This is a crude, unprofessional image of a public court document that was filed on April 14, 2015, one day after John Caldecott and the N-MUSD faced off in court to determine whether to make public the documents Caldecott alleges shows financial improprieties by Supt. Fred Navarro (who does not live here – he lives in Long Beach).
I found this document through a routine search of online court records. Sorry about the quality. Frankly, I am surprised I was able to include it all.
I’m no attorney and I have not yet consulted one to determine the exact nature of this page, but I know this: It is a cover sheet to fulfill a request under seal for documents by Judge Geoffrey T. Glass. Judge Glass is requesting these documents from the district. It reads, “Respondent Newport-Mesa Unified School District (‘Newport-Mesa’) submits the attached documents under seal pursuant to the April 14, 2015 telephonic direction from the clerk in Department C32. In the event that the Court is inclined to release of any documents, Newport-Mesa respectfully requests the opportunity to respond in the form of written briefing under seal to the Court.”
The question is, what documents did Judge Glass request? The documents could be something like lists of communications between the two attorneys, it could be some unknown information Glass needs to make his decision, or it could very well be that Glass has requested the documents that Caldecott has said he wants to become public.
That is a distinct possibility but may not be correct. After all, wouldn’t the judge have already had them in his possession prior to making the preliminary decision he made before the April 13 hearing? (That prelim indicated that he was inclined to decline their release)
Since the other options are not very exciting, let’s run with the possibility that he has requested the Caldecott documents. If so, it means that this judge, whom I called “thoughtful” in a previous post, is proving my point. If he has requested the Caldecott documents, Glass is doing exactly what he should do – review and analyze the documents to determine whether the taxpayer’s right to know if financial improprieties were committed trumps an individual’s right to privacy.
My question from day one has been this: If some financial improprieties were committed and Judge Glass decides against Caldecott, will taxpayers never know if the superintendent broke the rules?
That would be a crime greater than the ones that are alleged in the documents.