Bakersfield School Dist. v. Superior Court
| Citation | 118 Cal.App.4th 1041,13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. F043967.,F043967. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Kern County, Respondent; The Bakersfield Californian, Real Party In Interest. |
Petitioner, Bakersfield City School District (the District), challenges the superior court's order granting real party in interest, The Bakersfield Californian's, petition for writ of mandate for access to disciplinary records of Vincent Brothers (Brothers), a district employee. We will affirm.
On July 24, 2003, The Bakersfield Californian filed a "VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/COMPLAINT FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS" seeking disclosure of "disciplinary records that [Bakersfield City School District] currently maintains regarding Mr. Vincent Brothers, a District employee."
On September 5, 2003, after counsel initially argued the matter, the court reviewed the personnel records of Brothers in camera. As to some of the records, the court denied disclosure after concluding that the records were not substantial in nature and that there was no reasonable cause to believe the complaints therein were well-founded. However, as to complaints regarding an incident that allegedly occurred on February 20, 1996, which the court described on the record as "Sexual type conduct, threats of violence and violence," the court found "that complaint is substantial in nature and that there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint is well founded." The court further found The court ruled that the documents must be produced after being redacted to exclude names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons mentioned except for Brothers. The court ordered that the redacted documents be submitted to the court by September 12, 2003.
On September 12, 2003, the District substituted in a new law firm. On that same date, new counsel served and filed with respondent court an ex parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on the District's motion to file an amendment to the answer to join necessary parties and to file supplemental points and authorities and declarations in the action. On September 15, 2003, the court signed the ex parte order shortening time. The cause was continued until September 17, 2003.
On September 17, 2003, the court denied the motion to file an amendment to the answer and supplemental points and authorities on the ground that there were no new or different facts, circumstances or law upon which to grant reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. After reviewing the redacted documents, the court ordered disclosed seven pages that related to a February 20, 1996, incident. The court ordered the documents to remain sealed to permit petitioner the opportunity to seek review in this court. Upon filing of the petition, this court stayed the order dated September 17, 2003, pending further order of this court.
Petitioner's primary contention is that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion because the court applied the wrong standard in ordering disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (CPRA.) Petitioner contends and real party concurs that, pursuant to the CPRA, disclosure of a complaint against a public employee is justified if the complaint is of a substantial nature and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint or charge of misconduct is well-founded. However, petitioner further contends that under this standard, "[a] charge or complaint is well-founded only if there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint or charge of misconduct is true" or if discipline has been imposed. We determine that neither the imposition of discipline nor a finding that the charge is true is a prerequisite to disclosure and that pursuant to the less rigorous standard, disclosure is appropriate.
The standard of review of an order of the superior court under the CPRA is "independent review of the trial court's ruling; factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if based on substantial evidence." (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240.)
The CPRA, codified at Government Code section 6250 et seq.,1 provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies, including local school districts. The CPRA embodies a strong policy in favor of disclosure of public records. Any refusal to disclose public information must be based on a specific narrowly construed exception to that policy. (Lorig v. Medical Board (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 462, 467, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 862; City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1425, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 532.) The CPRA includes two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure of public records: (1) materials expressly exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254; and (2) the "catchall exception" of section 6255, which allows a government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on the facts of a particular case, the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870.)
The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure to demonstrate a "clear overbalance" on the side of confidentiality. (California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 831, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870.)
Section 6254, subdivision (c) states: "Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following: [¶] ... [¶] Personnel, medical or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This "personnel exemption" was "`developed to protect intimate details of personal and family life, not business judgments and relationships.'" (Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 343-344, 201 Cal.Rptr. 654.)
The parties agree that American Federation of State etc. Employees v. Regents of University of California (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 913, 918, 146 Cal.Rptr. 42 (AFSCME) sets out the legal standard to be followed when weighing an individual's privacy rights against the public's right to know of an alleged wrongdoing for purposes of section 6254, subdivision (c). The case provides that where complaints of a public employee's wrongdoing and resulting disciplinary investigation reveal allegations of a substantial nature, as distinct from baseless or trivial, and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint is well-founded, public employee privacy must give way to the public's right to know. (AFSCME, supra, at p. 918, 146 Cal.Rptr. 42.) Petitioner relies on AFSCME, as well as City of Hemet v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 and Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 568-569, 7 Cal.Rptr. 109, 354 P.2d 637 for the proposition that a charge or complaint is well-founded only if it is found to be true or the public employee has been disciplined based on the complaint.
These cases do not support petitioner's contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. of Eng'Rs, Local 21 v. Superior Court
...Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240; Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1045, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517.) The trial court's findings in this case were well supported, its reasoning sound, and its conclu......
-
Cnty. of L. A. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
...v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 62, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 324 (Anderson–Barker ); Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1045, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 ; Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, at pp. 708–709, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 622.)2. The statu......
-
Marken v. Santa Monica–Malibu Unified Sch. Dist.
...of California (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 913, 146 Cal.Rptr. 42( American Federation ),Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517( Bakersfield School Dist.) and BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 519( BRV ), t......
-
Brv, Inc. v. Superior Court
...recently, to personnel records maintained by a school district on a district employee. (Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 (Bakersfield).) In that case, a newspaper petitioned for disclosure of complaints and disciplinary records ......
-
Five "tripping Points" in Workplace Investigations
...et seq.35. Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. 4th 1061, 31 P.3d 760 (2001).36. Bakersfield City School District v. Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1046 (2004), citing American Federation of State, County and Municipal Emp. (AFSCME), Local 1650 v. Regents of University of California (......
-
Litigation & Case Law Update
...Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (2012) 202 Cal. App.4th 1250, Bakersfield City School District v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal. App.4th 1041, and BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742. These cases all address an issue at the very heart of the CPRA: whether the ......