Judge shields marital communications in homebuilders' bribery case

A federal magistrate judge has barred prosecutors from reviewing confidential communications between two Bay Area homebuilders accused of bribing an Antioch City Council member and their wives, ruling that marital privilege extends beyond trial testimony to materials obtained during criminal investigations.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ajay Krishnan of the Northern District of California ruled Wednesday that prosecutors cannot automatically access spousal communications recovered from the iPhones and iCloud accounts of David Sanson and his son, Trent Sanson, executives of Concord-based DeNova Homes.

"The government's position fundamentally misunderstands the function of the marital communications privilege," Krishnan wrote in a five-page order.

The Sansons were indicted in April 2025 on federal bribery and conspiracy charges stemming from an alleged scheme to secure favorable treatment for DeNova's 533-home Aviano development in Antioch.

Prosecutors allege the developers offered a council member $10,000 in exchange for placing the project on a council agenda and supporting it. David Sanson allegedly delivered $5,000 in cash concealed in a company-branded coffee mug.

The council member had contacted the FBI and recorded the encounter, according to prosecutors.

The Sansons deny wrongdoing, arguing that the money represented legitimate political support rather than a bribe. They have sought dismissal of the charges, contending that prosecutors failed to allege an unlawful exchange of money for official action.

Wednesday's ruling addressed a separate dispute over evidence seized during the investigation.

Under an existing privilege-review protocol, defense attorneys identified communications they considered confidential, and a government filter team withheld them from prosecutors.

The government sought access to all spousal communications, arguing that marital privilege applies only to testimony at trial.

Krishnan rejected that interpretation, holding that confidential marital communications are presumptively protected throughout criminal proceedings.

He found prosecutors had not established that the communications were nonconfidential, that the privilege had been waived or that an exception applied.

Elizabeth McCloskey, a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner representing David Sanson, said the decision has implications beyond the bribery prosecution, particularly in criminal investigations involving electronic communications.

"This ruling is very significant for criminal defendants where the government is seeking to review their confidential marital communications," McCloskey said in an interview Thursday. "It now provides clear case law showing that those communications are privileged and that we prioritize the privacy of the marital relationship."

McCloskey said prosecutors had improperly conflated two distinct legal protections: the marital communications privilege, which protects confidential exchanges between spouses, and the spousal testimonial privilege, which concerns testimony by one spouse against another.

"The government took the position that the privilege, the marital communications privilege, should only apply to trial testimony, which is what the spousal testimonial privilege speaks to," she said. "So the government was essentially trying to do away with the marital communications privilege, which is a separate privilege."

Had prosecutors prevailed, McCloskey said, the ruling could have allowed the government to review confidential marital communications obtained during investigations despite defendants' assertions of privilege.

"We were surprised that the government here wanted to take the position that those communications weren't entitled to privacy," she said.

The Gibson Dunn defense team also includes partner Winston Chan and associates Duncan Taylor, Christina Krokee, Cheyenne Joshua-Gross, Erin Williams and Makena Kauhane.

A representative for the U.S. attorney's office could not be reached immediately for comment.

The case is United States v. Sanson, 25-cr-00090 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2026).