76 Cal.App.5th 438
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Adrian Riskin, an "open records activist," served CPRA requests on the Downtown Los Angeles Property Owners Association seeking various emails; the Association produced some materials, withheld others citing the deliberative process privilege, and produced one partially redacted email string (exhibit 10).
- Riskin sued under the CPRA to compel additional disclosures and obtain a declaration of violation; the trial court granted relief in part (ordered a reasonable search for Request No. 2 and ordered disclosure of nonprivileged portions of exhibit 10) and denied other relief.
- After judgment Riskin moved for attorney fees under Gov. Code § 6259(d); the Association argued fees could be denied because the court-ordered disclosure was minimal or insignificant.
- The trial court awarded Riskin $71,075.75 in fees but explained it believed it lacked discretion to deny fees under the CPRA.
- The Association appealed the fee award; the Court of Appeal concluded trial courts have discretion to deny fees in some circumstances and remanded for the trial court to exercise that discretion applying the minimal-or-insignificant standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court has discretion to deny attorney fees under Gov. Code § 6259(d) when the requester obtains only partial relief | Riskin: §6259(d) is mandatory — a prevailing requester must be awarded fees when litigation causes disclosure | Association: Court may deny fees when the disclosure is "so minimal or insignificant" (per Los Angeles Times) | Court: Trial courts do have discretion in some cases; must apply minimal/insignificant standard when relief is partial |
| Whether the "minimal or insignificant" language in Los Angeles Times is dicta and binding here | Riskin: That language is dicta and should not preclude a mandatory fee award | Association: The language is persuasive and supports denial of fees in such circumstances | Court: Regardless of dicta status, the standard is appropriate and adopted; court also concluded it was not mere dicta |
| Whether Riskin was the prevailing party such that fees must be awarded for the limited disclosure (exhibit 10) | Riskin: The lawsuit motivated disclosure (catalyst theory); therefore he prevailed and is entitled to fees | Association: The produced document was minimal/insignificant so Riskin did not prevail for fee purposes | Court: Did not decide prevailing status on the merits; reversed and remanded so trial court can exercise discretion and determine prevailing-party status under the minimal/insignificant framework |
| Whether the trial court may consider Riskin's supplemental declaration about usefulness of disclosed records on remand | Riskin: Declaration was timely and bears on materiality/usefulness of disclosure | Association: Asked the appellate court to preclude consideration of the declaration | Court: Declined to bar the trial court from considering the declaration; trial court may consider and the Association may challenge it on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 88 Cal.App.4th 1381 (articulated "minimal or insignificant" exception to fee awards under CPRA where only partial disclosure results from litigation)
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (§ 6259(d) attorney-fee award is mandatory if plaintiff prevails)
- Belth v. Garamendi, 232 Cal.App.3d 896 (adopts catalyst theory: suit may be prevailing even if no judgment ordering disclosure)
- Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. v. Board of Pilot Commissioners, 242 Cal.App.4th 1043 (applies prevailing-party/catalyst test in CPRA context)
- Garcia v. Bellflower Unified School Dist. Governing Bd., 220 Cal.App.4th 1058 (applied minimal/insignificant standard and upheld fee award where results were not minimal)
- Kahn v. Lasorda’s Dugout, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 1118 (failure to exercise judicial discretion constitutes abuse of discretion)