DalAG Oppo To Compel Discov (002) (22636) - 4

1 ROB BONTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
2 JOHNETTE V. JAURON
Deputy Attorney General
3 State Bar No. 183714
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
4 San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 510-3803
5 Fax: (415) 703-1234
E-mail: Johnette.Jauron@doj.ca.gov
6 Attorneys for the People of the State of California
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 02502505/17006621

CALIFORNIA,
12 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL
13 DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF
v. VICTORIA TERRY; DECLARATION OF
14 JOHNETTE JAURON
15 DAVID ROBERT DALEIDEN, AND Date: September 13, 2021
SANDRA SUSAN MERRITT,
16
Defendants.
17
18
The Attorney General of the State of California respectfully submits the following Motion
19
in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery in that there is no responsive
20
discovery to compel.
21
22 ARGUMENT
23 Defense counsel is requesting discovery based on a claim that DAG Jauron committed
24 prosecutorial misconduct and violated her duty of candor to this Court by making a false
25 representation and providing seized evidence to unauthorized persons. Defendants' claim is
26 unfounded.
27
28
1
People v. Daleiden and Merritt - AG Opposition to Compel Discovery (2502505/1700662)
1 Defendants' claim is based on two sentences, taken out of context from a conversation
2 about different issues at the June 23, 2021, hearing. Specifically, Defendants allege that "DAG
3 Jauron admitted at the prior Zoom hearing on May 21 that she had discussions with NAF about
4 the federal injunction. She also stated at that hearing she had given NAF everything that she had
5 given to the defendants." Def. Mot. 4:9-11.
6 However, a complete reading of the transcript from that hearing indicates that between
7 those two sentences DAG Jauron said "I have no idea what you're talking about. What evidence
8 do they not have access to?" R.T. 7:3-4. Whereupon, this exchange occurred:
9 THE COURT: Well, I'm not -- what I'm more suggesting is -- and you may be
10 correct. There may be no issue here, but what I am concerned about, and have
been concerned about at other points through the trial, is there's different
11 standards between this federal civil case that has been resolved and a criminal
trial. The defendant -- the criminal defendants have different rights than a -- either
12 a plaintiff in a civil -- federal civil suit, so I think that just needs to be kept in
mind when there are issues brought up along this line. You understand what I
13
mean by that?
14
MS. JAURON: No, I don't. I don't understand what you mean. I provided N.A.F.
15 with everything that I provided Defendants and I don't have a clue what you're
talking about.
16
THE COURT: I don't mean with your failure to disclose information to anyone. I
17
have -- I have ruled on your disclosures and you have been forthwith with that.
18 That is not the issue I'm trying to convey to you. The issue is N.A.F.'s attempt to
limit the use of discovery based on the Federal Civil Order.
19
20 The exchange reflects that there were multiple issues being discussed by the multiple
21 participants in the conversation, and while somewhat inartful and overbroad, neither of the
22 identified sentences provide a factual basis upon which this court can find the existence of
23 relevant evidence. There is none.
24 The issue was addressed specifically at the June 23, 2021, hearing wherein the following
25 exchange occurred:
26 THE COURT: What is your informal discovery request?

27
MR. FERREIRA: I want every communication: Text, e-mail, et cetera, between
28 NAF and the Attorney General's office from the service of the search warrant on
2
1 Mr. Daleiden's home until the present. I want to know if this statement is true. It's
not an ambiguous statement, it's not a statement that was prompted by any
2 questions from us, it was not coerced. The statement is: I provided NAF with
3 everything that I provided the defendants.
4 MS. JAURON: And for the record, that is completely taken out of context. I did
not provide evidence to NAF.
5
THE COURT: Okay. I think you have a response to the informal request, that she
6 did not provide them with any information. Go ahead.
7
MR. FERREIRA: Based on the statement she gave, I should not have to accept
8 that.
9 Attached is a declaration from DAG Jauron as well as a declaration from Senior Legal
10 Assistant Victoria Terry, averring that no evidence or search warrant materials have been
11 provided and that none of the material in the motion to compel exists.
12 CONCLUSION
13 The Defendants' motion lacks factual foundation. It appears to derive from a statement
14 taken out of context predicated on their continuing assumption of a conspiracy theory that does
15 not exist. The People respectfully request this Court deny the motion.
16
17
Dated: August 23, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
18
19 ROB BONTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
20
21
22 JOHNETTE V. JAURON
23 Attorneys for the People of the State of
California
24
25
26
27
28
3
1 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA TERRY
2
I, VICTORIA TERRY, do hereby declare that:
3
1. I am a Senior Legal Analyst who works for the California Attorney General's Office
4
and am assigned to this matter:
5
2. Since the preliminary hearing in September 2019, the only communication I have had
6
with Mr. Derek Foran or any other counsel or employee of NAF, PP or the Does has been
7
administrative in nature, either receiving court documents filed in the federal litigation or
8
sending publicly filed pleadings upon request.
9
3. There is no responsive material, either discovery or search warrant material, from this
10
case that has been shared with anyone outside this office other than the initial showing to each
11
Doe individually the portion of video of that Does taken by defendant.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
13
14 August 23, 2021 __________________________________

Victoria Terry
15 Senior Legal Analyst
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1 DECLARATION OF JOHNETTE JAURON
2
3 1. I am the Deputy Attorney General assigned to prosecute this case on behalf of the CA
4 Department of Justice.
5 2. Before June 4, 2021, I had not spoken with Mr. Derek Foran or any other counsel for
6 NAF, PP or the Does since the preliminary hearing in this matter in September of 2019.
7 3. Mr. Foran called me on June 4, 2021, to inquire why Judge Hite was requesting his
8 participation in an informal meeting to discuss the use of the federally enjoined materials.
9 4. I informed Mr. Foran on June 4, 2021, that the Court had concerns about the defense's
10 use of the enjoined materials from the federal civil case, and that I did not see any issue which
11 would impact the state criminal case.
12 5. I have had no other discussion with Mr. Foran or anyone from PP, NAF, or the Does
13 since the preliminary hearing three years ago.
14 6. I have not provided any materials seized pursuant to search warrant in this case to any
15 unauthorized recipient.
16 7. I am not aware of the existence of any e-mails, text messages, or other correspondence
17 between myself, Victoria Terry, or any other DOJ employee and Derek Foran or any other
18 counsel for or employee of NAF, Planned Parenthood, or any of the Does in this case regarding
19 the federal permanent injunction.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
21
August 23, 2021 ___________________________________
22 Johnette V. Jauron
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

DalAG Oppo To Compel Discov (002) (22636) - 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DalAG Oppo To Compel Discov (002) (22636) - 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DalAG Oppo To Compel Discov (002) (22636) - 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 ROB BONTA

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 02502505/17006621

23 relevant evidence. There is none.

26 THE COURT: What is your informal discovery request?

14 August 23, 2021 __________________________________

11 would impact the state criminal case.

13 since the preliminary hearing three years ago.

19 the federal permanent injunction.

You might also like