“In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” — Proverbs 3:6
2.5
The record in this appendix reveals civil litigation defined not merely by allegations of excessive force, but by a broader pattern of institutional resistance, procedural obstruction, and calculated non-disclosure by the City of Pasadena and its Police Department. Over two years, plaintiff Philip A. Kok sought fundamental information necessary to prosecute his claims—officer identities, personnel histories relevant to credibility, and dispatch or investigative records that any functioning department should routinely maintain. The City’s consistent refusal to produce these materials, combined with repeated procedural tactics, paints a picture not of an isolated dispute, but of a municipality determined to avoid transparency and shield officers from accountability.
The events of February 3, 2000 set the stage. Following a minor automobile accident, Officers Brown and Mosman responded. What should have been straightforward escalated into physical force, restraints, and verbal derision. Kok contends officers used a baton, drove him face-down, applied handcuffs tightly causing acute pain and numbness, and exacerbated the injury in the patrol car. Additional officers allegedly mocked him. These incidents raise questions of training, supervision, and departmental culture, not mere isolated lapses.
The City’s response to Kok’s internal complaint intensified concerns. He received no acknowledgment, case number, confirmation of investigation, or findings. Whether the complaint was investigated or ignored remains unknown. This absence of institutional response suggests a pattern, not oversight.
Kok began identifying responsible officers. Initially unknown, he used Doe placeholders under California law, gradually replacing them as information emerged: Mosman, May, Rosner, Gamberale, Pratt, Dollar, and Bustamante. The slow identification highlights the City’s reluctance to voluntarily disclose personnel—information ordinarily available in a professional department.
Even after names were known, Kok could not determine which officers made critical statements, ignored requests, or were present at key moments. He requested officer photographs, met with resistance, and the City claimed such images were privileged under Evidence Code §1043. A Motion to Compel was filed to obtain these photos, arguing that four additional officers’ statements, and handcuffing context, were central to the excessive-force claim.
The City’s insistence that photographs required a Pitchess motion functioned as obstruction. Routine identification became a procedural barrier. In isolation, these tactics might seem cautious; together, they demonstrate a pattern: obstruct identification, deny documents, prevent clarity, and disadvantage the plaintiff.
Kok’s September 4, 2001 Motion to Compel Discovery expanded this pattern, seeking prior complaint records and personnel information to evaluate notice of prior excessive-force allegations. Anecdotal reports of other mistreatment justified inquiry into whether Pasadena had a sustained record of citizen grievances.
The City responded with objections, procedural maneuvers, and disparagement. Counsel questioned Kok’s mental health, credibility, and religious beliefs—illustrating an adversarial approach that exceeded defense of municipal interests. When a City attorney shifts to personal attacks, it raises ethical concerns and suggests the litigation posture was hostile rather than impartial.
Conflicting positions regarding medical records further illustrate obstruction. Kok complied with requests, but when he sought admissions, the City objected due to missing attachments. When corrected, the City claimed documents could not be verified. The effect was delay, confusion, and frustration, without advancing substantive evaluation.
Dispatch communications presented a similar pattern. The dispatch transcript for February 3 was claimed “nonexistent” due to mechanical failure. Follow-up subpoenas requesting failure statistics produced vague assurances only. Direct contact with the communications supervisor was blocked. Dispatch is a core operational function; failure or refusal to provide records undermines credibility and raises the possibility of destroyed or missing evidence.
Even approaching trial, the City sought to bar reference to false arrest claims or personnel-file evidence via motions in limine, attempting to restrict the narrative presented to the jury. Kok responded repeatedly, arguing such restrictions distorted the factual presentation and prevented demonstration of officers’ conduct and departmental oversight failures.
The appendix documents procedural diligence: proofs of service, notices, subpoenas, and motions were properly delivered. Some defendants failed to respond. These administrative records show Kok followed procedures while the City consistently dodged engagement.
The Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 19, 2002, and denied, demonstrates triable issues remained. Factual questions, unresolved due to prior discovery obstruction, precluded judgment as a matter of law. The City’s refusal to provide officer identification, complaint histories, and dispatch records contributed to this evidentiary gap.
Exhibit 104, the Alleged Use-of-Force Policy, highlights Kok’s effort to compare officer conduct with departmental standards. Deviations support excessive-force claims; inconsistent enforcement supports municipal liability. Without personnel or complaint histories, Kok was handicapped in demonstrating whether standards were ignored or unevenly applied.
The appendix includes a partially reproduced Pasadena Police Department Crime Report for February 3, 2000. Even this official record ends at “GANG AFFILI,” with missing narrative portions. Incomplete production underscores the department’s failure to document incidents fully. Police reports are foundational investigative tools; missing portions disadvantage any litigant seeking accountability.
Viewed collectively, the appendix reveals a clear pattern:
- Attempted officer identification; City resisted.
- Requested dispatch records; mechanical failure cited.
- Requested complaint histories; privilege claimed.
- Provided medical records; authenticity questioned.
- Requested photographs; Pitchess motion required.
- Attempted direct contact with personnel; blocked.
- Filed citizen complaint; no response provided.
Individually, each might appear bureaucratic; together, they reflect systematic suppression of information. Plaintiff was deprived of essential tools, while the City leveraged procedures to shelter itself.
The aggressive tone is grounded in the record. Multiple motions to compel, repeated amendments, subpoenas, and requests demonstrate that Kok’s prosecution was impaired not by lack of diligence but by the City’s strategic withholding of material facts. The appendix documents a department and municipal legal team unwilling to engage transparently, using procedural maneuvers to delay, obscure, and complicate litigation efforts.
Finally, the incomplete police report symbolizes the case: missing pieces, withheld information, and institutional refusal to illuminate the truth. The appendix is not merely litigation history; it is a record of obstruction, resistance, and systemic denial of accountability.
