San Diego

Plastic Surgeon From La Jolla Pleads Not Guilty to Distributing Private Images

A criminal protective order was issued to protect the victim, as well as another protective order to keep Mofid and his attorney from using video from a police body camera outside of the case

A plastic surgeon from La Jolla pleaded not guilty to distributing private images in court Monday, confirmed the City Attorney's office.

Dr. Mark Mofid, 45, was charged with two misdemeanors for the intentional distribution of private images. The images appear to show someone engaged in sexual behavior, according to a complaint.

Mofid is not in custody, but a criminal protective order was issued to protect the victim. There was also another protective order issued to keep him and his attorney from using video from a police body camera outside of the case, stated the complaint.

At this point, it is unclear who the victim is in the images and the nature of the victim's relationship, if any, to Mofid.

Mofid was originally charged on May 22 with one count, which was later changed on June 12 to two counts, continued the complaint.

His readiness conference is set for Aug. 14 in Department 9 at 8:45 a.m., said Gerry Braun, the Chief of Staff at the City Attorney's office.

There is no history of disciplinary actions on his records, stated the Medical Board of California.

Mofid practices cosmetic, facial, plastic and reconstructive surgery in the La Jolla and San Diego areas, focused on natural-looking aesthetic improvement, according to his website.

Ed. Note: Mark Mofid issued the following statement on Feb. 16, 2018 regarding this article:

"The charges brought by the City Attorney were related to a private family matter arising from Dr. Mofid’s 2015 divorce. He discovered the images on the family home computer three years prior to sharing them with limited individuals including a close relative and family friend. He shared these images only to prove the truth of their existence in an effort to mend his relationship with his estranged sons whom he understood to have been misled about the circumstances leading to his divorce. He had no involvement or privacy agreements whatsoever in the creation of these images that he found 6 months after they were made in 2013. The demands on the City Attorney to prosecute these charges (after the City Attorney initially declined to do so), were made simultaneously with onerous family law litigation, civil litigation and monetary demands by the affected party. His main focus has been, and continues to be, the well-being of his children. He regrets the public path that this private divorce matter has taken, the actions that prompted the litigation, and the motives of those who pursued this outcome to the detriment of each member of his family, especially his sons. The case is currently under appeal.”

Contact Us