CITY WITHHOLDING REPORTS IN SOSSI VS. RRUN-RRUN?

By Juan Montoya

In a case strikingly similar to one where the City of Brownsville was ordered to pay $2.3 million because it was found to have deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, city administrators have refused service of subpoenas for reports on an incident where it was reported that Brownsville City Attorney Mark Sossi was involved.

On February 11, 2016, this blog published a post which – among other things – said that Sossi was named in a report involving a former city employee where her minor daughter reported she had been kicked out of her home after he found them together.
The post further stated that "For the better part of two weeks, the city has been embroiled in a burgeoning scandal involving (Sossi)... and his inappropriate relationship with a female city worker, her unsuccessful suicide attempt, and an investigation into a potential sexual assault when she was helpless under the influence."
The post also stated that "So far, media representatives have been unsuccessful in obtaining EMS and police reports on the incidents involving the woman and Sossi's role in these matters."
Following the publishing of the post, Sossi sued this writer and unknown sources for $10 million in damages plus attorneys fees.
In his lawsuit, Sossi alleges he was defamed and demands that the blog reveal its sources and asks for all documents, reports, computer logs, etc...related to the post.
In turn, El Rrun-Rrun's legal representatives issued subpoenas to the Brownsville Police and Fire Departments to produce for inspection and copying...all of the following documents or tangible things in your possession custody or control which pertain to 21 Poinsettia Place for the months of January 2016 and February 2016...by March 23, 2016.
Astonishingly, when the process server attempted to serve the subpoenas on the custodian of records for the Brownsville Fire Dept., they refused to accept the subpoena and the only option he had was to serve it on the City Secretary, who took it but did but did not accept the witness fee that comes with it. (See graphic. Click to enlarge)

The Brownsville Police Dept. was served and they did accept it.
Why was it that the fire department refused to accept the subpoena in this case when it routinely accepts being served and releases the records in any other case?
We, as defendants, find ourselves in  the incongruous situation where we are demanding the reports we are certain will vindicate our post that are ultimately controlled by the plaintiff in this case, city attorney Sossi himself.
And we find ourselves in the unwanted position and untenable where we might have to serve notice and drag in the City of Brownsville and its policy makers into the litigation to secure what we believe is exculpatory evidence in a case filed by their city attorney.
As the case wends its way through the courts, will all those department administrators, law enforcement officers, investigators, and first responders continue to stonewall the process that will ultimately reveal the truth of what really happened there and Sossi's involvement in the matter?
In George Alvarez v. The City of Brownsville et al filed on April, 2011, Alvarez, served four years in prison on an eight-year conviction that was overturned when his defense attorneys discovered that the Brownsville Police had deliberately withheld (and purportedly altered) an important piece of taped evidence. A federal judge ordered the city to turn over the evidence to his defense.
Sossi was the city attorney then and oversaw the referral to contract attorneys.
On June 2014, a federal jury found for the defendant in his civil rights case and the court granted him $2 million in damages. Four months later, the city later agreed to award him $300,000 in attorneys fees.
The City of Brownsville charter gives the City Commissioners the power to “establish and maintain the city police department, prescribe the qualifications and duties of policemen (and firefighters) and regulate their conduct.”
Will police, fire, and city administrators and officials – sworn with that public trust – be willing to blemish their careers and renege on their oath and expose the city to legal (and financial) liability?
We believe that we are exercising our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights in pursuit of the truth and that the public has a right to know the acts of its public officials. And we will continue in our pursuit to that end.