BELLE — City of Belle and former patrolman Erican B. Sugg were sanctioned on Oct. 21 for $17,181.73 for their breach of a  Sept. 30, 2025, mediation confidentiality agreement. The federal civil rights lawsuit alleging sexual assault by Sugg is scheduled for a December jury trial after months of postponements and a dispute over defense representation.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen R. Welby imposed the sanctions Oct. 21 after finding that participants in a confidential mediation allowed Maries County Sheriff Mark Morgan into the room, where he overheard the plaintiff’s settlement demand. Morgan later discussed an amount being sought in the litigation in a Facebook post defending Sugg and criticizing Prosecuting Attorney Anthony (Tony) Skouby before the August Primary election.

The judge found no evidence that the mediation participants knew about Morgan’s post beforehand or helped prepare it. Nevertheless, Welby concluded that allowing him to hear the negotiations violated the mediation agreement and the court’s confidentiality rule.

The ruling does not decide whether the alleged sexual assault occurred. Sugg and Belle have denied the allegations, and Welby declined the plaintiff’s request to strike their pleadings as punishment.

A separate Oct. 6 order granted Sugg’s request for another trial postponement after he obtained separate counsel because of a possible conflict involving the lawyers who had represented both defendants. The case is now set on the docket at 9 a.m. on Dec. 14 for a three-week jury trial.

The plaintiff, identified in court records as H.S.F., filed the lawsuit Dec. 20, 2024. She asserts federal civil rights claims against Sugg and Belle and a state-law battery claim against Sugg. The court granted her permission in March 2025 to proceed under a pseudonym.

Her attorney, W. Bevis Schock, described the central issue in an October filing as a direct factual dispute over whether the sexual assault occurred.

The case proceeded through discovery and an unsuccessful mediation before the dispute over confidentiality became the subject of a separate evidentiary hearing.

Sheriff entered mediation room

The parties participated in a virtual mediation Sept. 30, 2025, with mediator Bradley A. Winters. City Treasurer Charro Reasor, Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell and Sugg took part, according to Welby’s findings.

The mediation agreement prohibited others from attending without permission from the parties and consent from the mediator. Participants appearing by video conference were required to confirm that they were alone and could not be overheard.

The agreement also required participants to keep the entire mediation process confidential, including offers and statements made during the negotiations.

Welby found that Reasor and Sugg signed the agreement without reading it.

Morgan was not a party to the lawsuit and had not been invited to participate. He nevertheless stopped at City Hall and entered the office where the mediation was underway.

According to the judge’s findings, Morgan remained approximately 15 to 20 minutes and heard someone on a digital speaker discussing the amount the plaintiff wanted to settle the case.

No one told Morgan he should not be there, asked him to leave or warned him that the information was confidential.

Morgan knew the mediation was taking place because he had discussed it with city officials the previous day. After the mediation, he discussed what had occurred with Reasor, Mitchell and Sugg, the judge found.

Welby also noted that Morgan and Sugg are friends and have discussed the lawsuit extensively.

Facebook post brought negotiations into public dispute

In August, Morgan published a lengthy Facebook post describing his knowledge and investigation of the events surrounding the plaintiff’s allegations.

A copy was admitted as an exhibit at the Sept. 24 sanctions hearing. The post addressed Morgan’s strained relationship with Skouby and defended Morgan’s handling of a complaint against a Belle officer.

In the post, Morgan described a complaint arising from a Jan. 12, 2024, courtesy ride. He wrote that the complainant alleged the officer reached into the back seat and touched her leg. Morgan said the officer denied touching her.

Morgan wrote that the Missouri State Highway Patrol conducted a criminal investigation while he, then a Belle Police Department sergeant and the officer’s supervisor, conducted an internal investigation.

He cited dispatch records and radio traffic in support of his account of the ride. He also questioned circumstances surrounding a telephone call to City Hall asking which officer was scheduled to work that evening and criticized Skouby’s handling of requests for investigative subpoenas.

Morgan asserted that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office ultimately declined to file charges against the officer. That assertion appears in Morgan’s post. The supplied exhibits do not include a charging decision from that office.

The post also discussed people Morgan said were connected to the complaint and included an amount he understood was being sought in the litigation against Belle. The settlement amount is redacted in the court’s sanctions order.

The court’s October ruling addresses the confidentiality violation. It does not establish the accuracy of Morgan’s broader allegations about the complainant, other individuals or the prosecutor.

Earlier Advocate reporting provides context for the investigation Morgan discussed. The March 13, 2024, edition reported that the Highway Patrol had submitted a probable cause statement to Skouby concerning a January complaint against Sugg. At that time, the statement had not been filed in court and its details were not public.

That report described the investigation’s status in March 2024, rather than its eventual disposition.

Attorney investigated how Morgan heard the demand

H.S.F. filed her motion Aug. 4 for a hearing and sanctions.

An Aug. 27 court order summarized the initial positions. The plaintiff alleged that confidential settlement information had been disclosed on social media, while the defendants responded that they had not disclosed mediation details and that Morgan must have overheard the proceedings.

Schock’s subsequent fee affidavit describes efforts to determine how that happened.

According to the affidavit, the city’s written response suggested Morgan had walked past the room and overheard the demand.

According to the city’s response, on Sept. 30, 2025, Reasor was in her office at City Hall and logged into the virtual mediation. Present with her were Mitchell and Sugg.

According to the official response from the city, while the mediation was occurring Morgan entered City Hall on what Reasor says she believed was “routine business.” Reasor said that Morgan did not enter her office but remained in the common space at City Hall and that any information obtained by Morgan was unintentional.

Schock hired a person to stand outside the room during a planned test to determine whether conversation inside could be heard. The test became unnecessary, Schock wrote, after depositions established that Morgan had entered the room.

Schock’s affidavit says Morgan testified that he was inside during part of the mediation, a direct contradiction to the city’s official reply in this case. It also cites deposition testimony from Reasor, Mitchell and Sugg acknowledging his presence.

Welby held the evidentiary hearing Sept. 24 and heard testimony from all four.

The admitted exhibits included Morgan’s Facebook post, the mediation agreements and Schock’s time and expense records.

Judge rejects harsher punishment

Welby concluded that city officials and Sugg violated the confidentiality requirements by allowing Morgan into the room.

“Here, there is no question that defendants violated the confidentiality of the mediation process by allowing Sheriff Morgan to enter the room while the mediation was being held. Defendants did not take the mediation seriously and treated it contrary to the seriousness of the allegations and the mediation’s requirements,” the judge wrote. “The cavalier attitude of Ms. Reasor, defendant Sugg, and Mayor Mitchell towards the mediation is evidenced by the fact that they signed the mediation agreements without reading them.”

The plaintiff sought to have the defendants’ pleadings struck. Welby declined, explaining that such a severe sanction requires a finding of willful conduct and bad faith.

Although Reasor, Mitchell and Sugg acted inappropriately, the judge found they did not act with bad faith or malicious intent.

Welby instead awarded the plaintiff the attorney’s fees and expenses associated with pursuing sanctions, saying a penalty was warranted to deter similar conduct and reflect the importance of mediation confidentiality.

Schock requested $19,041.73, consisting of 24.8 hours at $700 per hour and $1,681.73 in expenses.

The judge accepted the hours and expenses but reduced the hourly rate to $625. The resulting award consists of $15,500 in attorney’s fees and $1,681.73 in expenses.

The sanction is against the city and Sugg. The order does not impose a monetary sanction against Morgan or identify how the defendants will divide or fund the payment.

Possible conflict leads to separate counsel

While the sanctions motion was pending, the defense raised a separate issue concerning representation.

In a Sept. 29 motion, attorney John P. Rahoy of Brown & James wrote that it had recently become apparent there was or could be a conflict of interest in attorney David C. Berwin representing both Belle and Sugg.

The motion outlined that the insurer had been informed and separate counsel requested. Rahoy’s firm was retained Sept. 28 to represent Sugg.

Rahoy argued that he could not be ready for the then-scheduled Nov. 2 trial because he had not yet reviewed depositions and discovery responses, met with Sugg or determined whether additional discovery was needed.

The motion said the request was not intended to delay the case and that proceeding in November would prejudice Sugg’s defense.

The filing did not explain the specific nature of the possible conflict.

Schock opposed the request Oct. 1, arguing that H.S.F. had already waited through several postponements and that information relevant to any conflict had been available since depositions in late 2025 and early this year.

He also argued that discovery had closed months earlier and that the case was sufficiently straightforward for new counsel to prepare before November.

Schock wrote that the litigation was contentious locally and affected his client’s reputation. Another postponement would also disrupt arrangements she had made to attend trial, he argued.

Trial date moved several times

The original trial date was June 1. It moved to June 22 after a request by the plaintiff related to counsel’s vacation.

According to Schock’s account of the scheduling history, the death of defense attorney James E. Godfrey Jr. led to a postponement to Sept. 14. The court later moved the trial to Nov. 2 following a July case management conference.

Welby granted Sugg’s latest request Oct. 6 and set the December docket.

A pretrial conference is scheduled for 10 a.m. Dec. 3. Several pretrial submissions are due Nov. 16, including proposed witness and exhibit lists. Motions seeking to exclude evidence are due Nov. 23.

Sugg’s employment and allegations against him have previously drawn public scrutiny. The Advocate’s Dec. 6, 2023, edition reported that he was terminated from the Maries County Sheriff’s Office in August 2022 and hired by the city of Belle around December 2022. That coverage also addressed proceedings concerning his peace officer license.

Those earlier licensing proceedings are distinct from the federal lawsuit now awaiting trial.

The October sanctions order resolves the dispute over mediation confidentiality. The underlying civil claims will be determined  by trial.