Thread by @objkshn

TODAY begins the evidence in Dell'Anno vs. City of San Diego for wrongful termination. When I'm available I'll be live tweeting it. #MarleaVCity To tune in remotely call 619-614-4567 Conference ID: 379 345 513# or scroll down to Dept. 2103 at this link: sdcourt.ca.gov/sdcourt/civil2…

9:25 am. Judge tells jury they are an intelligent bunch. He asks whether they want the witness to remove their mask when testifying. Discussion between jurors and judge. I can only hear judge's comments, not the comments of jurors.

(Editor's Note) CAUTION: Jurors should not read this thread before they have rendered a verdict. To do so would violate their oath. If you are a juror, do not read any further.

9:30 MARK SKEELS testifies. He worked for City Attorneys office for 11 years until September 26, 2021. He started as a line deputy in 2010. When he left he was second in command of the criminal division.

9:31 am. MARK SKEELS shares his background prior to the City Attorney. He worked as a private attorney and a prosecutor but also a professional manager for a baseball team on the east coast.

9:33 AM MARK SKEELS testified he played professional baseball. He attended USD school of law (missed the graduation date). He previously worked as DA and was assigned to Chief Dan Greenberg.

9:34 AM Says the District Attorney is a well-run prosecutorial office.

9:34 MARK SKEELS says he was fired because he brought to light the unethical actions of the attorney defending the city, Will Price.

9:36 MARK SKEELS prepared a declaration to document and bring to light the "absolutely mind-boggling unethical activity" of Will Price, the City's previous attorney.

9:37 AM: What did Will April 8, 2021 Will Price asked him to meet with him to buy him a beer and try to clear up some misunderstandings. Will Price went on to say that he laid out his theory of the case in this litigation, boasted he was best attorney and never lost a case

9:38 AM: Will Price told him that MARK SKEELS needed to be on his team and was aware of his career inspirations and it was in his interest to "play ball" with how Will Price wanted to present the case.

9:40 AM: After his deposition testimony, MARK SKEELS was fired by current city attorney Mara Elliott. MARK SKEELS believes he was wrongfully terminated but hasn't decided yet whether to file suit.

9:41 AM: First met Marlea Dell'Anno when she was prosecutor on a case that he was defending. He was hired by City Attorney in 2010 and Marlea Dell-Anno, to his knowledge, had nothing to do with his hiring.

9:42 AM: MARK SKEELS considered Marlea Dell'Anno to be a colleague. Marlea Dell-Anno became supervisor of general trial unit and moved the sex offense cases to the DV unit, which was a good idea because all those cases needed victim advocates.

9:45 When Mark went to work for the City Attorney's office he was married. At some point that marriage "broke down" and summer or early fall of 2014 Mark developed a romantic relationship with Marlea Dell-Anno. The relationship was consensual and did not not involve favoritism.

There was no policy that was violated by this Did not refer to as his girlfriend and had sex with MD approximately 15 times, always in the evening and weekend time. Never did they engage in sex during "city time." They sometimes went to lunch together and had many topics

to discuss separate from their romantic relationship. In the fall of 2015 they ended their romantic relationship. He recalls a conversation when Marlea Dell-Anno was fired by city and believed it was in retaliation for the handling of a spit-battery case and for her role in...

... several staff firings? There was a lot of pressure being brought to bear on a number of different angles, from number of persons. There was a supposed fact-finding about what happened with regard to a domestic violence matter and in the middle of that interview they took

a break and Miriam Millstein said she just got fired in the middle of fact-finding, which indicated it wasn't much of a fact-finding if they were already making firing decisions and that was when he first became aware their was firing on the horizon.

A spit-battery refers to a battery that is committed by somebody spitting on someone else. SDPD submitted a case that the suspect spit on the back shoulder of a law enforcement deputy during transport. Sheila Ferguson was a deputy city attorney who rejected prosecution.

Mark Skeels also thought it shouldn't have been prosecuted. The suspect was contacted for erratic behavior and police did not get statements from that individual and only have the statements of the police but review of the body worn footage showed suspect had severe mental ...

...health issues, was babbling and incoherent, police wondered what to do with him, is he 5150? Instead, decided to take him to jail instead of Mental Health. Police said "felt something on the back of shoulder, I think he may have spit on me."

MARK SKEELS said it would've been difficult to prosecute and prove his intent in that case. Probable cause is the legal standard that must be met by the officer in the field. For a misdemeanor it must be met by facts the officer observes.

Prosecutor must assess the evidence and determine that there was probable cause to arrest, but the issuance standard is even higher. Can only file criminal case if there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In the spit-battery case the evidence did not rise to that level.

Mr. Goldsmith wanted the spit-battery prosecuted because he discussed the reason during a meeting: when a case is declined for issuance, a CRE (complaint request evaluation) is completed and sent back to the officer. Officer was upset this case was rejected for prosecution

and Jan Goldsmith, city attorney, promised the Officer he would personally see that the case was prosecuted. After Sheila Ferguson rejected filing the case the matter was brought to Marlea Dell-Anno for review and it was her opinion that

the case could not and should not be prosecuted. Marlea Dell-Anno explained she would not prosecute the case and Jan Goldsmith didn't like it: he elevated his voice, changed tone, and ordered her to file the case.

10:10 AM MARK SKEELS reads Exhibit 44 which was moved into evidence. He received this email, the day after Marlea Dell'Anno issued a memo outlining why that case would not be filed by her.

10:13 AM Among those reasons set forth in the memo for not for prosecuting this person was how police treated suspect at the scene.

10:14 AM Exhibit 23: Memo about why spit-battery case could not ethically be prosecuted. Mark Skeels reviewed a draft of this document.

10:21 AM Open Door Friday Email: Jan Goldsmith issued an email day after the spit-battery memo was drafted Marlea Dell'Anno did not receive this memo. Clear that Mr. Goldsmith was announcing to the office a riff that was developing between himself and Ms. Dell-Anno.

10:22 AM Prior to the spit-battery case Marlea Dell-Anno and Jan Goldsmith had a good relationship. He would praise her work in the community and with other justice partners.

10:24 AM There were problems in the organization. No review of the cases before they were assigned to trial. "Last minute hand-offs," cases would be handed to the deputy for them to try on the same day without any prior knowledge.

10:26 AM Andrew Jones held position prior to Marlea Dell-Anno. Judges complained to Mark Skeels about the way the office was being run. Ms. Dell-Anno was promoted by Jan Goldsmith because Jan Goldsmith wanted to create a more professional prosecution division.

10:28 AM Court takes 15 minute recess.

11:01 Court resumes. MARK SKEELS still on the stand.
Ms. Hirshman was rotated among different units at the office. Rotating is important to give deputy attorneys broad experience in the front and back end of the prosecuting office. Ms. Dell-Anno accelerated rotations.

11:03 AM Rotations important to implement but that had not been the culture [I stopped hearing the proceedings at this point. Attempting to log back in.]

Sound cut out for 8 mins. Resuming now.
Q: Who was Miriam Millstein Hemming (sp?)
A (mark skeels): She was a deputy attorney who worked in DV unit for a time. One of brightest, most diligent, hard-working deputies. She was phenomenal. Probably the best deputy in the office.

Someone started looking up cases in the CMS and noted that some of the reviewed files had not been updated as to their status. Some of the cases were "old" and there was concern that if they were going to be prosecuted within time limits.

Mr. Boker (sp?) was indirectly Miriam's supervisor. Mr. Thickun (sp) was direct supervisor. Mr. Boker found files in Miriam's office that hadn't been updated. Nothing remarkable on its face that there were files left in her office when she was rotated to another division.

11:20 AM. Ms. Dell'Anno immediately started reviewing the cases to see their status and ability to prosecute. Exhibit 1 moved into evidence. REJECTED refers to decision that a case is not going to be prosecuted. 23 cases with a CMS number and a few other cases were involved.

11:21 AM MARK SKEELS was primarily looking at the cases over one year old because the statute of limitations might have time barred prosecution of that case. Reviewing them for what was going on with the cases. Some cases needed to be reassigned to other deputies and some

11:23 AM needed to be reviewed. There were no cases that merited prosecution and that had exceeded the statute of limitations. If they exceeded statute and not able to prosecute that would be a "difficult conversation with the victim," so we wanted to be diligent in that regard.

Q: Is it important to notify the victim if the case will be prosecuted.
A: That is our goal. If someone is victim of crime, they would appreciate the courtesy of what is happening on case.

11:27 AM It's also important to notify the victim if the case will not be prosecuted but that is a little trickier. Decision could be to "sit on case," to hold off on prosecution and wait and see if there were other cases that got filed or other evidence to support prosecution.

Looking at Exhibit 2. Copy of memo that Jeff Broker (sp) prepared relating to cases beyond statute of limitations of cases assigned to Miriam Millstein. Mr. SKEELS received memo from Mr. Broker. Exhibit 2 moved into evidence.

11:33 am Marlea Dell'Anno made the review of these found files a priority once discovered. Jan Goldsmith, Mr. Broker, Mr. Thicksten did not indicate to Mr. Skeels that there was anything warranting disciplinary action against Marlea Dell'Anno or Miriam Millstein.

Mark Skeels attended a meeting with Tonya Tomlinson, Gina Coburn, Marlea Dell'Anno. Marlea Dell-Anno summarized that in the course of transferring Miriam files were found in the office. They raised concern about age of the files they were initiating an effort to find out ...

11:37 AM as much as we could about each of those cases. There was no discussion about any discipline concerns. Ms. Tomlinson, director of human resources, said she was grateful for the update and added, "Hey, lets put this on a slow play before taking it to Jan [Goldsmith]."

11:39 AM Mr. Skeels & Mr. Broker reviewed all the files and Ms. Marlea Dell'Anno also wanted to review the files for her own understanding. Discussion about need to prioritize work. Entering CMS status of files in which a decision was made not to prosecute was not high status.

11:40 AM During this time Miriam Millstein was seeking a job with the District Attorney and got hired by them. Mr. Skeels, with 10 years of experience in DAs office, wrote a letter of recommendation on her behalf. This was after the files were discovered and reviewed.

David Greenberg at the District Attorneys office also reviewed the files. Ms. Millstein-Hemming was hired by DAs office after the investigation.

11:45 AM Who is Cory Briggs? A local attorney who regularly filed lawsuits that put him at odds with Jan Goldsmith. Mr. Briggs ran for city attorney. Mr. Goldsmith asked Ms. Dell'Anno to prosecute Mr. Briggs for perjury related to the electronic filing of documents.

11:46 AM Ms. Dell'Anno refused to prosecute Mr. Briggs.

(I have to leave and will resume live-tweeting at 2:15 pm)

2:22 PM (I resume live-tweeting; proceeding already in progress.)
MARK SKEELS being examined on cross-examination about review of DV cases found in Miriam Millstein-Hemming's office.

Approximately 35 cases found in office where supervisor asked Ms. Millstein for follow-up. Mr. Skeels doesn't know if the follow-up was done. It's possible, with follow-up, case could've been filed with court.

2:26 Mark Skeels agreed this was a unique situation at the office that hadn't occurred before. He and Mr. Brooker boxed up the files to deliver to Marlea Dell'Anno.

2:29 PM Exhibit 2: after Mr. Brooker prepared the report Mark Skeels does not recall having a specific conversation about the report with him. Mr. Skeels told Miriam to coordinate with Mr. Brooker on the files she was bringing with her to the Appellate Unit.

Ms. Dellanno did not ask Mr. Skeels to discipline Miriam; discipline was never warranted. There were 14 cases approved for issuance with the court and that were not issued. There's more to explain about why that would happen.

Miriam is an exemplary attorney and did a fantastic job as a deputy. Mr. Thickun was not chief of DV unit. Ms. Dellanno was chief of the DV unit at the time the files were found in Miriam's office.

It's important to send follow-up letters to DV victims if a case is not issued so that they could pursue obtaining a restraining order if they chose. Mr. Skeels does not know if any of the victims were notified of the decision not to issue charges.

CMS data gets added when the police refer the matter for prosecution and that information would be in system in the event other charges were filed. Ms. Dell-Anno expressed an interest in personally reviewing all of the files.

Mr. Skeels was having a sexual relationship with Mr. Dell'Anno during the time the files were being reviewed. Mr. Skeels does not have any information about how long the files remained at her home. Mr. Skeels did not see any notes by Marlea Dell-Anno about the reviewed files.

Ms. Tomlinson was the HR director and Gina Coborn was her assistant. They were not attorneys nor responsible for the filing of cases. Ms. Coborn and Ms. Tomlinson did not suggest bringing this to the attention of Jan Goldsmith.

2:45 PM Instead, Ms. Tomlinson suggested that they put it on "slow play," and delay bringing to Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Skeels never had any conversation with ? about Ms. Dell'Anno bringing the files to her house.

COURT TAKES RECESS.

When Jan selected Mr. Skeels to be second in command, Mr. Skeels was having a sexual relationship with Mr. Dell'Anno. The relationship was intermittent but extended over the course of a year.

(Mr. in prior tweet should be Ms.)
When he did performance evaluation of ? and ? Mr. Skeels was having sexual relationship with Ms. Dell'Anno.

Exhibit 492. Conflict of Interest and Employee Conduct. Mr. Skeels is not familiar with document nor has he seen it before. If he'd been shown this before he would've been asked to sign it. Asks if they have a document like this with his signature?

Mr. Skeels asked if there were rules that no employee should directly supervise anyone else with whom they have a close sexual relationship? Not to his knowledge. There are rules about accepting favors and gratuities.

Exhibit 492-page 6: Has no recollection of having ever seen this policy and again, he would sign the HR documents he was shown but he does not recall ever seeing this document. "Anything I've been shown by HR during onboarding I was asked to sign."

Asked if it concerned him how it might look that he was having a sexual relationship with his supervisor. Mr. Skeels did not think it would impact their work; they didn't carry themselves openly as having a relationship during work hours so he didn't think it was an issue.

Mark ran for judge in 2019 - 2020. He contacted Marlea Dell'Anno and his ex-wife to let both know he was contemplating running and let them know that his sexual relationship with Ms. Dell'Anno might come up.

In contemplating a run for public office, lots of things come up during campaign and he wanted to know if his wife and Ms. Dell'Anno would have a problem. Discussed concerns with Ms. Dell-Anno that their political opponents might paint their relationship as improper.

Mr. Skeels did not have relationships with other co-workers. Ms. Manus and Ms. Hirschman were disappointed with their performance evaluations.
Mr. Skeels had discussions about how to make the Appellate Unit efficient but doesn't think his management style that was at issue.

Exibit 530. Email from Ruddenberg (sp) to Mr. Skeels. She was frustrated about a switch from written documentation to CMS. She was struggling about the way cases were being tracked and she was receiving negative treatment from Ms. McManus.

She wrote in email that looking in his office made her ill. Ms. Dell'Anno never gave him a performance evaluation. He doesn't remember one. He does not remember getting a performance evaluation while he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Dell'Anno.

At the time of the negative performance evaluations, the employees appealed their evaluation to Mr. Goldsmith, pursuant to a union contract that established procedure for grievances. City Attorney makes final decision pursuant to union contract.

At 3:32 PM Mr. Skeels excused to attend a previously scheduled doctor's appointment.
John Hemmerling is called as witness. Told if he's been vaccinated and boosted he can remove his mask. He said he'll remove mask only to drink some water.

John Hemmerling is the Assistant City Attorney and runs their criminal and community justice division. He texted Mr. Skeels after his termination. "You did some great things. You made incredible impacts in SPU (Special Prosecutions Unit). I truly appreciate ...

... your expertise and insight." There are five Assistant City Attorneys. In deposition he stated there were 4 Assistants. He doesn't recall if there are 4 or 5.
Jan Goldsmith appointed him as interim and when Mara Elliott was elected he was then appointed to the position.

Interim was used because he was filling vacancy and vacancy was caused by the termination of Ms. Dell'Anno. No Assistants lost their jobs or were terminated when Ms. Elliott was elected. Did not work close enough to Ms. Dell'Anno to know how she treated her co-workers.

John Hemmerling knew Marlea Dell'Anno to be professional and appropriate in every interaction that he had with her. Before he was appointed Interim, he served as Chief Public Safety and Labor Employment and worked advising city with labor and employment issues.

John Hemmerling has background in employment law. He served as counsel to chief of police. He knows Mark Skeels. Considers him to be a friend.

He recalled hearing that Ms. Dell'Anno was fired in retaliation but he did not investigate the claims further nor did anyone else at the office. Exhibit 456, city organizational chart, is published. Under chart, John Hemmerling would've been her supervisor as Special Projects

...Assistant City Attorney after he was appointed Interim. In Ms. Dell'Anno's new position she would have nobody reporting to her while Mr. Hemmerling had many people reporting to him. Mr. Hemmerling thought that unusual for an Assistant to be reporting to an Interim appointee.

3:58 PM. Investigation indicated that all the files in her office were reviewed. John Hemmerling admitted he does not have experience prosecuting domestic violence cases and has never prosecuted any domestic violence cases.

People expressed concerns. (About what, I don't know.
Having hard time hearing the attorney, microphone seems to be turned off.) Those concerns is that they felt it was hostile, at times, with some of the employees. Unpleasant demeanor, things like that.

These concerns were in reference to Marlea Dell'Anno.
John Hemmerling passed these concerns on at some point. He recognizes email he sent November 6th to Paul Cooper. Evidence #? moved into evidence and published.

4:11 PM Victims' services coordinator told John Hemmerling she thought that she had been bullied at times. Week or so after he was appointed to position he learned about the DV cases under review. He had not known that she had taken files to her home until they were returned.

Mike Georgino reviewed the files for John Hemmerling so they could know what was there. Exhibit 501. Mr. Georgino completed an inventory of the boxes. Boxes 2 - 3 contained 51 files CREs not completed. Caused him some concern.

Saw Mr. Booker's report about the filing. It appeared Marlea had custody of these files. Report stated, "There is potential for embarrassment" and potential for not holding accused offenders accountable. Witness is familiar with victims advocacy procedures for DV cases.

In an email, John Hemmerling stated Dell'Anno's CMS access cut off. Some files were "manipulated," and b/c certain persons have expanded access to make changes, they wanted to preserve files in state they were in so could look at without any potential for manipulation by anyone.

In email JH stated she should not come back until the DV cases were resolved. JH reviewed several of the files to see if the inventory was accurate. There were some approved to be issued but were not. Either sent to complaint desk and not processed or another reason ( I missed.)

Asked Nicole Crosby and Jeff (Last name?) to review these DV files. While at City Attorneys office he had disagreements with Jan about filing or not filing cases but does not think Jan Goldsmith held grudge against him.

4:29 PM It is common for disagreements on filing decisions. Attorney assigned to the case could be overruled by Supervisor, Assistant City Attorney or the City Attorney. Does not think he was asked to do anything unethical by Jan Goldsmith.
COURT TAKES EVENING RECESS.

Resuming live tweet of Marlea Dell'Anno vs. City of San Diego. John Hemmerling is on the stand subject to re-cross exam by Defendant's attorney.
10:45 AM John Hemmerling resolved a complaint about an evaluation by Marlea Dell'Anno of Ms. Hirshbaum by removing the evaluation.

Mr. Hemmerling is excused as a witness. Plaintiff calls Paul Cooper. Mr. Cooper is instructed he can remove his mask if he's vaccinated. He's already taken it off. Mr. Cooper served as Executive Assistant City Attorney and was advisor to Jan Goldsmith.

Mr. Goldsmith believed him to be a colleague and friend. Ms. Marlea Dell'Anno was terminated because Jan Goldsmith lost confidence in her ability to run the criminal division. Ms. Dell'Anno did not react well to her reassignment. She was still Assistant City Attorney but

... in a different role. Agrees that a demotion is a serious employment action and asked if he thinks the decision to reassign Ms. Dell'Anno was a demotion. He stated that Jan Goldsmith did not consider it a demotion. Ms. Dell'Anno did not accept the assignment.

10:55 AM With regard to the decision to terminate Ms. Dell'Anno because of her management of others, do you recall something specifically that Ms. Dell'Anno said to any of her employees to cause her termination. Mr. Cooper was not present and not in the Criminal Division.

He does not recall any of the specifics about the complaints beyond that some employees thought they were being targeted and driven out of the office. Mr. Cooper cannot recall specific actions or decisions made by Dell'Anno other than her decision to rotate staff

assignments. Mr. Cooper is not aware if Jan Goldsmith was aware of these decisions to rotate. Re: an office trip to Napa, CA there was not enough money for everyone to attend. Mr. Cooper could only recall three people who complained about Ms. Dell'Anno at his deposition and

at trial despite being able to review documents if he wanted or needed. There's an intentional wall between civil division and criminal division and Mr. Cooper heard that morale was bad in the criminal division.

Can't recall any of the specific criticisms of those who complained about Ms. Dell'Anno. Ms. McManus thought a performance evaluation was not fair. There was a sense that the persons on the inner circle were getting the good assignments. He does not know what a good and bad

assignment would be considered in the criminal division. There could be good reasons for wanting to rotate staff into different positions.
11:06 Paul Cooper spoke to McManus, Hirschman and Lapin. Mr. Cooper doesn't know basis for Mr. Lapin's dissatisfaction with Ms. Dell'Anno.

Mr. Cooper was unaware that managers, including Mr. Goldsmith, are to bring to the attention any material or serious concerns they have about a subordinate's work performance in writing. Mr. Cooper has never gone to human resources with regard to his subordinates.

Mr. Cooper is not aware of any reprimands of Ms. Dell'Anno by Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Cooper volunteered that it would be odd to write-up an Assistant City attorney, but he agreed that the process still applied to Assistants. Mr. Cooper said it would be rare.

It was not true that Mr. Cooper was critical of Marlea Dell'Anno and her delay in responding to an email. Had authority to speak to Mr. Skeels and Ms. Dell'Anno about how quickly she responded to an email. He didn't need authority to have a conversation with Ms. Dell'Anno.

Ms. Dell'Anno and Mr. Skeels came in the office, shut the door and started yelling it was probably one of the most unprofessional conduct I've observed. Mr. Cooper didn't document it other than making a mental note of it and doesn't recall a particular email precipitating the

meeting. HR has the authority to reprimand and coach all employees of the city. Mr. Cooper is not aware if Mr. Goldsmith ever reprimanded Ms. Dell'Anno. Mr. Cooper assumes Mr. Goldsmith made an effort to coach Ms. Dell'Anno but he's not aware if he did.

11:19 AM Mr. Cooper believed Ms. Dell'Anno's management style was erratic but he couldn't recall anything specific that they did to warrant the description. Other deputy city attorneys observed the management style and described it as thus.

Mr. Cooper wanted to know the specifics of their complaints but he did not make note of the specifics. Generally people were not coming to Mr. Cooper with serious complaints. If they did, they would go to HR to write the complaint.

Mr. Cooper cannot recall any specific example of behavior that would qualify as "erratic." At some point, when asked by Mr. Goldsmith, whether Ms. Dell'Anno should be fired or given an assignment with reduced supervision, Mr. Cooper recommended termination.

Advocating for termination of an employee is a serious decision and Mr. Cooper would want to have as much information as possible to make that determination. Mr. Cooper believes he had that information in his mind when he was making that determination as to Ms. Dell'Anno.

Paul Cooper never made any attempt to ascertain the specifics of the complaints against Ms. Dell'Anno. (Missed a few minutes because of an incoming phone call.)

I don't have any specifics one decision that I can point to. Mr. Cooper did not do any research to refresh his recollection after the deposition and before today and did not review any documents to refresh his recollection.

Mr. Cooper doesn't recall any complaints of Mr. Lapin other than being rotated. Reviewed one or two documents before the deposition. Had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Goldsmith before deposition. Looked at the fact-finding into the mishandling of the domestic violence cases.

One of the reasons believed for the termination of Ms. Dell'Anno was that she did not react well to her reassignment. Mr. Cooper said that was untrue and impeached with his deposition statement to the contrary.

At some point Marlea Dell'Anno filed a FEHA complaint which would suggest she believed her firing was retaliatory. Exhibit 43. Email from Jan Goldsmith to [Tonya Tomlinson] in HR and Paul Cooper was CC'd.

In the email trail can see a prior email that Ms. Dell'Anno sent to Mr. Goldsmith at approximately midnight, responding to her reassignment. Marlea Dell'Anno wrote, "This reassignment is clearly retaliatory in nature ..." (and couldn't get the remainder verbatim).

11:41 AM She never indicated in this or in any email that the position was beneath her. Those were the words of Paul Cooper. Ms. Dell'Anno saw the termination as retaliatory and she refers to the decision as an adverse action.

Ms. Dell'Anno indicates that the adverse action was the most devastating event of her professional career. That email was sent at 12:47 am. Mr. Goldsmith responds at 8:14 am. Mr. Goldsmith responds "My intent is to fire her today."

From that day, 10/28/2015, on Mr. Goldsmith never backed off that position. He believed she refused the position and he was not going to reconsider keeping her in criminal division. Exhibit 43 moved into evidence, no objection.

11:43 AM Ms. Dell'Anno also indicates that she is going to file a DFEH claim based on her allegation of retaliation, discrimination and harassment and a claim based on allegation of retaliation and harassment should be investigated.

Paul Cooper assumes it is the city policy to investigate all claims of retaliation, discrimination & harassment. Mr. Cooper & city never made any effort to investigate her claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment. Mr. Cooper never asked that an investigation occur.

"The next email." (Mr. Goldsmith's response.) Mr. Cooper worked closely with Mr. Goldsmith around this time so he would've had a discussion about this email and Mr. Goldsmith's intent. Mr. Cooper doesn't recall the email.

Mr. Goldsmith writes "You have asked that I consider waiting until November 9th" and Mr. Cooper does not know what that refers. On October 31, 2015 she never indicated she would not take the new assignment, correct? She did not indicate in this email.

She had a converation with G. Coborn and T. Tomlinson and that was communicated to Jan Goldsmith but not in that email. Mr. Goldsmith wrote, "I made the decision that she will not continue and I will stick with it." Mr. Goldsmith never changed his mind as to his determination

to terminate. "My intent is to fire her today." That is not ambiguous. His belief is that she had refused the position. Cooper: She cannot continue as the ACA of the criminal division, that's true. Attorney: But that's not what he said. Cooper: Correct.

Cooper: I don't believe he made the decision to terminate her until the review of the DV files that was because Mr. Goldsmith believed she had refused the new position. Did Ms. Dell-Anno never told Mr. Cooper that she would not accept the community court role.

Ms. Dell'Anno never said the new role was beneath her. Mr. Cooper does not recall her saying that. It was his impression that he got from Ms. Coburn and Ms. Tomlinson. Ms. Dell'Anno stated this reassignment is clearly a demotion.

Mr. Cooper was involved in the fact-finding of the domestic violence files. Mr. Cooper did not agree with the characterization that he had a long history of not getting along with Ms. Dell'Anno.

Mr. Cooper states that Mr. Goldsmith told the witness he changed his mind about firing Ms. Dell'Anno.
Attorney: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Goldsmith after 10/28 where he indicated he was not going to fire Ms. Dell'Anno, after all?
Mr. Cooper: No.
LUNCH RECESS.

Court is back in session. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Dylan the regular bailiff is here. Two jury notes. The first is "What does EEO stand for?" Answer by court: Equal Employment Opportunity; it's a department within the city of San Diego.

Michelle Marie Mangan testifies. She is a financial forensics economic expert hired by the Plaintiff to share her opinion on the valuation of Ms. Dell'Anno's economic damages. Past component she places at 800K (I think?) Future component comes to 3 million and change.

Perks of Ms. Dell'Anno's continued employment include health benefits, automobile allowance and 401K retirement benefits. In order to receive pension benefits Ms. Dell'Anno would have to contribute and she was contributing at 7.62% of her salary.

Ms. Dell'Anno's statistical work life is to age 68.43 which would be October 11, 2037. Past loss of earnings are 1.2 million and future losses discounted = $3.2 million.

Offset earnings and benefits are what Ms. Dell'Anno has earned or is expected to earn. Expert reviewed the profit and loss statement, earning statement and tax return and considered expert opinion of Mr. Remus. She received FICA for 2 - 3 years but no health benefits or

employer contribution to retirement plan. Past loss is 435,757K, future loss is 2,130,265. Ms. Dell'Anno received her own contributions with interest. As result she was terminated from San Diego SRS? and ended her receipt of benefits. Ms. Dell'Anno requested return

of funds since she was terminated she needed that money to supplement her income and pay her living expenses. Early withdrawal of retirement carries a 12.5% penalty, or $10,605 and she paid on 2017 tax return.

Expert quantified Ms. Dell'Anno's annual benefit at time of $175,974 per year if she had not been terminated. We look at relationship between wage growth and interest rate. So because interest is out pacing wage growth to compute present value have to reduce the amount by 1.25%.

Past losses = $691,902, future losses $3,119,172. Expert has no other opinions not yet discussed. Plaintiff attorney rests. Defendant's counsel begins cross-examination.

Earnings analysis is supposed to be a projection of what Ms. Dell'Anno's earnings would have been if she had not been terminated but if jury concludes that she was properly terminated then she would not be entitled to those damages.

Employees make mistakes that cost them their job and that cost them money. But for you engaged in is a plausible scenario. It's up to jury to decide if she is entitled to it. I quantify the damages and that assumes a liability finding

so if there is no liability finding there is no damages. Based on documents I reviewed and historical earnings from the City of San Diego I quantified her damages through her economic worklife. Reason that opinion is based on projections is that you are making assumptions.

(NOTE: First person references in prior tweet are those of the expert testifying) Assumptions are inherent in the calculations. Other assumptions are how much Ms. Dell'Anno would have earned in the future.

Numbers expert quantified were through her worklife. October, 2037. Ms. Dell-Anno last worked for the city in 2015, so you assume that Ms. Dell-Anno would've continued to be employed by the city for another 22 years. This was based on the expert opinion of Mr. Remus.

Ms. Dell-Anno testified in deposition she assumed she would not be the Assistant City Attorney in charge of the Criminal Division because she didn't know who would be the next leader. Wanted to go back in a position where she could continue to make a living.

Ms. Dell'Anno was exploring her options. Your assumption doesn't factor in that Ms. Dell'Anno may not have been employed by the City at all when the next leader was elected.

Ms. Dell'Anno would have to survive six elections, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032 and 2036. It's a plausible situation that she could have been fired by the new leader. it's also plausible that she would still be employed. My calculation assumes she stays employed.

Calculation doesn't assume Ms. Dell'Anno would remain at the Assistant level but that she could be dropped to the Deputy City Attorney level. Because Ms. Dell'Anno had not worked two years as a Deputy City Attorney prior to working as an Assistant attorney

she would not have the good cause protections from termination. (Assistant level is an at-will position, Deputy position requires good cause for firing but only after two years continuous to vest right.) Expert's calculations were based on Ms. Dell'Anno's continued employment.

If it was valid for Ms. Dell'Anno to be terminated in January, 2017 then her damages would stop on that date. Projections are based on assumption that Ms. Dell'Anno would continue to work at the City Attorney's office either as an Assistant or a Deputy based on the vocational

expert, Mr. Remus. According to Mr. Remus, even if she was reduced from Assistant City Attorney to Deputy City Attorney the salary would remain the same. Expert never evaluated the job performance of Ms. Dell'Anno. The but-for earnings amount expert calculated is 219,967K ...

per year into the future begins as of January 1, 2021. Calculated based on her historical wage growth. The amount expert calculated was within the range of Mr. Remus' opinion. Mathematically if offset is artificially low will result in a higher damages expert.

Analysis didn't establish how much Ms. Dell'Anno starting own law firm would have cost and if she was employed by an established law firm she probably would have made more money. Expert defers to vocational expert. Analysis didn't establish something something.

Again, it's outside her expertise. Atty: "Your analysis didn't establish how having hundreds of trials would have increased her hireability. (sp?)" Again, it's outside expert's scope.

Publishes Exhibit 90-276. Economic Research Institute compiles salary data. Expert relied on Mr. Remus and Mr. Remus relied on ERI data. Expert says she thinks Mr. Remus relied on more than just that.

Median for personal injury attorney is 120K, median for all incumbants = 147,468 by averaging both median for all numbers. 146 that attorney keeps bringing up is an average of two other numbers.

Wage trends over the last 20 years show lawyers making average 148K in 2020. Salaries of lawyers in California are usually higher than others in the U.S. Again, defers to Mr. Remus. Relied on the conclusions of Mr. Remus in making her opinion.

Litigation attorneys make more than personal injury attorneys. Request to publish Defendant's Exhibit 537.

More experienced attorneys make more than less experienced attorneys. Correct. Q: Ms. Dell'Anno has 26 years experience as an attorney? A: I don't remember how many years.

Witness is read her deposition testimony to refresh her recollection that Ms. Dell'Anno worked 20 years at time of firing.
**They are referring to table now and rattling off numbers quickly I can't keep up with, especially since I can't see the document.

Survey median figure of 199K for 16 years experience means half of litigation attorneys with 16 years experience earn more than $199K. In 2020, Ms. Dell'Anno earned $202K in net profits from her law practice.

Median figure for 195K for 16 years instead of using 147, would reduce alleged damages by $50K a year. Yes. Approximately 850K is amount damages would be reduced by if used 16 year litigation attorney instead of Remus' numbers. If you're just talking about " ? " then yes.

Sorry - - have to run - - be back tomorrow am sometime. In the meantime, if you want to listen yourself, click on link and scroll down to Dept. C-2103. sdcourt.ca.gov/sdcourt/civil2…

Back in Marlea Dell'Anno v. City of San Diego. Paul Cooper is back on the stand. Cannot hear the attorney only the witness responses. Mr. Cooper talked about a meeting in which Ms. Dell'Anno and Mr. Skeels came into his office and Mr. Cooper said very little.

(on continued cross-examination by Defendant) Ms. Dell-Anno was upset in this meeting about an email in which Mr. Cooper inferred she didn't work hard. In a later meeting with ? Ms. Dell-Anno refused to attend if Mr. Cooper also attended and so he left.

In the spit battery case a homeless person spit on an officer. This officer reached out to discuss why the case wasn't issued and Mr. Goldsmith thought it should issue. Mr. Goldsmith was not upset with Ms. Dell'Anno for the filing decisions of this case or Cory Briggs.

As a prosecutor have discretion to decide when review a case if should be issued or rejected. There are disagreements on whether to file charges. If it's a close case several people will review it. Ultimately THE city attorney has the ultimate responsibility on whether to file.

Goldsmith never mentioned the spit battery case or the Cory Briggs decision as a basis for employment reassignment. Mr. Goldsmith began looking to reassign or terminate her at the end of summer, 2015. Mr. Goldsmith looked to replace her.

Garland [last name] at DAs office was approached about potentially taking the position in the event of a reassignment. [Missed some content here.] Exhibit 449? Do you recall receiving this email? "I do, now that I look at it." On October 28, 2015 Ms. Dell'Anno was

still employed. Received email in November of 2015 about missing DV files from John Hemmerling. Ms. Dell-Anno, Mr. Skeels, Ms. Millstein, Mr. Brooker interviewed in fact-finding process. Ms. Dell-Anno admitted she took files home and witness did not recall the reason why.

Showing witness Exhibit 36. Email sent to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Dell-Anno by Tanya Tomlinson in November ?, 2015: In email during interview referenced note pads containing notes. Top email. Witness doesn't recall receiving but recognizes it now? Ms. Dell'Anno said notes were

in files but there were no notes in the files. Then Ms. Dell-Anno said she would go through notepads at home to find the notes she made but would have to go through as the notes pads may also contain notes personal to herself and her family. She promised to deliver

the notes within 14 days and as soon as possible and Ms. Dell-Anno indicated she was anxious to return to work and assume her new duties in the reassigned position. (This is now re-direct examination by Plaintiffs attorney. I missed the switch.)

"Did you believe her"? "Yeah, I guess I did." In prior testimony about what precipitated the meeting with Skeels and DA was either an email, text or phone call, [note previously indicated it was an email] Mr. Skeels did not say much of anything.

(DA in prior tweet should be Ms. DellAnno) Mr. Skeels did not raise his voice. Meeting could have taken place in 2013 or 2014. Did not see anything in writing before Spit Battery case that indicated Mr. Goldsmith was not happy with Ms. DellAnno.

Mr. Goldsmith told Mr. Cooper that he told the officer in the spit battery case that he would review the case. Exhibit 28. Moves into evidence, redacts the suspects name and publishes.

knew from tone that he was not happy with Ms. Dell-Anno instructing someone not to contact Mr. Goldsmith. Ultimately up to City Attorney to make the decision to file charges. The attorney filing the case must ethically believe the charges are warranted and can't be

forced to sign the case. Most of what he was upset about was that this officer had been reprimanded about contacting THE City Attorney and he didn't believe that appropriate. Mr. Goldsmith wrote "If you won't try it, I will."

Would be extremely rare for an elected City Attorney to try any case. Another prior city attorney tried a few cases but it is rare. Would it be odd for Mr. Goldsmith to try a misdemeanor case?.

Mr. Cooper says all the office does are misdemeanors. [Editor note: no, the office also handles civil matters and infractions.] Ms. Dell-Anno brought the files and noted there were additional notes she would eventually turn over.

Re-re-cross exam: Mr. Cooper is not aware of any promise by Mr. Goldsmith to the officer to prosecute the spit battery. Right before sent the email about the spit battery Mr. Goldsmith was most concerned that an officer who had reached out to him with concerns about a case

had been reprimanded by his captain for doing so. he was not happy about that. Does not know who Mark Robertson is. Assume he was a deputy City Attorney. The deputy city attorney had reached out to the officer to tell him it was inappropriate to contact the City Attorney.

Not aware that Ms. Dell-Anno had ever instructed the deputy to do as he did. When Goldsmith wrote, "it is entirely up to me to decide whether any communication to me is appropriate," was referring to this.

I have to take a break from live-tweeting to get work done and anticipate I'll be in the courtroom attending live this afternoon and may not be able to use electronic devices when there. If you want to listen, scroll down to C-2103 link here: sdcourt.ca.gov/sdcourt/civil2…

Marlea Dell'Anno takes the stand in her trial against the city for wrongful termination. REMINDER: If you are a juror in this case you cannot read this thread until after a verdict is rendered.

Ms. Dell'Anno attended undergraduate college at Delaware University and went to San Diego, California Western School of Law to attend law school. Ms. Dell'Anno had wanted to be a lawyer to help others. Her father had wanted to be an attorney but never had done so.

Ms. Dell'Anno was on the debate team in college and was good at it. After graduating from law school Ms. Dell'Anno went to work for Barker & Associates, a firm that provided conflict counsel for indigent defenders.

She worked there for (didn't hear how long) and when she left she went to Tulare County Public Defender . She started at the Misdemeanor unit and then was promoted up to the Felony unit. While there she handled

serious felonies, home invasion robbery and homicides. They asked her to handle Death Penalty cases but she didn't believe in death penalty and did not want to handle those. In 2004, pregnant with her daughter, doctor advised her to remain in bed rest due to complications.

Ms. Dell'Anno took a leave of absence. When her daughter was born on 9/20/2004 Ms. Dell'Anno made the decision to leave the public defender's office. She wanted to become a DA but the Fresno DA's office didn't usually hire ex-public defenders. So Ms. Dell'Anno entered

private practice. Ms. Dell'Anno was handling a homicide against the Fresno DA. At the end of the case the DA handling the case invited her to submit an application. Ms. Dell'Anno was elated! Ms. Dell'Anno's interview process was over several rounds.

She interviewed first with the 1st level interviewers, after passing review she met with all the chiefs. She was asked back again and met with the DA and her assistants. They told her they wanted to hire but first she had to meet with the new Homicide chief who did not like

hiring ex-public defenders. Ms. Dell'Anno would have to convince her to set aside her reservations. And she did. When she was offered the job at Fresno DA she was happiest she'd ever been and her proudest moment.

She started out in the prelim unit and then she was transferred to the sex crimes and domestic violence unit. She mostly handled "life top" which meant that the maximum sentence on the case was a life term, among the most serious of cases.

All of this suddenly came to an end one day when her husband, who worked at a prestigious civil law firm in Fresno, told her that he had accepted a job in San Diego. Ms. Dell'Anno was surprised by this announcement and did not have a reason to give her employer as to why

she and her husband were suddenly leaving town. Ms. Dell'Anno scrambled and submitted resume for job as Deputy City Attorney in San Diego. Ms. Dell'Anno had only one interview and it was with Dave Greenberg and Jan Goldsmith in Jan Goldsmiths' office.

She was offered the job on a Friday and started work the following Monday. [This is out of order, but I neglected to include that Ms. Dell'Anno was the happiest she had been in her job in Fresno. She told people she would've done that job for free.

Ms. Dell'Anno was very upset about leaving Fresno and for the way her then-husband had told her. Her parents had very recently sold her childhood home in D.C. and moved to Fresno to be nearby. Ms. Dell'Anno was distraught.

Ms. Dell'Anno stated that was the beginning of the end of their marriage. She began work in the San Diego Office of the City Attorney in September, 2009. Ms. Dell'Anno was Lead Deputy trying misdemeanors and was responsible for supervising 4 - 5 deputies.

Then in 2010 Ms. Dell'Anno was appointed as Chief of the Domestic Violence unit. In that position she started supervising about 10 or 11 attorneys but then brought on additional attorneys so the number she was supervising grew.

UGH: I have to skedaddle. But listen for yourself (dept 2103) at the link below. I'll return at 2 pm-ish. sdcourt.ca.gov/sdcourt/civil2…

(Resuming Marlea Dell'Anno vs. City of San Diego in the wrongful termination lawsuit against the city.
Ms. Dell'Anno resumes the stand still under direct examination.) (testimony already underway that I missed, but discussion pertained to Mark Robertson advising the

police officer in the spit battery case had contacted Jan and then-Captain Nisleitand was livid that ... objection, calls for speculation, sustained ... (Ed. note, no comment...yet) Mr. Goldsmith forwarded an email to Ms. Dell'Anno on Christmas eve at 6:47 am.

On this date Ms. Dell'Anno was Assistant City Attorney Criminal Division Chief. The email directed Ms. Goldsmith to review the case and share her thoughts with him which she did. Jan Goldsmith told her that it was up to him who he spoke to but Jan was mistaken because

Ms. Dell'Anno hadn't spoken to the deputy, another attorney Mark Robertson in the office had done so independent of her. "I wouldn't have done it I wouldn't have let my deputies do it and .. Absolutely not." Ms. Dell'Anno had never directed her deputy appeared to me that Jan

thought I had told someone not to him which was absolutely not true. Spit battery conclusion that the case could not be issued based on the evidence and given our ethical standards as prosecutors.

And, when Jan said that please note in the file if the case does not settle I will try the case, what was your impression. I was stunned made it very clear that he was very invested. He said he would absolutely love to see suspect on the witness stand.

there was a meeting with Mr. Skeels and myself and Mr. Goldsmith I believe that it was before this but I'm not sure. ON 12/30/2014 what was Mr. Goldberg's [sic]? directive to you in regard to the case? Spit battery came into the City Attorney's office, I don't know exactly, but

I heard about it around or on Christmas Eve. And when Mr. Goldsmith asked you take a look at the spit battery case what did you do next? I asked for the case file and solicited the assistance of my deputies. The components of the spit battery case include the police report,

the CAD report of radio communication before they arrive on the scene, I wanted to look at the whole case there were some things missing. There should've been body worn camera footage and I wanted to know that there was so many officers there and no body worn camera footage.

Did seek and obtain the Body Worn Camera footage from midcity. Document is email from Mark Robertson to chief of issuing and myself, Mr. Skeels,her #2 and Julie ledesma,the Chief of the Neighborhood Prosecution Unit, and Ms. Hernandez was chief of the issuing unit.

Mark Robertson was in the neighborhood prosecution unit, they would work at the divisions giving advice. I thought that was important that Jan would see that I hadn't done what he accused, I was being asked to pass on an apology from the Captain and I thought that was

important to pass on to Jan. At some point after this email she put all of her thoughts into writing and her decision to support her deputies not to issue the case. Ms. Dell'Anno (1) wanted to highlight that thsi is the greatest thing about being a prosecutor.

The goal isn't to win. The goal is justice. So in the middle of the trial you get evidence that kills your case it shouldn't bother you because justice is done. We're never afraid to say we made a mistake. In my career decided whether to file charges many times.

First prong, do you have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That high standard is unique to criminal cases. No other cases have a standard that high. The second prong, even if I do have those things, is it in the interest of justice, given the

surrounding circumstances, is that the right thing to do. And if you don't have both prongs you don't issue. There should have been reports documenting witness statements. There were conflicting statements and there were issues of mental health and we wanted to let the officer

know that the decision was not like we don't support you or think you're important but here's some things that we need to consider. If the court grants the defense motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause the case is done. There were some statements in the police

report that indicated this person was saying things that were threatening and I had an opportunity to actually get the body worn camera footage and asked Hans ? in our office who spoke Vietnamese fluently so we could ascertain what the exchange was between the officer & suspect.

Words were jibberish, he was not making any clear threat. He thought officer was Ho Chi Minh, didn't know what a cop was and he was clearly out of his mind. First element of battery on a peace officer is that he know that the person is a peace officer.

I thought those facts were important for Jan to know. I'd never seen Jan so angry before. Objection move to strike granted as to the last. (Ed. note: no comment.) Of course I'm supportive of law enforcement but cannot in good conscience sign a misdemeanor criminal complaint

in this case. Ms. Dell'Anno was needed to sign the complaint because others in the office had already rejected the case and Jan had directed Ms. Dell'Anno to file. Ms. Dell'Anno explained there is nothing more important than my prosecutorial ethics and I'm not going to

compromise them over a misdemeanor or a felony, not for anything or anyone and I have a reputation I've built and I'm not going to compromise that. I'm just not. The defense would've been on notice that the box was not checked indicating the existence of additional evidence.

She did not have the body worn camera evidence when first reviewing the case. The police reports were vastly different from the body worn camera evidence and the officer hadn't checked the box to indicate that there was body worn camera evidence.

I was part of the team about how to handle the body worn camera evidence and I knew they were required to make clear in their report when a body camera existed and they failed to do so. Ms. DellAnno told Jan in the memo she was confident when he had an opportunity to look at

the body worn camera evidence you will see the problems that I identified. I had several deputies who reviewed the footage and we all came to same conclusion. Another problems is that there were eight or nine officers standing around laughing at this elderly man

and to me it was appalling. I would usually run cases by everyone in the office, paralegals, attorneys, anyone. I"m not afraid to say I'm wrong. I solicited other opinions and I wanted to hear other ideas. No other deputy indicated they would issue the case.

Was very scared writing that memo. I had never before seen Jan so angry and I had seen what happened to other people in my position. Objection, foundation, that's 352 your honor. Sustained. I was never put in this position before and I was concerned at the level of anger

that was gonna come my way for my decision in this case. When did the meeting take place with respect to the spit battery case. Sometime before this memo but don''t know when it was in relation to not communicating with the deputy but was within a few days of Christmas.

Mr. Skeels, Mr. Goldsmith and Ms. Dell"Anno held a meeting to discuss the case. She was hoping when she says things when angry could regret things and thought if gave Mr. Goldsmith some more evidence to look at and give him a basis for him to say, "I see what you're seeing," and

quite frankly it's what I was hoping and it's what I expected. on her way to deliver the memo she ran into Mr. Cooper and asked if he would sit down with Jan to discuss.

Mr. Cooper laughed, told me he didn't need to see it and told me he had advised Jan to issue even more charges on the case. At this point did you know if Mr. Cooper had looked at any of the evidence. I didn't know.

I discussed it with Mr. Skeels and my secretary Beta Johnson (sp?), asked for her input, does it sound okay. Discussed it with my chiefs. I wanted to make sure that my tone was respectful. I didn't want him to feel like I was challenging him. I just wanted to give him

the information non-confrontationally. Shared contents of memo with Mr. Skeels because he was my partner in running the division, I trusted his judgment and wanted to make sure that it was worded most effectively. This next document was placed on her desk in response

to this memo. Is that a fair and accurate depiction of the note that was placed on your desk? Ex. 545 moved into evidence, hearsay, not on exhibit list and does not contain redactions. Sustained. When she received the note she sent the Memo to the Chief of Issuing asking them

to add additional counts to the police officer battery of general battery and count three of assault of the individual. Who was directing you to do those things. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained. Who placed this memo on your desk. Mr. Goldsmith.

How did you know that? Because I watched him walk in to my office and slam it down on my desk. What did you understand this to be Ms. Dell:Anno? An order by Jan to not only charge the count recommended by police department but to issue additional charges and file the case.

I was very disappointed. I was also concerned and confused about the level of anger. Are you familiar with Mr. Goldsmith's signature? yes. And did he have a practice of leaving notes like this on your desk? Objection foundation. Lack of knowledge. Sustained.

Mr. Goldsmith rarely came down to the criminal division. it was a big deal when he did. How did you feel about his insistence that you file. objection leading and argumentative. Sustained. This was an email chain that was forwarded to me by my chief of issuing Hernandez

and the police officer Mr. Dowler (sp?) Last page of the exhibit ...407-3 ..... this is the initial email from Matt Dowler the police officer to Jan Goldsmith... that he sent on date at time (missed). Next email who was this from From Goldsmith to Mr. Dowler, cc'd to myself

and ... (one more person I missed). Mr. Goldsmith wanted me to look at the file, which is why I was cc'd on the case. Did you get offer to get back to the officer when you conducted your review. Yes. And did you? I did not. This meeting was after (something - missed) and by

this time had expressed to Mr. Goldsmith that filing this case was not ethical. When he stated this can and should be issue how did that make you feel? Very concerned. On page 1 this is from Chief Deputy Hernandez to Officer Dowler.

Request for affidavit supporting arrest warrant. Do you see that part? What does that mean? If a person wasn't arrested but taken for a 5150 mental examination. Because the individual was homeless there was no address to serve it to and so we needed the police officer who

wrote the report to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting to probable cause before the warrant would issue. January 8, three days after her memo to Jan, Deputy Hernandez requested an arrest warrant of the arresting officer.

The police department then declined to sign the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant which meant the case could not be issued. Red Arrow cases were cases in the media or with high profile issues that could reflect some way on the office .

Work relationship with Mr. Goldsmith deteriorated after refusal to issue the spit battery case. First thing that happened was Paul Cooper advised me that the Chief of Police had told Mr. Goldsmith the case should be not be issued and

they told me they would not Obj Hearsay; Party Opponent. Overruled Chief Zimmerman met with Jan and told him OBJ Hearsay as to Zimm. Sustained. Mr. Cooper told her that Jan's really pissed. Ms. Dell'Anno learned in court, when someone handed her a memo sent to everyone in the

office except her. The memo said Jan was going to have open door Fridays to discuss problems with everyone in the staff going on in the criminal division. I knew that day that my job was in jeopardy and I was stunned. This was very upsettting.

After seeing the email, I was in court, I thought I was having a heart attack, I went to urgent care and then was taken to the hospital. They determined at the hospital I hadn't had a heart attack but had elevated heart rate due to stress. Ms. Dell'Anno had to leave court and

went from urgent care to the hospital for tests. Ms. Dell'Anno called her secretary and instructed her obj. foundation assumes facts. Overruled. To let her know she couldn't return to work because undergoing series of tests. Not for truth of the matter,

effect on hearer. Overruled. Ms. Ledesma approached Ms. was approached by Ms. Sandoval and asked her OBJ hearsay sustained. Ms. Dell'Anno felt embarrassed because Before this does not recall any discussions with Ms. Sandoval but I delivered the memo to her and she would've

.. OBJ Sustained. Exhibit 520 Still married. Yes. Did agree to lead separate romantic lives. Beginning of the decline was in 2009 because my husband quit his job and took a job somewhere else without telling me and right after it was a big betrayal. It hurt hard. Y

Ms. Dell'Anno's youngest son not even 6 months old at this time. Two daughters were 4 and 5 years old. At some point did you decide to no longer live together. Yes. March of 2015. And did the relationship with your husband ever cost you any emotional distress or harm.

A couple years prior to that there was another incident that was sad and devastating that made it clear we would no longer be a romantic couple but we did not share bed or a room and so back at the time the second thing happened, that bothered me a lot but when he officially

moved out we had come to terms. The marriage was not source of stress in 2015. We had already been not living in the same room and we got along and we are still good friends and we will always be good friends. IN March of 2015 her marriage was no longer a source of distress.

January 3, 2017 was when lawsuit was filed. During the first few days of the year in 2017 did you believe your marriage was a source of distress. No. 545 published. Received. That is the memo that was attached to the file when it was thrown on my desk.

how is it that you received this note? Jan came down to my office and slammed it on my desk in front of me. It happened a day after I gave him the memo. This memo is dated January 5th Mr. Goldsmith used this memo pad to leave notes to her in the past, just not in this manner.

What did Mr. Goldsmith mean by adding count two general battery. A general battery wouldn't require proof that the suspect knew the person battered was a police officer. The charge police alleged was battery on a police officer which required specific intent. And he wanted me

to add a third count of assault. I knew then that my memo had not been received well. Why? Not only was he not agreeing with decision not to charge but he wanted additional charges and the manner of delivery was very aggressive. The fact that he came down to that floor when

he was very rarely there and the manner he delivered the file he demonstrated to Ms. Dell'Anno that he was angrier than she had thought. Exhibit 520. At this point, Ms. Dell'Anno thought she should start looking for another job. Sent spit battery memo on 5th, so 6 days later.

Ms. Dell'Anno had reached out to some friends about looking for other employment and about running some kind of program recognized that I had a skill set for building programs and managing people I really loved and she was on the board of directors of the YMCA and so I

wanted to discuss with her about being a director of one of their programs. I didn't want to disparage the office and I didn't want ... I was the primary breadwinner . Did you hold meetings in your division. We had monthly meetings sometimes more often if issues came up but a

regular monthly meeting. Division wide meetings - all division and everyone. usually have some cookies and we all were getting together and talking about accomplishments and give out recognition that deputies had done and our support staff.

It was a time for us all to get together. Mr. Mercer was the President of the Deputy City Attorneys Association. Did you ever see a letter from Mr. Mercer. I did. This is the document that was provided to me, the letter that was given to Mr. Goldsmith by Mr. Mercer.

Marked as exhibit ??
There was a complaint received because she directed deputies to just do their work and don't gossip. Prior to meeting there had been complaints about people sharing personal information and other things that really should not be discussed in the office.

I went to Tonya Tomlinson and asked her how best to convey that message to deputies. Jan's secretary Carmen Sandoval gave it to her. Ms. Dell'Anno responded to the allegations raised by Mr. Mercer. Jan was told me it would be a good idea for me to provide a response. I did.

It is dated March 3?, 2015. First step in writing response was to review the letter. Division wide meeting was held regularly, maybe quarterly. One of them was on February 12, 2015. The purpose of that meeting was scheduled to be a training I believe and I had spoken to Tonya

about how to address these issues. There were some professioanl and private matter that the attorneys in the office were discussing in office and in court and deputies were complaining that this information was being shared freely in the office. And this concerned me because

every person has a right to privacy and when you are a public servant it is not an appropriate use of your time to disclosing confidential personal information to other people in the office. Prior to 2015 received complaints from deputies that wished to address at that division

wide meeting. I received information about people sharing personal, confidential and professional information in the office and in courts that could be damaging to their personal and professional relationships. I wanted to give to Mr. Goldsmith that he could provide a response

to Mr. Mercer that he was not present at the meeting but that wasn't my intent to interfere with their constitutional rights. Marlea always did what Tonya advised her to because she was the head of Personnel. She was kinda like the gate keeper for Mr. Goldsmith.

Talked about putting self in other people's shoes and because sometimes people say things off-handedly and they just don't think things through I think everybody does that and so I cautioned them that before they say anything they might want to step in their shoes and how that

would make you feel to have coworkers sharing personal information about you and talking about that information in court. Were you trying to violate your deputies constitutional rights. I would never violate anyone's first amendment right. The purpose was to address complaints.

If there are complaints about the deputies I would talk to Tonya about how to handle them, she advised me I took her advice and in the way that was the best way to discuss it witgh the deputies. After the "open door" memo went out that people who were upset they had been passed

over for promotion in the division, and Jan knew that, we had talked about that previously, this was bizarre, like it was concocted against her . I found the allegations not as much disappointing as weird, given the spirit and context in which it was stated. She believes

Mr. Mercer's letter was .... [missed what was said.] She wrote "this" shortly thereafter, Tonya Tomlinson and Jan Goldsmith were present at this meeting and the outcome of that meeting was that someone wrote a response on behalf of the city to Mr. Mercer. She was never asked

to retract any of the comments she made at the meeting. She felt he was supportive in response to the Mercer letter but everything started to get very strange ...It was very clear based on everything I knew about Jan Goldsmith since September 2009 what was happening.

It's not what I believe, I know it was happening, Mr. Goldsmith was building a case to terminate me. Before February and March of 2015 was not aware of any issue about his comments at division wide meetings nor any complaints against her personally by the union, nor any issue

with her management style.
Moving on to talk about Cory Briggs. Cory Briggs is a lawyer that does civil lawsuits he represents taxpayers and interests and usually against governmental entities. At some point in early February, 2015 he became aware that Mr. Goldsmith wanted

to file criminal charges against Cory Briggs. Called up to office. He was in a good mood so I was happy. How did you become aware that he wanted to file criminal charges against Mr. Briggs because he told me. I wasn't anxious to go down the spit battery road again and he was

discussing filing forgery charges and perjury that a handwriting expert had stated he had submitted documents to the court that did not match his signature Charges weren't viable. You can direct someone to sign your name or direct someone to order an electronic signature.

It was done at his request and was not a forgery. She told Mr. Goldsmith that she wanted to look at everything to see if there were charges that could be filed but there were no criminal charges that could be filed. Mr. Cory Briggs had done nothing illegal.

Communicated the results of the research. This time did not do in writing but she let a little time pass so she could make sure nothing was missing and then she went up to his office that I didn't think we could file this.

If we wanted other charges to be considered should forward to the DA's office as their office might have a conflict. Ms. Dell'Anno told Mr. Goldsmith that there was no legal violation. Mr. Goldsmith's face got red. He was talking to her through a closed mouth. I don't know

how to explain it. He was angry. I've known him long enough to know he was angry. It was conflict of interest to file charges against Cory Briggs because they had a very public history of being opponents in very highly charged cases. It was well known in the media.

In response, he dismissed her from his office. She felt unsettled and not in a good place with him. I was contacted by the chief of the consumer protection unit because Mr. Goldsmith had directed her to his office, told her that she was to review the case for criminal charges,

that she was not to talk to Marlea Dell'Anno about this and only to Paul Cooper. Mr. Goldsmith gave a directive to Assistant City Attorney Dan Bamberg because Mr. Goldsmith had told him OBJ, Hearsay, Sustained. Did that raise any flags that my subordinates were being told

not to talk to me about a decision in the criminal division. Yes, because it was unheard of. He was cutting me out of my own charge of command and division chief was uncomfortable with it. Obj. Speculation. Sustained. She was the Chief of the Consumer Protection Unit.

Before 2015 had you ever before been walled off on a decision. No. If it happened I was never told. After all that happened with the issuing charges on Mr. Briggs, what happened next. So there was the incident where I was at a meeting with the Sheriffs' Department on community

court and I started to get a barrage of texts from the deputies. Obj. Hearsay. Her state of mind. What did she do after she got the text messages. Sustained. What did you do after you got the text messages from your deputy?

At some point I asked him why he came down to the office Friday February 13, 2015 to asking people with the specific words, "tell me about Ms. Dell'anno, is she heavy handed? Objection calls for speculation. Sustained.

At some point you had a meeting with Mr. Goldsmith and Ms. Tonya Tomlinson about an assessment of the criminal division and what prompted that meeting?
Was told that Jan Goldsmith was going to conduct an independent review of the Criminal Division and Mike Littlefield of the

office would conduct that review. At the meeting with Jan and Tonya, Ms. Dell'Anno was confused why that was happening and wanted to speak with them about why and also ask that if that was going to happen that there be a written report and I was told that there would not be

a written report. Before that investigation was not aware of any complaints levied and was not told about the investigation before the meeting with Jan and Tonya. The reason for the assessment on the criminal division that she was told was ... hearsay, sustained.

Mr. Goldsmith would be coming to our division wide meeting. Her belief that this was a specially scheduled meeting but that Mr. Goldsmith was going to head the meeting. Having boss inform you about an independent investigation and he's going to take over the division wide

meeting I knew and he was doubling down trying to find a way to fire me, then I found out he deliberately scheduled the division chief meeting for when I would be in jury duty and not around to defend myself.

COURT IN RECESS UNTIL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27.

@UnrollHelper unroll please