Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
Decision Date | 08 July 2013 |
Docket Number | No. S194708.,S194708. |
Citation | 57 Cal.4th 157,302 P.3d 1026,158 Cal.Rptr.3d 639 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; County of Orange, Real Party in Interest. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) Witnesses, § 296.
Venskus & Associates, Sabrina D. Venskus and Dean Wallraff for Petitioner.
Holme Roberts & Owen, Bryan Cave, Rachel Matteo–Boehm, Katherine Keating and Leila Knox, San Francisco, for Media and Open Government, First Amendment Coalition, Freedom Communications, Inc., Publisher of the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, The Associated Press, Bay Area News Group, Bloomberg News, Courthouse News Service, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, The McClatchy Company, Patch Media Corporation, The San Francisco Examiner, Wired, American Society of News Editors, Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors, California Newspaper Publishers Association, Digital Media Law Project, Citizen Media Law Project, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, National Freedom of Information Coalition, Openthegovernment.org, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
M. Rhead Enion for Academic Researchers in Public Health, Urban Planning and Environmental Justice as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Jack Cohen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Otten & Joyce, Victor J. Otten and Brigid Joyce for 212 GIS Professionals and 23 GIS Organizations as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Meyer, Klipper & Mohr, Christopher A. Mohr, Michael R. Klipper, Washington, Colby F. Block; Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, Jeffrey G. Knowles and Julia D. Greer, San Francisco, for Consumer Data Industry Association, Corelogic, LexisNexis, The National Association of Professional Background Screeners and the Software & Information Industry Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, Deborah A. Sivas, Alicia E. Thesing, Leah J. Russin, Matthew H. Armsby and Margaret Brennan for Advocates for the Environment as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Mark Rumold for Electronic Frontier Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Michel & Associates and C.D. Michel, Long Beach, for the Geographic Information Systems Community as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Michael W. Stamp, Monterey, and Molly Erickson for The Open Monterey Project as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Mark D. Servino, Rebecca S. Leeds and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Richards, Watson & Gershon and Ginetta L. Giovinco, Los Angeles, for California Assessors' Association as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Best Best & Krieger, Shawn Hagerty and Rebecca Andrews, San Diego, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Like many counties in California, Orange County (the County) maintains a large database of information about land parcels in a geographic information system (GIS) file format. With this database, called the OC Landbase, a user with appropriate software can create a layered digital map containing information for over 640,000 specific parcels of land in Orange County, including geographic boundaries, assessor parcel numbers, street addresses, and links to additional information on the parcel owners. The issue in this case is whether the OC Landbase is subject to disclosure in a GIS file format at the actual cost of duplication under the California Public Records Act or whether, as the County contends, it is covered by the statute's exclusion of “[c]omputer software” (Gov.Code, § 6254.9, subd. (a))—a term that “includes computer mapping systems” (id., § 6254.9, subd. (b))—from the definition of a public record. We hold that although GIS mapping software falls within the ambit of this statutory exclusion, a GIS-formatted database like the OC Landbase does not. Accordingly, such databases are public records that, unless otherwise exempt, must be produced upon request at the actual cost of duplication.
In June 2007, petitioner Sierra Club sent a letter to the Orange County Assessor requesting a copy of the OC Landbase pursuant to the California Public Records Act (PRA). Amici curiae representing a variety of media and open-government groups explain the functionality and value of the database at issue:
Sierra Club's request began a lengthy exchange between the two parties concerning the public record status of the OC Landbase. In March 2009, the County agreed to produce records containing the information underlying the OC Landbase, including assessment rolls, parcel maps, tract maps, survey records, lot line adjustments, and transfer deeds. The County offered to provide such records in Adobe PDF electronic format or as printed paper copies. However, the County took the position that the PRA did not require it to disclose the same records in a GIS file format and that it would provide the records in that format only if Sierra Club paid a licensing fee and agreed to the license's restrictions on disclosure and distribution. According to the County, the licensing agreement enables the County to recoup a portion of the substantial costs it incurs to develop and maintain the OC Landbase. A 2009 declaration by the County's surveyor reported that the County had spent over $3 million in the previous five years to maintain the OC Landbase. According to Sierra Club's expert, the County's licensing policy is different from the practice of most counties in California: 47 of the state's 58 counties, including Los Angeles County, provide access to GIS-formatted parcel base maps as public records. If the OC Landbase must be disclosed as a public record, the County could charge Sierra Club only the actual cost of duplication. If it is not, the County has the option to license the database according to the terms of its licensing policy.
Sierra Club sought a writ of mandate from the superior court to compel the County to provide the OC Landbase in a GIS file format as a public record for a fee covering only the direct cost of duplication, with no requirement that Sierra Club comply with the licensing agreement. Before ruling, the superior court permitted extensive briefing from both parties and conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing. The hearing focused on the County's claim that the OC Landbase was excluded from the PRA's definition of a public record because it fell within the statutory exclusion for “computer software,” a term that “includes computer mapping systems.” (Gov.Code, § 6254.9, subds.(a), (b) ( ); all further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.)
Before the hearing, the parties stipulated that the OC Landbase refers to the County's parcel data in a GIS file format. They defined “GIS file format” to mean “that the geographic data can be analyzed, viewed, and managed with GIS software, and it includes formats such as ESRI Shape Files, Modular GIS Environment (‘MGE’), and Oracle Spatial.” Although the County uses the term “Landbase” internally to refer to its entire mapping system—not only the data but also the software used to run it—the County confirmed at the hearing that the term “Landbase,” when used externally, refers only to the parcel map data held in a GIS file format. The parties agree that “[t]he OC Landbase in the format the Sierra Club has requested, and in which it is currently distributed to OC Landbase licensees, does not contain programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of computer hardware and direct its operation.” The County relies on software obtained from Oracle to create and access the OC Landbase. If the OC Landbase is produced in a GIS file format, Sierra Club must use its own GIS software to access the data.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the superior court issued an order denying the petition for writ of mandate, along with a 16–page statement of decision. The court found that the County “offered persuasive testimony and evidence that the term ‘GIS' refers to ‘an integrated collection of computer software and data used to view and manage information about geographical places, analyze spatial relationships and model spatial processes.’ ” The court further “credit [ed] the County's evidence and the testimony of witnesses that the OC Landbase in a GIS file format is part of a computer mapping system.” “ To...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Amend. Coal. v. Sup. Ct. of S.F.
...to order its disclosure under section 832.7(b). At oral argument, petitioners identified Sierra Club v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026 (Sierra Club) as authority for the proposition that disclosure of a public agency record may be mandated notwithst......
-
Hurlbert v. Edmonds
...is unambiguous, we do not address the provision’s legislative history or the California case, Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 157, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026 (2013), cited by plaintiff. [7] ¶ 19 Accordingly, we find a reading of the plain language of the entire statute pr......
-
Riddick v. City of Malibu
...aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.’ [Citation.]" (Sierra Club v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 165-166, 158 Cal. Rptr.3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026.) 1. Deference to the City’s Interpretation Defendants maintain that we should give "great deference"......
-
Agnone v. Agnone
... ... B321252 California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division ... Superior Court of Los Angeles County No ... policy.'" ( Sierra Club v. Superior Court ... (2013) 57 ... ...