D

Won Il Koh

Sergeant, accused supervisor — Deposition 5 of 7, Byer v. City of La Palma.

Deposition 5 of 7

Won Il Koh

City employee · Sergeant, La Palma Police Department (Byer's, Choi's, Goble's, and Genera's direct supervisor)

Transcript excerpts reviewed
Deposed: March 19, 2025
Called by: Plaintiff (Petronelli)
Pages reviewed: 23–27, 54–55, 58–60, 68–70, 73, 81, 84, 105–108, 117, 125–126, 129–134, 148–149, 153 (of 167)

Who he is

Koh is the sergeant whose conduct is at the center of Byer's lawsuit. He supervised Byer directly and, at various points, also supervised Officer Choi, Officer Goble, and Officer Ryan Genera. This is the accused supervisor's own sworn testimony — not a third party's account of what he did.

Connection to the case

Koh confirmed that, aside from Byer, two other officers — Goble and Genera — had complained to command staff (Captain Amend and then-Captain Wilkerson) about the same core practice: Koh personally making traffic stops and then assigning the resulting paperwork to a subordinate. He placed Genera's complaint at roughly a year before this deposition and Goble's at roughly two and a half years before — corroborating, from the accused supervisor himself, the timeline and substance of Goble's separate testimony. Koh testified that Byer complained about him to Captain Amend, that he was told about it in a single in-person meeting in the chief's office with then-Chief Wilkerson present, and that Amend's entire message to him was that Amend "didn't like that I was making stops and basically having him handle those stops." Koh testified no one — not Amend, not Wilkerson, not anyone else at La Palma — ever told him he needed to change his behavior as a result.

Key testimony

Under direct questioning, Koh estimated he personally made stops in Officer Choi's beat and assigned them to Choi "about three times," but made stops in Byer's beat and assigned them to Byer "about nine" times over the same 2023 period — a roughly three-to-one disparity, by Koh's own estimate, between the two officers he supervised simultaneously. On Byer's negative annual evaluation, which Koh authored, Koh acknowledged criticizing Byer for failing to keep a detained person in a "seated position" while acting as a cover officer on one of Choi's stops — but admitted he never counseled Choi for the same conduct because he said he "never saw" Choi do it, and never asked the officers involved whose decision it actually was. Koh also testified extensively to a list of performance issues he attributed to Byer (sleeping in his vehicle, carrying his firearm while escorting an un-handcuffed prisoner, letting suspects get away, re-citing repeat offenders) but was not asked, and did not volunteer, any comparable scrutiny of Choi's record. Asked directly about the "all-Korean police force" comment, Koh denied ever saying that specific phrase, but volunteered, unprompted, that he might have said something close to it — naming himself, Choi, and two Korean reserve officers (Kim and Suh) and suggesting he could have said "if we had Officer Suh here today, we'd have an all-Korean shift." Koh confirmed the department's anti-retaliation and personnel-complaints policies cover bias-based policing, racial profiling, and unlawful discrimination, and agreed that Officer Choi was voted La Palma's 2023 Employee of the Year — a nomination Koh believes he personally cast. Koh confirmed no one from the police department or city manager's office ever asked him about the all-Korean comment or about racial profiling, and that he is not aware of any investigation into Byer's complaints having occurred before this lawsuit was filed.

Possible relevance to the verdict

Koh's own testimony: This is arguably the most direct evidence in the case so far, because it comes from Koh himself rather than from witnesses describing his conduct. Koh estimated he assigned roughly three times as many "sergeant special" stops to Byer as to Choi over the same period, admitted under oath, corroborating Choi's independent testimony and providing evidence relevant to the disparate-treatment claim. Koh's near-admission on the "all-Korean shift" comment — denying the exact phrase while acknowledging he may have said something substantively similar — could have let a jury credit the substance of Byer's discrimination claim even without a verbatim match. Koh also testified that he never applied the same scrutiny to Choi that he applied to Byer, and described a single conversation with Amend that did not change his practices — testimony consistent with what the earlier depositions on this page describe: complaints raised, minimally addressed, and without a subsequent correction, investigation, or documentation identified in the testimony reviewed.

This summary is based on selected excerpts (highlighted portions of a 167-page transcript, not the complete document), including some passages affected by a mid-testimony audio interruption that required a portion of the record to be read back. It does not reflect the full testimony, cross-examination in its entirety, or any context the excerpted portions omit.