Judge Baker Rejects Defendants’ Discovery Excuses
Judge Baker dismissed the county’s arguments that Apothio failed to meet and confer before filing its latest motion, noting a history of stonewalling and grudging compliance. He found that the defendants failed to diligently search for and produce relevant materials, relying on Whitefleet’s vague “understanding” that they had done so.
Whitefleet had claimed emails were irrelevant because they did not explicitly reference the warrant, its execution, or the destruction of crops. The judge called this a “strained argument”, highlighting the attorney’s misunderstanding of discovery obligations.
He also rejected Whitefleet’s assertion that the sheriff’s office maintains a policy of destroying evidence, emphasizing that operations plans and other materials must be preserved for potential criminal proceedings.
Sanctions and Court Orders
Judge Baker ordered Whitefleet to pay $3,000 in sanctions, which cannot be passed on to his clients, and required the county to cover Apothio’s reasonable expenses stemming from the discovery failures. The court also mandated the immediate production of all responsive documents.
“It is regrettable that the court is compelled to direct defendants to produce information that appears potentially responsive,” the judge wrote. “However, defendants have left the court with no other viable options… the court is unwilling any further to permit defendants to unreasonably consume both plaintiff’s and the court’s time, energy, and limited resources.”
