Deposition of Jan Caldwell

April 3, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

JAN CALDWELL,

called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, who, being by

me first duly sworn, was thereupon examined and

testified in said cause.

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; MARCH 16, 2016; 10:20 A.M.,

 

JAN CALDWELL,

having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

 

EXAMINATION

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Good morning, Ms. Caldwell.  How are you?
2. Very well.
3. I introduced myself when you came to the

room.  I’m Rachel Baird, and I represent James C.

Playford in this case of American News versus Sheriff

Gore.

1. Uh-huh.
2. Have you been deposed before?
3. I have.
4. About how many times?
5. Once that I can think of.
6. So maybe you’re not as familiar with the

process as I thought.  If you have any questions, if

something I ask is not clear, don’t hesitate to ask me

to clarify and I’ll do so.  If you need a break,

simply ask.  Your counsel is here.  If you have any

questions, he’s right there for you, as I assume he’s

told you already.
A.   Uh-huh.

1. Any issue that comes up, just bring it up.

I’ll put it that way.

1. All right.  Thank you.
2. So your title with the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department is public information director?

1. Media relations director.  I’m the public

information officer.

1. Because I’ve seen it put a couple of

different ways.  But the official title is public

information officer, slash, media director, or the

other way around, perhaps?

1. Either way.
2. How long have you held that position?
3. A little over nine years.  It will be ten

years this October 13th.

1. Has it always been called the same thing,

public information officer, slash, media director?

1. I believe it became media director after I

arrived.

1. Have your duties been primarily the same in

the past nearly ten years?

1. They’ve evolved, in that I have more

employees.  We’ve grown with social media, and we have

a video production unit now.
Q.   So when you came on board, had you been

employed previously by the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department?

1. No.
2. So it was somewhat of a hire from outside.

You came from another agency or another employment?

1. Correct.
2. What employment was that?
3. I was a special agent with the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.

1. How long did you do that?
2. I was with the FBI for 32 years.
3. Is it fair to say you retired from the FBI?
4. It is correct.
5. Did your job duties with the FBI have to do

with media relations or public information?

1. The last 13 years I was with the Bureau were

media related.  Before that, I worked other criminal

matters.

1. I forgot to ask you.  Have you ever

testified in court?

1. Yes, I have.
2. How many times have you done that?
3. I don’t know if I could give you —
4. Fair enough.  So, many times you’ve
   testified in court?
5. I have testified.
6. What were your job duties then during your

last 13 years with the FBI?

1. They call them media representative.  It’s

basically a public information officer for the

division where you’re assigned.  I was assigned here

in San Diego.

1. Were you head of that division?
2. No.  I was just the PIO.
3. So in the media division of the FBI that

was located in San Diego, there were a number of

employees, it’s fair to say?

1. No.
2. Just you?
3. Yes.
4. Got it.  How did you go about obtaining

employment with the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department?  Did you submit an application?

1. No.
2. Was there an opening?
3. Yes.
4. Was it a newly created position?
5. No.
6. Who was sheriff at the time approximately
   ten years ago, a little less than ten years ago when

you got the position?

1. Bill Kolender.
2. Had you known him previously?
3. I had met him.
4. And how long did you work for — is it

Kalmer, Bill Kalmer?  I’m not sure I heard you say the

name right.

1. Kolender.
2. How long did you work for Sheriff Kolender?
3. He retired I believe in 2009.  Don’t hold me

to that.  I believe it was 2009.

1. After he left, is it fair to say that

Sheriff William Gore took his place?

1. Yes.
2. Had you known Sheriff Gore previously?
3. Yes.
4. How did you know him?
5. I knew him through my employment at the FBI.

I knew him personally as I was married to his cousin.

1. And the employment through the FBI, was that

when you were located in San Diego?

1. Primarily.  But I knew Mr. Gore when he was

assistant director and a special agent in charge of

Honolulu.
Q.   How long, sitting here today, would you say

you’ve known Sheriff Gore?

1976. I believe since around 1976.
1977. It’s 2016.  He came on board in 2009.

That’s seven years.  So you worked for Sheriff

Kolender for about three years and then for Sheriff

Gore for about almost seven years; is that accurate?

1. That’s accurate.  But Sheriff Gore was

undersheriff, so I reported to him directly.

1. Okay.  Fair enough.  Who do you report to

directly now?

1. Undersheriff Mark Elvin.
2. How long have you reported to him?
3. Undersheriff Elvin was assigned there,

promoted there last I believe September.

1. And prior to his promotion, who did you

report to?

1. Undersheriff Prendergast.
2. Prior to Undersheriff Prendergast?
3. Jim Cooke, C-o-o-k-e.
4. Prior to Undersheriff Cooke?
5. Bill Gore.
6. Prior to Undersheriff Gore — when was he

undersheriff?

1. I don’t know.  That was before my time.
   Q.   So the first person that you reported to

when you became the PIO for the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department was Undersheriff Gore?

1. That’s correct.
2. At that time, Bill Kolender was the sheriff?
3. That’s correct.
4. Is there a written document describing your

job duties?

1. There’s my job description, yes.
2. Has that remained consistent over the past

ten years?

1. I believe so, but I don’t review it.
2. How many people do you have working who

report to you currently?

1. Six.
2. Are they all in the Public Information

Office?

1. Yes.
2. What are their job duties?  If you could

also attach their name to their job duties.

1. I have an administrative assistant whose

name is Cindy Davis.  I have a media specialist by the

name of Melissa Acquino, A-c-q-u-i-n-o.  I have a

media specialist by the name of Sammy Castanon,

C-a-s-t-a-n-o-n.  Video production specialist Mike
Kurtz, K-u-r-t-z.  Video production specialist Randy

Grimm, G-r-i-m-m.  And I have a Deputy Ariana Ruibe,

R-u-i-b-e, who is assigned to Crime Stoppers and

physically sits at the San Diego Police Department,

but reports to me.

1. Of those six individuals who report to you,

is it fair to say that one of them is a sworn officer?

1. That is correct.  And I’d like to also add,

I’m sorry, we have a 960.  This is a deputy who

retired as a commander I believe eight years ago.

Comes back on a 960 part-time program.  He works in

our office one day a week.  His name is Ken Culver,

and he does the website.

1. Mr. Culver is retired from the sheriff’s

department?

1. That is correct.
2. So currently he’s a civilian?
3. Correct.
4. When did the — I’m sorry.  I think I may

have missed the name of the person who handles the

social media.

1. I have two people, Melissa Acquino and Sammy

Castanon.

1. Were they employed already in the Public

Information Office when the office started to focus —
or originally focused on social media?

1. They were hired and — Melissa was hired

first and charged with beginning our social media.

1. When was that?
2. I believe it was 2010.
3. Was a job description created for that

position?

1. Yes.
2. And when was the other person who is tasked

with social media hired?  Was that specifically for

social media, or did that person’s job evolve into

that?

1. It was to assist Melissa, social media and

proactive stories.  And I believe Sammy was hired in

2013, but I don’t know if that’s the exact year.

1. And I understand that when you’re giving

dates, you’re sitting there just testifying and you’re

going by the best of recall.  And certainly if you had

to confirm that, you could.

1. Absolutely.
2. When you reference social media, is Twitter

included?

1. Yes, it is.
2. Is Facebook included?
3. Not any longer.
   Q.   For a time it sounds like Facebook was

included?

1. That’s correct.
2.  Does the San Diego Sheriff’s Department have

a Facebook presence currently?

1. They do not.
2. Did they at one time have a Facebook

presence?

1. Yes.
2. During what time period?
3. Again, guessing 2010 until I believe 2013 or

’14.

1. Was there a reason why in about 2014 the

Facebook presence for the department ceased?

1. There was a community member posting vulgar

verbiage on our page, and we took it down.

1. Who was that community member?
2. Dimitri, D-i-m-i-t-r-i, Karras, K-a-r-r-a-s.
3. Was there any record, or do you recall

anything being posted on the Facebook page by James C.

Playford?

1. I do not.
2. Let me try to think.  Instagram, is that

part of the social media presence for the department?

1. I don’t think so, but I’m sorry, I can’t
   answer that.
2. It sounds like there is a separate person

who handles the website presence now.  Mr. Culver does

that?

1. He does that along with our IT group.
2. And so do you consider the website presence

part of social media or separate?

1. I’ve never really thought about it.
2. It’s handled separately, it sounds like,

though?

1. Yes.
2. When was the website brought — made active?

I’ll put it that way.  When was the website made

active?

1. I don’t know.  It was before my time.
2. So it’s been that long.  At least ten years?
3. Yes.
4. Who handled it before Mr. Culver?
5. I would have to suppose our IT department.
6. And the person in the IT department that

helps out Mr. Culver, he doesn’t report to you,

correct?

1.    Correct, he does not.
2. Is it one person or just the IT department

in general that helps Mr. Culver with the website?
A.   I believe it’s the department in general.

1. When you were first hired to be the public

information officer, slash, media director, how many

people reported to you then?

1. Initially no one.
2. One-person department?
3. No, no.  There was a captain in there

temporarily and administrative assistant.

1.  Do you know whose place you took?
2. I believe I replaced Chris Saunders,

S-a-u-n-d-e-r-s, but it had been a few years since he

had worked there.

1. So there had been somewhat of a gap in

filling the position?  It had gone unfilled for a

period of time?

1. I believe so.
2. To the best of your knowledge, did the

captain and the administrative assistant fill in while

there was a gap in the person who actually had the

title PIO?

1. The captain was the POI.
2. And who was that?
3. Glenn, G-l-e-n-n, Revell, R-e-v-e-l-l, I

think.

1. What became of the captain when you took
   over the job?
2. He stayed there to help train me, and then

he was assigned somewhere else.  I don’t remember

where.  And a lieutenant came in.

1. So at that time when you became the public

information officer, it sounds like there was a

captain and an administrative assistant in the office?

1. Correct.
2. But they didn’t report to you?
3. No.
4. And then the captain trained you and left at

some point?

1. Uh-huh.
2. And a lieutenant came on board?
3. Correct.
4. Do you recall the name of that lieutenant?
5. His name was Phil Brust, B-r-u-s-t.
6. And the administrative assistant stayed in

the position?

1. Correct.
2. When did that composition change?
3. We had a temporary light-duty person come in

that was assigned to our communications center as a

dispatcher.  Came to work for us in a TDY capacity,

and that stayed that way for a year, 18 months.  I’m
not really sure if I can recall the exact time frame.

And then Lieutenant Brust was reassigned to

the Fallbrook station, and we decided to hire someone

to come in and do the proactive stories and social

media, and that’s when we advertised and we acquired

Melissa Acquino.

1. Was Ms. Acquino the first employee of the

Public Information Office that reported to you?

1. No.  While Lieutenant Brust was there, we

decided that Adriana Ruibe would report to Phil Brust,

and the administrative assistant would report to me.

1. And after the hire for the social media

position, is it fair to say it continued to grow to

the point it’s at now, where six people report to you?

1. Correct.
2. In addition to Mr. Culver?
3. Correct.
4. So it’s actually seven?
5. Yes.
6. As it’s grown, have people come and gone, or

has it just grown where people have added — people

have come on board and stayed?

1. We had another person come in, a media

specialist by the name of Susan Plese, P-l-e-s-e, and

she was there for a little while after Lieutenant
Brust left, and then she resigned.  And then since

then we have continued to grow with Melissa and Sammy,

et cetera.

1. What factors have led the department to add

the social media component to the Public Information

Office?

1. It’s a good way to get information to the

communities.  The trend is, social media is very

popular and just a good way to push out information

quickly.

1. I just want to make sure that I did name all

the social media that the information office actively

contributes to, and that would be basically Twitter

and the web page, if you want to consider that as

well.

1. We have our web page.  We have — for a

while we did have Facebook as we discussed.  We do

have Twitter.  We use Nixle, N-i-x-l-e.  And we might

use Instagram.  I would have to check on that.

1. Have you had any issues with Twitter or the

other social media that you experienced with Facebook

that led to the page being shut down?

1. No, we haven’t.

(Brief recess.)

///
BY MS. BAIRD:

1. The video production, when did that

component of the Public Information Office come into

existence?

1. Approximately two, three years ago.
2. And there are two people involved in that?

A specialist and then the main person, correct?

1. Well, they’re both kind of equal.
2. Did they both — were they both hired about

the same time?

1. No.  We had — one is a volunteer for many,

many years before I started.  And then Mr. Kurtz

joined us two or three years ago as a volunteer and

then applied as we grew this new unit.

1. And so both of them are paid employees now?
2. Correct.
3. What does the video production part of the

office entail?

1. Well, these two men will do videos at the

request of different units.  For instance, they just

completed a video on a coffee cart at one of our

facilities, one of our detention facilities.  Kind of

a culinary arts training program.  So they videotaped

that and put it online.  And it was also picked up by

the news media.
Q.   What are the various facets of the sheriff’s

department that the Public Information Office is

tasked with distributing information about?  I mean,

you just mentioned a corrections facility or a jail

facility.  So that would be one component.

Would another component be the various

stations or substations where sworn officers work out

of?

1. Correct.
2. And what would be some other examples?
3. Court Services Bureau would be another

example.  There are a lot of moving parts to the

sheriff’s department, and we try to put information

out about them as requested, or that the public might

find interesting.

1. So it would cover everything involving the

sheriff’s department then?

1. Correct.
2. Are the videos that are produced in your

unit disseminated through social media?

1. Sometimes.
2. Including your website sometimes?
3. Sometimes.
4. And links on Twitter sometimes?
5. I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine.
   Q.   Are they used at any functions or forums or

places where you give speeches or other members of the

department give presentations or speeches?

1. Yes.
2. Approximately how many videos have been

produced, if you know?

1. I couldn’t begin to count.
2. Would there be a list of those videos

maintained?

1. There might be.  I would have to research.
2.    Well, the videos would be maintained,

correct?

1. Correct.
2. Do people from the public ever request

copies of the videos?

1. No, not that’s been my experience.
2. Do you make training videos for deputies or

people that work in the sheriff’s department?

1. The two gentlemen in the video production

unit do, yes.

1. Is that a particular task that’s assigned to

your unit?  In other words, there’s not a separate

training unit out there that does video; that would be

your unit that would do those?

1. There’s a separate training unit, but they
   usually rely on Randy or Mike to do the videos.
2. Okay, okay.  Do you have a formal working

relationship with a public information officer

employed by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I know the lieutenant, and we converse from

time to time on different things.

1. For example, is there any memorandum of

understanding regarding a relationship between you and

a PIO from the San Diego Police Department?

1. Not to my knowledge.
2. Is it fair to say that you rely on the

San Diego Police Department for a list of individuals

or organizations who have been issued media

credentials by the San Diego Police Department?

1. Yes.
2. And how do you — if you do, how do you

obtain a list or keep current with such a list

maintained by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I’ve never asked for a list.
2. Do you know if there is a list?
3. I don’t know.
4. Do you have a way of determining if an

individual or an organization is on a list, if there

is a list, kept by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I’m sorry.  Would you repeat that?
   Q.   Do you have a way of determining if an

individual or an organization is on a list, if there

is a list, maintained by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. Yes.
2. And how is that?
3. I would pick up the phone and call.
4. So if you need to determine if an individual

or organization has been issued media credentials by

the San Diego Police Department, one way you determine

that information is by picking up the phone and

calling the police department?

1. Correct.
2. Any particular person that you call at the

police department?

1. It would probably be the main PIO.
2. And who is the current PIO?
3. Lieutenant Scott Wahl, W-a-h-l.
4. And how many, if you can recall, PIOs have

you used in that fashion at the San Diego Police

Department?

1. The prior PIO is Detective Gary Hassen,

H-a-s-s-e-n, I believe, and I would call him

occasionally.  I don’t believe I called the prior PIO.

1. Do you know if deputies employed by the
   San Diego County Sheriff’s Department use a similar

means of determining if an individual or an agency has

media credential issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. I don’t know.
2. Do you know if there is a procedure or

policy in place for deputies with the County to

determine if an individual or agency has media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I’m sorry.  Would you repeat the question?
2. Do you know if there’s a procedure or policy

for deputies to determine if an individual or

organization has media credentials issued by the

San Diego Police Department?

1. Not to my knowledge.
2. Do you know if it’s part of a deputy’s job

to make a determination if an individual or agency at

a scene has been issued media credentials by the

San Diego Police Department?

1. I’ve never been a deputy.  I wouldn’t be

able to answer that.

1. Do deputies ever ask you, in your position

as a public information officer, slash, media

director, whether a certain individual or agencies

they’ve come in contact with has media credentials
issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I believe they’ve asked that, I believe.
2. There’s no policy or procedure, that you

know of, that informs deputies of how to make a

determination of whether an individual or agency has

media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. To my knowledge, no.
2. Have you ever been contacted by a deputy

employed by the County and asked if James C. Playford

has media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. I can’t think of a specific deputy.  I can’t

recall one.

1. I guess I should ask, just as a foundation,

whether you know who James C. Playford is.

1. Yes, I do.
2. Have you ever met him in person?
3. Yes, I have.
4. So you’d recognize him if you saw him?
5. Yes, I would.
6. Has anybody, a civilian employee of the

County, contacted you to ask you if Mr. Playford has

media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?
A.   A civilian employee of the County?

1. Yes.  Well, the sheriff’s department, I

mean.  I’ll say the whole thing.  San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department, a civilian employee.

1. I don’t recall.
2. Have you been contacted, that you recall,

by either a sworn officer, a deputy, or a civilian

employee of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department,

and asked if American News and Information Services

has been issued media credentials by the San Diego

Police Department?

1. I don’t recall.
2. When I mention American News and Information

Services, does that mean anything to you?

1. It is I believe the agency that has used or

hired J.C. Playford.

1. Have you ever had contact with an individual

named Edward Peruta?

1. I don’t believe directly.
2. Do you know if he has any association with

American News and Information Services or James C.

Playford?

1. My understanding is he’s the owner of

American News and Information Services which employs

Mr. Playford.
Q.   Do you know if Mr. Playford currently has

media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. My latest understanding, and it’s been a few

months, is that he does not.

1. And do you know if Mr. Peruta has media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I do not know.
2. When you say it’s your understanding from

the past couple of months that Mr. Playford does not

have such media credentials, did you have some

occasion in the past couple of months to check, or did

somebody volunteer information to you that gives you

that understanding?

1. I don’t recall a specific incident.  The

last one would have been I believe last June when we

had a news conference in the building, and we were

trying to ascertain if Mr. Playford had media — valid

media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department.

1. And the press conference you’re referring to

and in the building — what building was that press

conference back in June of 2015?

1. Our sheriff’s administrative headquarters on

Ridgehaven Court.
Q.   And other than this June of 2015 occasion

that you recall involving Mr. Playford and the issue

of press credentials, do you recall any other press

conferences where Mr. Playford has been present, and

it was determined that he didn’t have the necessary or

valid media credentials to attend the press

conference?

1. Press conference, no.
2. So tell me what you remember about this

June 2015 press conference involving J.C. Playford

that would have caused you to be informed of or check

into whether he had valid media credentials.

1. Could you be more specific?
2. Sure.  Were you present at the news

conference?

1. Yes.
2. Is it a news conference or press conference?
3. I believe it’s called media conference.
4. So you were present at the media conference

back in June 2015?

1. Correct.
2. Were you the one giving the presentation at

the media conference?

1. No.
2. Who was?
   A.   Sheriff Gore.
3. Do you know what the media conference

pertained to?

1. It was about a deputy who had tazed a

teenager in Fallbrook.

1. When you have a media conference such as the

one we’re talking about back in June 2015, is there

any policy or procedure about notice going out that

there’s going to be such a conference?

1. No.
2. Fair to say some are more hastily put

together than others depending on the issue?

1. Correct.
2. So at this June 2015 conference, were there

members of the media there with valid media

credentials?

1. Yes.
2. And did they gain entry by showing those

media credentials?

1. Yes.  That was part of their entrance.

They have to go through — everyone goes through a

magnetometer and shows identification to gain entry

into our building.

1. And there’s somebody that is stationed at

the magnetometer?
A.   Correct.

1.    They will be the ones that look to see if

any alarm goes off?

1. Correct.
2. And then they ask each person for their

valid media credentials?

1. If they are a member of the media, yes.
2. So how would that person that’s stationed

there know to ask someone for their valid media

credentials?

1. If they have camera equipment with them

would be one way.  They might have their credentials

around their neck displayed and would ask to see them

if they were current.

1. Is the general public allowed?  Let’s stick

to the June 2015 conference just to make it more

specific.  Was the general public allowed into that

media conference?

1. Generally they don’t come so we don’t have

to make a decision if they are allowed or not.

1. Is there a policy or procedure about whether

the general public is allowed into a media conference?

1. What was policy is that a person with the

news, with the media, has a valid San Diego Department

issued credential.  They are allowed into our building
to videotape or conduct interviews.  They don’t need a

credential if we have the media conference outside.

And then the general public may attend as well.

1.  Do you mean outside the building?
2. Correct.
3. But inside the building, then an individual

needs that media credential from the San Diego Police

Department?

1. That is correct.
2. What other kind of persons or classes or

categories of people can attend an inside media

conference, other than individuals with valid media

credentials?

1. Employees.
2. So any other categories?
3. Other departments.  Employees that might be

associated with an investigation.  Another law

enforcement agency or another stakeholder.

1. And could a stakeholder be an individual not

employed by the government, or would it always be

another department or agency?

1. Each situation would be different.
2. I’m just trying to think of what a

stakeholder would be.  Perhaps a victim, would they be

a stakeholder?
A.   That could be.

1. A witness, could that person be a

stakeholder?

1. That could be.
2. So when you say “stakeholder,” you mean

somebody directly involved with the facts of the case?

1. Usually, but each situation is different.

It stands on its own.

1. What do you recall, if anything, about

Mr. Playford and the June 2015 media conference?

1. Can you be more specific?
2. Was he present?
3. Yes.
4. Did he go through the — I forget —

magnetometer?

1. Magnetometer.
2. Did he go through the magnetometer?
3. I wasn’t there, but I’m sure he did.
4. How do you know he was there?
5. I saw him.
6. Where did you see him?
7. In the training room where we held the media

conference.

1. So he made it into the training room?
2. He did.
   Q.   And did he stay for the whole media

conference?

1. Yes, he did.
2. Did he ask any questions?
3. I believe he did.
4. Is that the incident that caused you to

check to see if he had valid media credentials?

1. I did not.
2. Did you direct somebody to do that?
3. They always check.
4. The person stationed at the machine?
5. Correct.
6.    And do you know if the person stationed at

the machine in June 2015 checked?

1. I know that they asked him for them.
2. Do you have reason to believe that Mr.

Playford gained entry in June 2015 to the media

conference when he did not have media credentials

issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. He did.
2. Was there any follow-up investigation done

to determine how he accomplished that?

1. No, there was no investigation.
2. Was there any action taken against the

person stationed at the machine that allowed
Mr. Playford entry?

1. No.
2. Was it error to allow Mr. Playford entry

into that media conference?

1. Yes.
2. Was it error because he didn’t have media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. Correct.
2. And do you know if that error has been made

at any other time of allowing Mr. Playford into a

media conference when he didn’t have press media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I’m not sure if I can answer that.
2. Has any action been taken by your office to

ensure that this error of allowing Mr. Playford into a

media conference inside without media credentials

doesn’t occur again?

1. Nothing has changed in our office.
2. So there hasn’t been any memo or notice

issued to individuals that are stationed at these

entry machines telling them, be sure and check if

people have media credentials issued by the San Diego

Police Department before you let them in the media

conferences?

1. I don’t know if there was something before
   that time or after that time.  My colleague Melissa

prepared something that gave an example of what a

San Diego media credential looked like, and to make

sure that people with the media had them.  But in

honesty, I don’t know if it was before or after.

1. And what was Melissa’s last name?
2.    Acquino.
3. Did this, if you know, did the notice have a

written description of the media credential or just a

picture of it?

1. I believe it was just a picture.
2. Did you see anyone at the June 2015 press

conference confront Mr. Playford about his presence at

the media conference?

1. Not that I saw.
2. Other than media conferences, are there

other informational events that are open to — well,

what I should say, that are limited to members of the

media who have media credentials issued by the

San Diego Police Department?

1. I’m sorry.  One more time.
2. Sure.  Other than the media conferences,

are there other informational events, presentations

given by either Sheriff Gore or other members of the

sheriff’s department, that are only open to media if
they have credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. Yes.
2. What are those events?
3. They might be placing either the sheriff or

a captain, another individual, a media availability to

answer questions on a specific event or situation.

That would be one example.

1. Can you think of any others?
2. Not off the top of my head.  But as we go

along, I might remember something.

1. Is there any provision for reciprocity of

recognition of media credentials?  For example, if an

individual had a media credential issued by the

Sacramento Police Department, would that be — is

there any provision or list of recognizing media

credentials issued by other government agencies?

1. Yes.
2. What is that provision?
3. Well, there’s no policy.  If another media

individual has valid current credentials, they’ve been

authorized by an outside law enforcement agency, we

would recognize those.

1. Other than recognizing credentials issued by

law enforcement agencies, is there any provision for
recognizing credentials issued by non law enforcement

organizations?

1. Those aren’t recognized as being valid.
2. So a media credential to be recognized by

the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department has to be

issued by government agency?

1. Yes.
2. Would you call that a policy?
3. I don’t know honestly if it’s in our policy

manual, but it is the protocol we follow.

1. Was that the protocol that was followed when

you came on board as the public information officer,

slash, media director for the County?

1. Since I’ve been there.  I can’t speak

beforehand.

1. Has it remained the same, to your knowledge,

during the nearly ten years you’ve been with the

County?

1. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
2. Now, are you aware that Mr. Playford has

credentials issued by American News and Information

Services?

1. No, I didn’t know that.
2. Are you aware that Mr. Playford has claimed

to have credentials issued by a non law enforcement
organization?

1. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of that,

no.

1. So you sitting here today, either firsthand

or understanding from information that’s been given to

you, you have no knowledge that Mr. Playford has or

does not have credentials issued by a non government

organization?

1. No, I don’t.  I don’t know.
2. Is that because it’s irrelevant to you

whether or not he has credentials issued by a non

government organization, because they wouldn’t be

valid under your protocol?

1. We look to see if they have a San Diego

Police Department issued credentials.

1. Or other law enforcement, correct?
2. Correct.
3. So if it’s not San Diego Police Department

or other law enforcement that issued the credentials,

then the credentials under the protocol of your

department aren’t valid?

1. Correct.
2. Have you ever contacted the San Diego Police

Department to indicate that an individual who has

San Diego Police Department media credentials has done
something that should be looked into by the San Diego

Police Department, something inappropriate where

perhaps their media credential should be looked into?

1. Yes.
2. How many times have you done that?
3. I don’t know how many times.
4. What is the time or occasions that you were

thinking of when you answered yes to my question?

1. I don’t remember specific years, but I do

remember contacting Detective Hassen about Mr.

Playford and his behavior.

1. So obviously that would have been while

Detective Hassen was the PIO at the San Diego Police

Department, right?

1. Correct.
2. So that puts it into a time frame somewhat?
3. Yes.
4. And was there another occasion when you

contacted Detective Hassen or any other PIO over at

the San Diego Police Department about Mr. Playford?

1. I believe so, but I don’t remember specific

dates or times.  Another PIO over there I just

remember was Andra, A-n-d-r-a, Brown, B-r-o-w-n.  And

she was also a co-PIO with Detective Hassen.

1. So you remember at least one time contacting
   Detective Hassen about Mr. Playford and his media

credentials?

1. Correct.
2. At that time, did you have cause to believe

that Mr. Playford had San Diego Police Department

media credentials?

1. Yes, he did, I believe.
2. Do you know if your phone call to the

San Diego Police Department about Mr. Playford and his

conduct led to any action by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. I don’t know.
2. Did the San Diego — Detective Hassen ask

you for additional information?

1. I don’t recall that.
2. Other than your phone call to him, do you

recall following up on the matter, taking any other

action?

1. No.
2. Are you aware of the circumstances that led

to Mr. Playford having media credentials issued by the

San Diego Police Department at one time, but not

having them now?

1. I understand that he had credentials, and

then they were not renewed by the San Diego Police
Department.  They would have to answer that.  This is

strictly from my memory.  And then he was issued

credentials again, and my understanding is that he has

let them lapse.

1. Other than Mr. Playford, have you had

occasion — or have you contacted the San Diego Police

Department about an individual who has media

credentials issued by the police department and

engaged in conduct that you believed impacted, one,

whether they should have credentials or not?

1. I’m sorry.  Would you repeat?
2.    Sure.  Other than Mr. Playford, have you

contacted the police department, the San Diego Police

Department, about any other individual where you’ve

had concerns about their conduct as related to them

having media credentials issued by the San Diego

Police Department?

1. No.
2. Do you know an individual — not know.  Are

you familiar with the name Ed Baier, B-a-i-e-r?

1. I’ve heard the name.
2. Any contacts made by you to the San Diego

Police Department about Ed Baier?

1. No, not to my recollection, no.
2. What information do you recall having
   received that causes you to remember the name

Ed Baier?

1. Mr. Baier will occasionally send e-mails.  I

don’t remember specifically what they concern, but

they’re ranting in nature.  He will call the office

sometimes leaving messages, or he will be upset about

something.  Again, I don’t recall the subject matter,

but those are infrequent.

1. And the e-mails, are they sent to you?
2. They are.
3. And the voice mails, they’re left at your

number?

1. They are not.
2. At the information — at the Public

Information Department’s number?

1. Yes, my administrative assistant’s number.
2. Do you know if Mr. Baier has media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. My understanding, he does not.
2. And where would that understanding come

from?

1. I believe from Detective Hassen.  I

understand that Mr. Baier was convicted of a felony

and cannot have press credentials.

1. What would have caused you to engage in a
   conversation with Detective Hassen about that?
2. I don’t recall.  I believe it would be in

the same conversation as Mr. Playford.  I believe

they’re friends.

1. And that conversation would have occurred

back around the June 2015 media conference event?

1. No.
2. Before or after?
3. Before.
4. Are you familiar with the name Jerry Nance,

N-a-n-c-e?

1. Yes, I am.
2. And do you know if Mr. Nance has media

credentials issued by the San Diego Police Department?

1. I understand he does not.
2. Where does that understanding come from?
3. That comes from a question that I asked

yesterday at the San Diego Police Department because

he’s going through a trial now for 148.

1. What was your — I’m not quite sure I

connected it.  I need you to explain.  What was the

reason why you contacted Detective Hassen to check on

Mr. Nance’s media credentials?

1. Detective Hassen retired a few years ago.

I contacted Detective Mark Herring, H-e-r-r-i-n-g.
And because the assistant district attorney contacted

me as a witness to discuss our policy and procedure,

I did some research to see if Mr. Nance had a valid

media credential on the date in question.

1. Were you able to provide any policies and

procedures?

1. Provide any policies and procedures to?
2. I think you said that — I’m not sure if it

was the DA or the investigation agency involved with

Mr. Nance’s trial had called you —

1. Correct.
2. — to ask — we’ll go by memory now.  I

think you said they called you to ask if you had any

policies or procedures?

1. I provided them our media guide, as well as

our 7.3.

(Exhibit 1 was marked for identification by

the court reporter.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. If I could have this marked as Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 1.  Is that the way we do it in California?

We’ve had marked a nine-page document entitled “San

Diego County Sheriff’s Department Media Guide.”  And

I’ll just ask you to look at that to, first, determine

if you recognize it, and then if you do, to determine
if it’s current.

1. Yes, this is current.
2. Is there a way you could tell that so fast?
3. I brought the copy with me.
4. Okay.  And this media guide, Exhibit 1, is

posted at the web page for the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department, correct?

1. That is correct.
2. And it looks like from what you brought

there’s also a pamphlet in color version.

1. Correct.
2. What is available for those who come in and

request a copy?

1. That is correct.
2. And this media guide, which is Exhibit 1,

is the media guide you would have provided responsive

to the request for policies and procedures?

1. That is correct.
2. And 7.3, what are you referring to when you

reference 7.3?

1. That is also online.  That is part of our

P&P, and it relates to media relations.

1. So the P&P, policies and procedures for the

Public Information Office media would be either found

in Exhibit 1 or Section 7.3, which is also found on
the website?

1. Correct.
2. Any other information that would be included

as policies and procedures, other than those two

resources we just named?

7. 7.3 is the official document.
8. 7.3 is the official document?
9. Correct.
10. And then the media guide, which is

Exhibit 1, is sort of a user-friendly website summary

of 7.3.  Is that fair?

1. That is fair.

(Exhibit 2 was marked for identification by

the court reporter.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

2. If I could have this marked as Exhibit 2.

And you’re going to have to give me a second now

because I’ve got two other copies hidden somewhere in

my staples in my documents here.

Ms. Caldwell, if I could just take that from you for a

minute.

1. Yes.
2. There’s one particular place I want to — I

think I can do it without relying on — we just

referred to Section D of Exhibit 2.  First of all,
are you familiar in your capacity as the public

information officer with 409.5?

1. Yes.
2. Section 409.5?
3. Yes.
4. And directing your attention to Subsection D

of 409.5 where it references members of the news

media.  Do you see that?

1. Section D?
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Is the protocol — let me ask it this way.

Is it the protocol of the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department that the media referenced in Subsection D

of 409.5 includes only those individuals or

organizations who have been credentialed by law

enforcement agencies?

1. Or those who purport to be media.
2. Does the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department recognize those who purport to be media as

the media if they don’t have credentials issued by law

enforcement agency?

1. CHAPIN: Object as vague.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Okay.  I got to figure out what you meant by
   “purport to be media.”  From my perspective, the word

“purport” means somebody claims something but it’s not

really true.  I don’t know if that’s what you meant or

not.  I’m going to try to ask you questions to try to

figure that out.

Exhibit 2, Subsection D of 409.5 references news media.

Do you see that?

1. It says:  “Nothing in this section shall

prevent a duly authorized representative of any news

service, newspaper, or radio or television station or

network from entering the areas closed pursuant to

this section.”

1. And those categories that you just read from

Subsection D of 409.5, my question is:  Is it the

protocol of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

to only recognize those referenced in Subsection D if

they have media credentials issued by law enforcement

agency?

1. I think I understand what you mean, but I’m

not sure if I’m clear still.

1. We need to have another copy of that.  I

have to either find mine or get another copy.

1. CHAPIN: You want to take a ten-minute

break?

1. BAIRD: Yeah.
   (Recess taken.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Ms. Caldwell, I think you have Exhibit 1 and

Exhibit 2 in front of you.

1. Correct.
2. And if I could direct your attention to

page 8 of Exhibit 1.

1. Correct.
2. To the last sentence on page 8 where it

states:  “Absent official government media

credentials, access pursuant to 409.5 penal code will

be granted on a case-by-case basis upon presentation

of information complying with 409.5 penal code.”

Okay.  So does the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department have a policy or procedure for

determining, on a case-by-case basis, if access will

be granted pursuant to 409.5?

1. I would have to look at the policy and see

it, but it would require the current valid San Diego

Police Department issued media credential.

1. Now, do you agree that the sentence I just

read on page 8 of Exhibit 1 that begins with:  “Absent

official government media credentials”?

1. What was your question with that?  I’m

sorry.
Q.   Do you agree with the first part of the last

sentence on page 8 of Exhibit 1 that begins with:

“Absent official government media credentials”?

1. Yes, I would agree with this sentence.
2. And do you agree that would mean someone

would not have the valid San Diego Police Department

issued media credentials?

1. Your question again is?
2. Do you agree that if someone is absent

official government media credentials, then they would

not have the valid San Diego Police Department issued

media credentials?

1. Correct.
2. That last sentence on page 8 of Exhibit 1

is referring to a person who is absent official

government media credentials.  And my question is to

you:  What policies or procedures determine, on a

case-by-case basis, when someone who doesn’t have the

San Diego Police Department issued media credentials

can be granted access under 409.5?

1. These determinations we’re talking about,

media access at disaster scenes.  So these

determinations are made by the front-line deputies at

the scene.

1. So the front-line deputies have the
   discretion to grant, on a case-by-case basis, access

to disaster scenes, even though an individual does not

have the San Diego Police Department issued media

credentials?

1. As it’s written, “on a case-by-case basis,

upon presentation of information complying with

409.5P.C.”

1. And what information would comply with

409.5P.C. to allow access to someone who didn’t have

media credentials issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. Again, that’s not made by me.  I’m not at

the scene generally.  I’m not at the scene of a

disaster.  I’m somewhere else.  So these are deputies

making that decision.  But I can opine for you that

would be someone, say, from the Los Angeles area that

has NBC or major network credentials.  And they might

make that determination on a case-by-case basis where

they would be granted access.

1. Even though this NBC or major network

individual or agency didn’t have a valid San Diego

Police Department issued media credential, or any

government credential, on a case-by-case basis they

may be allowed into, I think you said it, a disaster

scene?
A.   That might be the case.

409. Now, do you agree that 409.5 doesn’t just

deal with disasters?

1. Correct.
2. It also deals with accidents?
3. CHAPIN: Objection.  Question is calling

for a legal opinion and conclusion.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Okay.  Fair enough.  For the officers out

actually at the scenes, what training do they receive,

if you know, regarding media access to accident scenes

or disaster areas?

1. The media training done in the academy is

conducted by the San Diego Police Department.

1. Okay.  So the deputies with the San Diego

County Sheriff’s Department attend the San Diego

Police Department academy?

1. It’s not the police department academy.

It’s the Regional Law Enforcement Academy at Miramar

College.  And the specific training regarding media is

conducted by the PIO for the San Diego Police

Department.  I don’t conduct that training, so I don’t

know what is given.

1. So the public information officer for the

San Diego Police Department is the one tasked with
training the officers at the regional academy?

1. On the block of media, correct.
2. On the block of media.  And do you have any

idea what that training entails?

1. I do not.
2. Have you ever seen a training manual?
3. I have not.
4. Have you ever discussed with any PIO at the

San Diego Police Department about what training they

give at the regional academy?

1. I have not.
2. Have you ever gone and sat in on any of the

training yourself that’s given at the regional

academy?

1. I have not.
2. Sitting here today, you have no idea how

deputies with the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department are trained with regard to media?

1. I do not sit in on the training, so I do not

know.

1. Do any deputies with the San Diego — when I

say deputies, I don’t want to get the language

incorrect.  I’m referring to sworn officers.

1. Deputies, yes.
2. Have any deputies with the San Diego County
   Sheriff’s Department come to you with questions about

handling the media out in the field or at scenes?

1. Yes.
2. Are you able to recall exactly how many

times?

1. Many times.  I couldn’t tell you exactly how

many.

1. So it’s happened on a number of occasions,

so many that you can’t sit there and recall how many?

1. Frequently, yes.
2. Do you have a protocol for responding to

their questions?

1. Depends on the question they ask, but I do

the best to answer to the best of my ability.

1. Do you ever refer them to the public

information officer at the San Diego Police Department

to ask questions?

1. No.
2. Do they ever say to you — or has there ever

been an instance where any of these individuals have

said to you, well, that’s not how we were trained at

the regional academy by the public information officer

at the San Diego Police Department?

1. No.
2. So do you have any idea if what you’re
   responding to the deputy’s questions with is

consistent with how deputies are being trained at the

regional academy?

1. I’m sorry.  One more time.
2. Is it fair to say that in some of the

instances where the deputies have asked you questions

about handling the media in the field, you’ve

responded to them?

1. Yes.
2. You’ve attempted to answer their questions?
3. Yes.
4. When you’ve done that, do you have any idea

if what you’re telling them is consistent with how

they were trained at the regional academy by the PIO

for the San Diego Police Department?

1. It’s pretty straight forward.  I believe

it’s in line.

1. And what gives you that belief?
2. Because we operate at scenes in the same

way.

1. The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

and the San Diego Police Department operates the same

way?

1. That’s been my observation.
2. Have you ever engaged in any presentations
   or training of deputies with the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department regarding handling the media out

in the field?

1. Yes, I have.
2. Do those trainings occur on a scheduled

basis?

1. I believe so.
2. Are they scheduled in terms of deputies

receive the training at various mileposts in their

career, or do you schedule the training once a year?

What’s the frequency of the training?

1. I don’t schedule the training.  The training

unit does that.  And they call me and ask if I would

speak.

1. How often has that occurred in the past ten

years?

1. I don’t have a list, but it happens, I would

estimate, two to three times.

Let me back up.  Maybe one to two — once or

twice a year.  And the first time I found that I did

training was in 2008.

1. So it sounds like maybe 15 or 16 times

you’ve done the training?

1. Yes.
2. And has the training been the same from 2008
   to now, or have you been asked to address different

things?

1. They’re new situations that come up, new

dynamics that arise locally and nationally, so I adapt

the training to that.  I also adapt the training to

the audience.

1. Is the audience comprised of deputies?
2. Not always.
3. And who else may attend?
4. I have conducted training at the academy for

new detentions deputies.  I have conducted training at

Ridgehaven, our administrative headquarters, for both

sworn and professional staff, new supervisors.  I’ve

provided training for new sergeants.  And I have been

asked to provide training on media to the regional

training center here in San Diego which trains new

lieutenants from throughout the state.

1. The regional training center that trains new

lieutenants throughout the state, is that different

from the regional academy that we talked about that

trains new officers?

1. Yes.
2. Going back to Exhibit 1 on page 8, the media

guide, has any of the training that you’ve provided

address the discretion that on-scene officers have to
grant, on a case-by-case basis, access to scenes, even

though they don’t have official government media

credentials?

1. Not specifically, to my knowledge.
2. Has it addressed it peripherally?
3. Maybe peripherally.
4. Sitting here today, what do you recall about

even peripheral references you’ve made to that

discretion?

1. Based on the fact that we’ve had two very

large wildfires here, 2003, 2007, we train for that.

And we are familiar with these disaster scenes, and

the deputies and officers around the county are.  And

so we discuss granting access to the media versus

civilians.

1. When you say the media, again, are you

referring to only those who have San Diego Police

Department issued media credentials or other law

enforcement credentials?

1. Well, again, I’m not on the front scenes of

a disaster.  And the deputies, depending on where they

are, would probably allow people through that don’t

always have the government-issued or the largely

recognized credential.

1. Have you provided any training with regard
   to a standard for who you allow in to instances like

the wildfires in 2003 and 2007 who didn’t have the

San Diego Police Department issued media credentials?

1. I don’t recall that specifically, no.
2. Well, sitting here today, do you have in

your mind a standard of who would be let into, for

example, incidents such as the 2003 and 2007

wildfires, even though they didn’t have the San Diego

Police Department issued media credentials?

1. Well, again, it says it’s granted on a

case-by-case basis, absent the official government

media credentials.  And that would be a call that the

deputy or the officer would have to make on scene.

1. But somebody trains them to make those

calls, correct?

1. This is addressed in the training academy

that they initially attend, and they probably have

some discussion.  But as far as a specific block of

training, I don’t teach that, and I can’t say that the

San Diego Police Department does in the regional

academy.

1. And the 15 to 16 times you’ve conducted

training and then the other training you provided that

you’ve testified about already, giving them guidance

on exercising the discretion of the field was not part
of that training either?

1. No, I have not done that.
2. I mean, you had mentioned I think previously

that it was your understanding that — I think you

mentioned it was your understanding that Ed Baier has

a felony and so does not have — or is not eligible or

not qualified, or is disqualified from having a

San Diego Police Department media credential, right?

1. That is my understanding.
2. No, I understand that’s your understanding.

Do you know if the deputies in the field

have complete discretion, even to let people who have

felonies into scenes?  I mean, is there any standard

given to the deputies out in the field, that you know

of, who would be allowed in on a case-by-case basis

absent media credentials issued by the government?

1. At a disaster scene, media personnel are

allowed inside, civilians are not.

1. But again, going back to Exhibit 1 on

page 8, it says:  “Absent official government media

credentials, access pursuant to 409 penal code will be

granted on a case-by-case basis upon presentation of

information complying with 409.5 P.C.”

409.5 C references disasters, correct, among

a lot of other things?
A.   You’re referring to C, Subsection C?

1. Well, A references disaster.  I’m not sure I

see it in C.  I’m looking.  I just see it in A.

1. CHAPIN: I’m not sure why were going

down this path.  This case doesn’t involve menace to

public health in any way.

1. BAIRD: Right.  All I’m trying to figure

out is if Ms. Caldwell has any knowledge whether the

deputies out in the field are trained with regard to

this discretion they have to grant, on a case-by-case

basis —

1. CHAPIN: I understand.
2. BAIRD: — access pursuant to 409.5.

THE WITNESS:  I believe I’ve answered that.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. And the answer — I’m not sure what the

answer was.  Was the answer no?

1. I’m not sure what your question is.  One

more time, please.

1. I’ve heard you say a couple of things.

You’re not there.  They’re there.  They’re trained at

the regional academy.  So I just want to get it

straight.

On Exhibit 1, page 8 where it says:  “Absent

official government media credentials, access pursuant
to 409.5 penal code will be granted on a case-by-case

basis,” I’m just trying to figure out if you know of

any training given to the deputies, with regard to how

they exercise that discretion, to give access pursuant

to 409.5 on a case-by-case basis when individuals

don’t have the government media credentials.

1. Well, and the rest of that is upon

presentation of information complying with 409.5 penal

code.

1. Yes, it is.
2. So it is up to the deputy on scene.  As far

as the training that goes to that, I do not

specifically conduct training.  With that, that would

be probably better asked of those who train at the

Regional Law Enforcement Academy.

1. Thank you.  Right now I’m asking you if you

have any knowledge about any training given to

deputies out in the field to exercise that discretion.

1. Not to my knowledge.
2. Okay.  Are they told what kind of

information is supposed to be presented?

1. I do not train in that area, no.
2. BAIRD: If we could have this marked as

Exhibit 3.

1. CHAPIN: Do you really need to have that
   attached as an exhibit?
2. BAIRD: Well, I’m going to go through

and just ask about specific paragraphs.

1. CHAPIN:  It’s up to you.  That will make

it a longer transcript.

1. BAIRD: I mean, if you want to stipulate

that — we could do that.

1. CHAPIN: We’re referring to the amended

complaint.

1. BAIRD: So unmark that?
2. CHAPIN: So you don’t have to have

that — if that’s okay with you.

1. BAIRD: That’s fine.

So we’ll stipulate that this is the third

amended complaint that I’m referring to when I

reference —

1. CHAPIN:  Just identify the paragraphs.
2. BAIRD: Yes, exactly.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Ms. Caldwell, do you know of any photograph

of Mr. Playford in possession of the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department?

1. Can you be more specific?
2. Because it’s not clear enough to you what

I’m asking?
MR. CHAPIN:  Well, we have booking photos.

Probably things like that.

1. BAIRD: Well, that’s my question.
2. CHAPIN: She may not know.

Go ahead and answer.

THE WITNESS:  I don’t know of any booking

photos.  I know of one photograph.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Okay.  And what is the one photograph you

know of?

1. Photograph that we gave to the lobby

deputies a few years ago of Mr. Playford.

1. Do you know where the picture that was

portrayed on that document was obtained?

1. I believe from the San Diego Police

Department.

1. You were the public information officer at

the time, correct?

1. I have for the last past nine-and-a-half

years.

1. And are you able to narrow when this

photograph of Mr. Playford was provided to the — did

you say it was the lobby deputy?

1. Correct.
2. The lobby deputy?
   A.   I honestly don’t remember.
3. Do you know who provided it to the lobby

deputy?

1. I did.
2. Were you instructed to do that by someone

else?

1. No.
2. What was your reason for doing it?
3. Deputy safety.
4. Was it a one-page document with a photograph

on it?

1. I believe so.
2. What was the means of putting it together?
3. I’m not sure I understand.
4. For example, there was a photograph in the

document, correct?

1. Correct.
2. Was the photograph originally in digital

form on a computer?

1. It might have been.
2. Do you know if it was e-mailed from the

San Diego Police Department?

1. I believe it was.
2. And who was the PIO at the time at the

San Diego Police Department?
A.   Detective Hassen.

1. And did you request that he send you the

photograph?

1.  I may have.
2. Well, may he have just sent it to you on his

own?

1. I probably requested it.
2. And what was the reason for the request?
3. Deputy safety.
4. What was the information that you had that

providing this picture to the lobby deputy would

address deputy safety?

1. Mr. Playford’s behavior and conduct

recently.

1. What was the behavior and conduct?
2. He was rather aggressive, argumentative,

caustic.

1. Towards you?
2. Toward me and others, other deputies, other

personnel.

1. When he acted in this manner toward you,

was he in your presence?

1. Yes.
2. Was that conduct displayed in any other

manner?  For example, you had said you had gotten some
voice mails and e-mails from another individuals.  So

I’m asking you:  Other than this conduct being

displayed in your presence, were there any other kinds

of communications where he displayed this conduct

towards you?

1. At that time, I don’t believe so.  I think

it was just in person.

1. At any other time, has the conduct been

displayed towards you in other manner?

1. He’s left some voice mails in my office, as

well as the office of the sheriff that have been

antagonistic.

1. Have those voice mails been continuous, or

did they occur during certain periods of time?

1. Sporadic.
2. When was the last one that you recall?
3. I’m guessing last year.
4. Now, who was the lobby deputy that you

provided the photograph to?

1. I don’t remember.
2. Did you discuss with your direct supervisor,

the undersheriff at that time, that you were going to

do this?

1. I don’t believe so.  I may have, but I don’t

believe so.
Q.   Do you know if Sheriff Gore was the sheriff

at the time when you passed this photograph on to the

lobby deputy?

1. It may have been beforehand.
2.    So if it was beforehand, then it would been

Sheriff Kolender, correct?

1. Correct.
2. And Sheriff Gore would have been your direct

supervisor as the undersheriff?

1. Correct.
2. Did you use a computer to print out the

document that you gave to the lobby deputy?

1. I would have.
2. And was there anything written on the

document — well, I should say typed in on the

computer on — that was on the same document as the

photograph?

1.    Probably his name.
2. Do you know if his date of birth was on the

document?

1. It may have been.  I don’t remember for

certain.

1. Do you know if there was any other

information on the document other than a name?

1. Not to my recollection, but there could have
   been.
2. You mentioned that other than you, there had

been conduct displayed by Mr. Playford towards others

that led to a concern for deputy safety.  Could you

identify the others that had encountered

Mr. Plaford’s conduct that led you to believe there

may be concerns for deputy safety.

1. The lieutenant at the time in Fallbrook was

Duncan Frasier, F-r-a-s-i-e-r.  And deputies, other

deputies, I don’t know their names.  Sheriff Gore,

myself.  Other deputies, I don’t remember their names.

There were several instances.  And other members of

the media, as well as some of our professional staff.

And that’s just in our department.

1. Have you in your nearly ten years ever

provided a photograph to a lobby deputy based on

concerns for deputy safety other than the one of

J.C. Playford?

1. I don’t think I provided Ed Baier.  I may

have, but those would be the only two to my knowledge,

to my recollection.

1. Now, was it you who provided the photograph

of Mr. Playford and perhaps Mr. Baier because they

identified themselves as media and you were the PIO?

In other words, why was the PIO involved in this?
A.   Because of them alleging to be media and

because of my position and because of behaviors that I

had witnessed firsthand.

1. Did you refer it to — with regard to the

behavior you witnessed firsthand, did you refer it to

any deputy for investigation of a possible or

potential criminal violation?

1. No.
2. Did you provide instructions to the lobby

deputy what to do with the photograph when you

provided it?

1. I believe I said, “This is a photograph of

J.C. Playford.  He is a person known to me that is

antagonistic and aggressive, and I’m giving this

photograph to you for deputy safety reasons.”  I would

have said something along those lines.

1. Is there any manner of inputting information

like that into a computer system to make everyone

aware of it if there was a concern for deputy safety?

1. Yes.  There would be an e-mail that could go

to everyone in the department.

1. Do you know if that happened?
2. No, it did not.
3. With regard to Mr. Playford?
4. It did not.
   Q.   So there was a concern about Mr. Playford

gaining access then to that one particular building

where the lobby deputy served?

1. Yes, because he came there frequently.
2. So was there a particular place in the lobby

where the picture was kept of Mr. Playford?

1. I gave the picture for their information.  I

did not instruct them further.

1. And are all the lobby deputies sworn

officers?

1. Yes.
2. Did you ever see the poster — the document

with Mr. Playford’s picture on it after the day when

you handed it to the lobby deputy?

1. I don’t go down there often.  I may have,

but not specifically.

1. Do you know if it was posted in a prominent,

visible area?

1. I don’t know.
2. Do you have any idea what happened to it?
3. I don’t.
4. Did you, after you prepared the document on

the computer with the photograph, e-mail it to anyone?

1. Not to my recollection.
2. Do you know if any law enforcement agencies,
   other than the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department,

obtained that document with Mr. Playford’s photo?

1. Not to my knowledge.
2. Did you provide Detective Hassen with a copy

of the document?

1. Not to my recollection.
2. Do you have any knowledge of how that

document with Mr. Playford’s photo would have ended up

at — or with security at Miramar?

1. I have no idea.
2. Where is the regional academy that’s run by

the San Diego Police Department located?

1. Miramar College.
2.    That’s different than Miramar, right?
3. Well, there’s Miramar base.  There’s Miramar

College.  They’re different entities.

1. They’re not located together?
2. They are not co-located, no.
3. So just to clarify my question, then, do you

have any knowledge of how that picture of Mr. Playford

that you provided to the lobby deputy would have ended

up at Miramar base?

1. I have no knowledge of that.  I have no

idea.

1. When was Detective Hassen the PIO?
   A.   To the best of my recollection, he started

before I retired from the FBI.  Maybe in 2004, ‘5.

You’d have to check with the PD on this.  And he

retired maybe three years ago, but I don’t know for

sure.

1. Just as a reference, if it’s helpful to you,

I’m going to be referring to paragraph 16 on page 6 of

the third amended complaint, and that’s what my next

question will be based on.

1. Ms. Baird, I’d like to back up —
2. Yes.
3. — and pause here.  You indicated that

Mr. Playford’s photograph was at Miramar base.  I

think we did provide his photograph before Sheriff

Kolender’s funeral in case he were to show up.  Not to

deny access, but just to make aware who J.C. Playford

was, and that he was an aggressive individual.

1. Sheriff Kolender, obviously he passed away,

correct?

1. Yes, he did.
2. When did he pass away?
3. His services were last October.
4. October of 2015?
5. Correct.
6. Was he former military?  Was he —
   A.   No.
7. Were the services at the base?
8. His memorial was at the base.  It was a

large venue.

1. Okay.  I understand.  Thank you.

In paragraph 16 of the third amended

complaint, it makes reference to a representation at

the website for sdsheriff.net with regard to a

protocol where the “public affairs media relations

office grants credentialed media superior access to

the most up-to-date and reliable information.”

Do you recognize the language?

1. “Superior access,” no, I don’t know where

that comes from.

1. Well, do you recognize — if you could just

look at the quoted material:  “grants credentialed

media the most up-to-date and reliable information.”

Do you recognize that?

1. Let me read this and see if I may.

I don’t really recognize it, but I don’t

think I would take issue, I don’t believe.

1. Well, the real question is:  The reference

to “credentialed media,” is that media credentialed by

the San Diego Police Department?

1. Correct.
   Q.   Or other law enforcement agencies?
2. Correct.
3. And is it the policy of the public affairs

media relations office to provide information to

individuals or agencies that are credentialed by the

San Diego Police Department, that would not be

provided to those who are not credentialed by the

San Diego Police Department?

1. We would provide information after hours

through our communications center or through media

access to me through e-mail after hours and provide

information.

1. And would you limit that provision of

information to those who are credentialed by law

enforcement agencies?

1. Generally those that reach out to me after

hours, I recognize that have my e-mail address and I

answer their questions.  When someone calls the media

line in the communications center, I do not believe

the watch commander asks them if they have valid

San Diego Police/Fire credentials.  They answer the

questions to the best of their ability because it’s

public source information, and they would answer it to

anyone who called.

1. Okay.  I’ll be referring to paragraph 19 in
   the third amended complaint.
2. 190?
3. Yes.  It’s on page 34.  Thank you.

Did you make a statement to a North County

Times reporter named Brandon Laury as quoted in

paragraph 190?

1. Are you asking me if I said this?
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. And is that an accurate representation of

your observations and opinion?

2012. It is as of 2012.  Since then, I’ve done an

interview with him where he was talking about CCWs,

and I went downstairs and talked with him at length

about it and it went fine.  He was at the funeral of

an Escondido Police Department officer, Laura Perez,

and he was well mannered.  And he was at the swearing

in of Sheriff Gore the last time, and he was also well

mannered.

1. Did that swearing in take place inside or

outside?

1. Inside.
2. And was that an event that required media

credentials issued by San Diego?

1. It was held here, so we had no say.
   Q.   Referencing paragraph 191, and I’ll just go

through the sections I’ve listed there, A through F in

the third amended complaint.  Do you recall attending

a February 19th, 2013, meeting of the San Diego

Society of Professional Journalists?

1. Yes, I do.
2. And were you invited to go to that event?
3. Yes, I was.
4. Have you been to any other San Diego Society

of Professional Journalists events?

1. No, I have not.
2. My next question is:  In paragraph 191,

Subsection A, is that statement in quotes an accurate

statement of something you said at that February 19th,

2013, meeting?

1. Yes, I believe that’s accurate.
2. Is Subsection B an accurate statement of

a statement you made at that February 19th, 2013,

meeting?

1. I believe.
2. Is there anything in Subsection B that you

would not agree with as your observation or opinion as

you sit here today?

1. Well, I don’t know if I would say that’s my

soap box on that, but I may have.
Q.   Paragraph 191, Subsection C, is that a

statement that you made at the February 19th, 2013,

meeting?

1. Yes, I believe that’s accurate.
2. When you became the public information

officer almost ten years ago, was it an issue that you

knew of that had been raised about whether those with

media credentials issued by a law enforcement agency

should be treated differently than media credentials

issued by a non law enforcement agency?

1. The media has changed a great deal since

that time, since I began doing this in 1993.  The

advent of social media, a lot has changed, so it was a

different environment then.

1. Have you had discussions with your

supervisor, the undersheriff, or even the sheriff,

regarding any changes in the protocol that currently

just recognizes media as those issued credentials by

law enforcement agency?

1. Sorry.  Can you boil that down a little bit?
2. Yeah.  Given the changes that you’ve

mentioned in social media since you came on board

nearly ten years ago, have you had any discussions

with the supervisor, the undersheriff, or even the

sheriff or anyone else, about changing the protocol
that’s been in effect since you came on board that

just recognizes the media as those holding credentials

issued by a law enforcement agency?

1. No.
2. Do you know if the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department has any discretion with regard to

who or whom it recognizes as the media?

1. CHAPIN: Objection.  That’s vague as to

time, location issue.

1. BAIRD: Okay.  Fair enough.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Does the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department have to, under some policy, procedure,

law, regulation, memorandum of understanding,

recognize as the media only those issued media

credentials by the San Diego Police Department?

1. CHAPIN: Same objection.  I’m not sure

the question is clear.

THE WITNESS:  I’m sorry.  I don’t

understand.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Why is it that the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department delegates its authority as to who

is the media or is not the media to the San Diego

Police Department?
A.   That was a decision I understand that was

made many, many years ago in a division of labor, that

the San Diego Sheriff’s Department would issue

concealed carry weapons permits, and the San Diego

Police Department would issue media credentials.

1. And other than that division of labor, is

there any other reason that you know of or have been

told of?

1. No.
2. Going to paragraph 191D, Subsection D of the

third amended complaint, is that a statement in quotes

that you made on February 19th, 2013, at the meeting

of the Society of Professional Journalists?

1. I believe it is.
2. And is that an opinion or observation that

you hold today?

1. CHAPIN: I’m not sure that’s an opinion.

That’s a statement.

Can you answer that?

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Did you answer?
2. No.
3. CHAPIN: That’s sort of a preface to E.

I’m not sure there’s any opinion.  Your question is

whether that’s an opinion.
MS. BAIRD:  Well, are you saying that it’s a

fact?  I don’t know if that’s a fact or not.

1. CHAPIN: It’s like an incomplete

sentence, so I’m not sure it has a verb.

THE WITNESS:  It is difficult to discern who

is media today.  This hyperbole is given to indicate

that it is very difficult for PIOs to ascertain who is

legitimate media; that is, someone who you can give

information to the smallest number of people, to get

information to the largest number of people.  Because

PIOs are small in number, but when we have something

to share, we need to make sure we get it out to people

that would share it with the most people.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. That pertains to when the PIO is

disseminating information, correct?

1. Disseminating information, answering

questions, any number of things.

1. CHAPIN: Can we go off the record.

(Recess taken.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Going back to — I wanted to follow up on

something you had said about — when we broke, about

wanting to distribute information to a media

organization that can get the word out to the most
people, and that being an important consideration.

Did I summarize that right?

1. I believe so.
2. What is the consideration in instances where

individuals such as Mr. Playford responds to a single

car accident where you don’t have the large mainstream

credentialed media responding?  What are the

considerations there that require the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department to identify who is credentialed

by law enforcement agency and who isn’t?

1. CHAPIN: I’m going to object as vague.

It’s sort of an incomplete hypothetical question.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Can you answer it?
2. I’m not sure I understand.
3.    Going back to paragraph 191.  D and E, if

you want to read them together.  And then I guess I

could ask the question more clearly then, if you

currently hold the position expressed in paragraph

191, Subsections D and E together of the third amended

complaint.

1. Well, I believe I answered that, but I’m

happy to try to do it again.  That this hyperbole was

given in this panel form to express consternation that

it’s hard to identify journalists today.
Q.   So you have no knowledge that the San Diego

Police Department, in issuing media credentials,

considers somebody’s weight?

1. No.
2. That was a hyperbole?
3. That’s hyperbole.
4. And you don’t have any knowledge that the

San Diego Police Department considers whether somebody

is disabled, whether they’re credentialed or not?

1. Absolutely not.  This was a panel setting.

And in this one dimension, it’s hard to see how that

was, but it was hyperbole given just to illustrate the

point.  It’s hard to see who’s real media today and

who pretends to be media.

1. Do you know if the San Diego Police

Department issues media credentials to felons?

1. My understanding is they do not, but that

would have to be directed to them.

1. Would you have any concerns if they did?
2. Yes, I would.
3. Have you been concerned enough to check to

see if they do?

1. No, I have not.
2. Are you familiar with the National Press

Photographers Association?
A.   I believe I’ve heard of it.  I’m not sure.

1. It doesn’t sound like you recall having any

communications or direct contact with anyone

associated with NPPA?

1. I might have, but I don’t recall.  If I had

a name, maybe I would remember.  But not off the top

of my head.

1. Have you ever — let me put it this way.

Do you recognize the name Mickey Ostereicher?

1. Yes, I’ve been contacted by him.
2. In particular any issues you’ve been

contacted by him for?

1. To the best of my recollection, I believe he

wanted me to attend a training he was putting on here

in San Diego within the last couple of years — I

don’t remember exactly when — about the right of

access.

1. Did you attend the training?
2. I did not.
3. It’s my understanding — and tell me if I’m

wrong — from your testimony that the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department is not considering any changes to

its position that the valid media is media issued

credentials by law enforcement agencies, correct?

1. CHAPIN: Objection.  That’s vague.  Sort
   of compound.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Well, is the San Diego County Sheriff’s

Department considering currently any changes to its

protocol, that only individuals or agencies issued

media credentials by law enforcement are valid media?

1. CHAPIN: Same objection.  And the

context is too broad, sounds like to me, talking about

having access to the sheriff’s department

headquarters.  You’re talking about having access to a

press conference on the courthouse steps.  If you

could narrow it down.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. I guess what I need to do then is, I need to

define the different categories of media events that

the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department encounters.

I think we’ve already talked about media conferences,

correct?

1. Correct.
2. And then there’s instances out in the field

where the front-line deputies come in contact with

individuals who have valid press credentials or

represent themselves as the media, correct?

1. Correct.
2. Are we able to define categories for other
   events?
3. We would conduct interviews.  The sheriff,

any member of the department could be a participant in

a media interview.  E-mail contact, telephonic

contact.  Sometimes things even come up with a fax

machine.  Lot of different ways the media can contact

the sheriff’s department with a lot of different

people.

1. Is there a difference in whom the sheriff’s

department considers media based on what the event is?

1. I’m sorry.  Can you restate that?
2. Is there a different standard that’s applied

to determining if somebody is media — if a member of

the media — if the media event is different?

1. No.  We attempt to answer the questions by

the media or the general public to the best of our

ability.

1. Even if it’s an after-hours contact by

e-mail, such as we referenced in the media guide

that — the questions are answered the same from the

media as the general public?

1. Yes, generally.
2. Do you know why — do you know why on the

three different occasions — and we can go into the

complaint if you need more background of the dates and
times.  But do you know why on the three different

occasions that are referenced in the complaint in this

case, why Mr. Playford wasn’t allowed access to

accident scenes?

1. I have no idea.  That’s up to the deputy or

the incident commander at each scene, and I was not

there.

1. Do you know if it had anything to do with

him not having media credentials issued by the

San Diego Police Department?

1. I couldn’t answer that question since I

wasn’t there.

1. Do you agree that the officers at those

scenes, the deputies at those scenes had the

discretion on a case-by-case basis to allow

Mr. Playford into the accident scene, even though he

didn’t have media credentials issued by the San Diego

Police Department?

1. CHAPIN: Objection.  That’s vague.

Assumes facts not in evidence.  It misstates the

statute — misstates the evidence that in these events

there was no menace to public health.

Are you able to answer the question?

THE WITNESS:  We would not allow anyone into

an accident crime or incident scene until the scene
was finished, to preserve evidence and for public

safety and to conclude the investigation.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Okay.  So even if a person — are you

familiar with Karen Braner?

1. No, I’m not.
2. Even if a person who had media credentials

issued by the San Diego Police Department, even if a

person had those credentials, they would not be

allowed into an accident scene until the investigation

was closed?

1. They would not be allowed past the tape or

where the deputy told them not to cross.

1. CHAPIN: Objection.  Vague again as to

“accident scene.”  If it is a crime scene, I think

that is what the witness is referring to.

1. BAIRD: Well, I’m referring to accident.
2. CHAPIN: Then you’re vague again.

Because accident, in your view, falls within 409.5,

which is not the court’s view or the statement of law.

If you’re asking for a legal conclusion in the

context of the question —

1. BAIRD: What did you say?  Accident

doesn’t fall into 409.5?

409. CHAPIN: Accident does not fall into
     409.5 in any event, in this case, and only involves an

incident which is a menace to public safety in

Subsection A.

1. BAIRD: But accident is right there.  Do

you see the word?

1. CHAPIN: That’s what Mr. Playford says

too.  The judge has already ruled on that.  It’s not

an issue in this case.  It’s an accident involving a

menace to public safety.  My objection is just that

you’re asking —

1. BAIRD: This is a deposition.
2. CHAPIN: I know.  I’m objecting for the

record.

1. BAIRD:  Those other plaintiffs could

very well come back at another time.

1. CHAPIN: I’m objecting to the form of

the question simply because it’s calling for a legal

opinion and conclusion.  You’re misstating the statute

and you’re asking the witness to assume something

that’s not accurate.  She can answer the question if

it’s possible.  I’m objecting to the form of the

question.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. You don’t remember the question anymore, do

you?
A.   You would have to restate it.

1. BAIRD: We have to go back to the

record.

(Record read.)

1. BAIRD: I don’t think I misstated

anything in the complaint.  I wasn’t even asking about

the complaint.

1. CHAPIN:  I just want to make sure the

objection is to the form of the question, which

assumes that any accident scene falls within Section

409.5.  That’s not the case.  That’s not the law.

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Again, what your counsel is saying about the

law and accidents and all that, you don’t train

anybody in that?

1. I do not.
2. You do not.  That would happen at the

regional academy, if it happens?

1. It would happen there.
2. And you don’t have any idea what they tell

them there?

1. I have not attended a class, no.
2. That’s a different question.  You could have

an idea other ways.

1. No, I don’t know.  I’m not a sworn deputy.
   MS. BAIRD:  Okay.  If we can have this

marked as the next exhibit, Exhibit 3.

(Exhibit 3 was marked for identification by

the court reporter.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. This may be quick.  I just want to go

through some of the names with you.  If you could turn

to page 2 of Exhibit 3.

1. Okay.
2. Have you discussed Mr. Playford’s conduct

with Sheriff Gore?

1. In general?
2. Ever.
3. Yes.
4. When was the last time?
5. I don’t recall.  It’s been recently.
6. Do you recall what prompted that discussion

with Sheriff Gore?

1. Probably this lawsuit.
2. Was it prompted by any conduct of

Mr. Playford?

1. Not recently.
2.    Are you able to recall any other

discussions, other than this most recent one about

the — that may have been about the lawsuit?
A.   Over the years there have been several,

many.  But as to specific times, I don’t remember

exactly.

1. And what particular issues have you

discussed with Sheriff Gore about Mr. Playford?

1. His aggressiveness.  We believe him to be

unstable.  His violation of body space with his

cameras.  Primarily those issues.

1. Does Sheriff Gore — to your knowledge, is

Sheriff Gore aware of the document with Mr. Playford’s

picture on it that was given to the lobby deputy?

1. I believe he’s aware of it because of the

lawsuit.

1. Do you know if Sheriff Gore is aware of the

distribution of the document with Mr. Playford’s

picture to Miramar base?

1. I don’t know.
2. Addressing page 2 again of Exhibit 3,

No. 3, do you have any knowledge of Deputy Thomas

Seiver’s involvement at any time with Mr. Playford?

1. I don’t.
2. Do you know who Deputy Thomas Seiver is?
3. I’ve heard his name.
4. Same question.  Deputy Brendan Cook, do you

know who he is?
A.   I’ve heard his name.

1. And do you know of any association between

Deputy Brendan Cook and Mr. Playford?

1. I do not.
2. Deputy Jesse Allensworth, do you know his

name?

1. I may.
2. Is it fair to say that you haven’t discussed

this case with Deputy Thomas Seiver?

1. No.
2. Or Deputy Brendan Cook?
3. No.
4. Deputy Jesse Allensworth?
5. No.
6. And none of them have ever — I’ll ask it

singly.  Deputy Thomas Seiver ever come to you to ask

you about handling media out in the field?

1. I don’t recall that.
2. Deputy Brendan Cook, has he ever come to you

to ask you about handling media out in the field?

1. I don’t recall.
2. Deputy Jesse Allensworth, has he ever

contacted you to ask about handling media out in the

field?

1. I don’t recall.
   Q.   Deputy James Brennan, do you recognize that

name?

1. Not really.
2. It sounds like he’s never contacted you to

discuss some handling media in the field?

1. Not that I recall.
2. Deputy Michael Proctor, do you know him or

recognize his name?

1. I recognize the name.
2. And has he ever come to you to discuss

handling media out in the field?

1. Not that I remember.
2. Deputy Jason Ward, do you recognize his

name?

1. No.
2. And do you recall him ever coming to you to

discuss handling media out in the field?

1. Not that I recall.
2. Deputy James Stemper, do you recognize his

name?

1. I don’t think so.
2. Do you recall him ever contacting you to —

with regard to recognizing or handling media out in

the field?

1. Not that I recall.
   Q.   California Highway Patrol Officer Joseph

Nielsen, do you know him?

1. I do not.
2. And I believe we’ve discussed San Diego

Police officer Gary Hassen?

1. Correct.
2. Am I correct that he’s the — or he was the

public information officer for the San Diego Police

Department?

1. Yes.
2. Do you know Steve Fiorina?
3. I do.
4. Have you had contact with him in his

capacity as the media?

1. Yes.
2. A reporter?
3. Yes.
4. And how long have you known him?
5. Maybe since I began doing this in 1993.
6. Have you ever discussed Mr. Playford with

Mr. Fiorina?

1. Not that I recall.
2. Have you discussed Mr. Playford with any

member of the valid media, the media that has the

credentials issued by law enforcement?
A.   Yes.

1. And who have you had those discussions with?
2. I can’t remember his name.  He is a reporter

with Channel 7.  Several years ago, when Mr. Playford

was at Ridgehaven, made a comment that Mr. Playford

was a joke.  More recently, this past January, at a

Code 11 in Imperial Beach, a cameraman for KUSI

commented that J.C. Playford was a problem.

1. When was that time frame on the Code 11?
2. January.
3. Of 2016?
4. Correct.
5. Did you convey that information in either

one of those two instances to any deputy to

investigate or anyone to investigate?

1. No.
2. You have to tell me, Imperial Beach, is that

in the City of San Diego, or is that in the County?

1. It’s in the County.
2. And Ridgehaven, is that in the City or

County?

1. That is in the City.  That’s our

headquarters.

1. Do you know if either one of these

reporters — well, the cameraman and the individual
from Channel 7, were they making a criminal complaint?

1. No.
2. Did they contact you?  In other words, how

did the discussion — we’ll start with the Channel 7

discussion.  How did that arise?

1. I believe Mr. Playford was at Ridgehaven,

and this reporter expressed his opinion about

Mr. Playford in general.

1.    Were you there?
2. Yes, I was.
3. And was this reporter in your office and

expressed the opinion?

1. No.  We were outside in front of the

building.

1. Was this some sort of media conference

outside the building?

1. I don’t remember if it’s a conference or

just interviews being conducted.

1. And then the Code 11 in Imperial Beach, how

did that discussion arise?

1. I was just standing there just talking with

the media, not official statements, waiting before —

in between my statements, and this cameraman

approached me to give his opinion about Mr. Playford.

1. So this was during the daytime?
   A.   It was late afternoon, early evening.
2. And about how many people were present?
3. I think it was just the two of us.  There

were other people present.  There were probably 15 to

20 other people in the area, but did not hear our

conversation.

1. What’s a Code 11?
2. That’s when our Swat Team is called out to

usually a barricade situation, a subject barricade or

hostage situation.

1. And that’s part of your job duty to respond

to events like that?

1. Correct.
2. And you have some sort of an area set aside

where you disseminate information to the media?

1. We have a media section set up, yes.
2. And is that what happened?
3. Correct.
4. And were you the primary individual giving

out information at that media site that was set up?

1. Yes.
2. There were about 20 members of the media or

the general public in that area?

1. Approximately.
2. It didn’t really matter which was which at
   that point.  You were just giving out information.

It wasn’t information just for credentialed media, or

was it?

1. It was outside in a public area, so it was

for the general public as well as the media.

1. And Mr. Playford was present?
2. He was not.
3. He was not present?
4. No.
5. And an individual from KUSI cameraman

approached you to discuss Mr. Playford?

1. Correct.
2. What did he tell you about Mr. Playford?
3. That he was a problem at scenes.  That he

had an issue recently.  He was basically expressing

his consternation about Mr. Playford.

1. What did you see as your job responsibility

to do with that information?

1. It was his opinion.  There was nothing to do

with it.

2. I’m back at Exhibit 3 on page 2.  Jefferson

Baker, he’s listed as No. 13.  Do you know who that

person is?

1. I do not.
2. Do you know who Deanna Baker is?
   A.   I do not.
3. Debra Sue Bonomo, do you know who that is?
4. I do not.
5. Do you recall an incident involving an

individual by the name of Alan Baker that Mr. Playford

videotaped?

1. Not with just that information, I don’t

recognize it.

1. Minnie or Miney Boettcher, No. 17?
2. I do not know that person.
3. Donald Eppich?
4. I do not know that person.
5. Ryan Peters?
6. I do not know that person.
7. Deputy Robert Williamson, do you recognize

that name?

1. No.
2. No. 21 is listed on page 3 of Exhibit 3,

Jennifer Messervy.

1. I don’t know that person.
2. No. 22, Robert Isaacson, do you know that

person?

1. I do not.
2. Do you recognize the name Matthew William

Deskovick, or do you know him?
A.   I do not.

1. Sean Maginnis, do you recognize that name,

or do you know him?

1. I do not.
2. Thomas Valente, do you recognize that name

or do you know him?

1. I do not.
2. Sergeant George Calderon, do you recognize

that name or know him?

1. I do recognize the name, and I know Sergeant

Calderon.

1. Is he employed by the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department?

1. Yes, he is.
2. Have you ever discussed Mr. Playford with

Sergeant Calderon?

1. Not that I recall.
2. Do you know of any context that Sergeant

Calderon has had with Mr. Playford?

1. I do not.
2. Lieutenant Duncan Fraser?
3. I know Duncan Fraser.  He has retired from

the department.

1. You mentioned him at the beginning of our

deposition.  I recall that, but if you don’t mind
repeating for me, how do you know Mr. Frasier?

1. He was a lieutenant in Ramona, Ramona

substation when I first met him or got to know him.

And he was promoted to captain.  And I worked with him

a little bit when he was captain over the Central

Investigations Division.

1.    Do you know of any association or

involvement he had professionally with Mr. Playford?

1. I know that Mr. Playford did speak to then

Lieutenant Frasier when he was in Ramona, but I really

don’t recall what the interactions were.

1.    Kay Lynn Cheatwood, do you recognize that

name or know that person?

1. I do not.
2. Detective McNeil, do you recognize that name

or know that person?

1. No.
2. Deputy Benjamin Brown, do you recognize that

name or know that person?

1. I believe I recognize the name, but I don’t

think I know that person.

1. Do you have any recognition of the name

that’s associated with Mr. Playford?

1. I’m sorry?
2. Do you have any recognition of that name
   because of any understanding that he had an

association with Mr. Playford?

1. No.
2. Deputy Fred Magana, do you know that person

or recognize that name?

1. I think I recognize the name, but I don’t

think I know him.

1. Oceanside Police Detective Josh Ferry?
2. I do not know him.
3. Oceanside Police Officer Todd Ringrose?
4. I do not know that person.
5. It looks like California Highway Patrol

Officer Brian Pennings.  Do you recognize that name?

1. I recognize and I know Officer Pennings.
2. How do you know him?
3. Just through shared PIO job functions.
4. So is it your understanding that at one time

or currently he was a PIO for the California Highway

Patrol?

1. Correct.
2. Do you know if he is right now?
3. I do not know.
4. Do you know where he worked out of when you

last had contact with him or knew him?

1. I do not.
   Q.   A. Macias, do you know that person or

recognize his or her name?

1. Without a first name, no, it’s not familiar

to me.

1. California Fire Battalion Chief R. Scales,

do you recognize that name or know that person?

1. I do not.
2. BAIRD: If I could have that marked as

Exhibit 4.

(Exhibit 4 was marked for identification by

the court reporter.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Ms. Caldwell, do you recognize any of those

four squares that appear to be identification cards on

Exhibit 4 as media credentials issued by the San Diego

Police Department?

1. They are not.
2. In the upper left-hand corner of Exhibit 4

where it has Ed Baier’s name at the top of it, have

you seen that media credential or one similar to it

previously?

1. Not that I recall, no.
2. Does your protocol at the San Diego County

Sheriff’s Department consider any of those media

credentials on Exhibit 4 as valid media credentials?
A.   They are not issued by the San Diego Police

Department, no.

1. Do you know if they’re issued by other law

enforcement agencies?

1. It’s hard to tell through this, this copy.

I can’t tell through this copy.

1. If none of those four cards portrayed on

Exhibit 4 are issued by law enforcement agencies, is

it the San Diego County’s protocol to consider them

not valid credentials?

1. They would not be allowed into our building,

in all likelihood, with just that for a media event.

1. Again, you can’t respond or comment on how

those credentials would be treated in the field

because that would be up to the deputies out in the

field?

1.    That’s up to the deputies in the field at

any particular scene.

1. Do you know or are you familiar with the

name Matthew Glazer as an individual who worked at

KFMB TV in San Diego?

1. No.
2. BAIRD: I think I’m done.  Can you just

give me five minutes, ten minutes, and I think we’ll

be done.
MR. CHAPIN:  This would be fine.

(Exhibit 5 was marked for identification by

the court reporter.)

BY MS. BAIRD:

1. Do you recognize any of the cards or IDs in

Exhibit 5 that’s issued by the San Diego Police

Department?

1. I recognize the last one.
2. Okay.  Is that a media credential or ID

card, or is that —

1. That looks to be a parking placard.
2. And have you seen one of those?
3. Yes.
4. And again, you don’t know the policies or

procedures for the San Diego Police Department for

issuing parking placards, correct?

1. No.  You would have to contact us as far as

that goes.

1. Does the PIO at the San Diego Police

Department — has a PIO at the San Diego Police

Department ever contacted you in the past to discuss

whether an individual or entity should be issued a

media credential by the PD?

1. Not to my recollection, no.
2. Has a PIO at the San Diego Police Department
   contacted you in the past about whether someone —

someone who has been issued a media credential by the

PD, whether that credential should be revoked?

1. No, not to my knowledge.
2. And I think the third scenario:  Has a PIO

at the San Diego Police Department contacted you in

the past about whether an individual’s media

credential issued by the PD should be renewed?

1. Not to my knowledge.  They generally make

those decisions on their own.

1. When they make the decisions, is there any

means of communicating the decision to you?  Because

there’s no list, right?

1. They have a list, but it’s not published to
2. What is your question again?
3. Oh, for example, if they decide — if the

San Diego Police Department decided to revoke an

individual’s media credential, would they communicate

that to you?

1. No.
2. BAIRD: Okay.  I think I’m done.

Thanks.  Well, I am done.  I don’t “think.”  I’m done.

1. CHAPIN: In San Diego we do a

pre-stipulation that covers some of the reporter’s

responsibilities, if you want to hear me out.
Normally I would relieve the court reporter of some of

her duties by having the original transcript go to my

office to be provided to the witness to sign under

penalty of perjury.

1. BAIRD: Yes.
2. CHAPIN: That I will notify you of any

changes within two weeks, or a reasonable time

thereafter, of receipt of it from the court reporter.

And if the original is lost, misplaced for any reason,

a certified copy can be used for any reason.

1. BAIRD: Yes.  Perfect.

(The deposition of JAN CALDWELL concluded at

1:40 p.m.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA   )

) ss.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO   )

 

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am the

witness in the within matter, that I have read the

foregoing deposition and know the contents thereof,

and I declare that the same is true of my own

knowledge except as to those matters, I believe them

to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this _____day of ________________, 2016,

at _____________________, California.

 

 

______________________________

JAN CALDWELL

 

 

 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA   )

) ss.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO   )

 

I, PATRICIA M. BECK, Certified Shorthand

Reporter for the State of California, do hereby

certify:

That prior to being examined, the witness

named in the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn

to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth.

That said deposition was taken before me at

the time and place therein set forth and was taken

down by me in machine shorthand and thereafter was

transcribed into typewriting under my direction and

supervision, and I hereby certify the foregoing

transcript is a full, true and correct transcript of

my shorthand notes so taken.

I further certify that I am neither counsel

for nor related to any party to said action nor in any

way interested in the outcome thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

subscribed my name this March 29, 2016, at San Diego,

California.

_________________________

PATRICIA M. BECK

CSR NO. 12090