San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego
247 Cal. App. 4th 1306
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG) sued the City of San Diego and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) seeking emails from Goldsmith's personal account that related to City business; SDOG also asserted a taxpayer "waste" claim which it later dismissed with prejudice.
- City initially refused to produce any emails, claiming emails in Goldsmith's private account were not owned, used, prepared or retained by the City; after litigation began, City searched its systems and produced over 900 pages of responsive emails.
- The trial court entered judgment for SDOG under the CPRA, awarded SDOG attorney fees as the prevailing party, and denied City’s motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5.
- City appealed both the sanctions denial and the prevailing-party/attorney-fees award; this appeal addressed: (1) whether the revived § 128.5 applies to cases pending as of Jan. 1, 2015; (2) whether § 128.5 incorporates § 128.7’s safe-harbor waiting period; (3) the correct legal standard for § 128.5 sanctions; and (4) whether SDOG was the prevailing party under the CPRA.
- The Court of Appeal held § 128.5 applies to actions pending on its effective date, ruled the § 128.7 safe-harbor waiting period is not required for § 128.5 motions, adopted an objective-reasonableness standard for § 128.5, reversed the denial of sanctions and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard, and affirmed the prevailing-party fee award to SDOG.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of revived § 128.5 to this action | SDOG: § 128.5 should not apply because operative pleading and dismissal occurred before Jan. 1, 2015; retroactive application prohibited | City: § 128.5 governs actions pending on Jan. 1, 2015; no retroactivity problem because statute is procedural | Held: § 128.5 applies to actions pending as of Jan. 1, 2015; statute is procedural and prospective in effect |
| Safe-harbor waiting period (§ 128.7(c)(1)) required for § 128.5 motions | SDOG: § 128.5 incorporates § 128.7 and thus requires compliance with safe-harbor before filing | City: § 128.5 requires consistency with certain subdivisions of § 128.7, but not the safe-harbor filing procedure | Held: Safe-harbor waiting period is not required for § 128.5 motions; § 128.5 incorporated § 128.7(c) regarding who may be sanctioned and standards, not the filing precondition |
| Legal standard for § 128.5 sanctions (objective vs. subjective) | SDOG: § 128.5 requires subjective bad faith (as earlier courts required) | City: Legislature intended § 128.5 to adopt objective standard like § 128.7; lower barrier than subjective intent | Held: Objective-reasonableness standard applies to § 128.5; trial court erred to require proof of subjective bad faith |
| Prevailing party and attorney fees under CPRA | SDOG: Litigation compelled City to search and produce public records; SDOG is prevailing party entitled to fees | City: Production was not caused by lawsuit or was insignificant; therefore SDOG not prevailing party | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; SDOG was prevailing party because litigation prompted City to produce previously withheld records; fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 32 Cal.4th 804 (California Supreme Court 2004) (discusses temporal scope and interpretation of former § 128.5 and § 128.7)
- In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (California Supreme Court 1982) (distinguishes subjective and objective standards for frivolousness)
- Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., 21 Cal.4th 71 (California Supreme Court 1999) (principles on statutory interpretation applied to sanctions standards)
- Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 88 Cal.App.4th 1381 (California Court of Appeal 2001) (defines prevailing party under CPRA where litigation results in release of withheld documents)
- Belth v. Garamendi, 232 Cal.App.3d 896 (California Court of Appeal 1991) (litigation can be "prevailing" when it substantially contributed to disclosure or changed agency behavior)