“In all your ways acknowledge Him & He shall direct your paths.” — Proverbs 3:6
Clean Narrative Legal Summary (Expanded ~2000 Words)
This document serves as a comprehensive litigation archive for Kok v. City of Pasadena, presenting a broad chronological arrangement of filings, amendments, motions, proofs of service, court minutes, and partial police records spanning 2000–2002. Taken together, these materials capture the procedural and narrative backbone of a civil lawsuit initiated after a February 3, 2000 interaction between the plaintiff, Philip A. Kok, and several Pasadena Police Department officers. During that encounter, the plaintiff alleges that officers used excessive physical force, applied unnecessarily painful handcuffs, ignored repeated requests to loosen them, and verbally mocked him while handcuffed inside a patrol vehicle following a minor traffic collision. The appendix reflects his efforts to obtain personnel records, photographs, complaint histories, and additional documentation for purposes of identification and pattern analysis, as well as attempts to overcome what he portrays as systemic resistance by the City and its attorneys.
The opening materials consist of various “Amendment to Complaint” forms filed under California Code of Civil Procedure §474. Initially, the plaintiff sued several unknown Doe defendants; these forms replace the fictitious names with real officers as they became known. The amended complaint substitutes Timothy Mosman for Doe 2, Bradley May for Doe 3, Henry Rosner for Doe 4, Walt Gamberale (written as “Ganeral”) for Doe 5, and Calvin Pratt for Doe 6. Later, Robert Dollar and Evangelina Bustamante are added as Doe 7 and 8. These amendments reflect the plaintiff’s progressive identification of officers allegedly present during the incident or otherwise involved in restraining him, mocking him, or failing to respond to his stated pain.
The early pages include formal proof-of-service declarations confirming that amended complaints and correspondence were mailed to the Pasadena City Attorney’s Office and individual officers. The plaintiff’s addresses include Bellflower and a Pasadena P.O. Box. These proofs follow California practice, asserting under penalty of perjury that documents were mailed via routine procedures.
Immediately following the amendments, the appendix transitions to the first major procedural filing: a Motion to Compel Pursuant to Evidence Code §1043. This July 23, 2001 motion frames the plaintiff’s request to see photographs of four additional officers—Gamberale, Pratt, May, and Rosner—to identify which officers responded to his pleas in the patrol car. The City resisted production, citing statutory “Pitchess” requirements under Evidence Code §1043. The plaintiff argued he needed only the photographs, not confidential records, asserting that identification was essential since more officers than the initial two were involved in the alleged force and verbal derision. One officer allegedly yelled, “You should have thought about that f----g earlier!” while another asked sarcastically, “You’re never wrong, are you…?”
The motion also describes the incident: after a minor accident, Officers Brown and Mosman allegedly escalated the encounter because the plaintiff was speaking “too loudly.” They struck him with a baton, forced him face-down, drove their knees into his back, forced his arm over his shoulder blade, and applied handcuffs so tightly they cut off circulation and caused intense pain. Four additional officers allegedly arrived later, two of whom mocked him. Identifying these officers is a foundational litigation issue.
The motion emphasizes prior subpoenas for photographs, the City’s insistence on a court order, and requests alternative identification methods (e.g., lineups). The filing conveys ongoing tension between the plaintiff and the City Attorney’s Office, which he asserts repeatedly obstructed discovery.
The next section is the Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code (September 4, 2001), seeking broader personnel records, including histories of complaints of excessive force or related misconduct over the preceding ten years. The plaintiff argues these records are relevant not only for identification but to demonstrate a potential pattern of deliberate indifference by the Pasadena Police Department. This has implications for municipal liability under Monell principles.
The plaintiff claims that after filing a complaint post-2000 incident, he never received confirmation of investigation results. He cites anecdotal accounts from others alleging similar negative interactions, reinforcing his claim that accessing complaint histories is necessary to determine whether the City had prior notice of misconduct.
The motion criticizes contradictory City conduct regarding medical records. The plaintiff supplied requested records; the City later objected to his request for admissions for missing attachments. After compliance, the City objected again, claiming authenticity could not be verified. The plaintiff characterizes this as baiting and delaying tactics, reflecting adversarial posture.
Another component is a subpoena for dispatch communications. The City responded that no transcript existed due to “mechanical failure.” A follow-up subpoena inquired about failure frequency; a communications supervisor allegedly said failures were rare, without specifics. The plaintiff claims he was indirectly prohibited from further discussion. He interprets this as institutional indifference or secrecy.
The plaintiff also raises belittling treatment by the City Attorney, accusing counsel of derogatory remarks about his integrity, mental health, and religious faith. He presents these as evidence of hostility and bias potentially influencing the department’s handling of complaints.
The appendix includes Court Minutes summarizing proceedings on August 22, 2001, and October 11, 2001. Judge Pluim denied one motion to compel as “overly broad,” affecting future attempts to obtain personnel records. Subsequent filings sought reconsideration.
Additional filings include Requests for Judicial Notice, Replies to Oppositions, and Responses to Motions in Limine. These illustrate attempts to introduce external records or challenge limitations placed on evidence presentation. One City motion in limine sought to restrict claims of false arrest or personnel references; the plaintiff’s responses aimed to preserve these issues.
Proofs of Service and Affidavits of Process Servers document delivery of subpoenas, amended complaints, motions, and filings to officers Brown, Mosman, Rosner, May, Pratt, Bustamante, and Dollar. These are routine but essential elements for an appellate record.
Several filings relate to Motions for Summary Judgment. Although incomplete in the excerpt, the index notes the City sought summary judgment with process server declarations attached. The motion was heard and ultimately denied, indicating unresolved factual disputes.
The appendix also references an “Alleged Use-of-Force Policy” listed as Exhibit 104 during a three-day trial. While the content is not reproduced, it is relevant to establishing departmental standards and evaluating the plaintiff’s excessive-force allegations.
Finally, the document includes a partially reproduced Pasadena Police Department Crime Report. It lists incident classification, location, officer names, badge numbers, the plaintiff’s identifiers, vehicle details, and dispatch codes. Brown and Mosman’s presence is corroborated. The narrative is minimal or absent in the excerpt; the last visible fragment is “GANG AFFILI”, suggesting additional sections were omitted.
Taken together, the appendix forms a procedural mosaic illustrating not only the alleged events but also the plaintiff’s multi-year efforts to obtain necessary records. His filings portray a system resistant to transparency, while the City’s responses and judicial rulings demonstrate legal constraints and standards for personnel-record requests in California. The cumulative effect is a detailed portrait of contested discovery, disputed conduct, and a broader struggle over narrative and institutional accountability. Despite terminating mid-report, the preceding material thoroughly depicts the plaintiff’s litigation strategy, grievances against the police department, repeated statutory invocations, and evolving identification of officers alleged to have used excessive force.
