43
Attorneys for former assistant county prosecutor say recent filings smack of a “cover-up.”
Filing aims to quash records request
YOUNGSTOWN
Attorneys for former assistant county prosecutor Martin Desmond balked at an effort to block a request for records showing attorneys for the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office are dissuading county judges from getting involved in Desmond’s wrongful termination suit.
Attorneys Todd Raskin and Patricia Rubright of Cleveland, who are representing county Prosecutor Paul Gains’ office in the suit, on Friday filed a motion to quash a records request by Desmond’s attorneys that sought all communications between those in Gains’ office, its attorneys and county judges about Desmond’s case.
The motion argues those communications are irrelevant and are protected work products and the request was “merely meant to harass counsel and the firm.”
Desmond claims Gains fired him for exposing misconduct in the prosecutor’s office. Gains, however, said Desmond violated office policy by sharing case information with people outside the office.
At issue now is a letter from Rubright to Judge John Durkin regarding an affidavit he intended to submit on Desmond’s behalf about the case research in question. The letter reiterates Desmond’s position as an “adverse party” in litigation against the county and Judge Durkin’s role as an elected county official and urges the courts “to avoid compromising the defense of Mahoning County.”
Judge Durkin later wrote to Desmond, declining to provide the affidavit. Desmond’s attorney, Subodh Chandra of Cleveland, said the motion interferes with Desmond’s right to receive protected free speech.
“How can it be irrelevant when [the attorneys] themselves said it would compromise the defense of the county?” he told The Vindicator Monday.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s governing rules for the judiciary lay out standards for these types of issues, said Jonathan Coughlan, the former 16-year disciplinary counsel for the state’s high court.
“Generally, judges are encouraged to refrain from testifying in any proceedings because they are judges. ... The concern is their position will influence the process or the case,” he said. “With a subpoena, however, a judge is certainly authorized to testify to a fact – an observation a judge made.”
Coughlan could not comment on whether a county judge should be considered an elected county official in the context of county-involved litigation, as specified in the letter to Judge Durkin.
Chandra said the decision to subpoena a county judge is “irrelevant” in light of the county attorneys’ suppressive filings.
“We view the effort by Gains and his lawyers to be an effort to cover up a cover-up,” Chandra said Monday. “They’re trying to block Mr. Desmond’s access to information that would prove that Gains retaliated against him in an effort to cover up misdeeds by the prosecutor’s office.
“It is a sad day when lawyers try to block other lawyers from simply obtaining the truth about what happened.”
Raskin and Rubright did not respond to requests for comment.
Desmond’s attorneys have not filed a response.