79 Cal.App.5th 221
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- In April 2019 real party Lynne Bussey requested various financial and reimbursement records from the Community Action Agency of Butte County (CAA); CAA refused, asserting it is a private nonprofit not subject to public-records laws.
- Bussey petitioned the Butte County Superior Court seeking access under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and under Department of Community Services and Development Regulation 100765 (which references FOIA).
- The superior court found as a factual matter that CAA was an "other local public agency" under Government Code §6252(a), concluded CAA was subject to CPRA and FOIA, and ordered production of most requested records.
- CAA filed a writ petition in the Court of Appeal, which stayed the superior court's order and reviewed whether CAA must disclose records under CPRA, FOIA, and Regulation 100765.
- The Court of Appeal adopted a four-factor, functional-equivalency test (based on out-of-state authority) for when a private nonprofit may be treated as an "other local public agency," and applied the test to the record.
- The court held (1) the trial court's factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence so CAA is not an "other local public agency" for CPRA purposes, (2) FOIA does not apply (it covers federal agencies only), and (3) Regulation 100765 does not impose a general public-access obligation on grantees for records not "pertinent to" federal awards; it vacated the superior court's order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAA is an "other local public agency" under Gov. Code §6252(a) (so CPRA applies) | Bussey: CAA is a community action agency created/regulated by government, receives federal/state funds, and performs public functions, so CPRA applies | CAA: It is a private nonprofit; CPRA does not generally reach private entities; superior court lacked substantial evidence | Court: A private nonprofit may be covered only in exceptional, functional-equivalence circumstances; applying a four-factor test, the record lacks substantial evidence that CAA is such an agency; CPRA order vacated |
| Whether FOIA applies to CAA | Bussey: FOIA/regulatory reference supports disclosure | CAA: FOIA applies only to federal agencies; not a basis for compelling CAA | Court: FOIA applies only to federal agencies and thus does not apply to CAA |
| Whether Dep't Regulation 100765 requires public access to CAA's records | Bussey: Regulation mandates grantees make records available in accordance with FOIA | CAA & Dep't: Regulation must be read consistent with federal rules—limited to records "pertinent to" federal awards; Dept cannot impose broader access on subgrantees | Court: Defer to Dept's reasonable interpretation; Regulation covers only grant-related records pertinent to federal awards, not general agency records |
| Whether superior court's production order was supported by substantial evidence | Bussey: Superior court made factual findings supporting coverage | CAA: Findings (delegated public authority, day-to-day control, origin) lack substantial evidentiary support | Court: Only one of four functional-equivalence factors favored coverage; findings not supported by substantial evidence; order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (Cal. 2017) (explains CPRA's presumptive access and Prop. 59 construction rule)
- Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo, 187 Wn.2d 509 (Wash. 2017) (adopts four-factor functional-equivalence test for applying public-records law to private entities)
- Grand Central Partnership, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) (FOIA applies only to federal agencies)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations)
- Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California, 25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001) (limits on agency rulemaking power under statute)