County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioner surrogate seeks CPRA records about attorney fees in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles.
- Records requested include invoices, time records, and payment documents for public entity defense.
- Trial court held records not attorney-client privileged; some work product redacted; dominant purpose unclear.
- Trial court concluded records were not prepared for use in litigation; may have dual purposes.
- County sought mandamus; appellate review denied; Supreme Court denied review; issue focused on pending litigation exemption §6254(b).
- Records were prepared for normal recordkeeping and fee payment, not specifically for use in Venegas litigation; exemption narrowly construed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pending litigation exemption applies to billing/payments records | Anderson-Barker for disclosure; records relate to Venegas | County; records are records pertaining to pending litigation and exempt | Not exempt; records must be disclosed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairley v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1414 (Cal. App. 1998) (records must be prepared for use in litigation to be exempt; dual purpose allowed under dominant purpose test)
- Axelrad v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. App. 2000) (pending litigation exemption applies only to records prepared for use in litigation; remand for in camera review)
- Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 2005) (pending litigation exemption read narrowly; records must be specifically prepared for use in litigation)
- City of Hemet v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1411 (Cal. App. 1995) (dominant purpose test for dual-purpose documents in CPRA context)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993) (CPRA issue grounded in attorney-client privilege; pending litigation discussion precedes)