Back in November 2010, Hewlett-Packard Co. shareholder Ernesto Espinoza requested access to corporate documents with information about ex-CEO Mark Hurd’s relationship with contractor Jodie Fisher. Recently, a judge ruled that he is not entitled to those documents, according to an article in Business Week,

Delaware Chancery Court Judge Donald Parsons on March 25 denied Hewlett-Packard Co. shareholder Ernesto Espinoza’s request for the report, which was prepared for the HP board by lawyers at Covington & Burling LLP, court records show.

Espinoza sued HP Nov. 18 seeking company books and records as a part of his investigation into possible wrongdoing by directors. The board granted Hurd a severance package worth as much as $40 million “rather than terminate him for cause” with no payment, according to court filings.

Shareholders have sued Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard in Delaware and California claiming that the computer-maker’s officials should be held liable for wasting company assets on Hurd’s severance.

Shot down.

This entire fiasco started last year with accusations of an inappropriate relationship between HP ex-CEO Mark Hurd and the contractor Fisher. The drama unfolded long drawn-out court case that has lasted months and has drawn the attention of the Securities Exchange Commission. This latest judgment is the culmination of a long line of back and forth involving Mark Hurd and the board of directors and various investors related to his severance and the end is probably still not in sight.

The rejection of the request for those documents will probably not put much of a dent in the shareholders’ lawsuit against HP relating to company assets spent on Mark Hurd’s severance and they do seem to have a strong case that he left under less-than-honest circumstances. Right now it seems to be a question of contract law more than anything else, which many CEO contracts contain moral clauses; the company may have been obligated to pay him what it did regardless of what he did at the end.

The end question of the lawsuit will determine whether or not the board of directors were following contract law and therefore are not liable for the “waste of assets” or if they were just throwing money at Mark Hurd while getting rid of him.