Sukumar v. City of San Diego, D071527

Background

Sukumar requested extensive public records from the City of San Diego under the California Public Records Act (PRA), seeking documents about code-enforcement complaints and investigations related to his property.
The City produced an initial batch of documents in September 2015 (292 pages) and told Sukumar more documents might exist; there was conflicting testimony about whether the City represented an ongoing search.
Sukumar filed a verified writ petition under the PRA (September 25, 2015) alleging additional responsive records had been withheld or improperly redacted.
The superior court ordered PMK (person most knowledgeable) depositions. During those depositions (April 2016) the City located and produced (a) a September 2, 2014 email, (b) five additional photographs from an internal S-drive (including two from inside the garage), and (c) 146 pages of previously undisclosed emails.
On March 8, 2016 the City had represented to the court that it had produced everything; after the PMK depositions the City admitted more responsive records existed and produced them. The trial court denied Sukumar’s fee motion, finding the lawsuit did not motivate the later productions.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the undisputed facts establish Sukumar’s litigation and the court-ordered depositions caused the City to locate and produce previously undisclosed records, making Sukumar a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under the PRA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sukumar is a "prevailing party" under PRA §6259(d) despite not obtaining a favorable judgment	Sukumar argued the lawsuit and court-ordered PMK depositions motivated the City to produce previously withheld records (email, photos, 146 pages of emails), satisfying the catalyst/causal test	City argued it had already agreed to produce all responsive records, was searching for more, and the later productions were not caused by the litigation	Held: Sukumar is a prevailing party; the undisputed timeline shows the City told the court it had produced everything on March 8, 2016 and only produced additional records after court-ordered depositions, showing causation
Whether mere temporal proximity suffices to show the litigation motivated production	Sukumar: causation shown by undisputed fact that the City located records only after PMK depositions compelled by the litigation	City: post-filing productions were part of an ongoing search and would have occurred irrespective of litigation	Held: Mere temporal connection is insufficient; here causation is established because the City had represented complete production and additional records were discovered only after court-ordered discovery
Whether bad faith or intentional withholding is required to award fees	Sukumar: bad faith not required; PRA catalyst doctrine focuses on causation, not intent	City: absence of bad faith means no fee entitlement	Held: Bad faith is not required; an agency’s inability or unwillingness to locate records until prompted by litigation is tantamount to withholding and supports fees
Whether trial court’s denial of fees was supported by substantial evidence	Sukumar: record lacks substantial evidence to support denial because key facts (City’s March 8 representations; later productions resulting from depositions) are undisputed	City: contested timeline and explanations for delay meant the court's credibility findings were permissible	Held: Trial court’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence; appellate court reversed and remanded to set reasonable fees

Key Cases Cited

Belth v. Garamendi, 232 Cal.App.3d 896 (recognizes catalyst theory: plaintiff prevails if lawsuit induces agency to release previously withheld documents)
Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (PRA plaintiff prevailing entitlement to mandatory attorney fees)
Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist., 167 Cal.App.4th 1063 (plaintiff prevails when lawsuit motivated defendant to produce documents)
Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Auth., 88 Cal.App.4th 1381 (partial-relief and prevailing-party analysis in PRA context)
Rogers v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.4th 469 (temporal production alone does not establish causation for fees)
Motorola Commc’ns & Elecs., Inc. v. Dept. of Gen. Servs., 55 Cal.App.4th 1340 (production timed to administrative process rather than litigation does not support fees)
Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. v. Board of Pilot Comm’rs, 242 Cal.App.4th 1043 (discusses PRA’s purpose and fee award considerations)
Community Youth Athletic Ctr. v. City of National City, 220 Cal.App.4th 1385 (agency’s inability or unwillingness to locate records is equivalent to withholding)