[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
My name is David Schlesinger.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
I represent the four appellants in this case.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
Before beginning, I'd like to extend my thanks to the Court for allowing my opposing counsel, Ms.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Kontroll, and I to appear remotely under the circumstances caused by the inclement weather in Southern California during the past few days.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
I'd also like to extend my thanks once again to Ms.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
Kontroll for

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
Reaching out to Ms.

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
Gurule very early on Sunday morning to propose this.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
Regarding the operative facts of this appeal, on July 5, 2020, shortly after 12.15 p.m., Miguel Escobar, who had only a few days previously been assessed as a P4 pretrial detainee, essentially meaning that he was subject to a 5150 hold,

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
under California law, or the equivalent thereof, violently assaulted by clients' decedent relative, Gary Salzman Jr., who I'll refer to as Mr. Salzman.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
This assault, violent assault, then persisted for more than 12 minutes without any intervention by employees at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, more specifically,

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
module 151, notwithstanding that there was a clear closed-circuit TV feed of the Escobar-Salzman cell that was completely unmonitored during that time span.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
So it was not until shortly after 1228 p.m., I think specifically 1228 and 32 seconds, that one of the defendant appellees, Deputy Castro, came upon the scene and saw

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
Mr. Escobar standing over Mr. Salzman's essentially comatose body by that point.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
He was unresponsive.

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
He wasn't breathing.

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
He didn't have a pulse.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
He was blue in the face.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
He was lying in a pool of blood.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
Now, as tragic as this incident was, it didn't happen in a vacuum.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
There were clear, unmistakable warning signs that for at least two of the defendant appellees and the ones I'll focus on with the court's indulgence,

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
our social worker, Taylor Patton, who assessed Mr Escobar and Mr Salzman in their cell for only approximately two minutes.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
And in using that time span, I'm borrowing from the language of the district court using its in chambers order regarding the summary judgment motion by the defendant at police.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
And Deputy Jose Ayala.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
Regarding Ms.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
Patton, as mentioned, she spent only approximately two minutes assessing Mr. Salzman and Mr. Escobar in their cell on June 30th, 2020.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
She noted what she recalled to be a particular remark that stood out from the two men, which is that they intended to

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
cohabitate.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
Sorry, could I just interrupt?

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Because I know you have limited time.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
So I actually agree with you that patent is your strongest claim.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
So I think for me personally, it would be helpful to talk about some of the weaker ones.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
Well, maybe let's go to Ayala first, who was your second one to mention.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Do you choose him because you think that he had a view when he was walking up those steps of the cell, or why did you pull out Ayala as the second strongest dimension?

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
I think that your honor is correct that that's part of it, that even the district court in its in-chambers order determined, considering the light and most favorable to the non-moving party, my clients, that he very well may have had a clear unobstructed view approximately 32 minutes before Deputy Castor performed his safety check.

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
I don't understand your complaint or your briefing to allege, though, that he actually did see what was happening in the cell and just ignored it.

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
Do you allege that?

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
What we allege is that there's a genuine issue of material fact regarding that, Your Honor.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
We don't allege that in this procedural posture that that has been proven, simply that there is a genuine issue of material fact such that a jury should assess that factual question.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
Well, I guess, do you actually allege?

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
I mean, I didn't understand.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
I thought your briefing conceded that he didn't actually see it.

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
But do you?

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
So is there somewhere in your complaint that you allege?

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
We're not conceding that, Your Honor.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
And we're supposed to, the dispute of fact is because the steps have, you can see through the steps.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
What is your best evidence that creates the genuine dispute of fact on this?

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
My best evidence is the district court's own characterization.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
But that isn't evidence.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
So can you point to anything in the record that's actually evidence that creates a genuine dispute of fact?

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
It would simply be how a fact finder would view the video of the incident, which shows Mr. Ayala, Deputy Ayala, and an unidentified individual

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
walking in that area with an apparent clear view.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
So I think that we've been trying to get a copy of this video.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
As far as I know, our court doesn't have this video.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
I haven't conferred with my colleagues, but I know I haven't yet seen this video.

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
Do you know if this video is accessible?

[00:06:04] Speaker 05:
I have not seen it either, and we were trying to find it.

[00:06:09] Speaker 05:
I don't know.

[00:06:09] Speaker 05:
Was it lodged with the district court?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
It certainly was lodged with the district court, Your Honor.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
I think if Your Honor's

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
I wish to see this video as part of your review, and I certainly understand that you would.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
Contrell and I could arrange to have a lodge with this court so that you could conduct your own independent review of it.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
That would be very helpful.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
I know we've made some effort to get it from the district court, but so far, at least I don't think we've been successful.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
I also just want to go back to your moment, looking at your brief.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
In two places, I see you say, apparently Deputy Ayala did not observe anything atypical occur between the two detainees, and you're citing one ER-8 in two places.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
So it seems to me that you're acknowledging that the record shows that he did not actually notice anything.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
So why is there a general dispute of material factors to that issue?

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
I would say that Mr. Ayala

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
does not claim to have seen anything.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
I think there's a genuine issue of material fact for a fact finder to determine whether that is credible.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
That is a credible assertion on his part.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
Now, I should note that regarding our claim against Mr. Deputy Eyal, there's more than just that particular snippet of what happened on July 5th.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
We also note, as the district court itself observed in its order, that

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
Deputy Ayala was on duty in Module 151 at TTCF on June 29th, June 30th, June, July 1st, July 2nd, and of course, July 5th.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
Mr. Escobar in his deposition testimony specifically singled out Deputy Ayala as one of the deputies who was particularly indifferent to his concerns whenever he would try to get the deputy's attention.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
Now, combined with

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
Rogelio Navas's deposition testimony that he repeatedly, during the three- to four-day barrage of threats and cacophony that emanated from the adjoining Escobar's Salzman cell, that he tried to get the deputies' attention regarding this and was unable to do so.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
I think, at least at this stage on summary judgment,

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
A genuine issue of material fact exists whether Deputy Ayala was indeed one of those deputies whom Mr. Nava attempted to contact regarding what was happening in that cell.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
But Nava never named Ayala, right?

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
He did not specifically name Ayala, Your Honor.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
But Mr. Escobar did.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
And I think Mr. Escobar testified that if he had gotten their attention, he would have said that he didn't feel comfortable having a cellmate at the moment.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
And I think he described himself as scared.

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
Is there any other testimony about what he would have said or how he tried to get their attention?

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
I was trying to piece together what we can assume Ayala knew from Escobar.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
And it seems pretty thin.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
I think that's probably a fair characterization of what Mr. Escobar was trying to alert the officers regarding.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
He was very uncomfortable about being housed with another detainee.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
He was particularly uncomfortable about being housed with Mr. Salzman because of Mr. Salzman's sexual advances toward him and harassment and threatening behavior.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
I'd also know, Your Honor, that both Mr. Escobar and Mr. Navin, their deposition testimony referenced repeated efforts in that facility by detainees to use the intercom system to alert deputies of problems in their cells, medical or otherwise, and they were repeatedly ignored.

[00:10:07] Speaker 05:
So there was an overall— Was there evidence that the intercom system didn't work or that they were ignored?

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
I don't think we could say definitively, Your Honor, that the intercoms were not actually physically functioning, technologically functioning, but it is clear that both of those men testified that any efforts to use the system were repeatedly ignored within that module.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
And so you have this foundational background in which different

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
deputies were contacted by both Mr. Escobar, Mr. Navas, and the gentlemen were ignored.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
Do we have any evidence that Deputy Rose was contacted by anyone?

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
We do not, Your Honor, and quite frankly, Deputy Rose out of the deputies other than Deputy Aranda probably had the least contact in this particular module.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
The ones who

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
who seemed to have the most contact with detainees such as Salzman, Escobar, and Nava were as referenced as we just discussed, Deputy Ayala.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Escobar also singled out Deputy Castro as someone whom he had attempted to contact on different occasions about different issues and was rebuffed.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
So does your claim against Ayala and Castro really depend on that testimony that

[00:11:40] Speaker 02:
the efforts to get their attention were ignored or rebuffed rather than anything that happened during the fight itself that led to the death.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
I would say principally, Your Honor, although I would note that Deputy Castro did delay by more than two minutes upon arriving at the Escobar salesman cell in terms of administering CPR.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
We know that- I had kind of read your brief as not making a claim based on that.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
Are you making a claim based on that?

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
It's not an actual claim, Your Honor.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
What it shows is, along with the foundational background of indifference to detainees' concerns, it shows that there was a lack of urgency in administering CPR.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
So even if, regarding his specific actions, given the expert testimony of Dr. Inaba and Dr.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
Dr. Vive, I believe his name was, even if by that point, it was apparent that cardiac arrest had occurred and it would not have been possible to revive, to resuscitate Mr. Salzman.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
It, along with the other pattern of indifference that we've shown, we're using as part of a kind of more foundational

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
Do you have any evidence that by the time Deputy Ayala was walking up the steps, it wasn't also too late because there had also been cardiac arrest by then?

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
It seems like that was at the very end of the incident.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
It was 32 minutes, 32 seconds, I'm sorry, before Deputy Castro arrived at the scene.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
So we don't know when cardiac arrest occurred.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
We know that the expert opinions were very carefully worded to note that

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
there could not have been resuscitation once cardiac arrest occurred, but we don't know precisely when that occurred.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
So whose burden is that?

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Would that be your burden to have evidence that there could be causation, or is it the defense's burden?

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
I think we would acknowledge that it would be our evidence, Your Honor, and to point to some, and I know that I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
We would note deposition testimony from Mr. Nava that he was awoken from a nap.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
while the incident was occurring and heard someone essentially struggling or screaming for his life, asking for help, and then making the types of threats that were characteristic of Mr. Salzman during this period, that he was namely a five-star general and that he wanted to kill whomever it was, in this case, probably Mr. Escobar.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
I know, as I mentioned, that my time is running short, so I would like to reserve some time.

[00:14:28] Speaker 05:
Miss Cantrell.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
You're on mute.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
My name is Melinda Cantrell and I'll be arguing on behalf of the defendants.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
The defendants respectfully submit that summary judgment should be affirmed in its entirety as the plaintiffs failed to raise a tribal issue of material fact with competent evidence

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
to show deliberate indifference by any of the defendants and because each of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
I'll go ahead and address the claims against Deputy Ayala first.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
In the reply brief, plaintiffs speculate that because

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
Deputy Ayala walked in the line of sight of the cell at 12-27-55.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
He must have seen the incident and that Deputy Castro discovered the incident at 12-28-27 and that these seconds could have made a difference.

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
However, the claim is complete speculation and unsupported by the record to contradict the fact that Deputy Ayala was first notified of the incident

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
after it occurred and Deputy Castro called for help.

[00:15:50] Speaker 05:
Isn't it a reasonable inference that if he walked in, well, during the 15 minutes while this incident was going on, he would have heard something?

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
I don't believe that's a reasonable inference.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
The evidence, the record would show that he kind of just walked by and went up some stairs and the cell was still

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
you know, not immediately by the cell.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
And so, I think it's complete speculation that he had seen anything earlier.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
In addition, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the undisputed medical evidence submitted by the defendants that CPR efforts started earlier, so that would include that 33 seconds earlier, would have changed Mr. Selzman's outcome.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
that was also noted by the district court.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
The defendant, so deputy, I would submit there's no competent evidence to raise a tribal issue of fact as to liability, but he's also clearly entitled to summary judgment based on causation.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Defendant submitted uncontroverted evidence by way of the expert declaration of Dr. Vilke,

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Mr. Sulzen was not going to survive, whether the deputies started CPR efforts earlier or not.

[00:17:12] Speaker 02:
In addition- What about Escobar's testimony that he tried to tell Ayala and Castro that he was not comfortable in the cell and was scared?

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
Those allegations are not at the time of the incident.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
I understand.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
I'm going back in time.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
So this gets out of your causation problem.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
It would be a theory that they should have separated these two much earlier.

[00:17:35] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
So again, I think that is complete speculation.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence that Mr. Escobar tried to raise any statements to the deputies that he felt threatened.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
by his cellmate and an element of Castro.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
He said he tried to get their attention and they ignored him.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
So why isn't that enough?

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Because, Your Honor, there's no indication that he actually tried to speak to these defendants.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
No, he said he did.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
He said he tried to get the attention of Ayala and Castro.

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
So you might dispute that, but he's testified that, didn't he?

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
Well, he testified that he never advised the deputies of any threats.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
In terms of trying to get their attention, I think the record shows that he would try to talk to the deputies.

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
I think he said something about when the cell checks were performed, but not that he ever actually made any statements to alert them of any problem.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
And under Castro, an element is that the defendants must have made an intentional decision regarding the conditions of

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
the confinement and I don't think that there's by any means sufficient evidence here to raise a tribal issue of fact to show that these deputies were somehow on notice that there was going to be a substantial likelihood of a serious injury between these inmates.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
And I would further respectfully submit that the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
The law is not clearly established that

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
that a deputy could be found liable for performing cell checks when there's no actual evidence that the statement, Mr. Escobar voiced any concern that he felt unsafe or that he felt- He says on ER 1008 that he never had a chance to because they never stopped long enough to listen to him.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
So you're saying

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
that's acceptable if you're supposedly doing a check of the safety every 15 minutes to not stop long enough to be told something?

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
Is that what we need to find?

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
Well, I would submit there's no evidence to show that there's a substantial risk of a serious injury by allegedly not stopping during a cell check to

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
to when there's no evidence that anything was actually voiced to the inmates.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
There is no evidence that he said, hey, I feel threatened.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
I mean, I think that's pretty speculative to say that an officer is required to stop and

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
It's not a situation where they're failing to respond or failing to react to an inmate's statement that they feel unsafe or harmed.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
The inmate is speculating that they wouldn't have taken action, but there's no evidence that they were alerted to any problems or issues or that, you know, and furthermore, this is Mr. Escobar.

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
making statements.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence that would connect.

[00:20:54] Speaker 03:
There has to be a direct causal connection between the wrongdoing and the injuries suffered under Mendez versus County of Los Angeles.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
And there's certainly no connection here.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
I think it's respectfully a stretch based on the record to show that

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Escobar would have actually made a statement, and that was planning to make a statement, and that the defendants would have ignored that statement.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
I don't think that there's enough evidence to show the first element of Castro, an intentional decision.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
And I would also like to submit that I would like to address also the claims against defendant Patton.

[00:21:32] Speaker 05:
But what about the intentional decision to house them together in the first place?

[00:21:38] Speaker 05:
I mean, there were some curious

[00:21:40] Speaker 05:
findings and actions by both Dr. Gamenian and Dr. Padden.

[00:21:47] Speaker 05:
For example, Dr. Gamenian evaluated Salzman while he was in the high observation housing.

[00:21:59] Speaker 05:
And he said at that time that Salzman did not meet the requirements for P4 because he denied any homicidal or suicidal thoughts and hallucinations.

[00:22:10] Speaker 05:
But then, after saying that, he recommended dual housing to deter suicidal behavior.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
So that seemed totally inconsistent, and perhaps aware of a risk of him in, which was it?

[00:22:32] Speaker 05:
He didn't have homicidal or suicidal ideation, or did he?

[00:22:37] Speaker 05:
did he have it?

[00:22:38] Speaker 05:
And how could he make a recommendation based on contrary factual determinations?

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
Respectfully, Your Honor, an inmate's mental status is always fluctuating and changing.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
And first of all, let me back up a little bit.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
None of the named defendants made the decision to actually house these two inmates together.

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
But in terms of saying that it was appropriate for Dr.

[00:23:07] Speaker 03:
who's a female, Dr. Gamenian's indication that he was appropriate for dual housing, the inmates in the high observation housing do have mental issues and require to be washed over.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
And having an inmate, the record shows, have another cellmate

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
reduces the chance of suicide and feelings of isolation even if he wasn't particularly saying that he felt suicidal at that moment.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
And when Dr. Comenian saw the, when she did her examination there was no signs of hostility at that time.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
And there's no, she felt in her clinical judgment that he didn't meet the P4 designation.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
And that was also stated by defendant's expert, Cisco.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
who also said it was inappropriate at 3ER-592, and the plaintiff did not submit any medical evidence to rebut that, much less, I would say, there's qualified immunity, because the law has not clearly established that Mr. Salzman would not qualify to have a cellmate based on his symptoms at that time.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
I'm not aware of any case law which would hold that, so she would definitely be entitled to qualified

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
immunity and there's been no expert testimony to show any medical negligence by any of the medical care defendants much less

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
deliberate indifference.

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
We're talking about 14th Amendment violation, so I don't think there's a probable issue of fact to show deliberate indifference, and certainly I don't think the laws clearly established that based on her evaluation and findings, a P-4 designation was needed and that a P-3 or allowing to have a cellmate was

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
in violation of clearly established law.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
Castro certainly would not stand for that proposition.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
That was a sobering cell with an actively combative inmate placed with an intoxicated individual.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
So I don't think that could stand for clearly established law under the facts of this case.

[00:25:24] Speaker 03:
And of course, under Gordon and Sandoval, you have to look at the specific circumstances confronting the defendant.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
And Mr. Selsman,

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:
was previously in a prior incarceration on a P4 hold.

[00:25:40] Speaker 03:
However, he was discharged to Exodus Mental Health on June 16th, and on June 17th, they discharged the P4 5150 hold.

[00:25:51] Speaker 03:
And also, the evidence shows that those statuses are fluctuating.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
In fact, even in the FIP, they're evaluated every 72 hours.

[00:26:00] Speaker 03:
So I would say it certainly is not a constitutional violation.

[00:26:04] Speaker 03:
And Dr. Gamenian would also be entitled to qualified immunity.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
Can I ask about Patton?

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
So Patton said that she read Carmichael's notes.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
And she also said that if she knew of statements that someone was homicidal, that they should not be together with a cellmate.

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
But Carmichael's notes say,

[00:26:26] Speaker 02:
that the Mr. Salzman was yelling homicidal things.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
So I'm not sure why Patton hasn't really described herself into a situation where she really should have divided these two.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
Again, respectfully, Your Honor, that's, I mean, Social Worker Carmichael's assessment is different than when

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
Patton on June 23rd than when Ms.

[00:26:51] Speaker 03:
Patton did her examination on June 30th.

[00:26:54] Speaker 03:
Mental status is fluctuating per the record.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
But Ms.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Patton said she didn't really have time to evaluate them and they wouldn't really talk to her, so why shouldn't she at least use the notes that existed from someone who could have evaluated them?

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
Respectfully, Your Honor, as noted by the District Court, she had sufficient time to complete her examination.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Salzman was not speaking with her.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
It was their first visit, the Establishment Report.

[00:27:19] Speaker 03:
She gave them the opportunity to speak.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
But also importantly, Dr. Ganinian had evaluated in the interim

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
the Mr. Sulzman and determined that it was appropriate for him to have a P3 designation and double selling.

[00:27:36] Speaker 03:
So by the time that Dr., I mean that defendant Patton had seen Mr. Sulzman, he had already been evaluated in between Carmichael and the June 30th visit by Dr. Gamenian who assessed in her medical expertise that was unrebutted that it was appropriate for him to be dual housed.

[00:27:55] Speaker 03:
And furthermore, a non-defendant psychiatrist indicated Mr. Escobar was also appropriate to be dual housed.

[00:28:03] Speaker 03:
So when she saw them, and a non-defendant officer matched these two.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
So when she saw those Mr. Escobar and Mr. Salzman, she knew that they had already been assessed by physicians who said they were appropriate for dual housing.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
And there's certainly not clearly established law that these, under the facts that she saw,

[00:28:24] Speaker 03:
that these officers, I mean that these inmates were required to be separated.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
Importantly, she observed them positively interacting with each other.

[00:28:34] Speaker 03:
Even so, they said that they wanted to be roommates after discharge.

[00:28:40] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing that's going to alert her to say that right now it's not appropriate for these two individuals to be housed together.

[00:28:50] Speaker 03:
And respectfully, I do not think that there's a tribal issue of fact as to deliberate indifference.

[00:28:56] Speaker 03:
And certainly, she would be entitled to qualified immunity.

[00:28:58] Speaker 03:
There's no case law which would say inmates getting along, observed to be laughing and getting along together.

[00:29:05] Speaker 03:
She had to immediately separate them, knowing that they both undergone the evaluation by the medical, the physician experts, both approved for dual housing.

[00:29:13] Speaker 03:
So I think that she would clearly be entitled to qualified immunity

[00:29:17] Speaker 03:
Which isn't even close to the facts of this case.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
And I think that has been trying to ask you a question.

[00:29:26] Speaker 02:
Could you pause for a second?

[00:29:27] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry.

[00:29:28] Speaker 05:
I didn't see that.

[00:29:29] Speaker 05:
I think you're I don't know.

[00:29:30] Speaker 05:
I think you might have been reading something.

[00:29:35] Speaker 05:
But Strzecmi is really odd in this particular housing situation.

[00:29:39] Speaker 05:
I mean, it's obviously named High Observation Housing for a reason.

[00:29:44] Speaker 05:
There's a live feed video within the jail.

[00:29:52] Speaker 05:
The feed is going on, but no one is charged with looking at it or monitoring it.

[00:29:59] Speaker 05:
And Ayala, Castor, and Rose, who are

[00:30:04] Speaker 05:
They're on duty during these three days.

[00:30:07] Speaker 05:
None of them has the obligation to actually look at the live feed.

[00:30:13] Speaker 03:
Respectfully, Your Honor, there's no indication that any of these individual defendants were assigned to sit there and monitor a live feed.

[00:30:20] Speaker 03:
which didn't feed into the control booth.

[00:30:22] Speaker 03:
It's there in case you have to go back and look at an incident, but there's no, the plaintiff submitted no evidence to show that any of these officers that was feasible or required for any of them to sit and monitor a live feed, when 15-minute cell checks, that's undisputed, are being performed every 15 minutes, and there's no indication.

[00:30:40] Speaker 05:
But we have testimony from NAVA that when the officers actually did perform these 15-minute cell checks,

[00:30:48] Speaker 05:
that they didn't even look at the cells.

[00:30:50] Speaker 05:
They were basically ignoring and then they'd go back out and they'd shut the door.

[00:30:54] Speaker 05:
What was the evidence as to that?

[00:30:56] Speaker 05:
Could they, when they shut the door, could they hear what was going on in the cells?

[00:31:02] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I think that when, well, the cell door

[00:31:08] Speaker 03:
I think there's no indication they're going by every 15 minutes.

[00:31:12] Speaker 03:
And there's laws not clearly established that an individual officer has to sit there and monitor a live feed.

[00:31:18] Speaker 03:
And when they're doing the cell checks, there's no indication that for these

[00:31:23] Speaker 03:
these Escobar and irrespective of Nava's testimony with his own situation, there's no indication that there was not, it's undisputed that 15 minute cell checks were performed and there's no causal relation with regard to any of these individually named defendants and there's no indication that they were required to monitor the live feed.

[00:31:45] Speaker 03:
Also, I'd like to point out that Deputy Castro's first day in the module was 151.

[00:31:50] Speaker 03:
and I mean module 151 was the day of the incident and that's um at er 111.

[00:31:56] Speaker 02:
Astro or Rose?

[00:31:57] Speaker 02:
I thought it was Rose whose first it was the first day.

[00:32:00] Speaker 03:
It was also first his first day and in addition he um he hadn't even had a shift on 151 because he was going to take the pm shift and this was at one o'clock and this happened at um 12 28

[00:32:15] Speaker 03:
and that is at ER 1224.

[00:32:18] Speaker 05:
Okay, so who has possession of the live feed, the film?

[00:32:22] Speaker 05:
Who has the video?

[00:32:27] Speaker 05:
Who has possession of it?

[00:32:28] Speaker 05:
Because we want to see it.

[00:32:30] Speaker 05:
Are you going to deliver it to the court?

[00:32:34] Speaker 03:
I certainly can.

[00:32:36] Speaker 03:
It was lodged with the motion for summary judgment as Exhibit B. Who lodged it?

[00:32:41] Speaker 05:
Who lodged it?

[00:32:42] Speaker 05:
I believe the defendants lodged it.

[00:32:44] Speaker 05:
Where is it now?

[00:32:47] Speaker 03:
I can obtain a copy.

[00:32:49] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:32:50] Speaker 05:
That would be great.

[00:32:50] Speaker 05:
So why don't you obtain a copy and deliver it to the court in seven days?

[00:33:04] Speaker 03:
Sure, I can certainly do that.

[00:33:08] Speaker 03:
You're over your time.

[00:33:12] Speaker 03:
Can I close one more thing or no?

[00:33:14] Speaker 03:
You can close one more thing.

[00:33:16] Speaker 03:
Okay, I'd just like to point out that even in the plaintiff's brief, they say that Horton suggests a live feed should be continuously monitored or videos should be continuously monitored.

[00:33:26] Speaker 03:
So even by that concession, the law has not clearly established that any of these individual defendants were required to sit there and monitor a live feed.

[00:33:33] Speaker 03:
and they're entitled to qualified immunity.

[00:33:36] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:33:36] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:33:37] Speaker 05:
Mr. Schlesinger.

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:33:46] Speaker 01:
Let me, I know some of my time is short, so let me quickly make a couple of very brief points.

[00:33:50] Speaker 01:
First is to respond to some of Ms.

[00:33:53] Speaker 01:
Cantrell's arguments regarding intentionality.

[00:33:56] Speaker 01:
We're going to focus on first regarding Ms.

[00:34:00] Speaker 01:
Patten,

[00:34:01] Speaker 01:
an intentional decision not to separate the two men and refer to Judge Freeland's, I think, appropriate suggestions that Ms.

[00:34:14] Speaker 01:
Padden, even during her own deposition, had admitted that she could have separated the men.

[00:34:20] Speaker 01:
She had the authority to do so if she thought they were homicidal.

[00:34:24] Speaker 01:
And second, regarding intentionality for Deputy Ayal and, indeed, the other deputies,

[00:34:30] Speaker 01:
when you choose not to process information categorically as Mr. Nava and Mr. Escobar claimed, that's an intentional decision that affects the conditions of confinement.

[00:34:41] Speaker 01:
If you can't take in information regarding threats, regarding conditions that might be dangerous, then you're clearly affecting your ability to protect the detainees from one another.

[00:34:55] Speaker 05:
I have a question.

[00:34:58] Speaker 05:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:34:59] Speaker 05:
The opposing counsel says, yeah, well, there's no evidence that NAVA spoke directly to either Ayala, Castro, or Rose.

[00:35:09] Speaker 05:
Were those three the only three deputies working in that unit during that time?

[00:35:19] Speaker 01:
We think, Your Honor, based on the record as established in the District Court, that those are the only three deputies who had any kind of presence in Module 151 between June 29th, 2020 and July 5th, 2020.

[00:35:35] Speaker 02:
If it was Rose and Castro's first day, that doesn't really make sense.

[00:35:41] Speaker 02:
So I'm a little confused.

[00:35:42] Speaker 02:
It seems like there must have been other officers, right?

[00:35:44] Speaker 01:
There were other officers.

[00:35:49] Speaker 01:
they were not named as defendants.

[00:35:51] Speaker 01:
Named as defendants specifically were Ayala, Castro, Rose, Aranda, and Sergeant Scarrett, the supervising sergeant who was on duty on July 5th.

[00:36:05] Speaker 01:
I see that my time has expired.

[00:36:08] Speaker 01:
If the court would like me to address qualified immunity, I'd be glad to do so.

[00:36:12] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, I'm prepared to submit.

[00:36:14] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:36:15] Speaker 05:
Why don't you just submit at this point?

[00:36:18] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:36:19] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:36:20] Speaker 05:
Salzman versus County of L.A.

[00:36:22] Speaker 05:
will be submitted.