Board of Pilot Commissioners v. Superior Court
218 Cal. App. 4th 577
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board) regulates and licenses pilots on San Francisco Bay; Bar Pilots is a private pilots' association whose members provide compulsory pilotage services.
- The Port Agent (a licensed pilot elected by pilots and confirmed by the Board) has statutory duties including supervising pilots and assigning pilots to vessels; the Port Agent is paid by Bar Pilots, not the Board.
- Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) requested ‘‘Pilot Logs’’ (2002–2011) from the Port Agent and the Board under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Bar Pilots and the Port Agent refused, asserting the records are private and maintained by Bar Pilots.
- The trial court ordered production, finding the Port Agent is a public official and the Pilot Logs are used in performance of public duties. The Court of Appeal stayed that order and granted review.
- The Court of Appeal held the Port Agent is a public officer when performing statutory/regulatory duties, but found no substantial evidence the Pilot Logs were used by the Port Agent in his official capacity; therefore the logs are not shown to be public records under the CPRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PMSA) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Port Agent/Bar Pilots) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Port Agent is a public officer for CPRA purposes | Port Agent performs statutorily prescribed public duties (e.g., assigning pilots) and thus is a public officer | Port Agent is a private association officer paid by Bar Pilots, not a Board officer, selected by pilots, so not a state officer | Port Agent is a state officer at least when performing duties imposed by statute/regulation (court estopped from denying that role) |
| Whether the requested Pilot Logs are public records subject to CPRA | Logs memorialize pilot assignments and vacation administration used to execute Port Agent’s public duties and thus are public records | Logs are private Bar Pilots records, not prepared, used, owned, or retained by the Board or by the Port Agent in his official role | No substantial evidence logs were prepared/used by the Port Agent in performance of official duties; not public records under CPRA |
| Whether court may treat Pilot Logs produced in unrelated tax litigation as evidence | PMSA: Miller stipulation and logs show existence/use of Pilot Logs and support CPRA request | Board/Port Agent: Miller materials are hearsay, unauthenticated, and do not establish Port Agent usage of logs | Court declines to treat Miller materials as competent evidence of Port Agent’s official use; hearsay/authentication problems defeat their probative value |
| Whether Board constructively possesses the Bar Pilots database | PMSA: Board exercises regulatory control and could obtain logs, so it has constructive possession/control | Board: no statutory/regulatory right of ownership or control over Bar Pilots records; Bar Pilots independently prepares and maintains database | Board does not possess the logs; constructive possession not established because no right of control or ownership shown |
Key Cases Cited
- California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810 (Cal. Ct. App.) (CPRA coverage and case-by-case analysis)
- Gilbert v. City of San Jose, 114 Cal. App. 4th 606 (Cal. Ct. App.) (legislative purpose of CPRA and accountability)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646 (Cal. 1986) (disclosure statutes ensure public access to government conduct)
- Coronado Police Officers Assn. v. Carroll, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App.) (possession alone does not render a document a public record)
- San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 762 (Cal. Ct. App.) (records necessary or convenient to discharge official duty are public)
- Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1980) (privately generated data not necessarily agency records absent provision to the agency)
- Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal. App. 4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App.) (doctrine of judicial estoppel and inconsistent positions)
- Aguilar v. Lerner, 32 Cal. 4th 974 (Cal. 2004) (elements and application of judicial estoppel)
- Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal. App. 4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App.) (constructive possession/right to control concept under CPRA)