80 Cal.App.5th 1018
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Petitioner Brandon Rittiman (and Tegna, Inc.) submitted four Public Records Act (PRA) requests in Nov. 2020 for all communications (including emails/texts/calendar entries) between CPUC President Marybel Batjer (and her senior staff) and members of the Governor’s staff since Batjer’s appointment.
- CPUC initially determined the requested records were exempt under the Governor’s correspondence exemption (Gov. Code § 6254(l)) and denied disclosure; Rittiman filed an administrative appeal under CPUC General Order 66‑D.
- CPUC’s internal appeal process was significantly delayed (months without a posted draft resolution); Rittiman sued in mandamus in June 2021, alleging a constructive denial and arguing the exemption is limited to correspondence from non‑governmental parties and that "correspondence" must be letters (not emails/texts).
- The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause; before final disposition the CPUC adopted Resolution L‑612 denying the administrative appeal on the Governor’s correspondence exemption and the deliberative‑process privilege.
- The Court of Appeal held that Public Utilities Code rehearing rules (Pub. Util. Code § 1731) do not bar PRA judicial review, that petitioner was excused from exhausting internal remedies because of unreasonable delay, that the CPUC’s post‑petition denial did not moot the mandamus, and that the Governor’s correspondence exemption covers the requested intergovernmental communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pub. Util. Code rehearing requirement (§ 1731) bars judicial review of a PRA denial | Rittiman: § 1731 governs CPUC decisions so he had to exhaust rehearing before court; Supreme Court transfer meant exhaustion issue resolved | CPUC: § 1731 and related PU Code provisions impose mandatory exhaustion and thus deprive courts of jurisdiction absent rehearing | Held: § 1731 rehearing requirement does not apply to PRA disputes; PRA governs procedures for records requests and fixes bounds of CPUC procedures, so judicial review is available. |
| Whether petitioner was required to exhaust CPUC’s internal (non‑statutory) remedies here | Rittiman: delay excused exhaustion; he reasonably sought court relief after long delay | CPUC: petitioner should have completed CPUC rehearing process (General Order 66‑D) before suing | Held: exhaustion excused — administrative process was unreasonably slow (seven months), so petitioner properly sought mandamus. |
| Whether CPUC’s later adoption of Resolution L‑612 moots this writ | CPUC: final denial of appeal moots original petition | Rittiman: petition challenged denial on merits and alleged constructive denial; resolution does not moot that relief | Held: Not moot; court would reach merits and (indeed) resolved merits in favor of CPUC. |
| Scope of Gov. Code § 6254(l) (Governor’s correspondence exemption) — limited to private‑party correspondence and/or to letters (not emails/texts)? | Rittiman: exemption applies only to correspondence from parties outside government; Times Mirror confines “correspondence” to letters, so emails/texts not covered | CPUC: statute exempts correspondence of and to Governor/staff (no limitation to private parties); modern communications can qualify as correspondence; exemption covers requested intergovernmental exchanges | Held: Exemption applies as written to any "correspondence of and to" the Governor or staff that qualifies as correspondence; not limited to private‑party senders and CPUC permissibly withheld the requested intergovernmental communications. Deliberative‑process privilege not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991) (distinguishes broad "communications" from "correspondence" and construes "correspondence" narrowly in pre‑email era)
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (upheld that applicant letters/forms to Governor’s office qualified as "correspondence" under PRA)
- Clemmons v. Railroad Commission, 173 Cal. 254 (Cal. 1916) (historical precedent enforcing rehearing/exhaustion as jurisdictional in PU context)
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com., 25 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1979) (reiterates jurisdictional effect of PU Code rehearing requirements)
- Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2001) (statutory‑construction principles for PRA exemptions)
- City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 49 Cal.4th 597 (Cal. 2010) (administrative exhaustion excused where procedure is too slow to be effective)