American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court
134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 472
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- This is a mandamus petition under the California Public Records Act (PRA) seeking disclosure of documents related to CDCR's acquisition of sodium thiopental for executions.
- CDCR did not disclose names of pharmaceutical companies or others contacted; it redacted or withheld multiple items under exemptions and deliberative-process concepts.
- The trial court allowed withholding of two categories (names of sources and non-deresponsive redactions) and allowed in-camera review for non-responsive issues.
- Petitioner sought unredacted sources and non-redacted versions, and reversal of the take-back of an inadvertently disclosed distributor name.
- The court conducted de novo review of exemptions and held that public interest generally favors disclosure, requiring release of names; it remanded for further proceedings.
- The opinion emphasizes that PRA exemptions are narrowly construed and the burden is on the agency to justify nondisclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May CDCR withhold names of suppliers from PRA request | Petitioner argues disclosure illuminates public business conduct and prevents favoritism. | CDCR contends exemptions (confidential information and 6255 balancing) apply due to privacy, security, and deliberative-process concerns. | No; names must be disclosed; public interest outweighs nondisclosure. |
| May CDCR redact portions of disclosed documents as nonresponsive | Nonresponsive redactions are improper; must produce reasonably segregable material. | Agency may redact nonresponsive portions under PRA, FOIA analogies, and 6253.1. | No; redact only if clearly nonresponsive with adequate justification; remand for proper analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991) (requires substantial evidence; weighing balancing in PRA context)
- Block v. Public Corp. of California, 42 Cal.3d 646 (Cal. 1986) (public records exemptions narrowly construed; disclosure favored when no compelling basis to withhold)
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal. App. 1998) (governs Governor’s correspondence exception to disclosure)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. App. 2009) (requires de novo weighing of public interest against nondisclosure; substantial evidence standard for factual findings)