Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Monday, August 1, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Court of Appeal Publicly Releases Version of Opinion Previously Bearing Redactions

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal on Friday unsealed the unredacted version of an opinion it had publicly filed 30 days earlier with portions blotted out.

That’s what it said on June 29 that it would do, absent intercession by the California Supreme Court—which issued no order.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Jon B. Streeter, affirmed an order by Sonoma Superior Court Judge Jennifer V. Dollard denying a preliminary injunction sought by the county’s sheriff, Mark Essick, in a reverse California Public Records Act action. The sheriff sought an order barring the release to a newspaper of an independent investigator’s probe into allegations by Lynda Hopkins, chair of the Board of Supervisors, that he had threatened and bullied her.

Div. Four said in the dispositional paragraph of that opinion:

“The order of the trial court denying Sheriff Essick’s request for a preliminary injunction is affirmed. This court’s July 30, 2021 order prohibiting the County from releasing the records that are the subject of this appeal shall expire 30 days from the date this opinion is filed. The unredacted version of this opinion shall likewise remain sealed for 30 days from the filing of this opinion. Once that period expires, the unredacted version of this opinion shall become public and the County may release the records, unless the California Supreme Court orders otherwise. Costs shall be awarded to the respondents.”

Conceals Word ‘Harassment’

Some of the redactions were of matter that was relatively innocuous. One portion in the redacted versions relates that “Supervisor Hopkins lodged a complaint against Sheriff Essick with the Sonoma County Administrator, Sheryl Bratton, alleging ……...”

The unredacted version shows that the missing word was “harassment.”

Another portion in the June 29 publicly released version alluded to the board having sent its …….. to Sheriff Essick.” The word that was concealed there—and covered up elsewhere—was “admonishment.”

Gray bars also hid words in this passage:

“The Board of Supervisors did, to be sure, issue …………..…….. but not every statement of …….. is a ‘written reprimand’ constituting ‘punitive action’….”

That portion now reads:

“The Board of Supervisors did, to be sure, issue an admonishment of Sheriff Essick, but not every statement of disapproval is a ‘written reprimand’ constituting ‘punitive action’….”

Clash Over Evacuation

Most of the words in two paragraphs relating to a disagreement between Hopkins and Essick over the evacuation of animals during a wildfire were obliterated in what was released publicly a month ago. The following is the content unveiled on Friday:

“Following the meeting, Sheriff Essick exchanged text messages with Lynda Hopkins, an elected member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Hopkins started the exchange, asserting her belief there should be an evacuation process for pets and livestock, since the fire risk in the areas involved was high but not yet extreme. Sheriff Essick replied dismissively, telling Supervisor Hopkins there was already a process in place for livestock, and that pets ‘should have been evacuated already.’ He also commented that Supervisor Hopkins’s preference for local firefighters rather than sheriff’s deputies and police officers was ‘painfully obvious’ and that she should ‘quit with the crap and come together for our community.’ He also left a text telling Supervisor Hopkins to call him if she wanted to discuss further.

“I a later phone conversation between Supervisor Hopkins and Sheriff Essick, the tension between them rose. According to Supervisor Hopkins and her husband Emmett Hopkins, who overheard the conversation on speaker phone, Sheriff Essick criticized Supervisor Hopkins, accused her of ‘using gender as a cover’ to hide her ‘failures as a leader,’ stated he would do whatever he could to expose her as a fraud, and informed her she was not his boss. Sheriff Essick’s recollection of the conversation differed. In his version of what happened, Supervisor Hopkins accused him of being a bigot and a misogynist and said he is a ‘small man with a fragile ego who is afraid of women.’ Sheriff Essick claims he told Supervisor Hopkins he had great respect for women in leadership positions. He denies making many statements attributed to him, including saying that Supervisor Hopkins was ‘manipulative,’ ‘deceptive,’ not to be trusted, and had ‘no friends in this office.’ ”

Sheriff Relents

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat—which had made the public records request—reported on Tuesday:

“After fighting for 18 months to keep an investigation into a heated phone call with Sonoma County Supervisor Lynda Hopkins secret, Sheriff Mark Essick this week chose to drop his legal case and release the report to The Press Democrat days before a court deadline.”

The case is Essick v. County of Sonoma, A162887.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company