20 the rules themselves are thus at issue and the officers themselves, clearly, have something to say 21 on this issue. CHP should not be permitted to hide these persons just because it doesn't like what 22 they have to say. 23 6. The aforementioned survey responses do not provide contact information for any 24 of these percipient witnesses. Ridge then served Special Interrogatories, Set Three, seeking such 25 information (and also for those officers that have advocated to CHP's Uniform Committee to 26 allow the wearing of extemal weight-bearing vests). A tme and correct copy of these 27 interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 5 of 7. 1 7. On or around March 29, 2022,1 received CHP's responses to Special 2 Interrogatories, Set Three, a tme and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 3 Immediately after reviewing the interrogatory responses, I emailed Mr. Curran to set up a call to 4 discuss the responses. The parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute informally. 5 8. Subsequently, I filed a motion to compel further interrogatory responses, pursuant 6 to the Civil Discovery Act. On May 12, 2022, after oral argument, the motion was granted in part 7 and denied in part, without prejudice to Ridge to bring a "Pitchess"^ motion like the one 8 submitted herewith. 9 9. On June 20, 2022,1 received CHP's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, 10 Set Three. A tme and correct copy of these responses, with verification and attached spreadsheet, 11 are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 5. As can be seen, this spreadsheet does not provide 12 any contact information for former CHP employees. Per counsel for CHP, while contact 13 information is provided for current employees, it is only work contact information. 14 10. Good cause for disclosure of the fiill names and contact information of those 15 persons who are set forth in the Notice of Motion. This is because, as set forth above, these 16 persons are percipient witnesses per Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, and there exists 17 no other way for my office to obtain this information, except for disclosure by Defendant. No 18 sensitive medical information is being sought. 19 11. Furthermore, the right to discovery in Califomia is a broad one. Courts have 20 liberally constmed the discovery statutes, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever 21 possible. {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.) The primary 22 limitation on discovery is that the information sought must be (1) not privileged, (2) relevant to 23 the subject matter of the action, and (3) either itself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to 24 the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.) Importantly, admissibility 25 is not the test for discovery; the test is whether the information sought might at least reasonably 26 27 See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 897. 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 6 of 7 1 lead to other evidence that would be admissible. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010; Davies v. 2 Superior Court (1984) 36 Ca.3d 291, 401; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 3 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490-1491.) The "relevance to the subject matter" and "reasonably 4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" standards are applied liberally, and 5 any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. {Colonial Life & Accident Ins. 6 Co. V. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) 7 12. Clearly, one of the core fimctions of discovery is to identify and locate witnesses. 8 "Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any 9 discoverable matter[.]" (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010; see also Puerto v. Superior Court 10 (2008) 158 Cal.App.4"^ 1242, 1249-1250.) CHP has taken the posifion that the requested 11 accommodation (an external load bearing vest) was not a reasonable accommodation because it 12 contravenes the uniform policy and would pose some kind of hazard. Again, it must be 13 emphasized that CHP contends that the external weight-bearing vest was not a reasonable 14 accommodation for Ridge because it's not reasonable to let patrolmen wear such a vest, as a 15 general policy. That general policy is thus at issue. 16 13. Hundreds of CHP officers took it upon themselves to voluntarily respond to an 17 unofficial survey, and freely express their willingness to pay f o r their own vests, i f approved, and 18 that they believe wearing vests would benefit CHP and its officers. (Exhibits 1 (19:1-20:24), 2.) 19 Most of these officers also attested that they are presently experiencing back stress while wearing 20 a duty belt. {Id., Exhibit 2.) If CHP is going to contend that its Uniform Policy foreclosed 21 Ridge's sought accommodation, and that said policy is a reasonable one, then it must concede 22 that the opinions of its own officers is of relevance. Simply put, these officers are wimesses on a 23 relevant matter, and thus their identities, per statute, are discoverable. 24 14. I believe, reasonably, that CHP has the names and contact information of its own 25 officers, as are sought pursuant to this motion. This should be self-evident, i f only because (1) 26 every employer needs to know who its employees are, and how to reach them, and (2) CHP has 27 explicitly objected that it should not have to disclose the names and personal contact information 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Support of Motion For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 7 of 7 1 for these officers, thus implying that it has that information. 2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Califomia that the 3 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed this twenty-first day of June, 2022, in Lodi, Califomia. 4 5 JOHN P. BRISCOE 6 7 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 For Discovery Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code section 1043. Page 8 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" ---oOo 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, inclusive. 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 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: Andrene G a t t i , CSR 13 851 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 APPEARANCES: 2 FOR PLAINTIFF: 3 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. BY: JOHN BRISCOE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 4 2453 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: 209-477-3833 F: 209-473-4818 6 JbriscoeOmayallaw.com 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 10 P: 916-210-6113 F: 916-324-5567 11 James.Curran@doj.ca.gov 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ALSO PRESENT: 21 Andrene G a t t i - Reporter 22 23 24 25 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 BY PAGE 3 Mr. Briscoe 4 4 Mr. Curran 37 5 oOo 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 7 EXHIBIT PAGE 8 E x h i b i t GG 25 9 E x h i b i t HH 27 10 Exhibit I I 29 11 Exhibit JJ 36 12 -oOo-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2021, VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE I 2 10:08 a.m. 3 * * * 4 ERIK MALLORY, 5 t h e 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 officer, t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 8 9 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 you as O f f i c e r M a l l o r y ; 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 represent David 18 Ridge i n a l a w s u i t t h a t he has brought a g a i n s t 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 WVy/W.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Have you had your d e p o s i t i o n taken before? 4 A. I have n o t i n t h i s r e s p e c t , I ' v e t e s t i f i e d i n 5 court. But... 6 Q. Understood. 7 But you've never s a t f o r a d e p o s i t i o n , though; 8 correct? 9 A. C o r r e c t . 10 Q. Understood. 11 Do you f e e l t h a t you a d e q u a t e l y understand t h e 12 procedure? 13 A. I f e e l so, yes. 14 Q. Okay. You understand t h a t you're under o a t h under 15 penalty of perjury; correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You understand t h a t ' s t h e same o a t h t h a t you would 18 take i f you were t e s t i f y i n g i n open c o u r t ; c o r r e c t ? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n , 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? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. How long have you been employed w i t h CHP? 25 A. Since 2006. WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 A. I n about 2 017, I was i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d a u n i f o r m 2 committee meeting where I presented i t t o the uniform "l committee -- do you want t h e whole t i m e l i n e ? 4 0. W e l l , l e t me ask you t h i s : Your p r o p o s a l , was i t 5 rejected? 6 A. I never r e c e i v e d an o f f i c i a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o r 7 rei ectioh. 8 0. Okay. D i d you r e c e i v e any k i n d o f u n o f f i c i a l 9 response, d i d anybody t e l l you what t h e response would be 13. o r was t o your proposal? 11 A. So a f t e r numerous meetings w i t h t h e u n i f o r m 12 coTnmittee and o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y , i t was forwarded t o the 13 commissioner's o f f i c e . And I r e c e i v e d an u n o f f i c i a l 14 n o t i c e from an i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n I had w i t h someone 15 t h a t a t t e n d e d a u n i o n rep meeting where Warren S t a n l e y , 16 t h e commissioner a t t h e time, b a s i c a l l y addressed t h e 11 audience, saying t h a t t h e l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t would n o t be M approved d u r i n g h i s time as commissioner. But I never 19 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 20 why. 21 O. What i s Commissioner Stanley's f i r s t name? 22 A. Warren. 23 0. And i f I understand you c o r r e c t l y , you were n o t 24 present y o u r s e l f , p e r s o n a l l y , a t any meeting o r s i m i l a r 25 t h i n g where Commissioner S t a n l e y made these remarks t h a t WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 i you j u s t described? 2 A. That's c o r r e c t . I was n o t p r e s e n t . "l O. Who r e l a y e d t h a t vou; who d i d you hear t h a t from? 4 A. I don't remember. I t was j u s t a l i g h t 5 c o n v e r s a t i o n I had w i t h somebody a t one time w i t h i n t h e 6 l a s t p r o b a b l y two years. 7 0. Okay. And you don't remember who t h a t person was? 8 A. I don't. 1 0. D i d anybody ever g i v e you any k i n d o f e x p l a n a t i o n 10 as t o why vour p r o p o s a l was n o t accepted? 11 A. No. 12 0. Do you have any u n d e r s t a n d i n g as t o why your 13 p r o p o s a l was n o t accepted? 14 A. No. 15 O. Your p r o p o s a l t h a t you s u b m i t t e d , d i d you prepare 16. i t yourself? 17 A. My w i f e and I d i d . 18 0. What's your w i f e ' s name? 12 A. Kadee. 20 .0. And t h a t ' s K-a-d-e-e? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And i s h e r l a s t name M a l l o r y ? II A. Yes. 24 0. And you two a r e l e g a l l y m a r r i e d . I assume? 25 A. Yes. WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition 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. 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 t h e v e h i c l e code and o t h e r laws? 9 A. C o r r e c t . ' 10 Q. Were you i n a c a r o r on a motorcycle? 11 A. I n a c a r . 12 Q. And now you f l y , I'm assuming, a h e l i c o p t e r ? 13 A. C o r r e c t . 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 , b u t n o t f o r CHP. 16 Q. Okay. So i f I understand c o r r e c t l y , from 2 0 06 up 17 u n t i l r o u g h l y two years ago, you were on t h e road as a 18 highway patrolman; c o r r e c t ? 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? 22 A . - I reviewed t h e amended d e p o s i t i o n and went over my 23 l o a d - b e a r i n g vest p r o p o s a l t h a t I had submitted 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.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 MR. CURRAN: Vague. When d i d he submit i t ? 2 MR. BRISCOE: Correct. 3 THE WITNESS: I f i n i s h e d i t i n 2015. 4 MR. BRISCOE: Q. And t h a t was a w r i t t e n proposal? 5 A. C o r r e c t . 6 Q. And d i d you submit t h a t t o t h e u n i f o r m committee? 7 A. I s u b m i t t e d i t through t h e channels t o t h e u n i f o r m 8 committee, as w e l l as o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y . 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 w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t s o r l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t s o r 12 w e i g h t - d i s t r i b u t i n g v e s t s , my understanding i s t h a t we a r e 13 t a l k i n g about a type o f t a c t i c a l v e s t t h a t one wears over 14 t h e i r s h i r t o r j a c k e t , o r whatever, t o which t h e i r 15 s t a n d a r d equipment i s a t t a c h e d , meaning, you know, s i d e 16 arm, r a d i o , pepper spray, maybe t a s e r . handcuffs, t h i n g s 12 of t h a t n a t u r e ; i s t h a t your understanding as w e l l ? 1& A. C o r r e c t . 19 O. Because o t h e r w i s e , highway patrolmen wear t h e Sam 20 Browne b e l t which c a r r i e s a l l t h e i r equipment; c o r r e c t ? 21 A. Yes. 22 0. And when you were a patrolman on t h e road, you 23. wore t h e Sam Browne b e l t ; c o r r e c t ? 24 A. Yes. 25 0. What was t h e r e s u l t o f your s u b m i t t e d proposal? WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 O. How l o n g have you been married? 2 A. Ten y e a r s . 3 O. I s she a l s o w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ? 4 A. No. 5 O. Was she w i t h C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l ? 6 A. No. 7 O. I s she i n law enforcement? 8 A. No. 1 O. Has she ever been i n law enforcement? 10 A. No. 11 O. What i s her occupation? 12 A. Stay-at-home w i f e . 13 O. I s t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r reason t h a t she a s s i s t e d 14 you i n p r e p a r i n g t h e proposal? 15 A. She knows how much i t means t o me and she would 16 rub mv back when i t h u r t from s t r e s s and she j u s t s u p p o r t s 11 me. 18 0. Okay. So you wore t h e Sam Browne b e l t f o r q u i t e a la while; correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 O. Now, when you a r e on t h e road wearing t h e Sam 22 Browne b e l t , a r e you w o r k i n g f i v e days a week? 23 A. I t has v a r i e d because o f d i f f e r e n t s h i f t s . I . 24 s t a r t e d o u t on 8-hour s h i f t s i n Castro V a l l e y and we went 25 t o 12-hour s h i f t s and t h e n t o 9-hour s h i f t s , so i t ' s 10 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 varied. 2 0. On average, how many hours p e r week would you work 1 as a highway patrolman wearing t h e Sam Browne b e l t ? 4 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague as t o time. 5 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Just over t h e d u r a t i o n , a rough 6 average. 7 A. I guess 40. 8 0. Okay• And so i f I hear you c o r r e c t l y , wearing t h e 9 Same Browne b e l t w i t h t h e equipment, you b e l i e v e that IQ 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 back? 11 A. On my lower back, ves. 12 0. And I assume -- w e l l , s t r i k e t h a t . 13 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? 15 A. Not mine, no. 16 0. But 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 17 the equipment c o n t r i b u t e d t o your lower back p a i n ; 18 correct? 19 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 do you 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 my back worked on. But i t made i t worse, so I d i d n ' t 23 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 11 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 o p i n i o n as t o what was causing your lower back pain? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Has any p h y s i c i a n o r any medical p r o f e s s i o n a l 4 expressed an o p i n i o n t o you as t o what was causing t h a t 5 lower back pain? 6 A. Not my lower back p a i n , no. 7 Q. Okay. Have you ever f i l e d a workers' compensation 8 c l a i m r e l a t e d t o t h e lower back pain? 9 A. No. 10 0. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t s should be 11 an approved i t e m f o r t h e u n i f o r m f o r CHP patrolmen? 12 MR. CURRAN: Objection. C a l l s f o r an improper 11 o p i n i o n testimony and perhaps a l e g a l conclusion. li And I could n o t hear t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e r e were p a r t s 15 of i t i n t h e middle t h a t I t h i n k I missed. May I ask t h e 16 r e p o r t e r t o read i t back, please? 12 (Reporter read back question.) 18 MR. BRISCOE: Q. You can answer, s i r . 19 A. I do b e l i e v e so. y e s . 20 0. And why i s t h a t ? 21 MR• CURRAN: Objection. C a l l s f o r an improper 22. o p i n i o n testimony, perhaps a l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n . Vague and 23 ambiguous. 24 Please answer. 25 THE WITNESS: I b e l i e v e t h r o u g h my research, that 12 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e weight, t h e r e q u i r e d gear from the b e l t 2 t o a l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t would a l l e v i a t e lower back s t r e s s 3 and increase o f f i c e r s a f e t y and save t h e State money on 4 medical payouts, basically. 5 MR. BRISCOE: 0. And g e n e r a l l y , what research have you done? 7 A. So i n 2015 t h e proposal was f i n i s h e d . Prior t o 8 t h a t , we had c o n t a c t e d numerous law enforcement agencies, 9 numerous medical p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and spoke w i t h t h e 10 manufacturer o f a v e s t company. And through a l l o f t h a t 11 research, t h a t i s what I f o r m u l a t e d my o p i n i o n s on. 12 0. And when you say -- I b e l i e v e you s a i d you 13 c o n s u l t e d w i t h o t h e r law enforcement agencies; i s that 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 0. Which agencies? 12 A. P r i m a r i l y A u s t r a l i a n p o l i c e f o r c e , they went t o an 18 e x t e r n a l c a r r i e r t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e weight o f t h e i r gear. 19 And they have a p o l i c e f o r c e o f -- r o u g h l y s i m i l a r t o 20 ours, s e v e r a l thousand, and t h e y d i d a v e r y b i g w r i t e - u p . 21 as f a r as t h e research and p l a n n i n g , p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n , 22 medical payout savings. 23 And I've spoken w i t h l o c a l p o l i c e departments t h a t 24 have gone t o t h e l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t s , and they sav t h a t 25 they l i k e them. They sav t h e i r back s t r e s s i s reduced. CALPEP 13 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 MR. CURRAN: I ' l l r e s e r v e my r i g h t on CHP's b e h a l f 2 t o move t o s t r i k e p a r t o f t h e witness's answer as ~i rionresponsive. 4 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Which l o c a l agencies d i d you 5 speak o r correspond with? 6 A. Yreka P o l i c e Department and S i s k i y o u County 2 S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e , t h a t was where I was assigned f o r the 8 l a s t t e n years p r i o r t o coming t o a i r o p t s . 9 Q. P r i o r t o , I'm s o r r y ? 10 A. P r i o r t o coming t o t h e a v i a t i o n u n i t , 11 Q. And t h e a v i a t i o n u n i t i s i n Redding? 12 A. C o r r e c t . 13 Q. So when you say t h a t ' s where you were p r e v i o u s l y , 14 you mean t h a t you were i n t h e CHP, assigned within 15 S i s k i y o u County? 16 A. C o r r e c t . 17 Q. A l l r i g h t . And so i t i s your understanding that 18 b o t h Yreka P o l i c e Department and S i s k i y o u County S h e r i f f ' s 19 Department b o t h used these e x t e r n a l v e s t c a r r i e r s ? 20 A. They d i d . 21 Q. Okay. And when we say " e x t e r n a l v e s t c a r r i e r , " we 22 are t a l k i n g about t h e same t h i n g as a l o a d - b e a r i n g v e s t o r 23 the w e i g h t - b e a r i n g v e s t ; c o r r e c t ? 24 A. C o r r e c t . 25 Q. They're a l l i n t e r c h a n g a b l e terms, t o y o u r 14 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 understanding? 2 A. R i g h t . 3 Q. Was t h e r e a c e r t a i n person a t t h e Yreka Police 4 Department t h a t you spoke w i t h about v e s t carriers? 5 A. Not o f f i c i a l l y , j u s t i n passing. 6 Q. W e l l , do you remember t h e name o f any person t h a t 7 you spoke w i t h , i f o n l y i n passing? 8 A. Probably Cash Hasemeyer. 9 Q. F i r s t name i s Cash? 10 A. Cash. 11 Q. C-a-s-h? 12 A. E i t h e r C o r K. 13 Q. What's t h a t l a s t name? 14 A. Hasemeyer, H-a-s-e-m-e-y-e-r. 15 Q. And i s t h a t person s t i l l w i t h t h e Yreka Police 16 Department? 17 A. I b e l i e v e so. 18 Q. Do you know, i s t h i s a man? 19 A. I'm s o r r y , can you repeat? 20 Q. T h i s i s a man? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you know t h a t person's rank o r t i t l e ? 23 A. He was an o f f i c e r w h i l e I was t h e r e . 24 Q. And what d i d Mr. Hasemeyer t e l l you w i t h r e g a r d t o 25 vest carriers? 15 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 A. That he l i k e d wearing i t b e t t e r than 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 r e g a r d i n g 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 ? 7 A. I'm t r y i n g t o remember h i s name. I t eludes me, 8 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 p o l i c e f o r c e , t o 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 14 anybody a t t h a t agency, s p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h r e g a r d t o v e s t 15 carriers? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you know who you spoke w i t h ? 18 A. I would have t o go back on my e-mails, i t ' s been 19 close t o eight t o t e n years. 20 Q. Okay. So have you -- you have exchanged some 21 e-mail 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. Do you s t i l l have those e-mails? 24 A. I'm n o t sure. 25 Q. Okay. You have n o t looked f o r those e-mails CALPEP 16 WWW.CALDEP.COM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 recently; correct? 2 A. I have n o t looked f o r them r e c e n t l y . 3 O. Has anybody ever g i v e n you what you t h i n k i s a 4 good e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why law enforcement o f f i c e r s s h o u l d 5 not wear v e s t c a r r i e r s ? 6 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 7 C a l l s f o r improper o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y . Seeks i n f o r m a t i o n 8 o u t s i d e t h e scope o f d i s c o v e r y . 3. Please answer. 10 THE WITNESS: I've heard people say t h a t i t ' s g o i n g 11 t o p u t s t r e s s on your shoulders and your upper back, and 12 I've heard people sav t h a t t h e grab handle i n t h e back o f 13 the c a r r i e r c o u l d be grabbed by c r i m i n a l s i n a f i g h t . li Are you a s k i n g about how highway p a t r o l , why t h e y 15 say t h e y don't want i t also? 16 MR. BRISCOE: Q„.. Sure. 12 A. I've heard from CHP t h a t i t appears t o o t a c t i c a l 18 and doesn't l o o k l i k e o u r t r a d i t i o n a l u n i f o r m . 11 O. Okay. And none o f these arguments have changed 20 your o p i n i o n , though; c o r r e c t ? 21 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. 22 C a l l s f o r improper o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y . Legal c o n c l u s i o n . 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 MR. CURRAN: And s o r r y t o i n t e r r u p t , I was t o o busy 25 t a k i n g notes. I heard the w i t n e s s ' s response, which was 17 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 no, I would ask t h a t t h e r e p o r t e r read back t h e response t o t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e l a s t q u e s t i o n , please. 3 MR. BRISCOE: Counsel, I'm not going t o have y o u 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 -- you know, I can't keep doing t h i s , 6 so I hope you understand that. 7 MR. CURRAN: No, I don't understand t h a t . IfI 8 need a response read back, I'm a s k i n g -- 9 (Unreportable c r o s s t a l k . ) 10 MR. BRISCOE: You can take notes, b u t I'm not g o i n g 11 t o have h e r s t o p p i n g my examination and r e a d i n g back every 12 q u e s t i o n and answer a t your whim. 13 MR. CURRAN: I understand t h a t . Counsel. Calm 14 down. I t ' s n o t going t o be every q u e s t i o n . I f I need t h e 15 r e p o r t e r t o read back a response, as you know from many 16 years o f experience, t h a t ' s my r i g h t . You're w a s t i n g time 17 by i n s t r u c t i n g a simple e f f o r t . 18 I would, again, r e s p e c t f u l l y request t h a t t h e c o u r t 19 r e p o r t e r read back t h e second t o t h e l a s t response, 20 MR. BRISCOE: Okay. W e l l , I'm a s k i n g her. not t o . 21 MR. CURRAN: I would again 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 t e n seconds. 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 and answer.) 25 MR. CURRAN: Thank you. Go ahead. Counsel. 18 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 MR. BRISCOE: 0- Do you 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 3 v e s t c a r r i e r s should be an approved item f o r wear? 4 MR. CURRAN: Objection. Improper o p i n i o n 5 testimony. Legal c o n c l u s i o n . 6 THE WITNESS: With our p r o p o s a l , we t r i e d t o send 7 surveys around t h e State t o see i f o f f i c e r s would p r e f e r 8 and/or purchase t h e i r own. And t h e numbers a r e i n my 2 p r o p o s a l , b u t we r e c e i v e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f people 10 t h a t do share my o p i n i o n t h a t would purchase and wear 11 t h e i r own, i f they were g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y . 12 MR. BRISCOE: 0. Do you know how many o t h e r 13 o f f i c e r s responded i n t h a t fashion? li A. I can check t h e p r o p o s a l , i f you would l i k e . 15. O. Yes, please. 16. A. Okay. So we r e c e i v e d 437 responses. And o f those 12 437. 385 s t a t e d they would purchase t h e i r own i f t h e la o p p o r t u n i t y was a v a i l a b l e . 11 0. So surveys were sent o u t ; c o r r e c t ? 2fi A. I sent surveys w i t h a member o f t h e -- t h e r e p , 21 l i k e a r e p member, he was supposed t o d i s p e r s e 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. 24 0. When you say "rep member." what do you mean? 25 A. So CHP has a u n i o n rep. I sent him w i t h t h e 19 WWW.CALDERCOM Deposition of Erik Mallory 12/15/2021 1 surveys t o hand o u t , assuming t h a t every o f f i c e had a r e p 2 meeting o r a r e p person t h e r e . 3 O. What's t h e name o f t h i s s p e c i f i c person? 4 A. Oh. gosh. I b e l i e v e i t would have been O f f i c e r 5 Chilton. 6 O. Do you know t h a t person's f i r s t name? 2 A. Jason. 8 0. I s O f f i c e r C h i l t o n s t i l l w i t h CHP? 1 A. I'm n o t sure. He was i n Yreka. 10 0. Now, t h e surveys t h a t were sent out, was t h i s your 11 idea? 12 A. Yes. 13 O. And you p e r s o n a l l y -- s t r i k e that. li So t h i s was n o t an o f f i c i a