Ex-prosecutor accuses former Orange County DA of retaliation

SANTA ANA -- Nine months after losing a contentious reelection bid, Orange County's former longtime district attorney returned to a courtroom Tuesday for a civil trial related to a five-year saga with a former employee.

Tony J. Rackauckas sat stoically at the defense table as plaintiff's attorney Joel W. Baruch told jurors he retaliated against Karen L. Schatzle, a now-former deputy district attorney who lost a 2016 election bid against an incumbent Orange County Superior Court judge.

Baruch's lawsuit accuses Rackauckas of violating Schatzle's First Amendment right through retaliatory actions that included transferring her to a "geographically distant branch court" and denying her requests for lateral transfers.

Rackauckas is the lone defendant after U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford dismissed several others, including former Rackauckas chief of staff Susan Kang Schroeder, from the case in May. Schroeder still is expected to testify as is current District Attorney Todd A. Spitzer and several other prominent members of the Orange County district attorney's office.

"This case is going to be filled with lawyers," defense lawyer Norman J. Watkins of Lynberg & Watkins told the jury pool. "I know some people have very strong feelings about lawyers, so now would probably be a good time to let us know."

A veteran sex crimes prosecutor, Schatzle's judicial campaign against Judge Scott A. Steiner focused on the Commission on Judicial Performance's 2014 censure of him for having sex with law students in his chambers. Rackauckas publicly endorsed Steiner and said he deserved a second chance "for his failings on the bench."

Schatzle said she was warned not to challenge Steiner, who is the son of William Steiner, a retired Orange County politician with close ties to Rackauckas.

Baruch described the elder Steiner in his 30-minute opening statement as "a huge mucky muck" and noted CJP censure is one step under removal from the bench.

"Here was a judge who nearly got bounced off the bench for having sex with female law students, at the time, in chambers, and he'd been sanctioned for it. She didn't like it, and she didn't think it was right," Baruch said.

But when Rackauckas learned of Schatzle's campaign plans, "His first thought was 'Oh heck, now I'm going to have to come out and publicly endorse this judge who has just been sanctioned by the CJP,'" Baruch said. "Before that, he wouldn't have had to come and support him" because Steiner would be running unopposed.

Watkins told jurors Rackauckas endorsed Steiner "out of loyalty, frankly, to Judge Steiner's father."

"They'd been friends for a long, long time, and he knew he was going to take a hit. He knew it wasn't going to be popular, but he felt that loyalty needed to be his primary concern, personally," Watkins said.

Watkins emphasized both Schatzle and Rackauckas are here as individuals.

"It's not about the district attorney and his employee. This is about personal rights that each of them had under the First Amendment," Watkins said.

Watkins said Schatzle's position changes in the district attorney's office were prompted by standard workplace concerns. Schatzle was assigned to the North Justice Center in Fullerton when she launched her campaign, and Steiner was presiding judge there. Supervisors under Rackauckas believed Schatzle's campaign posed a conflict of interest that warranted her removal from the court, and Rackauckas agreed, Watkins said.

Baruch, however, said Schatzle, who started as a prosecutor in 1995, was subjected to "freeway therapy" by sending her to the West Justice Center "in a dead-end job on taxpayer money, performing work that a first-year deputy district attorney could perform." She later campaigned for Spitzer then got a new position after he took office. Still, "it was too little, too late for Ms. Schatzle," according to Baruch, and she retired amid huge emotional distress over her years-long treatment.

The case began as a $5 million claim, but Guilford eliminated economic damages. Baruch told jurors he's seeking non-economic damages for mental and emotional distress. Schatzle v. Rackauckas et al., 17-CV01593 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 14, 2017).