California Public Records Act - New Case Law

[RickD427]

There has just been an interesting new case handed down on Monday regarding the application of California's Public Records Act (PRA). It's an unpublished case, but it's still concerning.

The PRA pretty much requires California Public Agencies (excluding the courts) to respond to requests for public records within 10 days of the request, and with an extra 14 days if the request is complex. Each PRA request requires the agency to determine: 1) If any responsive records exist, and 2) If there is any privilege against the disclosure of the involved record.

But the PRA uses some "Weasel Wording" that allows agencies to subvert its original intent. The key "Weasel Word" involved in this case is the meaning of "Respond." The first impression here is that the agency "Responds" by locating, vetting for privilege, and then delivering the records to the requestor.

But that's not what the California Court of Appeals decided. They found that the agency had "Responded" to the request when it informed the requestor that responsive records were found. The case involved the San Diego Unified School District. The District required an average period of 399 days to "Deliver" PRA requested records, even if they "Responded" to the request within the 10 day (or the extended 24 day) period.

The key to the ruling was language contained in the PRA that requires records to be delivered "Promptly" to the requestor. Since the term "Promptly" was not defined in the statute, the court could not conclude that 399 days was not "Prompt."

 

[joefrank64k]

Man, what is SDUSD hiding that they take 399+ days to deliver documents, haha!!

Watch this increase to ‘infinity days’ now, haha!!

 

[Deadcoyote]

Rick, can you give me the case name so I can look for it?

 

[Deadcoyote]

Disregard I found it. Voice of San Diego vs. San Diego unified school district

 

[treelogger]

Very disturbing. But I wonder whether one could make interesting hay of it. For example: The Anytown school district wants to build a new elephant classroom, and announces it at the monthly board meeting. Under most board rules, they can't actually make a decision on the project at that meeting, only at the next one. I file a PRA request for what elephants eat, and how often they use the toilet, because I'm worried that the needs of elephants will overstress the existing infrastructure. I get the request in the day after the board meeting, and I want to have the materials ready to present in a month at the next board meeting. In the old days, that was tough but feasible. Now, I might get the answer in the 2027-28 school year. At the next board meeting, the board decides to approve $1.234M for construction of the new elephant facility. I can use my 3 minutes to remind them that they have not had sensible public input, because the public has not been able to see the relevant data. But they approve and go forward.

The expected happens: start of next school year there is elephant poop all over the playground, the kids have no salad to eat because the elephants ate it all. It's a disaster. This is where I think I could make hay of the decision: Right after the second board meeting, I go to court to get an injunction against the construction, because (as I said) the public didn't have an opportunity to give WELL INFORMED input. A reasonable judge might see it my way, and block the decision. Not on PRA grounds, but on board process grounds.

Another question: I'm sure someone has contacted the FAC, the First Amendment Coalition? They tend to be pretty good about public access matters, and they often have the voice of the legislature, and know how to convince courts.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

There's already a million ways to game the PRA system that this isn't super concerning. For instance many agencies have instituted very short retention policies for emails and other communication. Once it's deleted from your inbox it's no longer subject to PRAs. It's also largely up to the agencies discretion with a lot of grey area, and to catch them in something you would have to go to court. They really won't ever share anything juicy in the first place. It does seem from reading the court decision that they are making a very "by the letter" interpretation and that the law was poorly written and ambiguous to begin with.

 

[treelogger]

... and that the law was poorly written and ambiguous to begin with.

That is the hallmark of our legislature.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

That is the hallmark of our legislature.

All the way back to the Constitution. I can say having written regulations that what seems obvious at the time is often not obvious at all and often ambiguous even though you were quite sure that it was clear. As hard as we try, language isn't math and is subject to interpretation

 

[Tankhatch]

I wonder if it works both ways..... if I say to them, I will promptly donate $10k to the teachers association...... hmmmmmmm

 

[Jimi Jah]

It really depends on what the word "is" is.

 

[nakatomi]

It does seem from reading the court decision that they are making a very "by the letter" interpretation and that the law was poorly written and ambiguous to begin with.

That’s what I’m wondering. The district won at trial and then won again on appeal so what was the actual basis for the win?

Did the court really conclude that a 399 day delay is acceptable or did it simply find that the plaintiff failed to prove the district violated the statute as written?

What the court decided may not be the same issue being discussed here.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

That’s what I’m wondering. The district won at trial and then won again on appeal so what was the actual basis for the win?

Did the court really conclude that a 399 day delay is acceptable or did it simply find that the plaintiff failed to prove the district violated the statute as written?

What the court decided may not be the same issue being discussed here.

I read the case way back when it was fresh and I can't remember the specifics, but I believe it was simply that the law was worded that the state has to "respond" within a certain time period and wasn't specific that they had to respond in full by that time. “Because the Legislature chose not to define a precise deadline by which public agencies must produce disclosable public records, we will not create one,”

So the legislature could amend the law to be more specific, if they wanted to

 

[nakatomi]

That seems right.

My reading is that the court's focus was on what the statute actually requires not on whether a 399 day delay is reasonable.

The result may be that agencies can take that long to produce records but that doesn't necessarily mean the court concluded a delay of that length is consistent with the ordinary meaning of "prompt".

Despite San Diego being semi local to me had no idea this case came and went.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

That seems right.

My reading is that the court's focus was on what the statute actually requires not on whether a 399 day delay is reasonable.

The result may be that agencies can take that long to produce records but that doesn't necessarily mean the court concluded a delay of that length is consistent with the ordinary meaning of "prompt".

Despite San Diego being semi local to me had no idea this case came and went.

I am curious why San Diego was taking that long but it's probably just staffing and not giving a . Most agencies do take it somewhat seriously

 

[nakatomi]

I am curious why San Diego was taking that long but it's probably just staffing and not giving a . Most agencies do take it somewhat seriously

It came a year before the pandemic. That was a the sh*t show that log jammed a lot of cases (civil and criminal).

 

[RickD427]

That’s what I’m wondering. The district won at trial and then won again on appeal so what was the actual basis for the win?

Did the court really conclude that a 399 day delay is acceptable or did it simply find that the plaintiff failed to prove the district violated the statute as written?

What the court decided may not be the same issue being discussed here.

It was the latter. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case. The court held that since the term "Promptly" was undefined in the statute, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant failed to "Promptly" deliver the records.

 

[H. Bowman]

10 days to respond is ridiculous. 399 days to respond is equally ridiculous.

 

[Gawernator]

It was the latter. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case. The court held that since the term "Promptly" was undefined in the statute, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant failed to "Promptly" deliver the records.

I just realized you're a Calguns OG, it's the same bird. What's the story of your bald eagle?

 

[RickD427]

I just realized you're a Calguns OG, it's the same bird. What's the story of your bald eagle?

The Eagle is our great national symbol. I liked version for the puzzled of "WTF" expression on his face. I have another version of the avatar that I use on special occasions that shows the Eagle, holding wings up high stepping through a pile of (stuff).