12/2/2010 Status Conference in Delphine Allen v. Oakland

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

1

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888Law Offices of John L. BurrisAirport Corporate Centre7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120Oakland, California 94621Telephone: 510.839.5200Facsimile: 510.839.3882Attorneys for PlaintiffsJAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968Law Offices of James B. Chanin3050 Shattuck AvenueBerkeley, California 94705Telephone: 510.848.4752Facsimile: 510.848.5819Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(Additional Counsel on Next Page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADELPHINE ALLEN; et al;Plaintiff,vs.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Defendant.

MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCESTATEMENT RE NON-MONETARYSETTLEMENT ISSUES

Date: December 9, 2010Time: 10:30 a.m.Courtroom 2, 17

TH

FLOORHonorable Thelton E. Henderson

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page1 of 28

2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728GREGORY M. FOX, STATE BAR NO. 070876Bertrand, Fox & ElliotThe Waterfront Building - 2749 Hyde StreetSan Francisco, California 94109Telephone: 415.353.0999Facsimile: 415.353.0990Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLANDJOHN A. RUSSO, CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 129729RANDOLPH W. HALL, CHIEF ASSIST. CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 080142ROCIO V. FIERRO, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 139565OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYCITY OF OAKLANDOne Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth FloorOakland, California 94612Telephone: 510.238.3601Facsimile: 510.238.6500Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLANDROCKNE A. LUCIA, STATE BAR NO. 109349Rains Lucia Stern, PCAttorneys & Counselors at Law2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 230Pleasant Hill, CA 94523Tel: 925-609-1699Fax: 925-609-1690Attorneys for OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page2 of 28

3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

PLAINTIFFS’ CURRENT POSITION

This is a further status conference concerning the progress of the non-monetary settlement inthe “Riders Litigation” which was approved by the Court on January 22, 2003.The IMT’s most recent report stated that “the OPD has dropped to full compliance with only10 of the 22 active Tasks meeting the requisite criteria. This is a decline in full compliance by oneTask.” The OPD still has not achieved full compliance with critical parts of the MOU including Task 3 (IAD integrity tests), Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for IAD), Task 20 (Span of Control forSupervisors), Task 24 (Use of Force Reporting Policy), Task 26 (Use of Force Review Board), Task 30 (Firearms Discharge Board of Review), Task 33 (Reporting Misconduct), Task 40 (PersonnelAssessment System—Purpose), and Task 41 (Use of Personnel Assessment System) and Task 45(Consistency of Discipline Policy).The IMT did say that the “Department has put considerable effort into remediating coreissues”. However, this is not enough. The original NSA contemplated compliance within 5 years, 7years maximum. It was clear then that the OPD was expected to achieve full compliance no laterthan January 2010. The OPD did not achieve compliance during that time because, by its ownadmission, it did not take the Agreement seriously for a significant part of the seven year period of the agreement. During this same period of time, plaintiffs’ attorneys and others filed three additionalclass actions against the OPD, which cost the City of Oakland millions of dollars and exposeddeficiencies in the OPD that extended beyond the NSA. This, unfortunately, was only a small part of the settlements, verdicts, and scandals that rocked the OPD during that time.The agreement was then extended to 2012 by joint agreement between Plaintiffs’ counsel andthe City of Oakland. The City represented to the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel that there would becompliance within that period. Unless there is some dramatic improvement in the next IMT report inJanuary 2011, full or even substantial compliance will not happen within the life of the MOU giventhe one year compliance period that the OPD must achieve after full compliance is attained.The OPD’s attorney, Rocio Fiero, Chief Batts, and City Manager Lindheim each addressedthe Court at the last Case Management Conference. Each of them made statements worthy of repetition and comment.

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page3 of 28

of 00

Leave a Comment