In two hearings Friday challenging the City of Lemon Grove, one Superior Court judge dismissed a claim that the city had violated an open-meeting law and another judge continued a hearing related to an investigation of a council member.

Attorney Corey Briggs had sued the city on behalf of Project for Open Government for allegedly violating the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.

The lawsuit claimed the violation occurred because there was no agenda notifying the public that the city was taking several actions regarding council members’ access to city staff members and to City Hall.

Judge Carolyn Caietti ruled there was no violation because the actions were taken by the city manager and city attorney, not by the City Council. The council had granted the city manager and city attorney broad discretion on how to respond to a council member’s conduct.

Specifically, the city was responding to complaints staff members had made about Councilmember Liana LeBaron. Some staff members said the council member repeatedly interrupted them at work and created a hostile environment, which prompted a city investigation.

Under the new rules, council members can only interact with staff members through the city manager and they no longer have an access code to City Hall, which they now can only enter during regular open hours.

A discovery hearing in another case Friday involved the investigation into LeBaron, which Project for Open Government argued should be made public.

Judge Robert Longstreth granted Briggs’ request to continue the hearing until 8:30 a.m. Oct. 17.

The city has denied Brigg’s request for the findings and argued that certain records are exempt from the California Public Records Act.

Lemon Grove City Manager Lydia Romero said in an interview Friday that the city conducted four investigations of LeBaron, and Briggs’ request focused on the first one. She cited attorney-client privilege in not releasing the findings, as a law firm had conducted the investigations.

Romero also said some participants in the investigation could be identified if the report were made public, and there was a fear of retaliation.

While some of the findings still are withheld, The San Diego Union-Tribune obtained through a Public Records Act request two executive summaries of investigations conducted by Ellis Investigations Law Corporation and Van Dermyden Makus Law Corporation. Neither were the one sought by Briggs.

The Ellis Investigation summary said LeBaron made negative comments about a staff member identified as Employee A in public meetings, emails and social media, and also created a negative work environment.

“This investigation found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. LeBaron engaged in the improper conduct about which Employee A complained,” the summary read.

“As well, the evidence supported that Ms. LeBaron sent Employee A and other staff improper work request emails and emails with unrealistic expectations, and she improperly shared Employee A’s emails with others,” the summary said.

“The evidence also supported that Ms. LeBaron mistreated Employee A at City Hall by yelling at Employee A and using expletives at and eavesdropping on Employee A,” the summary read. “Additionally, the evidence supported that Ms. LeBaron pulled agenda items from the consent calendar to embarrass Employee A and other staff.”

The Van Dermyden Makus investigation was in response to two written complaints a former city employee made about LeBaron.

The staff member cited about 11 incidents and interactions with LeBaron that occurred during City Council meetings, at City Hall and through email between December 2020 and March 2022.

The staff member complained about feeling extremely uncomfortable by LeBaron’s aggressive behavior, which included treating the employee like her “personal assistant” during council meetings.