Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court of Alameda County
190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- District disclosed PRA records; inadvertent release included over 100 privileged documents
- District sought return or destruction; TRO granted then denied; petition for writ of mandate filed
- Real parties in interest argued 6254.5 waives exemptions upon disclosure to public
- Court stayed proceedings and reviewed statutory interpretation and history
- Court reverses, holding inadvertent release does not waive attorney-client or work-product privileges
- Decision harmonizes 6254.5 with Evid. Code 912 and constitutional access provisions
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 6254.5 waives privileges for inadvertent releases | Brazil contends inadvertent release constitutes waiver | District argues waiver applies to any disclosure to public | Inadvertent release does not waive privileges |
| What counts as a 'disclosure' under 6254.5 | Brazil says release to Snyder/public constitutes disclosure | District says disclosure must be intentional | Disclosures must be interpreted to exclude inadvertent releases |
| Conflict with Evidence Code 912 and statutory harmony | Brazil favors waiver under 6254.5 | District favors harmonizing statutes | Exclude inadvertent PRA disclosures to avoid conflict with Evidence Code 912 |
| Constitutional interpretive rule vs. legislative history | Constitutional access favors broader disclosure | Legislature did not intend to fold inadvertent releases into waiver | Harmonize statutes; avoid constitutional conflict by excluding inadvertent releases |
| Relief and scope of remedy for inadvertent privileged releases | Disclosures undermine confidentiality, require return | Relief should be considered case-by-case; potential for effective relief exists | Proceedings to determine appropriate relief; TRO continued pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (waiver of privileges not created by inadvertent disclosures; intentionality required)
- O’Mary v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 59 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (inadvertent disclosures do not trigger waiver under Evidence Code 912)
- Black Panther Party v. Kehoe, 42 Cal.App.3d 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (legislative history of 6254.5 codified 'selective disclosures' doctrine)
- Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 42 Cal.App.4th 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (discussed waiver under 6254.5; applicable to non-privilege contexts)
- Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) (constitutional interpretation of PRA; balance access vs. exemptions)
- Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015) (harmonizing conflicting statutes; presumptions against repeal by implication)