25 Cal. App. 5th 570
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Sacramento News & Review requested emails from City of Sacramento related to Mayor Kevin Johnson; City initially disclosed ~900 pages but identified ~96 emails involving outside counsel (Ballard Spahr) as potentially privileged.
- Ballard Spahr asked the newspaper to agree to withhold privileged emails; the newspaper refused and the City informed the firm it could not assert privilege on behalf of the firm.
- The National Conference of Black Mayors, Johnson (as its president), and the Chapter 7 trustee filed a verified petition for writ of mandate to prevent the City from disclosing certain emails; the City did not oppose that petition.
- The City produced many documents after the firm prepared a privilege log; after in camera review the trial court ordered disclosure of some emails and sustained privilege for others.
- The newspaper sought attorney fees under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) against Johnson and under the private attorney general statute; the trial court denied fees and the newspaper appealed only as to the CPRA fee claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a requester who successfully opposes a mandamus petition by an interested party (seeking to prevent disclosure) can recover attorney fees under the CPRA fee-shifting provision | Newspaper: Fontana’s “functional equivalent” rule allows fees where requester prevailed in achieving disclosure even if agency didn’t deny request or requester didn’t file under §§ 6258–6259 | Petitioners/City: CPRA fees apply only to plaintiffs who bring litigation under the Act’s exclusive procedures after an agency denies a records request (Filarsky) | No. CPRA attorney-fee provision applies only to litigation filed pursuant to §§ 6258–6259; reverse-mandamus proceedings by interested parties are outside that scheme, so no CPRA fees to requester |
| Whether Fontana controls or was superseded by Filarsky | Newspaper: Fontana requires a functional-equivalent test so requester shouldn’t be denied fees here | City: Filarsky holds §§ 6258–6259 provide the exclusive procedure; Fontana’s functional-equivalent rationale was eroded | Filarsky governs; Fontana’s functional-equivalent rule does not allow fee awards outside Act’s exclusive procedures |
| Whether the fact that a public officer (Johnson) initiated the mandamus transforms the proceeding into an Act enforcement action | Newspaper: An officer’s petition is effectively a public official withholding records; denial of fees frustrates CPRA purpose | City: Officer asserted private/third-party privilege (as president of the National Conference); City could not assert that privilege and was not required to oppose petition | Court: Not material. Officer’s interest derived from a private privilege; proceeding is a reverse-CPRA mandamus, not an Act prosecution, so CPRA fees unavailable |
| Whether denying CPRA fees impairs public disclosure policy or leaves requesters without remedies | Newspaper: Denying fees elevates form over substance and chills disclosure enforcement | City: Requesters can seek fees under other statutes (e.g., private attorney general statute) and Act’s exclusive scheme preserves balance of disclosure/privacy | Court: Denial does not undermine CPRA; other fee statutes remain available; Marken’s recognition of reverse-mandamus preserves interested-party review without CPRA fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (clarifies §§ 6258–6259 provide the exclusive procedure for CPRA enforcement)
- Fontana Police Dept. v. Villegas-Banuelos, 74 Cal.App.4th 1249 (held requester could recover fees as functional equivalent of a CPRA proceeding)
- Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 (recognized mandamus by interested parties to prevent disclosure; distinguished from CPRA enforcement)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (broad interpretation of what electronic communications qualify as public records; balances access and privacy)