Nat. Lawyers Guild etc. v. City of Hayward
464 P.3d 594
Cal.2020Background
- In Dec. 2014 the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) requested records from the Hayward Police Department related to Berkeley demonstrations; Department staff identified body‑worn camera videos stored on Evidence.com.
- City IT manager Roush spent ~4.9 hours locating, reviewing, and downloading ~90 hours of video; Records Custodian Perez later narrowed to six hours and spent ~35.3 hours editing (redacting) exempt audio/visual material using Windows Movie Maker.
- The City invoiced NLG ~$2,938.58 (largely for 40.2 hours of staff time); NLG paid under protest and filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking refund and an order barring chargebacks beyond direct duplication costs.
- Trial court ruled for NLG, holding that Gov. Code §6253.9(b)(2)’s cost‑shifting for “data compilation, extraction, or programming” does not include redaction of electronic records; Court of Appeal reversed. California Supreme Court granted review.
- Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal: “data extraction” in §6253.9(b)(2) does not encompass routine redaction/deletion of exempt material from otherwise producible electronic records; therefore the City may not charge requesters for redaction time in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does “data extraction” in §6253.9(b)(2) include redacting exempt material from electronic records? | NLG: No — “extraction” means retrieving data to construct a producible record, not redaction/deletion. | Hayward: Yes — “extract” broadly means taking something out, so redaction is chargeable as extraction. | Held: No — “extraction” refers to technical data retrieval/compilation to construct records; routine redaction (deletion) is not covered. |
| Are tasks of searching Evidence.com and downloading videos chargeable as extraction/compilation? | NLG: Searching/downloading are like searching paper files and are not chargeable as extraction. | Hayward: Searching, locating, and collecting responsive electronic files constitute data compilation and are chargeable. | Held: The Court agreed searching/downloading here was not shown to be extraction; it treated those tasks like nonchargeable searches; the Court left unresolved some compilation arguments for remand. |
| Does legislative history or PRA purpose support charging redaction costs? | NLG: History and PRA’s access purpose favor narrow reading; charging redaction erects financial barriers to access. | Hayward: Legislative amendments and contemporaneous reactions indicate lawmakers intended to allow recovery of redaction costs for electronic records. | Held: Legislative history and PRA’s text favor a narrower scope tied to technical retrieval; no clear legislative intent to shift routine redaction costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal.App. 2009) (ancillary tasks like reviewing and deleting exempt material are not chargeable under PRA duplication fees)
- North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal.App. 1994) (direct duplication costs exclude staff time for searching and redacting)
- Sander v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.5th 651 (Cal.App. 2018) (PRA does not require agencies to create new substantive records, but may require data compilation/extraction to produce releasable records)
- Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 282 (Cal. 2016) (describing PRA’s purpose to increase access to government records)
- International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007) (PRA contains exemptions to protect privacy and other confidentiality interests)