The L.A. County District Attorney’s Office in San Fernando has now twice declined to file criminal charges against a Valencia chiropractor arrested in June on suspicion he filmed patients using the bathroom at The Joint Chiropractic on McBean Parkway in Valencia.
Nicholas Vanderhyde, 41, is still facing several civil lawsuits at the Chatsworth courthouse in connection with the allegations.
“The case was presented, reviewed again and declined for insufficient evidence in late January,” according to an email Monday from Greg Risling, a spokesman for the D.A.’s Office.
Vanderhyde was originally suspected of the offense May 8, 2024, when a woman who worked in his office “recovered a camera recording device that was placed in the public all-gender restroom,” according to an Oct. 31 charge-evaluation worksheet signed by Jeffrey Greenburg, a deputy district attorney.
After finding the camera and conducting a quick review of the contents of its video card, a Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station detective said the person on the footage, who could be seen adjusting the camera angle, so it aimed at the toilet, appeared to be Vanderhyde. The detective said he based that on the photo of Vanderhyde that was on the staff website for the chiropractor’s office.
However, prosecutors continued to raise doubts about the evidence gathered by station detectives, claiming the positive identification in the footage was just not strong enough.
Greenburg did not feel the footage alone would be able to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, that the perpetrator as partially depicted in the video footage is one and the same as suspect Vanderhyde,” according to his October evaluation.
The second charge-evaluation worksheet that the office filled out in late January was not made immediately available Tuesday through a Public Records Act request.
A statement from the local station indicated the concerns from the D.A.’s Office did not change despite the presentation of additional evidence seized from Vanderhyde’s home, according to station officials.
Detectives presented two charges to the D.A., according to an investigator on the case: invasion of privacy and possession of child pornography, according to LASD sources.
“It was a good arrest,” said Deputy Robert Jensen, spokesman for the SCV Sheriff’s Station.
“The DA’s office felt there was insufficient grounds to continue with a trial,” he added.
A phone number listed for the attorney who represented Vanderhyde at his last hearing did not respond to a request for comment as of this story’s publication.
Vanderhyde’s attorney requested a Jan. 29 motion hearing for a return of the property seized by detectives during their search of his home. The two-sentence minute order indicates Judge David Walgren denied the request without prejudice.
While a criminal trial must convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof facing Vanderhyde in a handful of civil suits is considerably lower: California Civil Jury Instruction No. 200 states the party “must only prove that it is ‘more likely true than not true,’” for jury deliberations.
He’s facing two new lawsuits as of May.
The first one filed this month was dated May 7, from a family of three individuals who claim to be regular customers of Vanderhyde. The complaint states they found out about the filming in the restroom from news reports about a year prior, shortly after the camera was found. Court records indicated the lawsuit was served May 13.
Another lawsuit filed May 13 was part of an opt-out of the class-action suit by another couple who claim they were informed after the fact of surreptitious filming at the chiropractor’s office.
By August, Vanderhyde already was facing three lawsuits in relation to the discovery of the camera.
In July, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of 17 people, including four minors, whose attorneys are alleging corporate ownership of The Joint engaged in a coverup, according to a statement from the law firm. That lawsuit is a separate legal action entirely from the previous two complaints as it’s not being filed as a class-action, and the plaintiffs were patients of the office and not employees.
The employee who first found the camera is identified as the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, which was filed as a class-action on behalf of the office’s employees. A second lawsuit was filed in June by an employee who also claimed to have found the camera and alleged Vanderhyde sexually harassed her.
