Voice of San Diego v. Superior Court
D078415
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 16, 2021Background:
- Three news organizations (Voice of San Diego, KPBS, San Diego Union-Tribune) sought unredacted County of San Diego records listing COVID-19 outbreak "Location" and "Location Address." The County produced a spreadsheet but redacted those two columns.
- County explained redactions by reference to confidentiality of reports made under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §2502, and invoked PRA exemptions: §6254(k) and the PRA catchall §6255(a). Public health officer Dr. Wilma Wooten submitted an uncontradicted declaration explaining that disclosure would chill cooperation with contact tracing.
- Petitioners argued the County’s justification was speculative, that disclosure serves public health and oversight, and relied on examples of other jurisdictions that publish location data.
- The trial court denied petitioners’ writ, relying on both §6254(k) confidentiality and §6255(a) balancing; parties had stipulated to narrow the dispute to the two redacted columns.
- On review, the appellate court upheld the denial, concluding the County met its burden under the PRA catchall exemption to show nondisclosure clearly outweighed disclosure.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County may redact outbreak "Location" and "Location Address" under the PRA catchall (§6255(a)). | Disclosure furthers public safety and government accountability; harms are speculative. | Disclosure would chill contact tracing and undermine public health investigations; nondisclosure serves a stronger public interest. | Held: County met its burden under §6255(a); public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs interest in disclosure. |
| Whether the redactions are authorized because the underlying reports are confidential under state law (invoking §6254(k) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17). | Petitioners: statutory confidentiality exception does not apply or is insufficient to justify this blanket redaction. | County: spreadsheet derives from confidential case/outbreak reports under title 17; location data risks linking cases to individuals. | Held: Court did not need to resolve §6254(k) because §6255(a) was dispositive; trial court had also relied on §6254(k). |
| Whether Dr. Wooten’s declaration is speculative and thus insufficient to justify withholding. | Petitioners: declaration is conjectural, lacks empirical proof, and misuses Los Angeles data. | County: Dr. Wooten is a qualified public health expert; her uncontradicted opinion that disclosure would chill cooperation is competent evidence. | Held: Court credited Dr. Wooten’s expertise and found her opinion supported by the record; not speculative in this pandemic context. |
| Whether disclosure would materially help the public avoid infection or assess government performance. | Petitioners: exact locations help individuals assess exposure and enable oversight of government response. | County: sector, city, dates, and case counts already provided; exact addresses add little protective or oversight value and risk harming contact tracing. | Held: Disclosure would not materially improve public safety or oversight; the County’s nondisclosure interest prevails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 282 (2016) (PRA scope and public-access principles)
- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 1032 (2017) (catchall balancing standard under §6255)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2009) (agency bears burden to justify nondisclosure)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (1986) (mere conjecture of harm insufficient under PRA)
- Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal.4th 59 (2014) (vague safety claims do not justify nondisclosure)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (2007) (speculative threats insufficient to withhold records)
- Humane Society of U.S. v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.4th 1233 (2013) (expert declarations can support nondisclosure when grounded in experience)
- New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 1579 (1990) (unsupported fears of harassment do not justify withholding)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (courts should respect public-health expertise)