Edais v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty.
| Decision Date | 17 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | A164947, A165208 |
| Parties | Mustafa EDAIS et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Respondent; Robert Foucrault, as Coroner, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Mustafa Edais et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Robert Foucrault, as Coroner, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Mackenzie & Albritton, Mark L. Mosley for Plaintiff and Appellant
John D. Nibbelin, County Counsel, Brian E. Kulich, Chief Deputy for Defendant and Respondent
Thirty-two-year-old Munir Edais died of suicide by hanging at 2:41 a.m. on January 21, 2020, according to an autopsy report prepared by the San Mateo County Coroner's Office (Coroner's Office). The decedent's parents, petitioners Mustafa and Majeda Edais (together, petitioners), distrust this conclusion. To investigate the possibility of foul play, they hired Judy Melinek, M.D., a certified forensic pathologist, to undertake a forensic autopsy review. The primary question before the court today is the extent to which Coroner's Office records that Dr. Melinek needs to conduct this review must be released to her under the California Public Records Act (CPRA or Act). (See Gov. Code, §§ 7920.000 et seq. ; all unspecified statutory references are to this code.)1 We conclude the records in question are public records and may not, for the most part, be withheld.
Evidence submitted to the superior court establishes the following facts. Munir Edais was a Los Gatos police officer, on his way to work the night shift at 6 p.m. on January 19, 2020. The day before, he had confronted Eman Edais, his wife of six months, with his suspicion that she was being unfaithful, and he told her he intended to seek a divorce. As he drove to work on January 19, Munir2 discussed this intention on a call with his sister, with whom he was close, but then he uncharacteristically failed to respond to the multiple voice and text messages she left over the next 36 hours.
In the early morning hours of January 21, 2020, Eman called 911 to report Munir had hanged himself in their apartment. When Eman placed her 911 call, a third person may have been present in the apartment. According to a forensic audio analyst hired by petitioners, the sound of a whispered voice can be detected in the background on an enhanced audiotape of the 911 call. The Daly City Police Department responded to the call, and soon summoned personnel from the Coroner's Office to the Edais's home. The Coroner's Office examined and photographed the scene, interviewed Eman, and took custody of Munir's body. Neither the police department nor the Coroner's Office, in the reports they prepared, identify a third person as having been present.
On March 22, 2020, after conducting an autopsy, the Coroner's Office published a report classifying Munir's death a suicide.
A forensic autopsy review is common where bereaved family members have unanswered questions about an official autopsy report. According to Dr. Melinek, who has conducted many such studies, a forensic autopsy review requires examination of scene photographs, autopsy photographs, various reports (e.g., the autopsy report and death scene investigation report), all notes and recordings taken by the coroner's investigator who examined the scene and by the forensic pathologist who examined the body, and recuts of microscopic slides of any tissues retained. Petitioners sought the required records informally and then, on April 22, 2021, served a formal CPRA request on Robert Foucrault, in his capacity as San Mateo County Coroner.
Petitioners’ CPRA request sought "all DOCUMENTS received or generated by, or currently in the possession of, the [Coroner's] Office in connection with the death of Munir Edais." The request defined "DOCUMENTS" broadly, to include photographs, video recordings, "and all other electronically stored information." For physical evidence that could not be reproduced, petitioners requested an appointment for Dr. Melinek or her designee to inspect the evidence. And petitioners offered, in making their CPRA request, to have all the requested materials sent directly to Dr. Melinek, who agreed to return or destroy them at the conclusion of her assignment.
In response to this CPRA request, the Coroner's Office produced, for the second time, copies of several reports it had previously provided—the summary Report of Investigation (Coroner's Report), a Pathology Report, and a Forensic Laboratory Report (Toxicology Report). But it declined to provide photographs of the scene or the autopsy and declined to provide the full Summary and Investigation Notes Report (Investigation Report) prepared by the coroner's investigator, explaining that the decedent's widow had not consented to such disclosure.
Petitioners then sought a writ of mandate to compel production, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. (See Gov. Code § 7923.000 ; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 525, 1060, 1085 et seq. ) On September 3, 2021, they filed in the superior court a verified petition and complaint (Petition) against the Coroner and the County (together, respondents).3 The Petition sought all of the documents requested in the CPRA request, plus attorney's fees. Respondents answered, and delivered for the trial court's in camera review copies of the autopsy photographs and the Investigation Report. The matter came on for hearing on March 25, 2022.
The Superior Court denied the requested writ "in its entirety" and ordered judgment to enter against petitioners. In an April 4, 2022 order, the court first found that the only documents petitioners sought were the Coroner's death-scene and autopsy photographs and an unredacted copy of the Investigation Report. The court determined respondents were "justified in refusing to make [these documents] public under the Public Records Act because they are not Public Records and/or ... would be exempt from the Public Records Act under Government Code Sections 6254(c), 6254(k), and 6276.34 []." And, the order continued, respondents "established that, under Government Code Section 6255 [current section 7922.000], the public interest served by not disclosing the record[s] clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record[s]." As it made no order to release documents under the CPRA, the court declined to award petitioners attorney's fees or costs.
At the same time and in the same order in which it denied relief under the CPRA, the superior court on its "own motion" required respondents to produce to petitioners the requested photographs and Investigation Report. The court cited Code of Civil Procedure section 129, subdivision (a), which authorizes a court—on good cause and after notice to the district attorney—to order the release of a coroner's photos of the deceased. The April 4, 2022 order finds that respondents had agreed to provide petitioners the Investigation Report and the photographs under this code section even before the petition was filed, and that petitioners had subsequently notified the District Attorney's office they were seeking these documents. In ordering the photographs and Investigation Report turned over to petitioners, the court also ordered the parties to negotiate a protective order to prevent their further release.
On April 14, 2022, petitioners filed in this court a petition for extraordinary writ. (See Gov. Code, § 7923.500.) Petitioners ask us to direct the superior court to vacate its April 4 order and replace it with a new order that would direct the Coroner's Office immediately to release "all of the public records that it generated or received in connection with its investigation into" Munir's death. Petitioners contend that the trial court failed to comprehend the entire scope of documents they were seeking, that respondents failed to establish any applicable exemption to disclosure under the CPRA, and that the order to release documents misapplied Civil Procedure section 129, incorrectly depriving petitioners of their right to attorney's fees under the CPRA. (See Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 427, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 49 P.3d 194 ( Filarsky ) [].) On May 27, 2022, we issued an order to show cause why the relief petitioners seek should not be granted.
Separately, petitioners have appealed the same April 4, 2022 order. In their appeal, petitioners contend they had a right to attorney's fees since the superior court ordered partial disclosure of the documents their CPRA request had sought, and that the superior court erred in ignoring their request to compel discovery from the Coroner's Office on the scope of the relevant documents it retained. Because the appeal challenges the same order as the writ and is now also ripe for decision, we consolidate the writ and appeal for purposes of this opinion.4
"Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy." ( International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers , Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 328, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 165 P.3d 488 ( International Federation ).) To that end, the California Constitution declares, "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, ... the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).) A public agency seeking to withhold a record from disclosure bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception to the CPRA's disclosure directive applies. ( International Federation , at p. 329, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 165 P.3d 488.) And in determining whether the CPRA...
To continue reading
Request your trial