By Linda Sutter – October 23, 2026 After more than 20 months of litigation surrounding the Crescent City Harbor District's refusal to comply with the California Public Records Act, the latest court hearing focused on a relatively small issue compared to the larger case: reimbursement of memorandum of costs related to service of legal documents. At the hearing, Harbor District attorney Ryan Plotz argued that process servers used by petitioner Linda Sutter were "her friends" and suggested that taxpayer funds should not be used to reimburse those service expenses. The argument raises serious questions about both the facts and the broader implications of the Harbor District's position. The reality is simple. Under California law, a person does not have to be a registered process server to legally serve court documents, nor is there any prohibition against being compensated for that service. As a former registered process server herself, Sutter routinely charged for serving legal documents regardless of whether she knew the individuals involved. Likewise, whenever she required service of process in her own legal matters, she paid those who performed the service on her behalf. The Harbor District's argument appears to ignore this well-established practice. More troubling, critics argue that the District's position sends a clear message to members of the public: challenge the Harbor District in court at your own financial risk because even legitimate litigation expenses may be contested. Such a precedent could discourage citizens from enforcing public transparency laws when government agencies fail to comply voluntarily. The financial irony was difficult to overlook. While Harbor District representatives argued over approximately $1,190 in requested process service costs, the District reportedly spent substantially more just to contest the issue. Attorney fees alone were estimated at approximately $250 per hour. In addition, the Harbor District sent Sandy Moreno, whose services reportedly cost $75 per hour, to sit through the hearing as an observer. Combined, the District spent roughly $325 per hour during the proceeding in an effort to avoid paying costs totaling just over one thousand dollars. The larger financial picture is even more significant. Over the course of the litigation, the Harbor District has spent tens of thousands of dollars defending its refusal to comply with California's transparency laws. By some estimates, legal expenses have exceeded $20,000, all while defending actions that ultimately resulted in the District losing the underlying Public Records Act case. The California Public Records Act exists to ensure public access to government records and to promote transparency in public agencies. The records sought in this case involved information concerning Harbor District finances and other matters of public interest. Transparency advocates argue that these laws are particularly important when citizens seek information regarding how public funds are spent and how public agencies conduct their business. Instead of embracing transparency, critics contend that the Harbor District chose an expensive legal battle funded by taxpayers. The result is that public money has been spent not only fighting disclosure requests but also contesting routine litigation costs associated with enforcing the law. At the conclusion of today's hearing, the judge took the matter under submission. No immediate ruling was issued. The court indicated that the parties will be notified by mail once a decision regarding the memorandum of costs has been reached. For now, the case serves as another chapter in an ongoing debate over government accountability, transparency, and the price taxpayers ultimately pay when public agencies resist disclosure obligations imposed by law.