Shasta County still fighting to keep Magrini documents secret, despite judge's ruling

In court papers filed this week, Shasta County officials continued to fight the release of documents a judge ordered lawyers to relinquish to the Record Searchlight more than a month ago.

Rather than hand over the records, the county continues to claim the materials are confidential and exempt from release under state law.

“The requests for production are incredibly broad, and they necessarily call for the production of exempt documents. The final judgment should, at a minimum, provide that only non-exempt documents be disclosed,” the county’s lawyers wrote in a court filing this week.

In reply to the court filing, the newspaper's lawyer, Walt McNeill, said all of the county’s objections were already decided by Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker’s ruling on April 10.

“The county asks that the court essentially reverse its ruling compelling disclosure and allow the county to unilaterally decide whether these records are exempt under the CPRA (California Public Records Act) and produce only the records they deem both responsive and non-exempt,” McNeill wrote in response to the county.

“The unabashed requests by the county conversely are not matched by support in the law or the record,” he said.

Last month, Baker ruled that the documents were not exempt and gave the county 15 days to release to the Record Searchlight copies of an investigative report into complaints against former Sheriff Eric Magrini.

He also ordered officials to hand over to the paper communications exchanged in 2021 among the Board of Supervisors and top county officials about three general topic areas: sheriff’s office management, hiring Magrini as assistant county executive officer and their decision to appoint a new sheriff to replace Magrini.

During the first half of 2021, turmoil in the sheriff’s office resulted in the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Sheriff’s Administrative Association both issuing votes of no confidence in Magrini. At the administrative association's request, the county agreed to hire a firm to investigate the complaints against Magrini.

In June 2021, Magrini stepped down as sheriff to take a 31% pay raise and the newly-created job as assistant county executive officer. Less than two months later and without holding public interviews, the Board of Supervisors appointed former Anderson Police Chief Michael Johnson as the county's new sheriff.

The county has refused to release a report from the investigation, claiming the work is confidential under “attorney-client privilege and attorney-client work product."

In addition to the investigative report, the newspaper had also requested as far back as Aug. 2, 2021 emails, letters and other communications between members of the county Board of Supervisors, other top county officials and Magrini about sheriff's office management issues.

Baker disagreed with the county’s claims and ruled the investigative report and communications must be turned over to the paper.

Prior to suing the county in July 2022, the newspaper submitted three requests to the County Counsel’s Office for the documents, citing the California Public Records Act. The county denied each of the requests.

The county and the newspaper went to trial on the issue in January and Baker issued a ruling in April requiring the county to turn over all the documents the newspaper requested.

The judge also ordered the county to pay for the newspaper's legal fees.

In response to the judge’s ruling, lawyers hired by the county have asked for a new trial or to vacate the decision. In court documents filed during the past week, the county’s attorneys also asked for redactions in any documents released, in order to protect the privacy of county employees, witnesses and others.

The county is represented by Christopher M. Pisano, Jeffrey V. Dunn and Nathalie Camarena with the law firm Best Best & Krieger in Los Angeles.

The county also wants the judge to delay a final ruling for another 60 days, which the paper opposes.

The judge on May 3 rejected a proposed county delay.

McNeill agreed with the county’s request to let Baker determine whether he or a “special master” should review the investigative report in private to determine whether there should be redactions to the document and if releasing it to the public would violate confidentiality.

The paper also asked that if information in the documents is redacted, the judge should require the county to specify what is blocked out. The Record Searchlight wants the county to provide a log of the information it wants removed.

The Record Searchlight also asked the judge to order the county to include in the log the dates, names of senders and recipients, the general nature of the material redacted, the subject matter, the portions of the documents the county wants to redact and the legal basis for blocking out information.

McNeill said he expects Baker to approve the final ruling either late this week or next week.

Reporter Damon Arthur welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834, by email at damon.arthur@redding.com and on Twitter at @damonarthur_RS. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Shasta County fights to keep documents secret, despite judge's ruling