Riverside’s suit against Councilmember Conder lives on

Riverside Superior Judge Eric Keen ruled not to throw out Riverside’s case against Councilmember Chuck Conder on Dec. 12.

Riverside filed suit on Feb. 14, 2023, alleging that Conder violated the confidentiality of closed city council meetings as established in the Brown Act. The suit claimed that Conder and former councilmember Steven Adams shared information about a lawsuit with a litigant appearing against the city, Tony Platt. Conder and Adams also disclosed confidential information through declarations filed in the Platt litigation, according to the city’s petition. Platt and the city are still engaged in the suit, over a lease at the Riverside Airport.

The city asked for Conder and Adams to be ordered by a judge not to disclose any more confidential information and for a judge to determine that the information they did share was confidential.

Conder and Adams asked Keen to throw out the suit, saying that they could not be sued for comments made in a lawsuit. California Civil Code Section 47, the litigation privilege, generally protects statements made during court proceedings. They also argued that the city cannot prove that their actions violated the Brown Act. Keen ruled that the defendants did not prove either argument.

As far as the litigation privilege, the defendants' motion did not go line by line, supporting each element of defense under Section 47 as required by case law, Keen ruled. He also found that the litigation privilege does not apply to this type of case: it only extends to protect people from being sued for damages. In this action, the city is seeking declarations of wrongdoing and an injunction.

Regarding the Brown Act issue, Conder and Adams claimed there was no merit to the alleged Brown Act violation. The Brown Act, which is known for opening public meetings, also required information shared between city representatives and city council in closed session regarding lawsuits to be confidential.

The defendants submitted a transcript of a hearing in the Platt case to show that the judge in that case found the information was not confidential. They also submitted their own declarations in which they said they never revealed attorney-client communications.

Keen ruled that the trial transcript, which did not detail the disclosed information, was not enough evidence to prove their case.

“In summary, Defendants fail to meet their initial burden of producing evidence to show either that Plaintiffs’ causes of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense,” Keen ruled.

Keen's ruling does not end the case. It only denies Conder and Adam's request to throw it out.

Former Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco represents Conder and Adams. Jeffery Morris of Temecula’s Devaney Pate Morris & Cameron represented the city.

Former city attorney Phaedra Norton filed the case for Riverside. She brought a whistleblower complaint on Feb. 21, alleging she was retaliated against for bringing the action, the Raincross Gazette reported. She was fired without cause or explanation on April 15. She now works at the Indian Wells law firm Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphey & Pinkney.

City Attorney’s Termination Comes with Six-Figure Price TagTermination without cause could cost Riverside taxpayers up to $163,000 following years of council conflict.The Raincross GazetteAidan McGloin

Next: Judge orders Trump to end National Guard deployment, calls LA mission ‘profoundly un-American’

Demonstrators protest against recent ICE immigration raids as National Guard officers stand guard in front of a federal building in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

A federal judge has ordered the National Guard to leave Los Angeles and return to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s control in a stern rebuke of the Trump administration’s contention that it can leave troops in the city indefinitely.

Read it here