Humane Society of United States v. Superior Court
214 Cal. App. 4th 1233
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- HSUS filed CPRA petition seeking disclosure of funding, preparation, and publication records for UC Davis Agricultural Issues Center Economic Effects study (July 2008).
- Regents produced 356 pages; about 3,100 pages remained withheld as potentially exempt under 6255 catchall, 6254(a) preliminary drafts, and 6254(k)/1040 official information privilege.
- Special Master reviewed in camera; classified documents as showing no influence, influence, or improper influence by egg/poultry industry; recommended disclosure of materials showing influence but not improper influence.
- Trial court ordered disclosure of 28 pages and redacted biographical index; denied other material under catchall and official information privilege; held no academic research exemption.
- HSUS challenged timeliness and adequacy of record; court found petition timely and record adequate for review, with limited transcript deficiency acknowledged.
- This court denied the writ, balancing nondisclosure interests (academic process confidentiality) against disclosure interests, holding nondisclosure outweighed disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition for writ | HSUS timely under §6259(c). | Regents argue untimely due to service defects. | Petition timely; service defects did not defeat timeliness. |
| Adequacy of record for review | Record sufficient to review the balancing. | Record insufficient due to missing transcripts/briefing. | Record adequate for review with limited omissions; summary admissible. |
| Whether CPRA catchall 6255 permits nondisclosure of prepublication research communications | No categorical exemption; should disclose to promote transparency. | Public interest in nondisclosure to protect academic process outweighs. | Nondisclosure favored; catchall balancing weighs against disclosure. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied a per-document (not categorical) balancing | Court focused on improper influence rather than content-specific balancing. | Court conducted document-by-document review with classification; proper. | Court properly balanced per document; no error in approach. |
| Segregation and redaction of exempt information | No adequate segregation; more should be disclosed. | Court allowed segregation/redaction and disclosed nonexempt items. | Sufficient segregation; 28 pages disclosed; redactions appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. App. 1999) (public access and weighing of disclosure vs. nondisclosure)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 652 (Cal. 1986) (balancing test for catchall exemption; relevance of public interest)
- New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 1579 (Cal. App. 1990) (necessity of showing compelling public interest for disclosure)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. App. 2009) (case-by-case balancing; nature of information to public understanding)
- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal.3d 440 (Cal. 1982) (limits on public records exemptions; delineation of balancing framework)
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal. App. 1998) (public interest in disclosure and 'legislative facts' concept; chilling effect considerations)