22 Cal. App. 5th 147
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- In 2012 Pasadena police shot and killed Kendrec McDade; the City hired a private Office of Independent Review (OIR) to evaluate PPD investigations and make recommendations; OIR produced a 70‑page report.
- Requesters (interveners) sought the OIR report under the California Public Records Act (PRA); the Pasadena Police Officers Association (PPOA) and two officers filed a reverse‑PRA action seeking to enjoin disclosure and obtained a TRO; the Los Angeles Times later intervened seeking full disclosure.
- The trial court ordered a redacted release of the OIR report; the Times appealed and this court held (Pasadena Police) that the report was public but that some redactions were improper and remanded for limited unredactions; the City released an updated redacted report.
- The Times sought attorney fees under the PRA (Gov. Code § 6259(d)) from the City and under the private‑attorney‑general statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5) from the City and from the PPOA and officers; the trial court awarded limited PRA fees against the City (only for appellate/unredaction work, with a further 50% reduction for duplicative efforts) and denied any § 1021.5 award.
- On appeal the Times challenged denial of § 1021.5 fees against the PPOA/officers and sought broader PRA fees against the City; the Court of Appeal affirmed the limited PRA award but reversed the denial of § 1021.5 fees, directing the trial court to award reasonable § 1021.5 fees against the officers and/or PPOA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of § 1021.5 fees against PPOA/officers | Times: met § 1021.5 criteria (important public right, public benefit, necessity) and Joshua S. does not bar fees | PPOA/officers: Joshua S. forbids imposing § 1021.5 fees on private litigants defending only private rights | Court: Joshua S. inapplicable here; award § 1021.5 fees against officers and/or PPOA (reversed trial court denial) |
| Whether PRA fees from City should cover all work | Times: prevailing under PRA; entitled to recover fees for most litigation stages, including defense against PPOA | City: Times principally opposed PPOA; City’s position was reasonable at trial; prevailing only for limited appellate/unredaction period | Court: affirmed trial court’s limited PRA award (fees only for appellate/unredaction work) and affirmed 50% reduction for duplicative efforts (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether reverse‑PRA suits are governed by PRA fee provision | Times: (as to third parties) sought fees under PRA? (position clarified) | PPOA: PRA’s fee provision is sole remedy, so § 1021.5 unavailable | Court: reverse‑PRA actions are distinct (Marken); PRA fee provision does not preclude § 1021.5 awards against non‑agency third parties |
| Application of Joshua S. (private litigant exception) | Times: the PPOA/officers asserted a position adverse to public interest and PPOA had institutional/public role; Joshua S. narrow | PPOA/officers: they were private litigants protecting officers’ Pitchess privacy rights; Joshua S. insulates them from § 1021.5 liability | Court: Joshua S. is a narrow exception; here union/public‑interest implications and attempt to suppress public records put defendants outside Joshua S.; § 1021.5 fees may be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. Superior Court, 240 Cal.App.4th 268 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holding OIR report is public but some redactions improper)
- Joshua S. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2008) (limits § 1021.5 fee exposure for private litigants adjudicating only private rights)
- Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 52 Cal.4th 1018 (Cal. 2011) (clarifies narrow scope of Joshua S. exception to § 1021.5)
- Marken v. Santa Monica‑Malibu Unified Sch. Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognizes reverse‑PRA suits are distinct from PRA enforcement)
- Sukumar v. City of San Diego, 14 Cal.App.5th 451 (Cal. Ct. App.) (causation standard for PRA prevailing party when litigation induces additional disclosure)
- Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Auth., 88 Cal.App.4th 1381 (Cal. Ct. App.) (a requester prevails under PRA if suit results in disclosure even if some sought material remains withheld)
- Belth v. Garamendi, 232 Cal.App.3d 896 (Cal. Ct. App.) (PRA plaintiff may be prevailing party when litigation spurs release of previously withheld records)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (standard of review for attorney fee awards)