Shasta County officials continue to shield from the public key information about an investigation into the sheriff's office under former Sheriff Eric Magrini, even after a judge ordered the county to relinquish the documents.

In the latest court filings, the county seeks to heavily redact portions of a168-page investigative report, which was was written in 2021. Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker twice has ordered officials to hand over the records to the Record Searchlight.

Baker also ordered the county to hand over to the newspaper communications among top county officials regarding Magrini’s resignation as sheriff and his appointment as assistant county executive officer. The newspaper also sought communications regarding the county Board of Supervisors’ appointment of then-Anderson Police Chief Michael Johnson as sheriff.

The newspaper and the county went to trial in January to obtain the documents and Baker issued his ruling on April 10 ordering the county to relinquish the materials. He affirmed that ruling in May after denying the county’s requests for a delay, a new trial or to vacate his initial order.

In response to the judge's most recent order, the county proposed an extensive list of redactions to the report and communications. The list of proposed deletions to the investigative report covers 19 pages. A 95-page list of proposed redactions would include hundreds of separate deletions.

The investigative report was requested in February 2021 by the Sheriff’s Administrative Association, which is composed of captains and lieutenants in the department. The county’s attorneys proposed removing from the report all identifying information about witnesses and the names of people who complained about Magrini.

The newspaper’s attorney, Walt McNeill, filed objections to most of the county’s requests to redact large portions of the report.

“I think their redactions have gone overboard, clearly. Especially in instances where they believe they have the ability to completely withhold documents,” McNeill said.

“To me, it looks like they're trying to achieve with redactions what they couldn't get or didn't get in the trial. And so what difference does it make that they produce documents if they are blacked out, or all of the significant parts are redacted?” McNeill said.

More: Shasta County again ordered to give up sheriff's office report officials claim is secret

The county’s justifications for the redactions included confidentiality of peace officer personnel records, privacy, attorney-client privilege and “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

McNeill said the county originally made those arguments when it turned down four requests for records under the California Public Records Act. After the newspaper sued the county, Judge Baker said in his ruling that those were not valid reasons to deny releasing the information to the public.

“It’s almost like a replay of the responses to the public records requests,” McNeill said.

On numerous occasions the county claims confidentiality because the documents are communications between county officials and their attorneys. But McNeill said the claim is done to keep information secret.

“This sort of ‘gimmick’ or ‘gaming’ of attorney-related confidentiality will not succeed in supporting redactions,” McNeill wrote in his objections to the county’s proposed redactions.

McNeill said the paper would agree to redactions that reveal information such as street addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, private financial information or Social Security numbers.

More: Shasta County again ordered to give up sheriff's office report officials claim is secret

Shortly before the county hired the law firm Ellis & Makus in March 2021 to conduct the investigation, members of the administrative association and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association had approved votes of no-confidence in Magrini, citing poor communication and leadership.

By June 2021, less than two years after he was appointed by the Board of Supervisors, Magrini resigned as sheriff. A little more than a month later, the board appointed Michael Johnson as the new sheriff, with little public input and without publicly seeking applicants for the post.

McNeill said it will ultimately be up to Baker to decide what is redacted from the documents. The county has not indicated whether it intends to appeal the judge’s ruling.

More: Shasta sheriff's office accused of criminal activity in lawsuit by ex-sheriff's captain

Reporter Damon Arthur welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834, by email at damon.arthur@redding.com and on Twitter at @damonarthur_RS. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Shasta County seeks to heavily redact records judge ordered released