L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107
| Cal. | 2016Background
- In July 2013 the ACLU requested under the California Public Records Act (PRA) invoices showing amounts billed to Los Angeles County by outside firms for nine excessive-force lawsuits; County produced invoices for three closed matters (with redactions) but withheld six invoices for pending matters as privileged under Evidence Code and PRA §6254(k).
- The ACLU sued in superior court; that court ordered production of all nine billing statements but permitted redaction of any legal opinion or mental impressions.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding invoices were confidential communications under Evidence Code §952 and thus exempt under PRA §6254(k); the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court considered whether attorney-client privilege categorically shields invoices sent by outside counsel to a public agency, and if not, which invoice contents remain privileged.
- The Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule: invoices are privileged only to the extent their contents are communications made for the purpose of legal consultation or risk revealing privileged communications—holding invoices for work on pending, active litigation are privileged in full.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for proceedings consistent with its ruling; Justice Werdegar dissented, arguing the Evidence Code and precedent foreclose the majority’s purposive (content-based) limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether billing invoices sent by outside counsel to a public agency are categorically protected by the attorney-client privilege (and thus exempt under PRA §6254(k)) | Invoices are billing/business documents not sent for legal consultation; mere confidential transmission does not make them privileged | Invoices are communications transmitted in confidence within the attorney-client relationship and thus fall within Evidence Code §952 and are exempt under PRA §6254(k) | Not categorical: privilege protects invoice contents that are communications made for legal consultation or that would reveal privileged communications; invoices for active, pending litigation are privileged in full |
| Whether agencies must redact selectively or may withhold entire invoices | ACLU: nonprivileged portions must be disclosed; invoices often contain nonprivileged billing details | County: entire invoices reflect confidential communications and may be withheld | PRA requires disclosure of any reasonably segregable nonprivileged portions; but when litigation is pending, invoices may be so intertwined with privileged communications that full protection is appropriate |
| Whether the privileged character of invoice information changes with time (pending v. concluded matters) | ACLU: historical fee totals and closed matters are not privileged and should be disclosed | County: privilege should apply regardless of litigation status; disclosure harms confidentiality and strategy | Privilege assessment turns on content and purpose; during active litigation invoices can reveal strategy and are privileged; for long-concluded matters cumulative fee totals are less likely to implicate privileged consultation and may be disclosed after segregation |
Key Cases Cited
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (privilege attaches to confidential communications between attorney and client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of included unprivileged material)
- Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984) (describing the fundamental purpose of attorney-client privilege to promote full and frank discussion)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993) (PRA incorporates Evidence Code privileges via §6254(k))
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (Cal. 1986) (PRA requires disclosure of reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of public records)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961) (knowledge not otherwise privileged does not become privileged by being communicated to an attorney)