San Mateo County has yet to release spending and contract records from a misconduct investigation into Sheriff Christina Corpus, despite a court order more than three weeks ago compelling their disclosure.
As a result, Corpus’ legal team filed a motion Friday afternoon to enforce the court order. The records relate to the expenses of retired Judge LaDoris Cordell’s 400-page investigation that examined alleged corruption and misconduct in the sheriff’s office and sparked calls for Corpus to resign.
Corpus is also accused of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff Victor Aenlle, who was fired by the board of supervisors last year. Earlier this week, Aenlle filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against San Mateo County claiming retaliation, intimidation and harassment.
Judge Jeffrey Finigan issued his ruling Aug. 29, with a notice of order on Sept. 16, but the county has yet to produce a single document. County officials are appealing the decision, maintaining the records are privileged despite the public release of Cordell’s report.
“During the hearing, we requested immediate disclosure, but the County claimed — without explanation — that it would take them two weeks,” Corpus’ legal counsel Matthew Frauenfeld told this news organization. “They then missed even that timeline, and now vaguely claim they ‘intend’ to seek review while producing nothing — not a single page or even a privilege log.”
In their court petition, Corpus’ attorneys suggested the delay was strategic, stating it “appears Respondents are seeking to delay disclosure until after the pending proceedings to remove Sheriff Corpus from lawfully elected office and after the September budget revisions are finalized.”
County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci told this news organization Thursday “the county is appealing Judge Finigan’s decision, maintaining that the records at issue are privileged and that the release of the Cordell Report did not waive that privilege.”
The county did not respond to questions about what specific harm would result from releasing the records or why it chose to appeal rather than release the records with redactions under the California Public Records Act.
The court ordered the county to produce the contract between the Board of Supervisors and Cordell, as well as documents she submitted for payment, including timesheets and invoices. Finigan ruled that witness identities may be redacted to remain confidential, consistent with redactions in Cordell’s public report.
In his ruling, Finigan determined the county had waived its right to claim attorney-client or work-product privilege by publicly releasing Cordell’s report, which included her findings and impressions of witnesses.
“It is hard to imagine what different or additional information could exist in her retainer agreement that would qualify as covered by the attorney-client privilege and outweigh the purpose of the CPRA request and the public’s right to know what their government is doing,” he wrote.
The judge denied some of Corpus’ broader requests, including documents related to budget authorization for the contract, ruling that category was not included in the original California Public Records Act request. He also denied a request for payment records to Cordell that the county said it does not possess.
Related Articles
Former top San Mateo sheriff’s aide files federal civil rights lawsuit against county
Opinion: Removing Sheriff Christina Corpus isn’t oversight. It’s a coup.
From brothels and Batmobiles to removal hearings, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office has a long line of scandals
Judge orders partial release of spending records in Sheriff Corpus corruption probe
Sheriff Corpus takes stand as San Mateo County removal hearings close
For months, multiple media outlets have sought total cost estimates for the removal efforts, including legal fees and investigative expenses. The county has consistently denied these requests, citing attorney-client privilege.
The document dispute comes as removal proceedings against Corpus near their conclusion. Cordell’s investigation prompted a March special election that gave the county board power to remove a sheriff with cause until 2028, when Corpus’ term ends.
Retired Judge James Emerson presided over removal hearings that concluded last month and has 45 days to issue a written advisory opinion. The board then has 30 days to review, with a four-fifths majority vote needed to dismiss Corpus. If removed, she would be the first sheriff in California to be ousted by a board of supervisors.
Corpus has sought relief in multiple county and federal courts to stop the removal efforts, which her lawyers argue violate her due process rights. All judges have declined to intervene in the process.
Her legal team also commissioned their own review by former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke Strunsky, who criticized Cordell’s reliance on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews.
If Corpus is removed, the board would have 30 days to appoint a replacement or call a special election. If no action is taken, the county elections office must schedule an election.