From [HERE] Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva may still face a subpoena from the county’s inspector general over his knowledge of “deputy gangs” within his department, but a judge ruled Tuesday he can first challenge it on grounds of legitimacy or overbreadth.

Villanueva had asked the court to step in and block the subpoena because sitting for an interview would take away too much time from his duties as an elected official. But Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant wrote in a tentative ruling that sitting for interviews with the inspector general is part of the sheriff's job.

The current legal scuffle between Villanueva and the Office of the Inspector General stems from the sheriff's refusal to honor a subpoena over rogue gangs within the department’s ranks. In a petition filed this year, Villanueva called the subpoena “too broad, harassing” and said as the head of a government agency he’s not subject to depositions.

But on Tuesday, Chalfant ruled the California Legislature grants “the inspector general broad discretion to issue subpoenas whenever he ‘deems’ it ‘necessary or important’ without requiring any showing of good cause or a compelling reason.” Villanueva in turn has the right to challenge the subpoena in court before contempt proceedings can occur.

Villanueva had argued LA County Inspector General Max Huntsman’s tactics to secure the interview are intrusive and he is “leap-frogging right to the top” by threatening the sheriff with the subpoena.

In December 2020, Villanueva appeared before LA County’s Civilian Oversight Commission for a little over an hour where he answered questions about deputy gangs, and did so again in January 2021. Villanueva answered questions about policies and procedures he implemented since taking office in December 2018 and also provided a video on “deputy secret societies” and sought feedback from the civilian commission.

Huntsman emailed Villanueva in January 2021 to set up an interview time, but Villanueva said it was short notice. He asked the inspector general’s office to send over their questions. On March 2, 2021, Huntsman hit Villanueva with a subpoena to submit to a 90-minute interview under oath.

Villanueva says he’s been up front about what he knows about deputy gangs and Huntsman’s need to interview him is unclear. He also asked the court to block all future subpoenas.

But Chalfant wrote that as an elected official, the sheriff is co-equal to the LA County Board of Supervisors which created the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to assist supervising the sheriff.

“The sheriff refused to meet with the inspector general voluntarily and his desire for an order protecting him from all future subpoenas reflects his disdain for OIG oversight,” wrote Chalfant.

Villanueva argued Huntsman was looking for a “gotcha” moment where he would catch the sheriff on a minute detail. And while Huntsman offered Villanueva the opportunity to bring an assistant to help during the interview, Villanueva declined and said Huntsman issued a subpoena with no “compelling reasons” and should use “lesser intrusive means” to get his answers.

Chalfant found that's not how the Legislature intended an inspector general to function.

“The sheriff is not permitted to thwart the inspector general’s mandate by directing the manner in which the OIG conducts oversight,” wrote Chalfant. “A contrary rule would permit the sheriff to evade interview and obstruct oversight by demanding written questions or by requiring an interview of a lower-level official he designates.”

He added: “Contrary to the sheriff’s claim that an appearance before the inspector general would ‘tak[e] the sheriff away from his duties', one of the sheriff’s responsibilities is to submit to the OIG’s oversight.”

From the bench Tuesday afternoon, Chalfant said enforcement of the subpoena would follow a two-step process where the court would first hear any challenge to it raised by Villanueva. Contempt proceedings would follow only if Villanueva's challenge is unsuccessful and he continues to refuse to sit for the interview.

“Therefore, I believe the sheriff will be able to raise defense whether the subpoena are legitimate or overly broad,” Chalfant said from the bench. “Most of which cannot be raised in a contempt hearing. The sheriff is entitled to that two-step process that is available to him.”

Villanueva’s attorney, Linda Savitt with Ballard Rosenberg Golper asked for leave to amend the petition, because the court’s ruling puts Villanueva on the defensive.

“There should be a way to you know object at least without being dragged into court,” said Savitt.

Chalfant said he would entertain allowing Villanueva to amend his petition, but only after the parties met and conferred. Savitt said she will research the court’s ruling.

In a statement, the sheriff's department said the court provided guidance for both the county and Villanueva to use under new statutory subpoena power since the issue has never been addressed by any court. Chalfant made clear that the sheriff has due process rights in this matter, the department said.

"In addition, the court determined today that if the sheriff were not to appear pursuant to a subpoena, there would have to be a hearing on the propriety of the subpoena first, and the court would then need to decide whether the sheriff would have to appear, before any contempt proceeding could occur," the department said in its statement.