Sheriff Christina Corpus has filed a lawsuit against San Mateo County alleging the county improperly withheld documents about Judge LaDoris Cordell’s agreement with the county to investigate Corpus.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday, April 11, claims Corpus requested Cordell’s contract, her invoices, her timesheets and records of payments on March 7, 2025, and the county denied her request on April 1, citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
In her March 7 request, Corpus also requested all emails between Cordell and the Board of Supervisors and the county attorney’s office, unredacted versions of any evidence Cordell obtained or created during her investigation, all correspondence between County Executive Mike Callagy – who is also named in the suit – and members of the Sheriff’s Office regarding Victor Anelle, and all correspondence between Callagy and former Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan since Sept. 1, 2024. The county declined all of the requests, except for emails between Callagy and Monaghan — and the county said it found no responsive documents. She is not seeking any of those documents in her lawsuit.
According to the First Amendment Coalition, a legal group that assists journalists and citizens with obtaining public records, attorney-client privilege only applies to communications between an attorney and their client provided it is “made for the purpose of the legal consultation, rather than some unrelated or ancillary purpose.”
For the work-product doctrine to apply, the documents must be created by an attorney while representing their client and must include the “impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories” of the attorney.
The FAC also said that billing records can be disclosed under the Public Records Act as long as “the records do not relate to active and ongoing litigation and do not disclose information for the purpose of legal consultation between the public entity and its attorney.”
Corpus claims that since the board commissioned Cordell to “perform an investigation under the Board’s legislative powers in order to pass legislation” it is not considered “ongoing litigation.” She cites a previous court ruling that said the Cordell report was an “investigation in connection with proposing or enacting legislation” to support her claim that the report is not part of ongoing litigation.
The case is scheduled for a case management conference on June 23.