Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 395
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Marken, a Santa Monica High School math teacher, was written up for violating the district's sexual harassment policy after a 2008 investigation.
- An independent investigator found conduct that was more likely than not to have occurred; the report did not complete all interviews, so it was not considered final.
- The district issued a written reprimand and directed future conduct; no criminal charges followed.
- In December 2010, Chwe pressed the CPRA for records about Marken’s investigation and reprimand; the district indicated it would release records but needed time.
- Marken filed suit in February 2011 seeking to block disclosure, claiming privacy rights and CPRA exemptions; a TRO was issued and a preliminary injunction hearing was held.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction, ordered redaction of identifying information, and stayed the ruling for appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reverse-CPRA action is available to block disclosure | Marken argues reverse-CPRA is proper to prevent improper disclosure. | District argues the CPRA framework and Filarsky foreclose reverse-CPRA relief. | Reverse-CPRA action is available to challenge disclosure. |
| Whether the public interest outweighs privacy in disclosure of the records | Marken asserts disclosure invades privacy and exemptions apply; no public interest outweighs. | District contends public interest in accountability and district responses outweighs privacy. | Public interest in disclosure outweighs Marken's privacy interest; records may be released with redactions. |
| Whether Chwe could intervene or be joined in Marken's action | Chwe should be allowed to intervene to protect CPRA interests. | District contends intervention was improper on ex parte basis and subject to joinder rules. | Chwe's ex parte intervention appeal is dismissed; issue of joinder/intervention to be addressed in the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Regents of University of California, 80 Cal.App.3d 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (substantiality/well-founded standard for disclosure of disputes in CPRA context)
- Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (disclosure where complaint is substantial and well-founded; public interest outweighs privacy)
- BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (public interest in disclosure of an official's misconduct outweighed privacy in certain contexts)
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (Cal. 2002) (reverse-CPRA and declaratory relief limitations; agency can't initiate ordinary declaratory action to withhold records)
- International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007) (constitutional right to privacy vs. public access; transparency policy)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (Cal. 1986) (start of balancing framework for CPRA exemptions; openness generally favored)
- V.S. v. Allenby, 169 Cal.App.4th 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (privacy rights balancing in public records context)
- Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2003) (indispensable party criteria and joinder principles relevant to CPRA actions)