An Alameda County Superior Court judge recused herself Friday from a case brought by the Oakland Public Ethics Commission against the group backing the recall of Mayor Sheng Thao.
Without explicitly saying why, Judge Julia Spain also set aside her tentative ruling from Wednesday in favor of Oakland United to Recall Sheng Thao (OUST) and postponed a hearing on the matter until a new judge is assigned.
The Public Ethics Commission filed the suit in order to get OUST and an organization called Foundational Oakland Unites to comply with subpoenas seeking communications between the two groups and from various individuals, including communications related to financial and non-monetary contributions to OUST from Foundational Oakland Unites.
The Public Ethics Commission seemed particularly interested in communications that could demonstrate “the earmarking of contributions or payments,” according to Spain’s tentative ruling.
In the original complaint, an Ethics Commission investigator wrote that OUST “appears to be using a newly-created nonprofit called Foundational Oakland Unites (FOU) and/or its associated general purpose PAC (similar name) as a pass-through (dark money) vehicle to either receive unitemized/conduit contributions and/or fail to report earmarked/intermediary contributions within the period of time required.”
In response, leaders of the recall effort said the subpoenas were unenforceable because they did not provide enough time for compliance as required by state law, the documents in question were protected by attorney-client privilege, the requests for documents were overly broad and that they violated their members’ constitutional right to privacy, according to Spain’s ruling.
Ruling vacated
In issuing her tentative ruling Wednesday, Spain largely agreed with OUST leadership and denied the city’s motion to compel them to comply with its subpoenas.
On Friday, however, Spain vacated her ruling and disqualified herself from the case just hours before the city was scheduled to tell the court that it would be issuing revised subpoenas based on that ruling “and to seek clarity on: (1) the constitutional findings in the tentative; and (2) to request that the matter remain open pending any further dispute over compliance with revised subpoenas,” according to a filing from the city’s lawyer.
Spain didn’t say why she recused herself in her order but did cite a section of California’s Code of Civil Procedure, which says that, in part, “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”
It is unclear what the new timeline for the case will be or how long it might take to appoint a new judge, but the city will then be able to make its arguments in favor of the subpoenas and, if unable to convince a new judge, can still rewrite them to comply with his or her ruling.
Public Ethics Commission representatives declined to comment on the judge’s recusal and a spokesperson for the recall effort did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Note to readers: This story has been updated to correct the misstated reason for the court hearing. We regret the error.
