Preview
eH
22227560
FILED ~
ALAMEDA COUNTY
John Houston
Lizabeth N. de
Scott
Vries
(SBN
(SBN
72578)
227215)
DEC 1.8 2019
Scott LAW F1RM CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 By ean ¥
San Francisco, Califomia 94109
Telephone: (415) 561-9600
Facsimile: (415) 561-9609
john@scottlawfirm.net
liza@scottlawfirm.net
Attomeys for Plaintiff MILDRED OLIVER
~
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA — OAKLAND DIVISION
10
1] MILDRED OLIVER,
Case No. RG19007799
12 Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY
Vv.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
14
OS
CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
15 25, inclusive.
OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION
(“PITCHESS”) MOTION
16
hq
Defendants.
ity
Date: December 20, 2019
17
i
Time: 9:00 a.m.
51
Department: 25, The Honorable Ronni MacLaren
18
4
:S
19 Reservation No.: R-2132170
20 Date Action Filed: February 21, 2019
Date FAC Filed: April 23, 2019
21 Trial Date: September 8,2020
22
23
24
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
INTRODUCTION
While the City of Oakland may dispute the claims made, itmay not mischaracterize and
misrepresent what has been alleged for purposes of limiting relevant, criticaldiscovery.
The plaintiff was assigned to conduct an JA investigation of allegations contained in
Officer O’Brien’s suicide note. Her investigation of allegations in the suicide note isat the heart
of this case. A protective order will adequately address the privacy concerns raised by the City
ON
and Officer O’Brien’s family members.
“a
Notably, it ispublic knowledge that Officer O’ Brien committed suicide soon afterhe
oo
learned that his ongoing sexual relationship with a minor was about to become public and would
10 likely result in his termination, and possibly criminal charges. Predictably, this also raised new
tl suspicions regarding his wife’s apparent suicide approximately one year earlier. His alibi was
12 that she shot herself soon after he left home to go to a nearby 7-11.
715
94109
SUITE
FIRM
13 Certain allegations in First Amended Complaint are worth repeating:
CA
STREET,
14 1. Background: Sgt. Mildred Oliver has served the OPD for 22 years; in 2014 she was
LAW
FRANCISCO,
an investigator inthe Internal Affairs Division (IAD).
15
SCOTT
SUTTER
1, From August 22, 1997 to the present Mildred L. Oliver, a Black female, was
16 employed as a police officer for the Oakland Police Department (hereafter "OPD"), and was
SAN
17 promoted to Sergeant in 2012.
1388
2. Throughout her tenure, she performed her job duties satisfactorily.
18 3. In 2014, Sgt. Oliver was assigned as an investigator inthe Internal Affairs
Division of the OPD (“IAD”).
19 4. Sgt. Oliver was the only female OPD IAD investigator out of eight investigators.
20 Il. The OPD assigns Set. Oliver a limited investigation of a suicide note even though the
21 note implicated OPD officers as engaging in statutory rape of an identified Minor.
22 5. On June 14, 2014, OPD Officer Brendan O’Brien’s wife was killed.Officer
O’Brien was a primary suspect. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Officer O’Brien’s
23 wife had recently discovered that her husband had been cheating on her.
6. The OPD’s official investigation concluded that Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death
24 was a suicide, not a murder. Sgt. Mike Gantt disagreed with this conclusion. Sgt. Gantt believed
25 Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide. However, after he voiced these beliefs, the OPD
removed Spt. Gantt from the investigation.
26 7. On September 25, 2015, OPD Officer O’Brien committed suicide and lefta note.
Officer O’Brien implicated himself and two other OPD members. He identified a minor female
27 (“Celeste”) who accused Officer O’Brien and another former OPD officer (Officer #1) of
28 -l-
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
statutory rape. The note also identified a Black male OPD Sergeant, Sgt. Leroy Johnson, as aware
of Officer O’ Brien’s and Officers #1’s misconduct.
8. The OPD launched an IAD investigation only as against Sgt. Johnson for his
alleged failure to report misconduct by Officers O’Brien and XXX.
9. On or about October 1, 2015, the OPD assigned the Sgt. Johnson IAD
investigation to Sgt. Oliver.
no
a. Sgt. Oliver finds Celeste to be credible and seeks to expand the investigation
and refer the case as a criminal matter; the OPD denied both requests.
NHN
10. Within days of the assignment, Sgt. Oliver reviewed the case file,watched the
4
video of the criminal investigators’ interview of Celeste, and discussed the matter with her
supervisor, Acting Lt. Todd Mork (White male). Sgt. Oliver recommended the scope of the
CO
investigation be expanded and referred as a criminal investigation and Acting Lt. Mork agreed
oO
with plaintiff'srecommendations. However, the OPD denied both requests. Instead, the OPD
instructed plaintiffto continue with the limited administrative investigation against Sgt. Johnson.
10
11. Plaintiff was told that the chain of command decided Celeste was not “credible.”
1] In contrast, Sgt. Oliver found Celeste to be credible. Sgt. Oliver was also concerned because
Celeste’s mother was then working at the OPD, as a Dispatcher #1.
715
12. The OPD elected to address thissuicide note, containing allegations of OPD
94109
SUITE
officers participating in statutory rape, as ifitwere a garden-variety IAD investigation. This
FIRM
13 avoided identifying and investigating other OPD officers who potentially engaged in criminal
CA
behavior. It also avoided determining whether Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide.
STREET,
{4
LAW
FRANCISCO,
13. | Between October 2015 and February 2016, plaintiffworked closely with her chain
of command (Lt. Alan Yu and Capt. Donna Hoppenhauer) and the assigned City Attorney
SCOTT
SUTTER
(Allyson Cook) to conduct the investigation of Sgt. Johnson.
16 14. | The OPD provided Sgt. Oliver with no support to timely complete this
SAN
investigation. For example, she was not offered overtime or assistance. Rather, she was told that
17
1388
then-Chief Sean Whent wanted this case behind him. Sgt. Oliver also had three other
18 investigations assigned toher.
19 b. In February 2016, Sgt. Oliver was told by OPD members and agents that she
was doing a good job in concluding that Sgt. Johnson failed to report
20 misconduct.
21 15. Onor about February 10, 2016, Sgt. Oliver timely drafted and presented her IA
22 report and recommended a sustained finding against Sgt. Johnson.
16. Sgt. Oliver also referenced numerous other OPD officers as potential subjects for a
23 statutory-rape investigation.
17. Sgt. Oliver followed proper procedures and received favorable responses regarding
24 the content and recommended findings of this JAD report.
18. In February 2016, the plaintiffwas told she was doing a good job.
26 Ill. The NSA was an obstacle for the OPD to sweep this sex scandal under the rug.
27 19. The OPD was then (and now) subject to a federal-court monitoring process; the
OPD had to comply with aNegotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”).
28 -2-
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
20. The NSA required the OPD report to a court-appointed Monitor and ultimately the
federal court to demonstrate that the OPD was in compliance with the NSA.
21. In March 2016, Sgt. Oliver’s report on the sexual-misconduct matter involving
Sgt. Johnson was presented to the Monitor and then to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson.
a. In March 2016, the federal court overseeing the OPD understood that the
OPD IAD investigation was unduly narrowed and incomplete.
22. On March 26, 2016, Judge Henderson issued an order which stated as follows:
“This case raises most serious concerns that may well impact Defendants’ [OPD] abilityto
demonstrate their commitment to accountability and sustainability — both of which are key to
ending court oversight.” The judge also noted that the matter revealed “irregularities and potential
violations of the NSA.” Moreover, the Court directed the Compliance Director touse his
authority “to ensure this case and any related matters are properly and timely investigated and that
all appropriate follow-up actions are taken.”
23. The OPD made a decision to make Sgt. Oliver ascapegoat.
10
ll b. The OPD made Set. Oliver itsscapegoat by removing her from the
investigation, blaming her for its limitations, and launching a course of
715
12 conduct to harass and retaliate against her.
94109
SUITE
FIRM
13 24. On March 29, 2016, then-acting-Chief Lois removed Sgt. Oliver from the
CA
investigation. However, Acting Lt. Mork (Caucasian male) was not affected in any way (he was
STRERT,
14
LAW
FRANCISCO,
not assigned tothe case) although he also believed the matter should have been investigated
15 criminally. Instead he was promoted and later transferred tothe IAD Intake Unit as Acting
SCOTT
SUTTER
Lieutenant.
16 25. Lt. Yu was assigned to take over this investigation as his only case. He was
SAN
directed to add staff,overtime, and other resources toexpand the scope and nature of the
1388
17 investigation. This included bringing in Criminal Investigation Division investigators. In contrast,
Sgt. Oliver had three other investigations assigned to her and was provided no additional support.
18
26. For example, Sgt. Oliver was assigned a complaint filed by Sgt. Mike Gantt, an
19 African-American officer who alleged then-Lt. John Lois transferred him off of Officer O’Brien’s
wife’s death investigation. Sgt. Gantt also alleged Lt. Lois then engaged in subsequent
20 harassment, motivated by racial animus or retaliation. Sgt. Oliver believed that Sgt. Gantt’s
allegations should be substantiated and required additional investigation.
21 27. | Onor about April 5, 2016, the OPD removed Sgt. Oliver from Sgt. Gantt’s
22 investigation without explanation.
28. After the Court’s March 26, 2016 order, Sgt. Oliver’s supervisors and the City
23 Attorney’s office began criticizing her performance, re-evaluating her previously completed
investigations, and documenting fabricated short-comings.
24 29. Contrary to the positive feedback she had received prior to March 2016, the OPD
alleged Sgt. Oliver’s investigation into the sex scandal was “flawed” and “caused significant
25 negative attention to the OPD.”
26
28 -3-
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
The City now contends itis “organizing” the “vast” file to make review by the court as “easy
and efficient as possible.” The problem with this effort to assistthe court isthat it allows the City
to remove, misplace or destroy material information/evidence inthe filethat could be critical to
W
proving Plaintiffs allegations. There is both motive and opportunity. The one IA file requested
~
includes all of the plaintiff'swork product that the City claims was deficient and unsatisfactory,
WN
in addition to other information that would likely support her claims.
DW
ARGUMENT
~~
The parties have met and conferred while recognizing that the law requires an in camera
CO
inspection of an IA file before itcan be produced. The one IA file in question contains the
OO
plaintiffs work she did as an 1A investigator related exclusively to allegations made in Officer
Oo
\1 O’Brien’s suicide note. The issue here is not the privacy of an officer being investigated for
715
12 alleged misconduct. Rather, the issue is whether Sgt. Oliver was responsible for the investigation
94109
SUITE
FIRM
13 being “flawed” and incomplete.
CA
STREET,
14 The City’s representation that itis “organizing” the fileto make the court’s review as easy
LAW
FRANCISCO,
15 and efficient as possible creates a risk that the complete fileis not produced for inspection, nor
SCOTT
SUTTER
16 produced as it was maintained in the normal course of business. Unless the entire file isproduced,
SAN
1388
17 the work of Sgt. Oliver cannot be compared and contrasted with the work done by others after she
18 was removed from the case.
19 This isnot potential character evidence thatcould be used against an officer who is a
20 repeat offender; rather, the entire fileis the best evidence of plaintiff'sperformance and
thoroughness. This iscentral to the entire case.
22 In addition, aprotective order, consistent with the Northern District’s Model Protective
23 Order, was agreed upon. However, he City unilaterally, and without notice, made revisions
24 which are currently indispute. See Declaration of John Scott.
25 Finally, the entire investigation was based on the suicide note left by Officer O’Brien.
26 ‘The note was the origin of the investigation and an important part of the [A file. See Declaration
27 of Mildred Oliver. The City’s contention that Sgt. Oliver’s efforts in conducting the investigation
28 were deficient cannot be meaningfully evaluated without production of the complete, entire fileof
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
the investigation. A protective order adequately addresses the concerns of Officer O’Brien’s
parents.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the entire IA filerequested should be produced for an incamera
inspection by the court in the manner in which itwas maintained, in the normal course of
business, by the Oakland Police Department.
Dated: December 13, 2019 ScoTr LAW FIRM
"Jon Houston Scott, Attorney for
YF \aintiffMILDRED OLIVER
715
94109
SUITE
FIRM
CA
STREET,
LAW
FRANCISCO,
SCOTT
SuTreR
SAN
1388
5.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
Preview
eH 22227560 FILED ~ ALAMEDA COUNTY John Houston Lizabeth N. de Scott Vries (SBN (SBN 72578) 227215) DEC 1.8 2019 Scott LAW F1RM CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 By ean ¥ San Francisco, Califomia 94109 Telephone: (415) 561-9600 Facsimile: (415) 561-9609 john@scottlawfirm.net liza@scottlawfirm.net Attomeys for Plaintiff MILDRED OLIVER ~ SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA — OAKLAND DIVISION 10 1] MILDRED OLIVER, Case No. RG19007799 12 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY Vv. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT 14 OS CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 15 25, inclusive. OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION 16 hq Defendants. ity Date: December 20, 2019 17 i Time: 9:00 a.m. 51 Department: 25, The Honorable Ronni MacLaren 18 4 :S 19 Reservation No.: R-2132170 20 Date Action Filed: February 21, 2019 Date FAC Filed: April 23, 2019 21 Trial Date: September 8,2020 22 23 24 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION INTRODUCTION While the City of Oakland may dispute the claims made, itmay not mischaracterize and misrepresent what has been alleged for purposes of limiting relevant, criticaldiscovery. The plaintiff was assigned to conduct an JA investigation of allegations contained in Officer O’Brien’s suicide note. Her investigation of allegations in the suicide note isat the heart of this case. A protective order will adequately address the privacy concerns raised by the City ON and Officer O’Brien’s family members. “a Notably, it ispublic knowledge that Officer O’ Brien committed suicide soon afterhe oo learned that his ongoing sexual relationship with a minor was about to become public and would 10 likely result in his termination, and possibly criminal charges. Predictably, this also raised new tl suspicions regarding his wife’s apparent suicide approximately one year earlier. His alibi was 12 that she shot herself soon after he left home to go to a nearby 7-11. 715 94109 SUITE FIRM 13 Certain allegations in First Amended Complaint are worth repeating: CA STREET, 14 1. Background: Sgt. Mildred Oliver has served the OPD for 22 years; in 2014 she was LAW FRANCISCO, an investigator inthe Internal Affairs Division (IAD). 15 SCOTT SUTTER 1, From August 22, 1997 to the present Mildred L. Oliver, a Black female, was 16 employed as a police officer for the Oakland Police Department (hereafter "OPD"), and was SAN 17 promoted to Sergeant in 2012. 1388 2. Throughout her tenure, she performed her job duties satisfactorily. 18 3. In 2014, Sgt. Oliver was assigned as an investigator inthe Internal Affairs Division of the OPD (“IAD”). 19 4. Sgt. Oliver was the only female OPD IAD investigator out of eight investigators. 20 Il. The OPD assigns Set. Oliver a limited investigation of a suicide note even though the 21 note implicated OPD officers as engaging in statutory rape of an identified Minor. 22 5. On June 14, 2014, OPD Officer Brendan O’Brien’s wife was killed.Officer O’Brien was a primary suspect. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Officer O’Brien’s 23 wife had recently discovered that her husband had been cheating on her. 6. The OPD’s official investigation concluded that Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death 24 was a suicide, not a murder. Sgt. Mike Gantt disagreed with this conclusion. Sgt. Gantt believed 25 Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide. However, after he voiced these beliefs, the OPD removed Spt. Gantt from the investigation. 26 7. On September 25, 2015, OPD Officer O’Brien committed suicide and lefta note. Officer O’Brien implicated himself and two other OPD members. He identified a minor female 27 (“Celeste”) who accused Officer O’Brien and another former OPD officer (Officer #1) of 28 -l- PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION statutory rape. The note also identified a Black male OPD Sergeant, Sgt. Leroy Johnson, as aware of Officer O’ Brien’s and Officers #1’s misconduct. 8. The OPD launched an IAD investigation only as against Sgt. Johnson for his alleged failure to report misconduct by Officers O’Brien and XXX. 9. On or about October 1, 2015, the OPD assigned the Sgt. Johnson IAD investigation to Sgt. Oliver. no a. Sgt. Oliver finds Celeste to be credible and seeks to expand the investigation and refer the case as a criminal matter; the OPD denied both requests. NHN 10. Within days of the assignment, Sgt. Oliver reviewed the case file,watched the 4 video of the criminal investigators’ interview of Celeste, and discussed the matter with her supervisor, Acting Lt. Todd Mork (White male). Sgt. Oliver recommended the scope of the CO investigation be expanded and referred as a criminal investigation and Acting Lt. Mork agreed oO with plaintiff'srecommendations. However, the OPD denied both requests. Instead, the OPD instructed plaintiffto continue with the limited administrative investigation against Sgt. Johnson. 10 11. Plaintiff was told that the chain of command decided Celeste was not “credible.” 1] In contrast, Sgt. Oliver found Celeste to be credible. Sgt. Oliver was also concerned because Celeste’s mother was then working at the OPD, as a Dispatcher #1. 715 12. The OPD elected to address thissuicide note, containing allegations of OPD 94109 SUITE officers participating in statutory rape, as ifitwere a garden-variety IAD investigation. This FIRM 13 avoided identifying and investigating other OPD officers who potentially engaged in criminal CA behavior. It also avoided determining whether Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death was a homicide. STREET, {4 LAW FRANCISCO, 13. | Between October 2015 and February 2016, plaintiffworked closely with her chain of command (Lt. Alan Yu and Capt. Donna Hoppenhauer) and the assigned City Attorney SCOTT SUTTER (Allyson Cook) to conduct the investigation of Sgt. Johnson. 16 14. | The OPD provided Sgt. Oliver with no support to timely complete this SAN investigation. For example, she was not offered overtime or assistance. Rather, she was told that 17 1388 then-Chief Sean Whent wanted this case behind him. Sgt. Oliver also had three other 18 investigations assigned toher. 19 b. In February 2016, Sgt. Oliver was told by OPD members and agents that she was doing a good job in concluding that Sgt. Johnson failed to report 20 misconduct. 21 15. Onor about February 10, 2016, Sgt. Oliver timely drafted and presented her IA 22 report and recommended a sustained finding against Sgt. Johnson. 16. Sgt. Oliver also referenced numerous other OPD officers as potential subjects for a 23 statutory-rape investigation. 17. Sgt. Oliver followed proper procedures and received favorable responses regarding 24 the content and recommended findings of this JAD report. 18. In February 2016, the plaintiffwas told she was doing a good job. 26 Ill. The NSA was an obstacle for the OPD to sweep this sex scandal under the rug. 27 19. The OPD was then (and now) subject to a federal-court monitoring process; the OPD had to comply with aNegotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”). 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION 20. The NSA required the OPD report to a court-appointed Monitor and ultimately the federal court to demonstrate that the OPD was in compliance with the NSA. 21. In March 2016, Sgt. Oliver’s report on the sexual-misconduct matter involving Sgt. Johnson was presented to the Monitor and then to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson. a. In March 2016, the federal court overseeing the OPD understood that the OPD IAD investigation was unduly narrowed and incomplete. 22. On March 26, 2016, Judge Henderson issued an order which stated as follows: “This case raises most serious concerns that may well impact Defendants’ [OPD] abilityto demonstrate their commitment to accountability and sustainability — both of which are key to ending court oversight.” The judge also noted that the matter revealed “irregularities and potential violations of the NSA.” Moreover, the Court directed the Compliance Director touse his authority “to ensure this case and any related matters are properly and timely investigated and that all appropriate follow-up actions are taken.” 23. The OPD made a decision to make Sgt. Oliver ascapegoat. 10 ll b. The OPD made Set. Oliver itsscapegoat by removing her from the investigation, blaming her for its limitations, and launching a course of 715 12 conduct to harass and retaliate against her. 94109 SUITE FIRM 13 24. On March 29, 2016, then-acting-Chief Lois removed Sgt. Oliver from the CA investigation. However, Acting Lt. Mork (Caucasian male) was not affected in any way (he was STRERT, 14 LAW FRANCISCO, not assigned tothe case) although he also believed the matter should have been investigated 15 criminally. Instead he was promoted and later transferred tothe IAD Intake Unit as Acting SCOTT SUTTER Lieutenant. 16 25. Lt. Yu was assigned to take over this investigation as his only case. He was SAN directed to add staff,overtime, and other resources toexpand the scope and nature of the 1388 17 investigation. This included bringing in Criminal Investigation Division investigators. In contrast, Sgt. Oliver had three other investigations assigned to her and was provided no additional support. 18 26. For example, Sgt. Oliver was assigned a complaint filed by Sgt. Mike Gantt, an 19 African-American officer who alleged then-Lt. John Lois transferred him off of Officer O’Brien’s wife’s death investigation. Sgt. Gantt also alleged Lt. Lois then engaged in subsequent 20 harassment, motivated by racial animus or retaliation. Sgt. Oliver believed that Sgt. Gantt’s allegations should be substantiated and required additional investigation. 21 27. | Onor about April 5, 2016, the OPD removed Sgt. Oliver from Sgt. Gantt’s 22 investigation without explanation. 28. After the Court’s March 26, 2016 order, Sgt. Oliver’s supervisors and the City 23 Attorney’s office began criticizing her performance, re-evaluating her previously completed investigations, and documenting fabricated short-comings. 24 29. Contrary to the positive feedback she had received prior to March 2016, the OPD alleged Sgt. Oliver’s investigation into the sex scandal was “flawed” and “caused significant 25 negative attention to the OPD.” 26 28 -3- PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION The City now contends itis “organizing” the “vast” file to make review by the court as “easy and efficient as possible.” The problem with this effort to assistthe court isthat it allows the City to remove, misplace or destroy material information/evidence inthe filethat could be critical to W proving Plaintiffs allegations. There is both motive and opportunity. The one IA file requested ~ includes all of the plaintiff'swork product that the City claims was deficient and unsatisfactory, WN in addition to other information that would likely support her claims. DW ARGUMENT ~~ The parties have met and conferred while recognizing that the law requires an in camera CO inspection of an IA file before itcan be produced. The one IA file in question contains the OO plaintiffs work she did as an 1A investigator related exclusively to allegations made in Officer Oo \1 O’Brien’s suicide note. The issue here is not the privacy of an officer being investigated for 715 12 alleged misconduct. Rather, the issue is whether Sgt. Oliver was responsible for the investigation 94109 SUITE FIRM 13 being “flawed” and incomplete. CA STREET, 14 The City’s representation that itis “organizing” the fileto make the court’s review as easy LAW FRANCISCO, 15 and efficient as possible creates a risk that the complete fileis not produced for inspection, nor SCOTT SUTTER 16 produced as it was maintained in the normal course of business. Unless the entire file isproduced, SAN 1388 17 the work of Sgt. Oliver cannot be compared and contrasted with the work done by others after she 18 was removed from the case. 19 This isnot potential character evidence thatcould be used against an officer who is a 20 repeat offender; rather, the entire fileis the best evidence of plaintiff'sperformance and thoroughness. This iscentral to the entire case. 22 In addition, aprotective order, consistent with the Northern District’s Model Protective 23 Order, was agreed upon. However, he City unilaterally, and without notice, made revisions 24 which are currently indispute. See Declaration of John Scott. 25 Finally, the entire investigation was based on the suicide note left by Officer O’Brien. 26 ‘The note was the origin of the investigation and an important part of the [A file. See Declaration 27 of Mildred Oliver. The City’s contention that Sgt. Oliver’s efforts in conducting the investigation 28 were deficient cannot be meaningfully evaluated without production of the complete, entire fileof PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION the investigation. A protective order adequately addresses the concerns of Officer O’Brien’s parents. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the entire IA filerequested should be produced for an incamera inspection by the court in the manner in which itwas maintained, in the normal course of business, by the Oakland Police Department. Dated: December 13, 2019 ScoTr LAW FIRM "Jon Houston Scott, Attorney for YF \aintiffMILDRED OLIVER 715 94109 SUITE FIRM CA STREET, LAW FRANCISCO, SCOTT SuTreR SAN 1388 5. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE PERSONNEL INFORMATION (“PITCHESS”) MOTION