California Supreme Court Holds Personal Emails of Public Officials are “Public Records”

The California Public Records Act has long been a tool for journalists and citizens to learn more about how public officials reach decision concerning public matters. With a simple letter, a member of the public can request that a local government produce documents pertaining to an upcoming vote on a controversial land use project or other public matters. Public officials have long been required to produce communications from their official government-supplied email account in response to these document requests. For many years, a gray area has been whether public officials were required to also review and produce personal emails and text messages pertaining to government business.  On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion confirming that a public official’s personal email and text messages can be “public records” for purposes of a Public Records Act request.  The decision, City of San Jose v. Superior Court, (Mar. 2, 2017 S218066).  This decision is a game changer for transparency in government proceedings. Public officials can no longer prevent the public from accessing the full spectrum of communications officials have pertaining to government affairs.

This post is the latest in a series of posts on the First Amendment and transparency in government.   Jeffrey Lewis and the other attorneys at Broedlow Lewis LLP are experienced attorneys and can advise you about your potential rights concerning access to public records.  Each case is different and you should consult a lawyer rather than relying on this post as legal advice for your situation.

California Supreme Court closes door to appellate review of carefully crafted interlocutory orders disguised as final judgments

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kurwa v. Kislinger (Oct. 3, 2013, S201619).  The decision addresses the question of when a dismissal order is “final enough” to be appealable rather than a non-appealable interlocutory order.  Under the One Judgment Rule, only final judgments are reviewable by direct appeal:

 This case poses the question whether an appeal may be taken when the judgment disposes of fewer than all the pled causes of action by dismissal with prejudice, and the parties agree to dismiss the remaining counts without prejudice and waive operation of the statute of limitations on those remaining causes of action. We conclude such a judgment is not appealable…..

The question is thus not what rule will best serve litigants and trial courts, but what rule is most consistent with the policy against piecemeal appeals codified in section 904.1 and vindicated in Morehart. In the present circumstances, we believe the Don Jose’s rule, which prevents parties from agreeing to split an action‟s disposition into two or more appealable judgments, is the approach most consistent with our statute and precedent. The one final judgment rule does not permit parties “to separate [their] causes of action into two compartments for separate appellate treatment at different points in time.” (Jackson, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 245.)

Because the parties’ defamation claims were dismissed without prejudice and were effectively preserved for later litigation by an agreement waiving applicable statutes of limitations, the judgment adjudicating other causes of action was not final or appealable. The Court of Appeal was required to dismiss, rather than decide, plaintiff‟s appeal from that judgment.

California Supreme Court finds GIS Database Subject to Disclosure Under the PRA

Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) are software programs that can capture, analyze and present geographic data.  Think google maps on steroids.  Maps, statistics and other geographic data.  Local governments use GIS in connection with their planning decisions.  When a city council or planning commission makes a zoning or building decision, more often than not, city staff presents them with a presentation of GIS data.  In June 2007, the Sierra Club requested that the Orange County Assessor produce a GIS database, known as “OC Landbase” pursuant to the California Public Records Act.  The County initially declined stating that unless the Sierra Club had a GIS license and paid a fee, the data need not be disclosed.  The Sierra Club disagreed and requested that the database be provided at the cost of duplication and without a license agreement.  The issue wound its way through the California court system.  Today, the California Supreme Court ruled that the GIS database is not exempt from disclosure and that the database must be disclosed in response to a request under the Public Records Act request.  You can read the decision in Sierra Club v. Superior Court (July 8, 2013 S194708) here.  For those involved in Public Records Act litigation, today’s opinion offered additional confirmation of the obligation of the Court’s to broadly construe the Public Records Act in favor of disclosure:

The PRA and the California Constitution provide the public with a right of access to government information. As this court has explained: ―Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy. Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.