2007-05-26

County releases contested files

County attorneys on Friday released logs of documents and calendar entries sought in a lawsuit filed against the county by The Sun and the California First Amendment Coalition.

The logs list 94 e-mails and more than 150 calendar entries that San Bernardino County attorneys argued should not be made public.

San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John P. Wade ordered the county to release the logs, two e-mails and redacted versions of the calendars of former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and current board Chairman Paul Biane in March.

The county turned over the e-mails and calendars and sought a stay on the order to release the logs, but was turned down by the 4th District Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court.

County spokesman David Wert said Friday that the county would have no comment.

The newspaper and the coalition sued the county in an effort to obtain documents that might give insight into the activities of Postmus during two major wildfires that destroyed more than 50 homes in July 2006.

County officials have given conflicting accounts of Postmus' activities during the fires, with some claiming he was on vacation but in constant contact with county officials planning the response to the fires, and others claiming he was absent and no one had heard from him.

Karl Olson, an attorney representing the newspaper and the First Amendment Coalition, praised the release of the documents.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court has turned away the county's last effort to block disclosure of the logs of the e-mails and calendars that it withheld," Olson said. "Now that we have the logs, they reveal just how aggressive the county has been about withholding documents that are directly related to the conduct of the people's business and the spending of taxpayer money."

The logs list 94 e-mails sent to Postmus and other county officials in August 2006 and scores of calendar entries along with short descriptions of the contents of each and the reason they shouldn't be made public.

In the case of two e-mails the judge ordered released - a press release and a news story - county attorneys claimed that making them public would compromise the "deliberative process" of the public officials in question.

County attorneys described the press release, which presumably was sent to constituents and media outlets, as "e-mail regarding public information on County facilities." The e-mail was sent from "Postmus News." The recipients are not listed in the log.

The copy of the news story, from current Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt to Postmus, is described as "e-mail between staff member and supervisor regarding public information about County activities."

At the time, Mitzelfelt was Postmus' chief of staff.

County attorneys argued that making these and other e-mails public would hinder elected officials in carrying out their duties.

Many of the e-mails refer to public information, scheduling meetings, fiscal issues or county facilities.

Redacted calendar entries were described as meetings with unnamed constituents or county employees or as "personal."

The calendars show no entries for Postmus' vacation, and county attorneys have claimed there are no communications or records of communications between Postmus and other county officials in all of June or July 2006, when the fires occurred.

Frank Pine is senior managing editor of The Sun. Reach him via e-mail at frank.pine@sbsun.com or by phone at (909) 386-3841.

2007-05-25

State top court rejects appeal from SB County

The state Supreme Court has refused to hear San Bernardino County's appeal of a trial court's order to disclose documents related to the activities of top county officials.

San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John P. Wade last month ordered the county to release redacted calendars, two e-mails and logs of documents sought by The Sun and the California First Amendment Coalition in a lawsuit against the county.

The county turned over the calendars and e-mails, but appealed the order to disclose the logs, arguing that to do so would compromise documents that weren't ordered released - nearly 100 e-mails and numerous entries in the calendars.

After the 4th District Court of Appeal rejected the county's request for a stay on Wade's order, county attorneys petitioned the state Supreme Court, which denied the request on Wednesday.

County spokesman David Wert declined to comment Thursday.

The Sun and the First Amendment Coalition sued the county after county lawyers refused to release calendars and communications of former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and calendars of current Chairman Paul Biane, the only other supervisor to withhold his calendars.

The newspaper first requested the documents after county officials gave conflicting accounts of Postmus' activities during the Sawtooth and Millard fires, which burned 80,000 acres and destroyed more than 50 homes in July 2006.

Some said he was on a family vacation but in constant contact with top county officials coordinating the county's response to the fires, while others said he was absent without explanation.

County lawyers initially refused to provide any documentation at all of Postmus' contact with other county officials. Since then, the county has provided a handful of e-mails written to Postmus, and under court order, redacted versions of his calendar.

None of the documents released give any indication of Postmus' activities during the fires, and according to county attorneys, there are no communications or records of communications between Postmus and other county officials in June and July 2006.

Despite Wade's order to turn over the logs "forthwith" and two higher court denials, county attorneys have yet to turn over the logs.

Frank Pine is senior managing editor of The Sun. Reach him via e-mail at frank.pine@sbsun.com or by phone at (909) 386-3841.

2007-05-24

Non-cooperation with ICE Resolution Passes Watsonville City Council

The Watsonville City Council meeting was packed on May 8th with attendees in support of a resolution requesting the suspension of random detentions and arrests of residents in Watsonville. An emotional public comment period lasted over an hour with the crowd bursting into chanting "si se puede" after on particularly moving commentary. Personal testimonies and comments ranged from accounts of "three days and three nights" of crossing the border to teachers sharing emotional stories of students distracted and wondering when the migra, or immigration enforcement, was going to come and take away them or their parents.

Migrawatch, a newly formed network of immigrants rights organizations, called for supporters of immigrant rights to speak up and demand that two clauses be added to the resolution before the council vote. The first clause to make the City of Watsonville a "sanctuary" for undocumented people similar to other cities around the country offering a safe space for members of the community. The second amendment sought by activists was a "notification" clause. Since it has become widely known the federal immigration enforcers notify local police departments, communities could be given advance warning before ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids the community. Some speakers referred to the raids as domestic terrorism by our own government and that for this reason the council should adopt a policy of notification as part of the "War on Terror" so that a human rights organization could come and document the raids and prevent unnecessary harm to the community

The room was packed at the Watsonville City Council chambers on Tuesday May 8. Attendees were there to comment on one of the evening's agenda items, a resolution Requesting the Suspension of Random Detentions & Arrests of Residents in Watsonville.

An emotional public comment period lasted for over an hour with the crowd bursting into chanting "si se puede" after on particularly moving commentary. Personal testimonies and comments ranged from accounts of "three days and three nights" of crossing the border to teachers sharing emotional stories of students distracted and wondering when the migra, or immigration enforcement, was going to come and take away them or their parents.

Migrawatch, a newly formed network of immigrants rights organizations, called for supporters of immigrant rights to speak up and demand that two clauses be added to the resolution before the council vote. The first clause to make the City of Watsonville a "sanctuary" for undocumented people similar to other cities around the country offering a safe space for members of the community. The second amendment sought by activists was a "notification" clause. Since it has become widely known the federal immigration enforcers notify local police departments, communities could be given advance warning before ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids the community. Some speakers referred to the raids as domestic terrorism by our own government and that for this reason the council should adopt a policy of notification as part of the "War on Terror" so that a human rights organization could come and document the raids and prevent unnecessary harm to the community.

After the public comment period and some council discussion, Council Member Oscar Rios moved to amend the resolution to include the clause stating that Watsonville be a "sanctuary" for undocumented persons. No Council members supported adding the notification clause to the resolution.

With the Watsonville City Slogan as a backdrop, "Opportunity Through Diversity, Unity Through Cooperation," the council proceeded to vote. Though originally introduced by Mayor Bersamin, Oscar Rios and Antonio Rivas, only two of them ended up voting "yes" on the resolution; Council member Rivas changed to a "no" vote after the sanctuary clause was added to the resolution. Council Member Greg Caput voted "yes" surprising the crowd, joining Mayor Bersamin, Mayor Pro Tempore Kimberly Petersen, and Oscar Rios. In addition to the no vote from Antonio Rivas, Dale Skillicorn and Edward Din voted against passing the resolution bringing the final count to 4-3 in favor of passage.

University of California Hunger Strike Against Weapons Labs Passes 1-Week Mark

A hunger strike initiated by 44 University of California students, several alumni and a professor has passed its 1-week mark. The hunger strikers are demanding that the UC Board of Regents withdraw from their contracts to operate Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories based on, “the grounds that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and Los Alamos Labs’ ongoing preparations to conduct plutonium pit manufacturing both clearly violate Article VI of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” The hunger strikers have put their bodies on the line in a time of enormous flux for US nuclear weapons policy. Their target, the UC, has been identified by them as a site of strategic importance in the wider campaign against new nuclear weapons.

Anchored by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Labs and the small circle of corporations who run these and other weapons facilities for the federal government, the US nuclear weapons complex is hurriedly working to finalize designs for and to begin building a new nuclear weapon, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). This program, if supported by the president and funded by Congress, will expend many billions of dollars on nuclear weapons over the next few decades and guarantee the longevity of the US nuclear weapons complex. It will also lead to a US violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a global arms control regime that has mostly worked up to the present. Furthermore, the new US weapons program will necessarily produce many tons of nuclear and toxic waste and create un-imaginable opportunity costs.

2007-05-22

May Day Police Attack: Bratton’s “Agitators” Story Untrue

LOS ANGELES, May 22, 2007 – [LA-IMC Special Report] The LA Indymedia Editorial Collective has spoken to many eyewitnesses and reviewed hours of video footage, and has come to the conclusion that the police attack in Macarthur Park on Mayday was unprovoked. Police Chief Bratton's claim that the attack was a response to "agitators," remains unsubstantiated and is believed to be false.

There is mounting evidence that the police violence began when about a dozen police motorcycles drove into the ceremonial Aztec circle at the end of the march at 7th & Alvarado. Shortly thereafter, and without warning, the police fired rubber bullets and charged the crowd. Police then moved into formation along the East edge of the park and attacked without issuing an audible dispersal order. Most people had little to no warning that police were about to open fire into the crowd with rubber bullets and charge with batons. They then swept through the entire park firing and brutally beating nearly anyone remaining in their path

This version of events has been well substantiated by hundreds of eye-witnesses. It has also been captured on video and broadcast by local TV news. Yet in spite of this, three weeks after the attack corporate media is still repeating the line that “agitators” provoked the police. Fox news is repeating this lie even though their own anchorwoman and camerawoman were attacked and are now filing a lawsuit against LAPD.

To date there is no testimony or video to validate the police chief’s claims of “agitators”. Some videos do show a few, scattered incidents of plastic water bottles being thrown, a few of them once the police are already lined up in preparation for the attack, and more once the police line is advancing on people. These videos clearly demonstrate that the few objects thrown were not the 'cause' of the police attack. Much of the evidence that refutes Bratton’s story can be found online at sites such as this one. LA Indymedia would like to thank all those contributors to the newswire who have helped to shed light on what really happened on May 1, 2007 in MacArthur Park.

Webb trial roadblock

SAN BERNARDINO - Opening statements have been delayed a week in the trial of Ivory J. Webb Jr., the former San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy who shot an unarmed man at the end of a high-speed car chase in Chino.

Webb's trial was supposed to start Monday morning in a downtown San Bernardino courtroom, but the judge postponed it after one of Webb's two lawyers, Michael Schwartz, called to say his wife was in the hospital giving birth.

"I apologize for the delay," Judge Michael A. Smith told jurors. "Obviously this isn't something that we planned."

Opening statements are now scheduled for May 29.

Webb, 46, is charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm in connection with the videotaped shooting of Elio Carrion on Jan. 29, 2006.

The shooting followed a pursuit in which Carrion, an Air Force senior airman who had just returned from Iraq, was the passenger in a Corvette that led deputies on a high-speed chase.

The chase ended when the driver lost control and crashed into a wall on Francis Street in Chino.

Afterward, Webb held Carrion at gunpoint while waiting for backup. A man recorded the encounter from his front porch.

The tape shows Webb shoot Carrion three times as Carrion seems to comply with the deputy's orders to get off the ground.

Webb has pleaded not guilty to the charges, setting up a highly anticipated trial in which jurors will be forced to decide whether the shooting was a criminal act or the reasonable action of a lawman in a high-stress situation.

Attorneys were scheduled to begin laying out their cases for the jury during opening statements Monday morning. Witnesses could have taken the stand by the afternoon.

Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope said Schwartz told the judge and other attorneys at earlier hearings that his wife's due date was approaching, but they didn't expect she would go into labor so soon.

Cope said the delay would force him to scramble to reschedule witnesses, but he didn't expect it to cause any major problems.

Carrion required months to recover from his injuries, but he has since returned to light duty at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

He is in California on a 20-day military leave in order to testify at the trial. He has already used the first five days, so he has only about two weeks remaining, his attorney, Luis Carrillo, said Monday.

Any additional court delays could be problematic for him, Carrillo said.

"If the trial keeps getting delayed or postponed, he will have to request additional time from the Air Force," Carrillo said.

The shooting became national news after the dark, grainy videotape was widely broadcast on television and the Internet.

Webb came to court Monday morning surrounded by relatives and supporters.

Nearly a dozen television and still-camera photographers recorded his every move in the courtroom during the brief time he was there.

Afterward, the photographers followed him into an elevator, and then down a series of hallways, cameras whirring and lenses snapping, as the former deputy left the courthouse.

His trial is expected to last through the end of June.

Staff writer Rod Leveque can be reached by e-mail at r_leveque@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9325.

Following the Webb case

Jan. 29, 2006: Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion is shot three times by a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy after a high-speed chase that ended on Francis Street in Chino. The incident is captured on videotape by a nearby resident. The driver, Luis Fernando Escobedo, is arrested and booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of felony evading. Carrion is hospitalized at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton. The deputy, Ivory J. Webb Jr., is placed on paid administrative leave.

Jan. 31: Escobedo is released without being charged. The FBI launches an investigation into possible civil-rights violations of Carrion at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Sheriff's Department also requests the FBI's assistance to produce an enhanced copy of the videotape.

Feb. 3: Carrion's family demands the arrest of Webb in front of sheriff's headquarters in San Bernardino. Jose Luis Valdes, who videotaped the shooting, is arrested by Pomona police on a Miami warrant for a 1997 aggravated assault. Police say they had no knowledge of Valdes' role in the Chino incident until after they arrested him. Carrion is released from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.

Feb. 10: The Sheriff's Department concludes its investigation into the officer-involved shooting and turns its reports over to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office.

March 5: The District Attorney's Office, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department interview Carrion.

March 7: District Attorney Mike Ramos charges Webb with attempted voluntary manslaughter and Escobedo with felony evading and driving while under the influence. Carrion returns home to his family, but continues outpatient physical therapy.

March 8: Webb and Escobedo are arraigned. Both plead not guilty.

July 12: Carrion's attorney files a claim against San Bernardino County asking for unspecified damages for violating his civil rights.

July 19: At Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, Carrion receives the commendation medal for his service in Iraq.

Aug. 10: A felony charge is dropped in Miami against Valdes. Florida prosecutors drop the nearly decade-old aggravated assault case against Valdes, 38, who had been scheduled to go to trial, in exchange for a guilty plea to a lesser misdemeanor disorderly-conduct charge.

Aug. 28: A judge orders Webb to stand trial for attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm.

Sept. 11: At his arraignment, prosecutors add a second charge against Webb - claiming the former sheriff's deputy committed assault with a firearm.

Sept. 23: Escobedo is arrested by Montclair police on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded firearm.

Sept. 28: Prosecutors file two misdemeanor-weapons charges against Escobedo. The charges stem from an incident in which police say they caught him carrying a loaded revolver in his pocket in Montclair.

Nov. 1: Escobedo pleads not guilty to weapons charges from an unrelated September incident.

Dec. 14: Escobedo pleads guilty to a misdemeanor-weapons charge. He will spend three years on probation and 60 days in jail after admitting to a single count of carrying a loaded gun. He must surrender to begin serving his jail time no later than Jan. 8.

Dec. 27: Carrion files a lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Gary Penrod and Webb.

Jan. 12: Escobedo is sentenced to six months in jail and three years of probation for drunken driving and evading police.

April 30: Jury selection begins for Webb's trial in which 400 potential jurors were summoned.

Last week: Jury selected.

Monday: Trial postponed.

City to hire law firm for SB police chief

Union hopes to settle suit
Robert Rogers, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO - The city has agreed to hire attorneys on behalf of Police Chief Mike Billdt, but the case might never reach court, the police union's president said Monday.

The City Council on Monday unanimously approved an agreement with a $20,000 ceiling for the law firm of Mundell, Odlum and Haws to defend the city and Billdt in a suit filed by the police union.

But the case's prospects of seeing a courtroom are far from certain.

Rich Lawhead, president of the San Bernardino Police Officers Association, said Monday both sides might be eager to bridge the rift that opened between union leadership and Billdt with a lawsuit filed in federal court April 30.

"If we can find a resolution, such as a policy change or injunctive relief, then we can get back to work and put this behind us," Lawhead said. "I'm optimistic we can find a resolution."

The discussions surround a lawsuit filed by the 300-member police union accusing Billdt of retaliating against two officers for seeking legal advice after an April 15 officer-involved shooting.

In February, the union implemented a policy to ensure a lawyer represents officers involved in shootings.

Instead, tactics including administrative leave have been used to dissuade officers from retaining counsel, according to the suit.

City Attorney James F. Penman, whose office drafted the request for council approval of the contract, said the matter was a routine response to a not-uncommon occurrence - legal action against department heads.

"The chief probably has less lawsuits pending against him than his predecessors have in their second years in the position," Penman said.

Still, a flurry of lawsuits in the past few months have brought a landslide of bad press on the chief.

In December, Sgt. Mike Desrochers and Sgt. Steve Lowes filed federal lawsuits accusing Billdt and his direct subordinates of using retaliatory tactics to dissuade rank-and-file officers from filing grievances.

But the biggest blow came from the most recent lawsuit, after which speculation swirled about officers' confidence in the chief.

Now, Lawhead and the union's stance have softened significantly.

Lawhead said he, union Vice President Sgt. Hank Birkes and union attorney Dieter Dammeier met with Billdt and his attorney, James Odlum, last week to work toward resolution.

"We just want a fair deal," Lawhead said. "Most of our membership wants to get back to work. Not many guys want to be involved in politics. They just want to do their jobs."

Fourth Ward Councilman Neil Derry welcomed the news of possible reconciliation Monday.

"We need to have peace between (police) management and our rank and file," Derry said.

2007-05-21

Suit details prosecutor's claim

By JOHN F. BERRY
The Press-Enterprise

A legal battle that eventually cost San Bernardino County almost a half-million dollars began with the suspicion that a top prosecutor would challenge the district attorney in the 2006 election, court documents say.

Grover Merritt, who in December won reinstatement to his old job and a nearly $300,000 settlement, said he was set up to be fired so he would not challenge San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos, the newly released documents say.

Merritt accused Assistant District Attorney Michael Risley of leaking secret documents to the press, with Ramos' approval, so that Merritt could be accused of the leak.

"My reputation is in tatters," Merritt said in a Sept. 13 deposition. "I've been publicly branded as a leaker."

Merritt was named Prosecutor of the Year for 2002, the same year he successfully argued California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Ramos and Risley say in the same court records that they never considered Merritt a viable candidate for district attorney.

"He would not have been considered a serious threat," Risley wrote. "He had limited political experience, no financial support, no endorsements and limited people skills."

Ramos, re-elected without opposition in 2006, limited his comments to an e-mailed statement when he was asked about the accusation.

"This matter was litigated and resolved last year," Ramos wrote. "We have put it behind us and are moving forward with the important work of the district attorney's office."

Risley, also named in the lawsuit, and Assistant District Attorney James Hackleman, who led the leak investigation, both declined to comment.

Records Uncovered

Merritt's accusations are contained in almost 400 pages of exhibits in a U.S. District Court file in Riverside. The records came into public view sometime after settlement talks began last year, revealing Merritt's contention that he was set up to be fired for political reasons.

Previously, federal and Superior Court judges, as well as county officials, had blocked the public from most court proceedings and records, citing the sensitive nature of the leaked information and rights to privacy.

The Merritt-Ramos court fight cost San Bernardino County taxpayers at least $444,303, including $297,500 for Merritt's Dec. 21 settlement of his wrongful-termination suit.

The agreement, which also restored Merritt to his previous job as Appellate Services Unit chief, said that neither side admitted fault.

San Bernardino County also paid Redlands lawyer Geoffrey Hopper $146,803 to fight the case for it, county spokesman David Wert said.

Anonymous Leaks

In April and May 2004, Valleywide Newspapers, a chain of eight weeklies based in the High Desert, ran stories based on two separate sets of documents. The stories do not say who provided the information.

The first was a death-penalty memorandum about two defendants, Jimmy Dale Kelley and Kimberly Wynn Michaud, charged in a January 2004 triple slaying in Yucca Valley. They are awaiting trial.

District attorney's office officials, including Merritt, said in the court records that the leaked documents were closely held secrets.

"If someone leaked a death penalty memo, if I were king for a day, I would have fired him," Merritt said. "You can't get, I don't think, a more precious document in a local district attorney's office."

The second set of documents included statute-of-limitations research involving former San Bernardino County Sheriff Floyd Tidwell, accused of taking at least 523 guns from property lockers during his years as sheriff. He served from 1983 to 1991.

Tidwell pleaded guilty in May 2004 as part of a plea bargain pledging cooperation. His four felony charges of gun possession were reduced to misdemeanors seven months later.

Publication of the documents violated district attorney's office policies and professional ethics, negatively affected the district attorney's relationship with the Sheriff's Department and could affect possible trials, the court records say.

Investigation

Hackleman took charge of the leak investigation in May 2004 and, in the court records, writes that Merritt soon became the prime suspect.

"To this day I still believe Merritt is the most likely leak for the information," Hackleman states. "My decision and recommendations regarding dismissal were based entirely upon my good-faith investigation."

The evidence included the reporter, Mark Gutglueck, being in possession of double-sided documents, a practice that Merritt, as head of the appellate unit, instructed his staff to follow to reduce office copying costs.

The articles used quotes with Merritt's speech patterns, Hackleman said, and Merritt had worked with Gutglueck on previous stories.

The investigation focused on Merritt's office phone records, which included a call to Gutglueck at 12:10 p.m. March 29, 2004. The call, which lasted 4 minutes and 55 seconds, was made the day the reporter faced a deadline for one of his stories.

Merritt was "vague and evasive" about the conversation when questioned, Hackleman wrote.

"(Merritt) could not explain what the purpose of the call was or what was discussed," Hackleman wrote. "(His) inability to explain ...was another factor in concluding (Merritt) was the source of the information."

Merritt, citing his settlement, declined to answer questions specifically addressing his court case, but he characterized the call as "no big deal.

"I didn't remember it at the time," Merritt said.

On Aug. 13, 2004, Merritt was served with a "notice of proposed dismissal," which cited him for the leaks as well as disrespectful behavior toward court officials. Records of Merritt's annual job evaluations, included in federal court records, show Merritt received several below-average grades for his inability to work well with office staff and court officials.

Merritt was escorted out of the office.

"1:34 p.m.," Merritt said in a recent interview. "I won't forget that one anytime soon."

The following month, Merritt's attorney provided a sworn statement from Gutglueck saying Merritt was not the source of the anonymous documents, court records say.

Gutglueck declined to comment.

Firing Back

Merritt appealed his termination on Oct. 7, 2004, the day after he was officially fired.

Nine days of hearings before the San Bernardino County Civil Service Commission began the following April. In July 2005, hearing officer Doug Hart ruled that the district attorney's office failed to substantiate the firing.

Hart ordered that Merritt receive his old job and 10 months of back pay.

The ruling said there was no direct evidence proving Merritt was the leak source. The ruling did not say if anyone else in the district attorney's office was the source.

"Evidence also showed many people in the district attorney's office talked to or called phone numbers associated with Gutglueck, including Assistant District Attorney Risley," Hart wrote in his ruling.

Hart noted that Risley had a "long-standing personal relationship" with the publisher of Valleywide Newspapers, Ray Pryke, which included helping Risley win a seat on the Town Council of Apple Valley.

Pryke said recently that he and Risley were close friends, but they have not really talked since 2004 because they were both witnesses in the Merritt lawsuit.

"Risley is a very good prosecutor," Pryke said. "He has good moral values."

He declined to discuss how his newspaper chain obtained the confidential information.

Back to Work

Merritt returned to work in the district attorney's office in August 2005, but as a courtroom prosecutor, not as Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position.

He viewed his new position as a demotion and a "sham." District attorney's office officials said his previous position was eliminated in an office reorganization.

On Oct. 11, 2005, Merritt filed a federal lawsuit against Ramos, Risley and San Bernardino County on nine grounds, including violating his civil rights, wrongful termination and inflicting emotional distress.

In his lawsuit, Merritt focused on a July 2004 conversation with Ramos at a California District Attorneys Association conference in Napa. The lawsuit states that Ramos boasted about his contacts with Gov. Schwarzenegger and dangled a judgeship in front of Merritt as a "thinly veiled" offer to dissuade him from running in 2006.

Merritt said he found the timing of the conversation odd considering he was already the target of a leak investigation.

Ramos said in the federal court records that he initiated the topic during polite conversation but didn't promise a judgeship.

Merritt said recently that he was only considering running for district attorney and never made a final decision in 2004 to challenge Ramos. He said he does not have a passion for running for office, but he declined to dismiss the possibility outright.

In November, Merritt was elected president of the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association, the union that represents nearly 400 prosecutors and public defenders. His duties dealing with the district attorney's office on union issues.

Reach John F. Berry at 909-806-3058 or jberry@PE.com

dispute

The conflict between San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos and Deputy District Attorney Grover Merritt lasted more than two years:

2002: Merritt is named Prosecutor of the Year and successfully argues California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Late 2003-early 2004: Rumors and e-mails circulate suggesting that Merritt is considering running for San Bernardino County district attorney in 2006.

May 2004: A top official in the district attorney's office heads an investigation of leaks to the press and identifies Merritt as the likely source.

Early July 2004: Ramos offers to support Merritt in an application for a judgeship.

Aug. 13, 2004: Merritt is escorted out of the district attorney's office and fired two months later.

July 7, 2005: After nine days of hearings, a civil service examiner rules that the district attorney failed to justify Merritt's firing and that Merritt is owed back pay and his old job.

Aug. 1, 2005: Merritt resumes work, but as a courtroom prosecutor rather than Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position. .

Oct. 11, 2005: Merritt files a federal wrongful-termination lawsuit.

Dec. 21, 2006: Merritt wins nearly $300,000 in a settlement.

Jan. 8: Merritt returns to his old job as the lead deputy district attorney for the Appellate Services Unit.

SOURCE: U.S. District and Superior Court records; San Bernardino County

2007-05-13

Online site details gifts to S.B. county officials

By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise

Sports and alcohol.

Those two dominate when it comes to the gifts San Bernardino County's elected officials receive.

The gifts are outlined in conflict-of-interest forms newly available on the Internet, making San Bernardino County the first in the state to allow public access of the documents online.

It is all supposed to be listed there, from a $65 bottle of cognac and $250 in champagne to a $50 signed football and hundreds of dollars in baseball tickets.

The forms also list sources of income, loans and real-estate holdings as a way for residents to gauge leaders' potential conflicts of interest.

"To me, it is important for us not to hide behind anything," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt, the board's chief proponent in placing the Form 700s online.

Transparency

Putting the documents online is the latest effort by county leaders to make local government more transparent to residents. The Board of Supervisors' weekly meetings are now shown live over the Internet and campaign finance reports soon go online.

From April 24 through Thursday, the clerk of the board's Web site, which includes links to the webcast and statements of economic interest, had more than 86,000 hits. The Form 700 site had 12,000 hits, according to the county.

In the past, between 200 and 300 people per year would visit the clerk's office to view Form 700s, Ovitt said.

"Twelve thousand in a month's time shows this is a valuable tool," he said.

While the county is making documents available online, it has fought to keep others private. The county denies access to e-mails supervisors write and has fought in court this year to prevent a local newspaper from gaining access to two supervisors' calendars.

Scandal Ripples

Supervisor Josie Gonzales said all county leaders have been "painted with a broad brush" because of past corruption scandals. Putting the forms online "goes a long way toward that transparency we are looking for," she said.

Gonzales, who has released calendars, said she doesn't see any hypocrisy in allowing access to the public documents online but fighting to keep others private. She said the county must protect certain confidentialities and must keep in mind potential liabilities.

Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said he would have preferred for the county to make campaign finance data available online first.

But allowing access to conflict-of-interest documents is a service to residents, Stern said.

"It gives the public an idea of potential conflicts and that's what this is all about," he said. "It makes the officials much more careful about reporting and reporting everything."

The forms available online cover all of 2006 and are available for elected leaders and other top officials, from supervisors to County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer and chiefs of staff.

So what can one find detailed in the forms?

Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor, accepted the most in gifts of the county's elected leaders, $513.34 worth last year.

The majority, about $378 worth, came in the form of baseball tickets from organizations including Southern California Edison and the investment firm Lehman Brothers. Postmus is an avid Angels fan.

His disclosure form also reports income he received as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party. Postmus' income from the party ranged between $10,000 and $100,000. The forms include a range of value, not the exact amount of income.

"He loves baseball and when there is an opportunity when someone invites him to a game, he is going to take it up as a friendly gesture," spokesman Adam Aleman said.

Postmus doesn't "make any promises or commitments" based on tickets to baseball games, Aleman said.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Paul Biane accepted a $65 bottle of cognac from a company called DW Development, a $75 gift basket from the National Community Renaissance; and dinner and Colorado Rockies tickets from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger valued at $105.62.

Biane also has investments in a host of real-estate and farming interests, including a Kern County farm where he is a partner with his brother.

Ovitt received a $50 signed football and $75 in wine from Dr. James Lally, president of Chino Valley Medical Center. Ovitt also accepted a $150 Chino Hills logo jacket from the city's mayor pro tem, Curt Hagman.

Gonzales accepted $249.99 in champagne, $82 in tequila and $13 worth of candy from DW Development.

Her form, the longest of the five supervisors at 10 pages, outlines interests in her family's restaurant, Mexico Lindo in Fontana, and rental properties in Fontana and Colton.

Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, appointed to the board in January, reported one gift, a $100 gift card from Postmus, his former boss. Mitzelfelt served as chief of staff during Postmus' tenure as a supervisor from 2000 to 2006.

Supervisor Dennis Hansberger last year reported receiving no gifts. His form outlines a property he owns in Fawnskin near Big Bear Lake and lists his wife's medical practice.

Reach Duane W. Gang at 909-806-3062 or dgang@PE.com

Gifts to elected leaders

Statements of economic interest, which detail gifts and sources of income, are now available online for San Bernardino County officials at http://ww.sbcounty.gov/cob. Gifts included:

$50 football to Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

$65 bottle of cognac to Supervisor Paul Biane.

$75 Clipper tickets to District Attorney Mike Ramos.

$249.99 in champagne to Supervisor Josie Gonzales.

$378 in baseball tickets to Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor.

Source: San Bernardino County Form 700s

2007-05-09

Calif. appeals court overturns $3 million libel judgment to sheriff's wife

Calif. appeals court overturns $3 million libel judgment

By The Associated Press
05.09.07

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A state appellate court has tossed a $3 million judgment against a newspaper publisher in a libel suit brought by the wife of San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod.

The 4th District Court of Appeal said Hesperia-based newspaper publisher Ray Pryke doesn't have to pay the money to Nancy Bohl, who sued Pryke in 2000 over a series of stories criticizing San Bernardino County's contract with her counseling service.

The stories implied she benefited financially from her intimate relationship with Penrod. She married him in May 2000.

The stories ran in the Hesperia Resorter, Apple Valley News and the Adelanto Bulletin, small weekly newspapers published by Valleywide Newspapers.

In 2005, Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner ruled the articles were libelous. The newspaper said Bohl, a psychotherapist and owner of the Counseling Team, gave Penrod confidential information about sheriff's employees undergoing treatment.

Pryke and reporter Mark Gutglueck have steadfastly defended the stories.

Warner said in his ruling that the articles impugned the integrity and reputation of Bohl and her company.

But the appellate justices ruled on May 4 that Warner abused his discretion when he imposed the judgment against Pryke, who was then under a court order to reveal article sources.

"Pryke had a legitimate argument as to why he was not required to reveal the information, namely, California reporter's shield law," the justices said.

The appeals court sent the case back to San Bernardino County for a new trial.

Pryke said on May 4 that he had rejected an earlier settlement offer that included a retraction and sale of Valleywide Newspapers, his chain of eight weekly newspapers based in the high desert.

"They wanted me out of business," Pryke, 84, said. "And I got a new lawyer."

Bohl's attorney John Rowell said he was disappointed.

2007-05-04

Bohl v. Pryke





Bohl v. Pryke



Bohl v. Pryke


Filed 5/4/07 Bohl v. Pryke CA4/2


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO



NANCY K. BOHL et al.,


Plaintiffs and Respondents,


v.


RAYMOND PRYKE,


Defendant and Appellant.



E039392


(Super.Ct.No. SCV68052)


OPINION



APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher J. Warner, Judge. Reversed.


Law Office of Stanley W. Hodge, Stanley W. Hodge and Arshak Bartoumian, for Defendant and Appellant.


Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett, and John D. Rowell, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


I. INTRODUCTION


Nancy Bohl (Bohl) and her company, The Counseling Team (TCT), initiated this action against Raymond Pryke (Pryke) and other defendants after Pryke published a series of false and defamatory articles in three local newspapers which he personally owned and operated. The articles accused Bohl of various crimes and misconduct, resulting in causing her and TCT economic harm. Given the nature of the lawsuit, Pryke raised the California reporters shield laws[1]to avoid revealing his sources. Bohl and TCT (herein collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) moved to compel Pryke to answer. After Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of falsity, the trial court ordered Pryke to answer the discovery. He failed to do so, and the trial court eventually granted Plaintiffs motion to strike Prykes answer and enter his default. Proceeding to the default prove-up trial, Plaintiffs introduced evidence to support their claims and request for damages. Thus, the court awarded damages, including punitive, and costs to Plaintiffs. Pryke appeals.


II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS


Bohl is a licensed psychotherapist with a Ph.D. in Psychology. She is the founder and president of her company, TCT. Bohl and TCT provided counseling services to San Bernardino law enforcement personnel from 1984 until 1999. TCT obtained such contracts over the years through a competitive bidding process. Years later, Bohl began a personal relationship with Sheriff Gary Penrod, whom she has since married.


Shortly after her personal relationship with Penrod began, Bohl became the target of newspaper articles published by Pryke. Starting in 1999, Pryke, who is the publisher, editor, and author of the headlines for the articles, published a series of articles about Plaintiffs in three local newspapers that he personally owned and operated. The articles accused Bohl of various crimes and misconduct, such as sleeping with the sheriff to obtain the service contracts, cheating the County of San Bernardino on the bills for such services, and breaching the confidentiality of therapeutic dialogue by disclosing the content with the sheriff or other law enforcement brass.


On June 16, 2000, Plaintiffs initiated this action against the reporter, the newspapers, and their editors/publishers. On April 10, 2001, defendants filed an untimely special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, (SLAPP) statute. On July 3, 2001, Pryke was identified as Doe 1. He joined in the anti-SLAPP motion. In order to respond to the motion, Plaintiffs sought specific discovery. Pryke failed to respond to the discovery. Instead, he raised Californias shield law (see fn. 1, ante) to avoid revealing his sources. On January 11, 2002, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to the discovery sought, and the trial court followed the procedure required by Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268 (Mitchell). Mitchell allows a court to require a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of falsity before a media defendant must reveal purported sources.


On November 12, 2002, the trial court found that Plaintiffs had met the standard in Mitchell, supra, 37 cal.3d 268, and ordered Pryke to answer certain questions. Pryke neither answered the questions nor filed a writ with this court regarding the courts ruling. Instead, prior to the court-ordered deadline, the parties agreed to stay the all-matters-pending mediation. The case did not settle. On May 13, 2003, Plaintiffs attempted to revoke the stay and obtain the discovery identified in the November 12, 2002, order. Further attempts at mediation were made by the parties; however, by August 2003, Plaintiffs wanted the discovery responses because it did not appear that further mediation would help.


On September 17, 2003, Plaintiffs moved for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Pryke failed to provide the discovery responses pursuant to the November 12, 2002, order. Pryke obtained new counsel and filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition with this court on October 20, 2003.[2] We denied the writ, and on November 5, 2003, the trial court granted Plaintiffs motion and struck Prykes answer, thus entering his default.


On July 15, 2004, following the entry of Prykes default, Plaintiffs dismissed their case against the reporter and proceeded against Pryke only. On October 6, 2005, the court conducted a prove-up hearing. After hearing the evidence, the court found in favor of Plaintiffs on October 21. Bohl was awarded $750,000 for emotional distress and $750,000 for injury to her reputation. TCT was awarded $500,000 for its economic damages. After finding clear and convincing evidence of malice, and specifically finding the conduct to be egregious, repetitive, and manifold, the court awarded to Plaintiffs $1,000,000 in punitive damages, based on evidence of Prykes financial condition. Plaintiffs also received an award of costs in the amount of $10,839.


III. ORDER GRANTING TERMINATING SANCTIONS


Citing to the United States and California Constitutions, Pryke contends that he was denied his constitutional rights when the trial court granted terminating sanctions against him. He argues that the courts order was completely arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. While Pryke cites to case law that supports his claim that terminating sanctions are subject to limitations, he fails to provide any argument, let alone citation to the record, as to how the trial court abused its discretion and denied him his constitutional rights under the facts in this case. Instead, the first time that he offers any support for his contention is in his reply brief. Ordinarily, we will not consider an issue raised in this way (Alameida v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 46, 55; Camp v. Boyd (1919) 41 Cal.App. 83, 87); however, because Plaintiffs thoroughly addressed the issue in their respondents brief, we have chosen to address it on the merits.


Putting aside Prykes due process claim for the moment, we turn to his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs motion for terminating sanctions. Before we begin our analysis, we must point out that in his opening brief, Pryke challenges the trial courts November 5, 2003, order granting the terminating sanctions; however, in his reply brief, he references the paperwork he filed subsequent to the courts decision and in support of his January 6, 2004, motion to reconsider motion for sanctions. The information provided to the court after the court rendered its decision is irrelevant. (Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 706.) Moreover, Pryke has not challenged the courts decision regarding his motion to set aside order for sanctions. Thus, in reaching our decision, we only consider the evidence in the record that was before the court when it rendered its decision in November 2003. In order to understand why the trial court believed that only terminating sanctions were appropriate, we need to examine the procedural history of the case.


On June 16, 2000, Plaintiffs initiated this action.[3] Service of the summons on all named defendants was completed in August 2000. Although the defendants were originally represented by Ewaniszyk & Higgins, on October 19, 2000, a substitution of counsel was filed identifying Reid & Hellyer as defendants attorneys of record. The Register of Actions notes that on December 8, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Mark Gutglueck. As of January 12, 2001, the parties were setting the deposition, and the motion to compel was identified as being continued by stipulation or taken off calendar. By January 22, 2001, the deposition had occurred and the motion to compel was deemed moot.


On April 10, 2001, defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Nine days later, on April 19, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to questions at deposition of Gutglueck. On April 26, 2001, Plaintiffs further moved to strike the anti-SLAPP motion and for an order lifting the discovery stay. As a result of the anti-SLAPP motion, all discovery proceedings were stayed. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (g).) On May 8, 2001, when the motion for order lifting discovery stay was to be heard, the clerks minutes state: MATTER IS CONTINUED AT REQUEST OF COURT. . . . THE COURT RESETS THE MOTIONS FROM TODAY AND WILL RESET THE DEFENDANTS SLAPP MOTION IF NECESSARY. THE MOTION TO COMPEL SET FOR 5/21/01 IS STATUTORILY STAYED UNTIL THE HEARING OF THESE MOTIONS AND WILL ALSO BE RESET ON 5/16/01.


On May 16, 2001, the trial court denied Plaintiffs motion to strike the anti-SLAPP motion, and reset the anti-SLAPP motion and the motion to compel. The court further heard Plaintiffs motion to lift the discovery stay and ruled as follows: COURT GRANTS DISCOVERY IN THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF R. PRYKE, M. HAEKEL, S. MORAN AND M. GUTGLUECK; ALSO THE AREA OF OBTAINING RESPONSES TO REQUEST OF 3/22/01.


On June 5, 2001, Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to questions at deposition of Gutglueck was heard. The court granted the motion as to certain questions, and there was a stipulation as to the others.


On July 3, 2001, nearly 13 months after the complaint was filed, Pryke was identified as Doe 1. On July 23, he filed a joinder in the anti-SLAPP motion. The anti-SLAPP motion was to be heard on September 11, 2001; however, several times the parties stipulated to have the motion continued to February 14, 2002. It was later continued to January 7, 2003.


On January 11, 2002, Plaintiffs filed two motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories. One was directed at the discovery propounded to Pryke, and the other was directed at the discovery propounded to Gutglueck. Neither motion requested sanctions against either Pryke or Gutglueck. Both motions were originally scheduled to be heard on February 5, 2002; however, by stipulation of counsel, the hearing was continued to March 12. On March 12, the matter was taken under submission. On May 10, the court issued its ruling. Recognizing that Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, provides the guiding authority for the issues presented by Plaintiffs motions, the court stated: Given the serious privilege implications in these interrogatories, it is the intention of this court, pursuant to Mitchell, to require a prima facie showing of the falsity of the statements in question before requiring any further answers. Such a showing may be done by declarations, depositions, or other evidence admissible for this purpose. This matter is continued to June 4, 2002 on this departments calendar at 1:30 p.m. for review of such a showing. Such additional material to be submitted 5 days before the hearing. The hearing was continued several times, finally to November 5, 2002.


In response to Plaintiffs prima facie showing, defendants maintained that Plaintiffs failed to show that defendants acted with malice. Thus, defendants argued that the motions to compel should be denied. Defendants requested an opportunity to submit declarations under seal to rebut Plaintiffs prima facie showing. They further stated: If the court makes any other ruling, defendants request that they have 21 days to provide supplemental responses and/or request appellate review, with a stay on all further proceedings while the latter is pending. If appellate relief is sought but not granted, then defendants request 21 days thereafter to respond to the discovery.


On November 5, 2002, the matter was heard. The trial court issued its decision on November 12, 2002. The court found that Plaintiffs had made the requisite showing under Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, such that disclosure is warranted under the circumstances. After identifying the specific interrogatories to which Gutglueck and Pryke were to provide responses, the court ordered the response due within 30 days of the date of the order.


In December 2002, the parties entered into a stipulation to stay all matters and proceedings (hearings on motions, discovery responses, etc., et al.) pending mediation. The trial court ordered the stay pursuant to the stipulation on January 2, 2003.


On April 28, 2003, a stipulation to postpone mediation and hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion was filed. Although the trial court accepted the stipulation, it stated: There will be no further continuances allowed. All motions and CMC continued to 6/11/03. On June 11, 2003, at the case management conference, the following was noted in the Register of Actions: THE MEDIATION WITH JUDGE KENNEDY/JAMS HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR FURTHER SESSION. MATTER CONTINUED WITH TRIAL ASSIGNMENT ADVISAL GIVEN. On August 15, 2003, at a further case management conference, the Register of Actions notes: PLAINTIFF IS CONTEMPLATING A DISCOVERY SANCTION MOTION RE: IDENTITY OF SOURCE. SECOND SESSION OF MEDIATION IS SET FOR SEPTEMBER (2ND SESSION WITH JUDG2 [sic] KENNEDY/JAMS). MATTER IS SET FOR TRIAL WITH DISMISSAL ADVISAL GIVEN RE: DEFENDANT PRYKE.[4]


On September 17, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their motion for sanctions against Pryke and Gutglueck. Plaintiffs requested the following orders against defendants: (1) issue terminating sanctions, striking defendant GUTGLUECKs Answer, (2) render judgment by default against both defendants, and (3) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $13,150.00 representing fees incurred in bringing this Motion and in previous attempts to secure this discovery. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs represented that in December 2002, a stipulation to stay all matters and proceedings was entered into pending mediation; however, on May 13, 2003, at 12:13 p.m., via facsimile, [P]laintiffs revoked the stay and demanded the answers be provided on or before May 19, 2003. Although Plaintiffs demanded responses in six days, the stipulation provided all pending time limits including, but not limited to, the time for Defendants Raymond Pryke and Mark Gutglueck to respond to the interrogatories propounded to each of them and/or to petition the appellate court with regard to the trial courts order thereon are hereby tolled until 30 days after notice of revocation of this stipulation is served by the revoking party upon the non-revoking parties.


Pryke filed his petition for writ of mandate or prohibition with this court on October 20, 2003, which we denied four days later. Thus, the hearing on Plaintiffs motion for terminating sanctions was held on November 19, 2003. Prykes counsel at the time of the hearing associated in the matter on October 31, twenty days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the trial court provided a brief overview of the procedural history of the case. Specifically, the court noted that when the mediation failed to settle the matter, the discovery responses that were ordered in November 2002 became due. Thus, as of May 2003, the court opined that Pryke was required to provide responses. Before hearing argument of counsel, the court stated what it intended to do: I will tell you what the intended [sic] is and it is to strike the answer of Mr. Pryke and strike Mr. Prykes anti-SLAPP motion and enter Mr. Prykes default. In doing so, I recognize that sanctions are not there to punish necessarily, they are there to obtain compliance and process litigation in the most economic and least expensive manner possible. [] Given the nature of the litigation and I searched - I dont know that I searched my soul, but I searched virtually everything else I could come to in terms of trying to figure out what an interim effective sanction would be and it is this Courts opinion that there is no such interim effective sanction. You either respond to the discovery, which is critical and pivotal to the SLAPP motion and vitality of the litigation, after the Court has ordered you to do so more than one year ago or you dont. [] Mr. Pryke has chosen with the services of two different lawyers in this case at this point . . . to ignore the Courts order and without that discovery, the action cannot proceed. So the only way that the action can proceed in the estimation of the Court is to remove the offending partys ability to participate at the level of liability and simply allow that party to do what it may relative to the damage aspects of the case.


Prykes counsel responded: Well, as I did mention, I think that before a discovery sanction should be imposed, especially a drastic one such as this, that the SLAPP motion should be heard, but youve considered that. And I dont know that there is any authority for striking a SLAPP motion without having it being heard on the merits as a discovery sanction. [] Secondly, as I mentioned in my papers, as the Court knows, Im new to the case and I have advised Mr. Pryke and he is in agreement that rather than . . . accept a sanction, such as striking of the answer and a default being entered, that he would provide the information. There are obvious reasons why that is an unpleasant thing for a publisher to do, but rather than accept a dismissal or a striking of the answer, he would do so and thats why I suggested that if you were going to make such an order, that it be contingent upon failure to provide the information within X days. Now that I am involved in the case, I can tell the Court that it is - that information would be provided within the next, I dont know, ten days.


Plaintiffs counsel objected, stating that Pryke has had a year to provide this information. . . . [] The time for complying with the Courts order has long since come and gone and its just not fair to plaintiff in this case that they are - that there not be the kind of serious consequences that naturally would flow from the failure to comply with this Courts order.


The trial court agreed with Plaintiffs counsel, noting that Pryke has had the opportunity to do any number of things, but has thumbed his nose at the court, and only now insists that he will comply if given some more time. Thus, the court stated: Well, that dont [sic] work, at least not here, and its a viable approach as to how to deal with these things. It will be the Fourth District Court of Appeal which gives a seal of approval.


In response to the courts representations, Prykes prior counsel respectfully disagreed with its factual statements: Your Honor, I dont believe the responses were due in May of this year. I dont believe the responses were due at all until [Plaintiffs counsel] sent out his notice of motion in September of this year. As the Court rightly points out, Mr. Pryke then went to the appellate court and was rebuffed there and came back down, so I think that the time frame has been compressed quite a bit, No. 1. [] No. 2, the Court also made the comment that there was some agreed to discovery. I dont know precisely what the Court is alluding to, but we were in discussions with [Plaintiffs counsel] and we were objecting to discovery, but then the - decided certain objections at certain times were, were probably going to be unavailing. So if thats what the Court meant by agreed to discovery, then I would agree that thats an accurate rendition. [] But my point, ultimate point is Mr. Pryke has not had a year. We were supposed to go back to JAMS in early September. Mr. Pryke at the last minute had a letter sent to me saying that he couldnt make it. He had another engagement he had to do. . . . I called JAMS. It would be my hope, your Honor, that this matter should go back to JAMS with Judge Kennedy, because I concur with this Courts assessment, Judge Kennedy should be able to fashion a settlement in this matter and I think Mr. Pryke should be given another opportunity, your Honor.


Rejecting Prykes counsels arguments, the court granted Plaintiffs motion and struck Prykes answer.


Misuse of the discovery process may result in the imposition of a variety of sanctions. These include payment of costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action in favor of the aggrieved party. [Citations.] Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to authorized discovery, providing evasive discovery responses, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, unsuccessfully making or opposing discovery motions without substantial justification, and failing to meet and confer in good faith to resolve a discovery dispute when required by statute to do so. [Citations.] (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1214.)


The discovery sanction at issue here was imposed in connection with five interrogatories. Pursuant to the statute governing that method of discovery (Code of Civil Procedure former section 2030, subdivisions (k) & (l)), the trial court is authorized to impose a broad range of sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. former 2030, Stats. 1986, ch. 1334, 2, pp. 4728-4729, amended by Stats. 1987, ch. 86, 12; Stats. 1988, ch. 553, 4; Stats. 1988, ch. 575, 1; Stats. 1991, ch. 1090 (AB 1484), 11, pp. 5076-5077.) These include monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established or precluding the offending party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, evidence sanctions prohibiting the offending party from introducing designated matters into evidence, and terminating sanctions that include striking part or all of the pleadings, dismissing part or all of the action, or granting a default judgment against the offending party. (Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) A terminating sanction may be imposed only after a motion to compel is made and granted, and the party to be sanctioned has failed to comply with that order. (Code Civ. Proc., former 2030, subd. (l), Stats. 1986, ch. 1334, 2, pp. 4728-4729, amended by Stats. 1987, ch. 86, 12; Stats. 1988, ch. 553, 4; Stats. 1988, ch. 575, 1; Stats. 1991, ch. 1090 (AB 1484), 11, pp. 5076-5077.) However, in determining whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court considers the totality of the circumstances: conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Terminating sanctions have been held to be an abuse of discretion unless the partys violation of the procedural rule was willful [citations] or, if not willful, at least preceded by a history of abuse of pretrial procedures, or a showing less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the procedural rule. [Citations.] [Citation.] (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1215.)


The relevant facts in this case fail to support the trial courts decision to issue terminating sanctions. The action was initiated in June 2000. Pryke was not identified as a defendant until July 2001. In January 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories directed at Pryke; however, no request for sanctions was made. In May 2002, the trial court issued its decision on the motion. Specifically, it found that before Pryke was required to provide further responses, Plaintiffs had to make a prima facie showing of the falsity of the statements in question pursuant to Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268. Plaintiffs made such showing, and on November 12, 2002, the trial court ordered Pryke to provide further responses to five interrogatories. This ruling was the first substantive decision from the trial court that found Pryke could not hide behind the California reporters shield law. In December 2002, prior to the due date for Prykes responses, the parties entered into a stipulation to stay all matters (including the responses) pending a voluntary mediation. The stipulation was accepted by the court on January 2, 2003. Although Plaintiffs attempted to revoke the stipulation on May 13, 2003, they failed to provide the necessary 30 days response time required by the stipulation. In June 2003, mediation was still being pursued. In August 2003, Plaintiffs indicated they were contemplating a discovery sanction. On September 17, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their motion for terminating sanctions based on Prykes failure to provide further responses to five interrogatories that were identified in the trial courts November 12, 2002, order. On October 20, 2003, Pryke filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition with this court regarding that November 12, 2002, order. We denied the petition.


As previously noted, the issuance of terminating sanctions amounts to an abuse of discretion unless either (1) a showing less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the procedural rule, or (2) the partys violation of the procedural rule was willful [citations] or, if not willful, at least preceded by a history of abuse of pretrial procedures. (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215.) Given the procedural history discussed above, we are hard pressed to find that Prykes failure to provide further responses to five specific interrogatories was willful. Pryke had a legitimate argument as to why he was not required to reveal the information, namely, the California reporters shield law. Even the trial court required Plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing under Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, before it agreed that Pryke had to respond. Moreover, the trial court had yet to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion. Given the procedural status of the case, Pryke, with Plaintiffs agreement, attempted to resolve the matter through mediation. When that did not work, he sought assistance from this court via the writ petition in case No. E034582. Although Plaintiffs would characterize Prykes actions as brazen violations of the courts discovery order, there is a strong argument that they amounted to no more than the use of legitimate means for a reporter to protect his or her sources.


Even if we were to assume Prykes actions were willful, we cannot say that a less severe sanction would not produce compliance with the procedural rule. (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215.) As the record shows, Prykes counsel stated, [A]s I mentioned in my papers, as the Court knows, Im new to the case and I have advised Mr. Pryke and he is in agreement that rather than . . . accept a sanction, such as striking of the answer and a default being entered, that he would provide the information. There are obvious reasons why that is an unpleasant thing for a publisher to do, but rather than accept a dismissal or a striking of the answer, he would do so and thats why I suggested that if you were going to make such an order, that it be contingent upon failure to provide the information within X days. Now that I am involved in the case, I can tell the Court that it is - that information would be provided within the next, I dont know, ten days. (Italics added.) Clearly, the trial court could have fashioned the termination sanction contingent upon Prykes failure to comply within 10 days. Moreover, the trial court could have added another sanction, monetary or otherwise,[5]against Pryke for his failure to provide the responses prior to the hearing on the motion to compel. Instead, the trial court chose to strike Prykes answer and enter his default, suggesting an intent to punish Pryke, not accomplish the objects of discovery.


A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions such as the [terminating] sanction imposed here: (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order,[6]and (2) the failure must be willful. [Citation.] Even where nonmonetary sanctions are called for, they . . . should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. [Citations.] . . . [] The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. [Citations.] [Citations.] [Citation.] [Citation.] (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327)


Under the facts of this case, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a terminating sanction against Pryke, who, from all appearances, was asserting his rights under the California reporters shield laws. Accordingly, we reverse the order striking Prykes answer and entering his default, and remand the matter to the trial court. On remand, Prykes answer is to be reinstated. Further, the trial court is directed to consider whether the imposition of other sanctions against Pryke is warranted.


Given our finding that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a terminating sanction against Pryke, the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Pryke is reversed.


IV. DISPOSITION


The judgment is reversed. The trial courts order striking Prykes answer and entering his default is reversed. Prykes answer is to be reinstated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings as directed within the body of this opinion. Each party is to bear his or her own costs.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


HOLLENHORST


Acting P. J.


I concur:


MCKINSTER


J.




KING, J., Concurring.


I concur with the majority as it relates to reversing the present judgment. Nevertheless, I would remand for further proceedings to allow the trial court to set forth on the record its reasons for striking the complaint and entering default as opposed to choosing a lesser sanction. If the trial court, after further consideration, and the setting forth of its rationale on the record, decides that a lesser sanction can accomplish the desired goal, said sanction can be ordered and the matter reset. If the court determines that a lesser sanction cannot achieve the appropriate result, and sets forth on the record its rationale, then the trial court should reenter its order, and the present judgment should be reinstated.


A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions . . . . Even where nonmonetary sanctions are called for, they . . . should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. [Citations.] . . . [] The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are not designed to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. [Citations.] [Citations.] [Citation.] (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) [T]erminating sanctions are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.)


While the trial court recognized the need to consider lesser sanctions, the record is devoid of reasons as to why lesser sanctions were discarded in favor of striking the complaint and entering default. The trial court is intimately familiar with this matter and can presumably set forth its rationale. While I recognize that whether the trial court could have imposed a lesser sanction is not the end all question (see Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 37), it is nonetheless relevant to whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the complaint and entering default. It is only then can we properly address the trial courts exercise of discretion.


I would therefore reverse and remand for the trial courts further consideration as to whether a less drastic sanction is available. After explaining its rationale on the record, the trial court may either modify the sanction imposed and continue forward with resolution of this matter, or enter a new order striking the answer and entering default. If the court strikes the answer and reenters default, reentry of the previous judgment would be appropriate. (See Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1575-1576.)


/s/ King


J.


Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.


Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.







[1]Article I, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution provides, A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication . . . shall not be adjudged in contempt . . . for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. Evidence Code section 1070, subdivision (a), provides substantially the same. These provisions are sometimes known as the California reporters shield.


[2] We hereby take judicial notice of the record in the writ proceedings in case No. E034582. In that appeal, Pryke sought an order from this court directing the trial court to refrain from taking further action on the motion for sanctions absent a determination on the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion.


[3]Plaintiffs named the following defendants: Hesperia Resorter, Inc., Apple Valley News, The Adelanto Bulletin, Inc., Valley Wide Newspapers, Jenny Jones, Patty Thomas, Michele Haeckel, and Mark Gutglueck.


[4]Apparently, Pryke had not filed his answer to the complaint. In fact, his answer was not filed until October 14, 2003.


[5]We take judicial notice of the record in the writ proceedings in case No. E036703. We note that on page 4 of the petition, Pryke represents that [o]n December 23, 2003 the [trial] [c]ourt heard the [m]otion regarding [terminating] sanctions as [to] the [d]efendant Gutglueck. According to the [c]ourt record: Nancy K. Bohls motion for sanctions as to [d]efendant is Granted. The [c]ourt finds that appropriate sanctions are to deny the [d]efendants CCP 425.16/[]SLAPP motion. The [c]ourt finds that defendant frustrated the purpose of his own motion by refusing to comply with discovery stipulations and orders. The [c]ourt takes the issue of monetary sanctions under submission until the 1/6/04 motions are heard. Clearly, another viable sanction that the trial court could have imposed against Pryke was the denial of his anti-SLAPP motion.


[6]Taken together, subdivisions (k) and (l) of section 2030 [of the Code of Civil Procedure] make clear that only after an order compelling responses or further responses to interrogatories has been obtained and violated can the court impose an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction. A few cases have approved the imposition of evidence and issue sanctions without a court order violation, but those cases involved egregious discovery abuses going far beyond the failure to supplement or amend a response in a timely fashion. (See Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545 . . . [evidence and issue sanctions properly imposed without violation of order compelling production of documents, where requiring requesting party to seek such an order would have been futile in light of responding partys claim that requested documents had been stolen]; Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 36 . . . [evidence sanctions appropriate despite absence of order compelling discovery, where sanctioned party concededly could not provide audit it had promised].)