Vallejo police union defies subpoena from Sean Monterrosa’s family

VALLEJO – The Vallejo Police Officers Association has failed to properly respond for over a year to a subpoena seeking any communications regarding the department’s practice of bending the tips of their badges following a shooting, attorneys for the family of Sean Monterrosa said in court filings on Monday.

A federal judge already ordered the VPOA to respond to the subpoena in March. In an email to the Monterrosa family attorneys, VPOA president Lt. Michael Nichelini claimed that he had not been properly served and that the union had no responsive records. But even after Nichelini was personally served with the subpoena, he failed to respond, the attorneys said. On Monday the attorneys filed a second motion to compel the VPOA to comply.

The subpoena was issued as part of the Monterrosa’s family’s wrongful death lawsuit, which was filed shortly after Monterrosa was shot and killed by Vallejo police Detective Jarrett Tonn on June 2, 2020.

The Monterrosa family attorneys first noticed the city of Vallejo with nine subpoenas in February 2022, according to court records, including one to the VPOA requesting any records related to Tonn, the practice of badge bending, or former Capt. John Whitney, who was fired from the department after he revealed the practice of badge bending publicly.

John Coyle, one of the Monterrosa family attorneys, sent a copy of the subpoena via email to attorney Michael Rains, who has represented the VPOA. According to the court filings, Rains did not respond.

The subpoena was served at the Vallejo Police Department headquarters on July 5, 2022, but still the VPOA did not respond. Then in January, the Monterrosa family attorneys filed a motion in court to compel the VPOA’s compliance, which was reported by the Vallejo Sun. Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes granted the motion in March and ordered the VPOA to respond within seven days.

After that, another of the Monterrosa family attorneys, Amanda Jones Lorentson, once again contacted Rains. In an email on March 8, Rains said that he did not represent the VPOA in connection with the Monterrosas’ lawsuit and referred the matter to Nichelini.

In an email on March 28 that was included in court filings, Nichelini claimed that he had never received the subpoena because it was served at the police department and not the VPOA offices.

Nichelini had been fired from the department and did not work there at the time the subpoena was served, but was later reinstated.

Nichelini also complained that the VPOA had been “trashed in the media” for “failing to respond to a subpoena,” which was “damaging to our name and relationships within the city and community.”

“If you plan to continue looking for records from the VPOA, I suggest you serve a proper subpoena,” Nichelini wrote. “If this had been handled correctly from the beginning, I could have simply told you that we do not have any responsive records.”

The attorneys then served Nichelini with the subpoena personally at his home on July 18. Once again, the VPOA has not responded to the subpoena, according to court filings.

Nichelini did not respond to a request for comment.

The Monterrosa family attorneys argue it is false that the VPOA has no responsive records to the subpoena and are seeking a second court order compelling the VPOA to comply with the subpoena.

“The VPOA has had actual notice of the subpoena for over a year as Plaintiffs have provided numerous copies via email and mailed correspondence to the VPOA,” the attorneys wrote. “Despite this notice, the VPOA has consistently chosen to remain silent and simply ignore the Subpoena and this Honorable Court’s Orders. They cannot now at the eleventh-hour use a claimed defect in service as an excuse for a year of noncompliance.”