A state appeals court has rejected San Mateo County’s attempt to stop the release of expenses tied to a report that prompted removal proceedings against Sheriff Christina Corpus, who faces accusations of retaliation and conflict of interest.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco on Thursday denied, without prejudice, the county’s petition for a writ seeking to overturn a lower court order requiring it to release expense records related to retired Judge LaDoris Cordell’s November 2024 investigation into alleged misconduct in Corpus’ office. The ruling allows the county to refile the request after following proper legal procedures.
Corpus’ attorneys have argued that Cordell’s investigation triggered removal efforts against the sheriff and that related financial records should be made public.
Matthew Frauenfeld, Corpus’ counsel, said Thursday’s ruling confirms the county cannot withhold records without first obtaining a stay.
“These are financial documents, not strategy memos. The public deserves to know the truth,” he told this news organization.
The appeals court said the county’s petition was incomplete because officials had not first sought a stay from the San Mateo County Superior Court — a procedural step that must be taken at the lower court level before asking an appellate court to intervene.
The panel of judges directed county attorneys to notify the court if they have since sought or been denied a stay and to provide the compliance deadline for the September order.
The dispute over Cordell report financial documents dates back to April, when Corpus’ attorneys sued the county to compel disclosure of the financial records. Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Finigan’s order directed the county to produce contracts, invoices, and timesheets tied to Cordell’s investigation into alleged corruption and misconduct by Corpus’ office.
Because Finigan did not set deadlines, Judge Michael Mau, during an ex-parte hearing last week, required the county to release the documents by Oct. 9 or file an appeal by Oct. 6 under a state law allowing government agencies to challenge public records orders.
With the appeal now denied, the county must release the records within seven days or file for a stay at the lower court. Officials did not seek a stay in a lower court when the ruling was first issued in August.
“They cannot meet that standard and intentionally chose not to seek a stay earlier,” Fraunfeld said.
San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci told this news organization Thursday that the county would “file a response to address the information requested by the court.”
The county has so far refused to release the documents, leaving the public in the dark about how taxpayer money was spent on an investigation that sparked calls to remove Corpus from office. Finigan’s ruling allowed partial redactions to protect witness identities but required other records to be disclosed. He also found the county had waived attorney-client privilege by publicly releasing Cordell’s report.
Media outlets, including this one, have also sought access to the records and other expenses related to Corpus’ removal but have been denied, with the county citing attorney-client privilege.
When asked last week what harm could result from releasing the records, Verducci said: “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.”
County officials have said Cordell’s report cost at least $200,000 but have not released invoices, timesheets, or her contract to substantiate that figure. The March special election authorizing the removal process cost an additional $4.4 million, according to county records.
Earlier this week, retired Judge James Emerson, who oversaw removal hearings against Corpus, submitted his 42-page advisory opinion to the county and recommended Corpus’ removal, concluding that she violated laws related to her official duties by engaging in conflicts of interest and acts of retaliation, according to a county press release. The county has not yet released the full opinion to the public.
Following Emerson’s recommendation, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has 30 days to review his opinion and vote on Corpus’ removal, which would take effect immediately under county rules.
Frauenfeld said transparency is essential before the Board of Supervisors votes on Emerson’s advisory opinion, which has not yet been scheduled as of this posting.
“The public must have access to these records before any such vote. Transparency is not optional,” he said.
Separately, Corpus also faces a civil grand jury accusation that could also result in her removal if found guilty.