Labor & Workforce Development Agency v. Superior Court
C083180
Cal. Ct. App.Jan 8, 2018Background
- AB 1513 (Lab. Code §226.2) was enacted in 2015 to address piece-rate pay issues and created safe-harbor provisions while carving out specified employers (including Fowler and Gerawan) from those protections.
- Fowler and Gerawan challenged the carve-outs in federal court, alleging unconstitutional motives (equal protection); the Ninth Circuit found their complaint stated a colorable equal protection claim.
- Fowler and Gerawan submitted a California Public Records Act request seeking Agency communications about AB 1513, including communications with the United Farm Workers and documents relating to the carve-outs.
- The Labor & Workforce Development Agency (Agency) produced some pages, withheld others claiming deliberative process, Evidence Code §1040 (official information), and attorney work-product protections, and redacted identities/content of certain emails.
- The trial court ordered the Agency to produce an index (privilege log) identifying author, recipient, general subject matter, and exemption claimed for withheld documents; the Agency sought writ relief.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding the trial court erred in requiring disclosure of identities/subject matter where the deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency must disclose a privilege index identifying authors/recipients/general subject matter of withheld predecisional communications | Fowler/Gerawan: index is necessary to assess claims of privilege and identities are already or should be public | Agency: disclosure of identities/subjects would reveal deliberative process and chill candid predecisional communications | Court: Trial court erred; identity/subject-matter disclosure can be functional equivalent of revealing deliberative content and may be withheld under deliberative process privilege |
| Whether deliberative process privilege (Gov. Code §6255/Times Mirror) protects confidential stakeholder identities and communications | Fowler/Gerawan: public interest in disclosure outweighs nondisclosure; stakeholders’ identities not truly confidential | Agency: confidentiality was required to obtain candid input; disclosure would chill participation | Court: Agency met burden; identities and predecisional communications protected where nondisclosure clearly outweighs disclosure interest |
| Whether communications between Agency and Legislative Counsel are protected by attorney work-product / attorney-client principles | Fowler/Gerawan: Legislative Counsel’s client is Governor/Legislature; Agency lacks privilege and any shared-interest protection was not shown | Agency: acted under Governor’s authority; Legislative Counsel provided confidential drafts/opinions as attorney-client work-product | Court: Work-product protection applies; Agency acted under Governor’s authority and received privileged materials from Legislative Counsel, no waiver shown |
| Whether trial court’s order to prepare index was timely subject to writ review under Gov. Code §6259 | Fowler/Gerawan: section 6259’s 20-day deadline governs and writ is untimely | Agency: the September 30 order was a new order triggering timely common-law writ period; writ filed within presumptive 60 days | Court: Agency’s writ was timely under common-law interlocutory review principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991) (recognizes deliberative process privilege; disclosure of meeting/query identities can reveal agency mental processes and chill candid deliberation)
- Cal. First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (1998) (applies Times Mirror balancing to predecisional submissions; confidentiality may be necessary to preserve candid input)
- Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.4th 1176 (2016) (attorney work-product privilege applies to Public Records Act requests and survives inadvertent disclosure absent waiver)
- OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (2004) (discusses common-interest/nonwaiver principles and waiver analysis for work product and attorney-client protections)
- BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.3d 1240 (1988) (distinguishes absolute protection for attorney impressions/opinions and qualified protection for other work product)
- Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.3d 683 (1989) (addresses waiver standards for work product and the risk of disclosure making remedial review inadequate)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (2017) (private electronic communications by public employees may be subject to PRA, distinguished here as not involving personal-account evasion)