“No weapon formed against thee shall prosper; & every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.” — Isaiah 54:17
2.4
This appendix presents the full set of documents, filings, amendments, motions, and administrative materials associated with the civil matter Kok v. City of Pasadena over 2000–2002. The record consists of complaints and amendments identifying officers, discovery motions seeking personnel and identification materials, proofs of service documenting notice to defendants and counsel, court minutes summarizing rulings, supporting declarations, and excerpts from a Pasadena Police Department crime report. The materials collectively show the sequence of procedural actions, contested discovery issues, and development of the factual basis for the claims.
The file begins with formal “Amendment to Complaint” documents filed under Code of Civil Procedure §474. These amendments substitute actual names for previously unidentified Doe defendants. Over multiple filings, the plaintiff replaced Doe 2 with Officer Timothy Mosman, Doe 3 with Officer Bradley May, Doe 4 with Officer Henry Rosner, Doe 5 with Officer Walt Gamberale, and Doe 6 with Officer Calvin Pratt. Additional filings identify Doe 7 as Robert Dollar and Doe 8 as Evangelina Bustamante. Each amendment affirms that the plaintiff was previously unaware of the defendant’s identity. Each is accompanied by proofs of service demonstrating that the amended pleadings were mailed appropriately.
Alongside these amendments are standardized “Proof of Service by Mail” forms, executed under penalty of perjury, stating that the relevant documents—including amendments, notices, and motions—were mailed according to office procedures. These proofs list addresses, dates, and recipients, reflecting service completed via sealed and prepaid envelopes.
The next major component is the July 23, 2001 Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Under Evidence Code §1043. This motion concerns obtaining photographs of four officers—Gamberale, Pratt, May, and Rosner—who allegedly arrived after the initial detention. The plaintiff argues that identification is essential because these officers allegedly interacted with him while detained in a patrol vehicle. The City required compliance with Evidence Code procedures for police personnel records. The motion describes the incident, alleging physical force, tight handcuffs, and denial of relief. Two officers allegedly taunted him through the patrol-car window. The plaintiff asserts that seeing their photographs is necessary to recognize these officers.
The narrative account covers February 3, 2000: a minor auto accident, response by Officers Brown and Mosman, and an allegation that the plaintiff was speaking loudly or agitated. Kok alleges the use of a baton and physical restraint, with handcuffs so tight that circulation was restricted. Additional officers arrived, and two allegedly made statements while ignoring complaints of pain. Identification of these officers is presented as critical to the complaint and later proceedings.
The September 4, 2001 Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Evidence Code expands the scope, seeking personnel files, complaint histories, and disciplinary information relevant to allegations of excessive force over the preceding ten years. The plaintiff argues these records are essential to determine whether the Pasadena Police Department has a history of complaints and whether investigations were performed or ignored.
After filing an internal complaint, the plaintiff received no response, acknowledgment, or investigative activity. Anecdotal reports from others alleging negative interactions with Pasadena officers are cited as informal support for inquiry into historical patterns.
Medical-record procedures also illustrate inconsistency. The City initially requested records; the plaintiff complied. Later, when serving a request for medical admissions, the City objected due to missing attachments. After correction, the City claimed authenticity could not be verified. The plaintiff argues this represents obstructive behavior that hindered discovery.
Subpoenaed dispatch communications are addressed. The City claimed no transcript existed due to “mechanical failure.” Follow-ups produced vague assurances that failures were infrequent, and the communications supervisor later refused to speak further. The plaintiff interprets this as restrictive departmental conduct, highlighting potential withholding of material evidence.
Motions in limine sought to limit the plaintiff’s ability to reference false arrest claims or personnel-file evidence. The plaintiff filed multiple responses arguing such restrictions distort the factual presentation and prevent demonstration of officers’ conduct and departmental oversight.
Administrative diligence is documented via multiple proofs of service, showing notices, subpoenas, and motions were properly delivered. Some defendants failed to respond, reinforcing the plaintiff’s argument that he complied with procedural requirements while the City repeatedly avoided meaningful engagement.
The Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 19, 2002, and denied April 29, 2002, shows that triable issues remained. Factual questions were unresolved due to prior obstruction, precluding judgment as a matter of law. The City’s prior refusal to provide officer identification, complaint histories, and dispatch records contributed to the evidentiary gap.
Exhibit 104, the Alleged Use-of-Force Policy, highlights the effort to compare officer conduct with departmental standards. Deviations support claims of excessive force; inconsistencies support potential municipal liability. Without personnel or complaint histories, the plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate whether standards were followed was limited.
Proofs of Service appear throughout, confirming delivery of pleadings, motions, and other documents. The appendix concludes with a partial Pasadena Police Department Crime Report for February 3, 2000. Visible portions include classification codes, officer names, badge numbers, plaintiff identifiers, vehicle information, and administrative fields. The report confirms the involvement of Officers Brown and Mosman. The document cuts off mid-line at “GANG AFFILI”, highlighting its incompleteness.
Taken as a whole, the appendix demonstrates the plaintiff’s efforts to identify officers, obtain personnel information, compel discovery, and prepare for trial. It documents consistent disputes between the plaintiff and the City over production of personnel-file information, identification materials, and preservation of dispatch records. Judicial evaluations of discovery breadth, procedural compliance, objections, and Evidence Code interpretations are included. Although the appendix ends abruptly within the crime report, preceding sections provide a full procedural overview, illustrating how officer identification and record requests formed the litigation’s central issues.
Key takeaways: The plaintiff followed proper procedural steps, the City repeatedly obstructed discovery, critical evidence was withheld or incomplete, and judicial rulings highlight unresolved factual issues that justify trial consideration. This appendix reflects a comprehensive account of both procedural diligence and institutional resistance.
