“The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge & understanding.” — Proverbs 2:6
Version #2 — Tighter Legal Brief (≈2000 Words)
This document serves as a consolidated litigation record in Kok v. City of Pasadena, reflecting key filings, amendments, discovery motions, judicial minutes, and law-enforcement records generated between 2000 and 2002. The appendix documents the plaintiff’s efforts to identify officers, obtain critical personnel and complaint-history information, overcome discovery resistance, and present evidence supporting claims of excessive force and departmental indifference. It provides a structured timeline illustrating both the plaintiff’s strategy and the procedural responses by the City of Pasadena and its police department.
The record begins with formal Amendments to Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §474. These amendments replace “Doe” placeholders with identified officers as they became known. Over six filings, the plaintiff identifies Timothy Mosman, Bradley May, Henry Rosner, Walt Gamberale (referred to as “Ganeral”), and Calvin Pratt, eventually adding Robert Dollar and Evangelina Bustamante. Each amendment is signed under penalty of perjury and accompanied by proofs of service to the City Attorney and officers, formalizing the transition to a fully identified roster of defendants allegedly involved in the plaintiff’s detention and the acts giving rise to the lawsuit.
The first significant discovery submission is the Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code §1043, filed July 23, 2001. The motion challenges the City’s refusal to provide officer photographs. The plaintiff asserts that after a minor traffic incident on February 3, 2000, Officers Brown and Mosman escalated the encounter using physical force—striking him, forcing him to the ground, driving knees into his back, and applying handcuffs causing severe pain and loss of circulation. Additional officers arrived; two allegedly taunted him, ignored requests to loosen handcuffs, and verbally derided him with statements such as “You should have thought about that f----g earlier!” and “You’re never wrong, are you?” Identification of these officers is necessary to ensure all responsible individuals are named. The City’s refusal, premised on statutory personnel-record requirements, prompted the plaintiff to seek judicial intervention.
The September 4, 2001 Motion to Compel Discovery extends beyond officer photographs, seeking personnel files and historical complaint data relevant to allegations of excessive force or misconduct. The plaintiff argues that the City’s failure to investigate his complaint or communicate findings demonstrates departmental indifference. He references anecdotal reports from other individuals as informal evidence of a broader failure to address citizen complaints.
Medical-record discovery presented additional complications. Although the plaintiff supplied requested medical records, the City objected to subsequent requests for admissions for missing attachments and later questioned the authenticity of the same records. The plaintiff interprets this as bad-faith obstruction hindering efficient discovery.
Dispatch communications also illustrate obstruction. A subpoena for the February 3 incident transcript returned a “mechanical failure” response. A follow-up subpoena sought failure-frequency data; the communications supervisor indicated failures were rare but provided no figures and later refused further discussion. The plaintiff interprets this as resistance to transparency.
The plaintiff also cites disparaging remarks by the City Attorney regarding his integrity, mental health, and religious background. These illustrate a hostile climate and support the plaintiff’s contention that discovery was resisted in a manner inconsistent with neutral litigation.
Court Minutes summarize judicial rulings. An August 22, 2001 minute order reflects discovery hearings; October 11, 2001 minutes show Judge Pluim denied a motion as “overly broad,” providing context for repeated plaintiff efforts to refine requests for personnel and complaint records. Additional minutes track preliminary rulings and procedural steps, including amendments and proofs of service.
Motions for Reconsideration, Responses to Motions in Limine, and Requests for Judicial Notice document disputes over evidence admissibility, internal police policies, and City attempts to limit claims. For example, a motion in limine sought to strike false-arrest allegations or restrict references to personnel information; the plaintiff responded defending his right to present such material. Judicial Notice requests challenged opposing counsel’s credibility or ethical behavior, suggesting justification for heightened scrutiny. Although not every document is included, the appendix provides sufficient context for the persistence of evidentiary disputes.
The February 19, 2002 Motion for Summary Judgment, partially included, contains declarations from process servers Shelly Peutet and Nils Grevillius. The motion was denied on April 29, 2002, indicating unresolved factual disputes precluding judgment as a matter of law. Limited personnel or complaint records may have contributed to this outcome.
Exhibit 104, an Alleged Use-of-Force Policy referenced during a three-day trial, highlights the relevance of departmental standards. Evaluating officer conduct relative to policy helps establish whether municipal liability or deviation from standard procedures occurred.
Proofs of Service confirm procedural compliance, documenting delivery of motions, amended complaints, responses, and subpoenas to the City Attorney, the department, and individual officers. These are essential for appellate review and demonstrate that the plaintiff consistently followed formal channels.
The appendix concludes with a partially reproduced Pasadena Police Department Crime Report. Visible entries include officers, badge numbers, appellant identifiers, and vehicle details. Brown and Mosman’s presence is corroborated. Other officers match amended complaints and discovery motions. The narrative is truncated, ending with “GANG AFFILI”, suggesting additional administrative or classification fields would normally appear.
Overall, this tighter legal brief emphasizes procedural trajectory, the plaintiff’s attempts to obtain essential personnel and complaint information, and his broader effort to demonstrate a City pattern of resisting discovery and minimizing allegations of excessive force. Multiple motions to compel, Evidence Code §1043 references, missing dispatch transcripts, and medical-record disputes form a cohesive picture of contested discovery and institutional defensiveness. Despite the appendix ending mid-police report, preceding contents provide a clear foundation for understanding the plaintiff’s theory of liability and procedural history.
