224 Cal. App. 4th 746
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioner La Twon Reginal Weaver, a death‑sentenced prisoner, requested under the CPRA (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.): (1) copies of all charging documents in homicide cases filed by the San Diego District Attorney from Jan. 1977–May 1993; and (2) court filings from two superior‑court matters (Troiani and Moffett) addressing alleged selective/prosecutorial discrimination in capital charging.
- The District Attorney refused, asserting exemptions: investigatory files (§ 6254(f)), records prohibited by other law (§ 6254(k)), and the privacy protections of the California Constitution; it also claimed the request was unduly burdensome to compile.
- Weaver filed a writ in superior court; the superior court denied relief adopting the District Attorney’s positions (except it did not rule on burdensomeness). Weaver petitioned this Court of Appeal, which issued an order to show cause.
- The District Attorney conceded the records sought were its copies of judicial documents that were publicly filed in superior court; the appellate question was whether those copies were nonetheless exempt from disclosure.
- The Court of Appeal applied CPRA principles favoring disclosure, rejected investigatory‑file and privacy claims because the documents were publicly filed court records (not under seal), and rejected the § 6254(k)/Pen. Code § 13302 argument in light of statutory amendment permitting prosecutor responses to CPRA requests.
- The Court found the claimed compilation cost (~$3,400) insufficient to overcome the strong public interest in transparency about capital prosecutions, granted the writ, and ordered the superior court to compel production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weaver) | Defendant's Argument (District Attorney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DA’s copies of court‑filed charging documents are exempt as investigatory files under § 6254(f) | Charging documents are public court filings and must be disclosed under CPRA | DA contends its file copies are investigatory and exempt | Held: Not exempt; content not location controls; publicly filed court documents are disclosable |
| Whether disclosure would violate state constitutional privacy rights | No reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly filed court documents not under seal | DA asserts privacy interests of defendants and victims under Cal. Const. art. I §§ 1, 28 | Held: Privacy claim fails; publicly filed, nonsealed documents do not implicate a protected privacy interest |
| Whether disclosure is prohibited by other state law (§ 6254(k), Penal Code § 13302) | Statutory scheme permits CPRA disclosure; Weaver sought publicly disclosable info | DA argues Penal Code § 13302 forbids furnishing of records/information | Held: Rejected — § 13302 was amended to allow prosecutors to respond to CPRA requests for publicly disclosable information |
| Whether the request is sufficiently burdensome to justify withholding under § 6255(a) | Public interest in oversight of capital charging outweighs burden; request is proper | DA claims compilation would cost ~ $3,400 and require ~40 hours, making request unduly burdensome | Held: Burden insufficient to overcome strong public interest; cost does not justify withholding |
Key Cases Cited
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (2007) (location of a record does not automatically render it confidential)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 337 (1993) (agencies cannot shield records simply by labeling them investigatory)
- American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 55 (2011) (CPRA disclosure presumption and public interest in scrutiny of capital punishment)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2009) (exemptions narrowly construed; costs of compiling records rarely justify nondisclosure)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (elements required to establish a state constitutional invasion of privacy)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.App.4th 106 (1992) (definition and public interest in access to court documents)
- Marylander v. Superior Court, 81 Cal.App.4th 1119 (2000) (CPRA’s broad access and lack of purpose limitation on requesters)
- CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 892 (2001) (financial burden alone does not permit withholding public records)