Case Information
*1 Filed 3/12/14
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LA TWON REGINAL WEAVER, D063768 Pеtitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. 37–2013–00032402 v. –CU–WM–CTL) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY et al.,
Real Parties in Interest. PROCEEDINGS in mandate after the superior court denied a request for public records, Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Petition granted.
James S. Thomson, Elisabeth Semel, Ty Alper, for the Petitioner.
Thоmas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Deborah A. McCarthy, Assistant County Counsel, Claudia Anzures, C. Ellen Pilsecker, George W. Brewster, Jr., Chief *2 Deputy Attorneys, William Allen Johnson, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney for Real Parties in Interest.
BACKGROUND
In this writ proceeding, petitioner La Twоn Reginal Weaver, who is a prisoner sentenced to death, seeks various records from the District Attorney's Office of San Diego County (District Attorney) under the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code,1 § 6250 et seq.) to assist in investigating whether thе District Attorney impermissibly sought the death penalty based on the race of the defendant, the victim, or both.
In January 2013, as relevant here, Weaver requested the District Attorney provide him with (1) copies of all charging documents in homicide cases filed by the District Attorney between January 1977 and May 1993 and (2) all court filings in superior court cases People v. Troiani, et al. (Super. Ct. S.D. County, No. CRN9925) and People v. Moffett (Super. Ct. S.D. County, No. CR103094) addressing allegations the District Attorney selectively prosecuted capital cases.
The Distriсt Attorney denied Weaver's requests on grounds that under the CPRA, the documents sought were exempt as investigatory files (§ 6254, subd. (f)); and prohibited from disclosure under a different state or federal law (§ 6254, subd. (k)). The District Attorney further argued the documents sought imрlicate the privacy rights of "hundreds of defendants and victims under article I, sections 1 and 28, of the California 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. *3 [C]onstitution." The District Attorney also objected that Weaver's request for the list of homicide cases was overly burdensome because "programming and extraction of the data necessary to identify the records would require approximately 35-40 hours of time at a cost of $85 per hour for a total of approximately $3,400." The District Attorney noted Weaver's request was duplicative of one he had made in postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9.2
Weavеr filed a writ petition in superior court seeking to compel the District Attorney to produce the documents. The superior court denied the petition, adopting the District Attorney's position set forth above, exceрt that the court did not rule on the issue of the request's burdensomeness.
We issued an order to show cause. The District Attorney filed an unverified return, to which Weaver replied.
DISCUSSION
In response to our request for supplemental briefing, and also at oral argument, the
District Attorney acknowledged that the documents Weaver seeks are the District
Attorney's file copies of "court documents" whose originals were filed in the superior
court. (
The Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1992)
"court documents" to include "the various documents filed in or received by the court,
such as pleadings and motions filed by the parties and the evidence admitted in court
proceedings. All of these documents represent and reflect the official work of the court, in which the public and press have a justifiable interest."].) The issue we decidе is
whether the District Attorney's copies of judicial documents—which must be made
available to the public upon request at the superior court—are entitled to exemption from
disclosure as investigatory documents under the CPRA or because they implicate privacy
rights. We conclude the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure. As the
California Supreme Court has stated: "We consider it unlikely the Legislature intended
to render documеnts confidential based on their location." (
Commission on Peace Officer
Standards & Training v. Superior Court
(2007)
In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature sought to provide the public broad access to documents regarding how government agencies carry out their responsibilities. "Endorsing the proposition 'that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state' *5 (§ 6250), the Legislature enacted the [CPRA] 'for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public аgencies.' [Citation.] Legislative policy favors disclosure. [Citation.] 'All public records are subject to disclosure unless the [CPRA] expressly provides otherwise.' " ( American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal. v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 67.) "Since disclosure is favored, all exemptions are narrowly construed. [Citation.] The agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies." ( County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1321.)
As a matter of due process, the District Attorney is required to file a complaint in
each criminal case to invoke the court's jurisdiction. (
City of San Diego v. Municipal
Court
(1980)
Again, in light of the fаct the documents were publicly filed, we reject the District
Attorney's arguments based on the California Constitution's right to privacy. "[A]
plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to
privacy must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant
constituting a serious invasion of privacy." (
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
(1994)
The District Attorney also claims the documents sought are exempt under section 6254, subdivision (k), which relates to "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibitеd pursuant to federal or state law." The District Attorney claims that disclosing the documents would violate Penal Code section 13302, which forbids an employee of the local criminal justice agency from knowingly furnishing a record or information obtained from a record to a person who is not authorized by law to receive that information. But Penal Code section 13302 has recently been modified (Stats. 2012, ch. 84, § 1) and now states: "Nothing in this section shall prohibit a public prosecutor from accessing and obtaining information from the public prosecutor's case management *7 database to respond to a request for publicly disclosable information pursuant to the California Public Records Act." Therefore, the District Attorney's argument is unavailing.
The District Attorney also objects that Weaver's request is burdensome under section 6255, subdivision (a), which states, "The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disсlosure of the record." As stated, the superior court did not rule on this objection.
The only evidence the District Attorney presented regarding the purported
burdensomeness of Weaver's request was its estimate that for it to generate a list of
homicide cases filed in San Diego County between 1977 and 1993, one of its employees
would have to work a 40-hour week at a cost of approximately $3,400. Our review of
the District Attorney's objection to the request as burdensome is by necessity limited to
this evidence. (
Campbell v. Superior Court
(2008)
We conclude the public's interest in the fair administration of the death penalty is a
longstanding concern in California, and it is inconceivable to us that any countervailing
interest that the District Attorney could assert outweighs the magnitude of the public's
interest. (Accord,
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior
Court
(2011)
Moreover, we agree that: "Beyond the state of the evidence in this particular record, there are other reasons to accord little weight to the financial concerns. As has been said, 'There is nothing in the [CPRA] to suggest that a records request must impose no burden to the government agency.' [Citations.] Thus, for example, the $43,000 cost of compiling an accurate list of names was not a 'valid reason to proscribe disclosure of the identity of such individuals.' " ( County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1327, quoting CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 892, 909].) The approximately $3,400 expense of generating the list of cases at issue here is substantially less of a reason and pales in comparison to the interests of Weaver and the public in disclosure.
DISPOSITION
Let a writ issue directing the superior court to vacate the order dated March 26, 2013, and enter an order granting La Twon Weaver's petition. Costs to La Twon Weaver. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493 (a)(1)(A).) The opinion will be final as to this court 15 days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490 (b)(2)(A).)
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.