Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Files Defamation Suit Against D.A. : Courts: The officer’s action against Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury stems from the killing of Malibu millionaire Donald Scott during a 1992 drug raid.

One year after being criticized by Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury for his role in the shooting death of a Malibu millionaire during a drug raid, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy has sued Bradbury for defamation.

The lawsuit--filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Deputy Gary Spencer--also charges Bradbury and four of his staff members with libel, slander, inflicting emotional distress and several civil-rights violations.

Spencer is seeking undisclosed compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of developments since the Oct. 2, 1992, death of Donald Scott, a 61-year-old heir to a Europe-based chemical fortune.

Spencer shot and killed a gun-wielding Scott during the raid on Scott’s 200-acre ranch across the Ventura County line from Malibu. No drugs were found, but Scott had high levels of alcohol and Valium in his body, authorities said.

“The reason why it was filed was to vindicate Gary Spencer’s name,” Spencer’s attorney, Jeff Giordano, said Thursday of the lawsuit. “I think at the end of the day the irony will be that it’s Mike Bradbury, and not Deputy Spencer, who will have lost his moral compass.”

Bradbury repeatedly has referred to Spencer as “a good officer . . . who lost his moral compass,” the lawsuit said. Bradbury on Thursday refused to comment on the lawsuit, but Noel Klebaum, an assistant counsel for Ventura County, called the court complaint “absurd.”

“Many of the allegations in the complaint are simply dead wrong,” Klebaum said.

Gary L. Bostwick, a prominent Los Angeles attorney specializing in First Amendment and defamation cases, said in general prosecutors have a privilege that protects them against such lawsuits based on comments made relating to their official duties.

“I have not known in any case that I can think of where a prosecutor’s report can be used in a defamation case,” said Bostwick, who has represented defendants and plaintiffs in several high-profile defamation suits.

Bradbury’s 64-page report blamed Scott’s death on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and said Spencer may have lied to get the warrant for the search of the dead man’s ranch. However, the report said Spencer was justified in shooting Scott because Scott was armed.

The Ventura County prosecutor’s findings angered Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block and led to a two-month review of the Scott case by state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren.

Last November, Lungren issued a report disputing Bradbury’s report and essentially clearing Spencer and other law enforcement officers who participated in the raid of any wrongdoing. Lungren also concluded that Bradbury’s report contained “unsupported and provocative language.”

Bradbury, however, has not backed away from his report, although he has said on several occasions that the matter is over and done with as far as he is concerned.

Spencer’s lawsuit Wednesday appears to have reopened the controversy.

*

Giordano said Bradbury should have filed charges against Spencer if there was wrongdoing on Spencer’s part.

“Bradbury had the power to prosecute and yet did nothing,” Giordano said. “What was the purpose of his report? What was the point?”

Klebaum said that because the report concluded that the shooting was justified, there was no law under which Bradbury could have charged the Los Angeles County deputy.

“The purpose of Mr. Bradbury’s report was to inform the public of what happened,” Klebaum said. “To inform the public of why the deputies who killed Donald Scott were not prosecuted, and to inform the public of what law-enforcement practices are and how they can be improved to avoid the killing of people like Mr. Scott.”

In addition to Bradbury, the suit names as defendants Ventura County and the district attorney’s office. Other defendants are Ventura County Deputy Dist. Attys. Kevin J. McGee, Kevin G. DeNoce and Michael D. Schwartz and investigator Richard C. Haas. All declined to comment.

Spencer’s lawsuit said Bradbury’s removal of Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Carol Nelson as lead investigator in the Scott shooting case was proof that the Ventura County prosecutor was more interested in defaming him. Nelson was removed from the case after her report found Spencer’s actions to be justified, the lawsuit said.

The suit also accused Bradbury of having a “cozy relationship” with Venice attorney Stephen Yagman, who represents the Scott estate. In a letter written to Bradbury last March, Yagman referred to the Ventura County prosecutor as “Mike.”

“The fact that Mr. Yagman and defendant Bradbury were on a first-name basis and had contact prior to the issuance of defendants’ report speaks to an appearance of impropriety and an obvious lack of objectivity during the preparation of the report,” the lawsuit said.

Yagman denied the charged. “How I address people in salutations in letters that I write is entirely up to me,” Yagman said, adding that he and Bradbury started using first names while exchanging correspondences on another matter before the Scott case.

*

“I have no relationship with the Ventura County district attorney and, therefore, certainly nothing I said to Mr. Bradbury would have influenced any conclusions that were reached in his investigation,” Yagman said. “Any claim that anyone improperly influenced Mr. Bradbury is baseless, preposterous and absurd.”

The lawsuit also charged Bradbury with making dozens of false statements to the media, including The Times. In particular, it accused Bradbury of making eight separate false statements during an appearance he made on the ABC News show “20/20” on April 2, 1993.