More than a month after a judge ordered San Mateo County to release records from a taxpayer-funded misconduct investigation into Sheriff Christina Corpus, officials are still refusing to turn the documents over. Instead, the county is appealing — a move that could delay disclosure for months or block it entirely if a higher court overturns the ruling.
Superior Court Judge Michael Mau on Thursday gave the county two options: release the documents by Oct. 9, or file an appeal by Oct. 6 under state law that allows governments to challenge public records orders. If the county appeals, the documents will remain secret until a higher court decides whether they must be released.
The fight over the records has stretched for months since Corpus’ lawyers sued the county in April to compel their release.
In his Aug. 29 ruling, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Finigan ordered the county to produce contract and payment records — including invoices and timesheets — related to retired Judge LaDoris Cordell’s November 2024 investigation into alleged corruption and misconduct in Corpus’ office.
Witness identities could be redacted, but other financial details must be disclosed. Finigan found the county had waived attorney-client privilege by publicly releasing Cordell’s report. He did not set a deadline, however, which Mau addressed Thursday.
Despite the court allowing witness identities to be redacted, the county has not produced a single document, leaving the public in the dark about how taxpayer money was spent on an investigation that sparked calls to remove Corpus from office.
In the fallout from the Cordell report, Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff, faces two separate — and costly — removal efforts: Measure A, a voter-approved initiative passed in March that gave the Board of Supervisors authority to remove a sheriff through 2028; and a civil grand jury accusation filed in June alleging misconduct and abuse of power, allegations Corpus denies.
While the county has publicly stated Cordell’s 400-page report cost at least $200,000, it has not released invoices, timesheets or her contract to substantiate that figure. The March special election that authorized the removal process cost an additional $4.4 million, according to appropriations requests.
County Counsel, represented by attorney Caiti Busch, told the court Thursday the county plans to file for a writ at an appellate court by Monday — an extraordinary legal measure asking a higher court to immediately intervene and overturn the lower court’s order.
“At the heart of the matter is our right to file an appellate writ, which is due this Monday,” Busch said. “We intend to file it. Judge Finigan’s order does not have a deadline, and he declined to create one.”
But Corpus’ attorney, Matthew Frauenfeld, argued the county is violating California’s Public Records Act by doing so, which requires government agencies to quickly release documents. He argued the law is designed to provide swift access to government documents, not allow agencies to delay their release.
Frauenfeld said the financial records are critical to his client’s defense and could expose problems with how the investigation was conducted.
“The fact they are fighting so hard to keep them secret is a strong indicator there is something else in them they are trying to hide,” Frauenfeld said. “These are basic financial records, not strategy memos.”
Corpus had previously criticized Cordell’s investigation and commissioned her own review by former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke Strunsky, who faulted Cordell for relying on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews.
Frauenfeld added that the Cordell report swayed public opinion before the March ballot measure.
“It prejudiced the public against the sheriff based on false allegations. Releasing these financial records exposes the truth and forces them to defend their actions. The county is acting in bad faith,” Frauenfeld said.
Corpus’ lawyers filed the public records lawsuit in April after the county denied their March request for the documents, citing attorney-client privilege. Media outlets, including this one, have also sought these records and other expenses related to Corpus’ removal for months but have been denied access, with the county citing attorney-client privilege.
When asked why the county is appealing or what harm could come from releasing the financial records, county spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci repeated the same answer the county gave last month: “The County is appealing Judge Finigan’s decision, maintaining that the records at issue are privileged and that the release of the Cordell Report did not waive that privilege.”
In a separate ruling Thursday, Judge Nina Sharpsteyn denied Corpus’ request for a temporary stay that would have blocked the Board of Supervisors from immediately removing her while she pursues legal challenges. The judge noted that the county had agreed to wait 14 days before filling any vacancy, giving Corpus time to seek additional remedies.
“We’re disappointed in the ruling, but the court left the door open,” Frauenfeld said. “We are reviewing all options — including action before the board acts and prompt relief within the 14-day window if needed.”
Retired Judge James Emerson, who presided over removal hearings that concluded in August, has until Oct. 13 to issue a written advisory opinion. The Board of Supervisors then has 30 days to review it, with a four-fifths majority vote required to remove Corpus. If ousted, she would be the first sheriff in California removed by a board of supervisors.
Corpus, elected in 2022, has challenged the removal process in multiple county and federal courts, arguing it violates her due process rights. All judges have declined to intervene.
If Corpus is removed, the board would have 30 days to appoint a replacement or call a special election. If no action is taken, the county elections office must schedule an election.