Two former Alameda County District Attorney's Office insiders are accusing the county of legal "gamesmanship" and "bad faith" in their civil suits, saying crucial phone records were stalled or never turned over. In fresh court papers, they ask judges to force the county to produce missing messages and to consider hitting its lawyers with monetary sanctions.
Craig Chew, a long-time chief inspector who sued in October 2024, says he was fired amid what he describes as anti-Asian bias and bitter hiring disputes, as reported by the Berkeley Scanner.
Patti "Patti" Lee, the office’s former public information officer, filed suit in June alleging she was wrongfully terminated after objecting to how public-records requests were handled and that records were hidden or altered, according to CBS San Francisco.
Discovery Fight Centers On Phone Texts And Subpoenas
The plaintiffs say text messages from county-issued phones, including those used by communications director Haaziq Madyun, Pamela Price, deputy Kobal and acting DA Royl Roberts, have not been turned over, and that some records only surfaced after carriers were contacted, according to the filings. Lee’s lawyers are asking a judge for roughly $11,000 in sanctions and accuse the county of "bad faith discovery abuse." The filings also note that a judge previously approved a subpoena for Price’s personal phone records on Dec. 1, 2024. A hearing on the discovery dispute is set for Jan. 6, 2026, according to The Mercury News.
Chew’s attorney Jon King calls the county’s conduct "a mockery" of the litigation process, and Roberts says the county should produce the requested messages, the filings state. County counsel and Price did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the discovery clash, according to The Mercury News.
What The Law Says
California law requires public agencies to preserve records once litigation is reasonably foreseeable, and courts can impose monetary sanctions, give adverse-inference instructions, or craft other remedies for spoliation or discovery misuse. Judges typically evaluate such motions under the Civil Discovery Act and state precedent, including Cedars-Sinai v. Superior Court and related guidance on preservation and spoliation.
Political Stakes For A Recalled DA
Price was recalled by voters in November 2024, a high-profile political defeat that left her record and personnel calls under a microscope, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, and Hoodline says she has already announced a run for the county DA post in 2026. That mix of courtroom drama and campaign season means any newly produced texts could matter both before a judge and at the ballot box.
The Jan. 6 hearing will test whether judges decide the county’s discovery tactics crossed a legal line and whether the plaintiffs get the messages they insist are central to their claims. Local attorneys say the fight highlights how record-keeping and transparency inside a DA’s office can carry outsized legal and political consequences.
