Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP00649, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00649    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: 86

Petitioner Bridget Blaney seeks a writ of mandate directing respondents County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to make certain records related to petitioner’s shooting by a deputy sheriff available for inspection.

I.       Factual Background

This matter concerns petitioner’s requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) for law enforcement investigation and personnel records relating to an officer-involved-shooting and arrest incident involving Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) deputies, resulting in the injury of petitioner on November 26, 2022 (hereinafter the “Incident”).

On the day of the Incident, the LASD’s Homicide Bureau opened a criminal investigation into the Incident, which included investigating petitioner’s suspected vandalism and assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, as well as the actions of the LASD deputies involved. (Modica Decl. ¶ 2.)

On November 27, 2022, the LASD’s initial investigation into the Incident was forwarded to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”) for review and evaluation as to whether to pursue criminal charges against petitioner. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 3; Modica Decl. ¶ 3.)

On November 29, 2022, the DA’s Office filed felony criminal charges against petitioner in Los Angeles County Superior Court under case number KA131880-01. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 4.) The charges consisted of one count of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and four counts of vandalism. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 4.)

On December 15, 2022, petitioner sent a PRA Request letter to respondents County of Los Angeles and to the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, which the LASD Discovery/Public Records Act Units (“PRA Unit”) received on December 20, 2022. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1; Aguirre Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) More specifically, petitioner’s CPRA request (the “Requests”) sought all dispatch reports, incident reports, helicopter dispatch reports, follow-up investigation reports, officer narrative reports, officer statements, use of force reports, witness statements, notes, charts, diagrams, audio or visual recordings of 911 calls, dispatch logs, radio frequency calls, surveillance footage, body worn camera footage, and dashcam footage. Petitioner’s request also sought investigative reports, disciplinary actions, corrective actions, and other documents related to the conduct of the deputies involved in the Incident that are subject to disclosure under the changes made to Penal Code section 832.7 via Senate Bill 1421. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.)

On or about December 21, 2022, the PRA Unit emailed petitioner’s counsel, acknowledging receipt of the Requests. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.) On or about December 28, 2022, the PRA Unit sent a letter to petitioner’s counsel again acknowledging receipt of the Requests on December 20, 2022. The PRA Unit’s letter also informed petitioner’s counsel that the 10-day time period to respond to the Requests is subject to an extension of up to fourteen (14) days as permitted under (former) Government Code section 6253(c)(l), that the LASD is receiving an exceptionally large volume of PRA requests and is currently experiencing an extended delay in processing them, and that, upon completion, the PRA Unit will advise as to the availability of the responsive records. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. C.)

On or about February 3, 2023, the PRA Unit received an email from petitioner’s counsel stating that, on January 23, 2023, petitioner’s counsel contacted the LASD Discovery Unit by telephone to follow up on the PRA request and was told “that the matter was still under investigation by the Homicide Unit” and that petitioner’s counsel “would be provided a written response within 7 days.” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. E; see also Henriks Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5 & Ex. 3.) Petitioner’s counsel’s email further stated that they have not received any responsive documents or information, and that if they “do not receive a response to the PRA request of Bridget Blaney within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, on or before February 14, 2023, [they] will be forced to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandate….” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. E.)

On or about February 8, 2023, the PRA Unit sent a letter to petitioner’s counsel stating that the requested records are part of an ongoing and active criminal investigation being conducted by the LASD and corresponding review by the District Attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division (“JSID”) and therefore are exempt from disclosure. The letter cited case law, Penal Code section 832.7(b)(8), and Government Code sections 7927.705 and 7922.000. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 4; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. F.) The letter continued:

Disclosure of the requested records before JSID’s review of this matter is complete would substantially interfere with the investigation and/or criminal enforcement proceeding by threatening the integrity of the evidence, endangering the safety of victims and witnesses, tainting witnesses and the jury pool, and precluding a fair trial, if an individual is charged with a crime. Under Government Code section 7922.000, the aforementioned reasons for preventing interference with this active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure in the requested records.

(Aguirre Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. F.) The letter gives a rough estimate of May 26, 2024 for disclosure of responsive records and states that the PRA Unit will provide an update in 180 days or as soon as any records are available, pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7(b)(8). (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. F.) Lastly, the letter encloses an Incident Summary that was also released on LASD’s Transparency website. (Aguirre Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7 & Ex. D.)

On or about February 16, 2023, petitioner’s counsel sent a letter to the PRA Unit stating that its February 8, 2023 letter was deficient because it did not provide a “specific basis” under Government Code section 6254, as amended, for the determination that Body Worn Camera audio and video of the Incident would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 5; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. G.) Petitioner’s counsel then demanded “all requested documents including, but not limited to body worn camera and dash camera recordings or specific basis for not providing the documentation” by February 20, 2023. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 5; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. G.)

On or about February 17, 2023, the PRA Unit sent a letter to petitioner’s counsel reiterating the points made in the PRA Unit’s prior letter to show that it did provide a “specific basis” for the determination that Body Worn Camera audio and video of the Incident would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 6; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. H.) The letter added:

Pursuant to Government Code section 7923.625(a)(2) (formerly section 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii)), an agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording after 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident and up to one year from that date upon demonstration that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. Further, an agency may continue to delay disclosure after one year, upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

Per Government Code section 7923.625(a)(2) we will continue to reassess the above stated reasons for withholding the requested video and audio records every 30 days in order to determine whether they are still applicable while LASD's criminal investigation into this matter is active and ongoing.

The letter reiterated the estimate of May 26, 2024 for disclosure of any video related to the Incident. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 6; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. H.)

On March 1, 2023, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Mandate. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 9.) On or about March 10, 2023, the LASD publicly released via its website and YouTube a 7-minute long video titled “Critical Incident Briefing - San Dimas Station, 11/26/22” that summarizes the Incident with information required to be made public under Government Code section 7923.615(a) and includes audio clips from 911 calls by witnesses, photos from the scene, and deputy body-worn camera footage from the Incident, which the LASD determined would not substantially interfere with the still ongoing criminal investigations into petitioner and the deputies involved in the Incident. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 11.)

On or about August 31, 2023, the LASD Homicide Bureau forwarded its completed investigation file related to the Incident to the JSID for review and evaluation as to whether to pursue criminal charges against the deputies involved in the Incident. (Modica Decl. ¶ 5; Yochelson Decl. ¶ 3.)

On or about October 2, 2023, the PRA Unit sent a letter to petitioner’s counsel giving instructions for accessing the LASD Transparency website, where the Incident Summary and Critical Incident Briefing video could be found and informing counsel that additional records, such as the investigation report prepared by the JSID, would be published there as well. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. 7; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. I.) The letter reiterates that the requested records are still subject to an ongoing and active criminal investigation by the LASD and JSID and reiterates the specific reasons why premature disclosure of the records would substantially interfere with the investigations. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. 7; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. I.) The letter also estimates that disclosable records will still be available by May 26, 2024. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. 7; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. I.)

On November 22, 2023, respondent’s counsel provided an update letter to petitioner’s counsel, informing them that criminal charges have been filed against petitioner, and thus further records related to the Incident are subject to delayed disclosure until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or, if a plea of guilty or no contest is entered, the time to withdraw the plea expires pursuant to Penal Code sections 1018 and 832.7(b)(8)(B). (Henriks Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. 8; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B.)

On December 15, 2023, petitioner pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 5.)

On January 25, 2024, respondent’s counsel provided an update letter to petitioner’s counsel, informing them: “According to public court records, [petitioner] pleaded guilty on December 15, 2023. Applying Penal Code section 1018, [petitioner] has six months to withdraw her guilty plea, which is June 15, 2024. Therefore, LASD will disclose all responsive, nonprivileged records that are not in audio or video format on or before June 15, 2024, per Penal Code section 832.7 subsection (b)(8)(B). LASD is in the process of identifying responsive audio and video records that are no longer subject to delay under Government Code section 7923.625, and will provide a further update and estimated production date when the scope of records is identified.” (Henriks Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 9; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. F.)

From February 21, 2024, to April 22, 2024, respondent’s counsel provided regular update letters to petitioner’s counsel, every 30 days, informing them of the status of review of responsive audio and video records and providing an estimated production date of May 10, 2024. (Henriks Decl. ¶¶ 14-16 & Exs. 10-12; Sheldon Decl. ¶¶ 11-13 & Exs. H-J.)

On May 8, 2024, the County released to petitioner’s counsel responsive photo and video records from the Incident. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 13; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. K.) The disclosure was accompanied by a letter that listed the statutory authority supporting the redactions made in the records. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 13; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. K.)  These records were released because, under Government Code section 7923.625, audio and video records are subject to a different withholding standard than other records, and the County determined that releasing the records would not substantially interfere with the active criminal investigation. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 13.) The letter also noted that the LASD had identified responsive records not in audio or video format and that those records remained subject to withholding under Penal Code sections 832.7(b)(8)(B) and 1018 due to petitioner’s guilty plea on December 15, 2023 in criminal proceedings. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 13; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. K.) The letter also estimated that the files would be produced by June 15, 2024, which respondent’s counsel later updated to June 17, 2024. (Henriks Decl. ¶¶ 17, 18 & Exs. 13, 14; Sheldon Decl. ¶¶ 14-15 & Exs. K, L.)

Petitioner’s time to withdraw her guilty plea expired on Saturday, June 15, 2024, and petitioner did not withdraw the guilty plea before then. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 6.) On Monday, June 17, 2024, the County released to petitioner’s counsel responsive files from the LASD Homicide Bureau related to the investigation into petitioner’s actions during the Incident. (Sheldon Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. M.) The disclosure was accompanied by a letter that listed the redactions made to the records and the rationale and statutory authority supporting each one. (Sheldon Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. M.)  These records were released because, under Penal Code sections 832.7(b)(8)(B) and 1018, petitioner’s guilty plea in her criminal proceedings could no longer be revoked, and therefore disclosure of the records would not substantially interfere with the investigation. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 14; Siddall Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

As of July 3, 2024, JSID’s evaluation and further criminal investigation into the deputies involved in the Incident is continuing and is estimated to continue for at least 90 more days. (Yochelson Decl. ¶ 4.)

II.      Procedural History

            On March 1, 2023, petitioner Blaney filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. On April 4, 2023, respondent County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) filed an Answer.

            The hearing on the Petition was originally set for February 13, 2024. (6/13/23 Minute Order.) After petitioner failed to file an opening brief prior to the original hearing date, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court vacated the hearing and subsequently set the hearing for August 6, 2024. The Court later continued the hearing to August 13, 2024 and then to August 15, 2024.  

            On June 7, 2024, petitioner filed an opening brief. On July 5, 2024, respondent filed an opposition. On July 24, 2024, petitioner filed a reply.

III.     Standard of Review

Pursuant to the CPRA, individual citizens have a right to access government records. In enacting the CPRA, the California Legislature declared that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code § 7921.000; see also Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3(b); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 63.)

“[E]very person has a right to inspect any public record” of a state or local agency subject to statutory exemptions. (Gov. Code § 7922.530(a); see also Gov. Code § 7920.510(h) [definition of “local agency” includes agent of a city].) The California Constitution mandates that the CPRA be “broadly construed,” while any statute “that limits the right of access” must be “narrowly construed.” (See Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3(b)(2); see also Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020) 9 Cal.5th 488, 507.) The CPRA “does not allow limitations on access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure.” (Gov. Code § 7921.300.)

“Any person may institute a proceeding…for a writ of mandate…to enforce that person’s right…to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” (Gov. Code § 7923.000.) “To establish an agency has a duty to disclose under [the CPRA], the petitioner must show that: (1) the record ‘qualif[ies] as [a] ‘public record[ ]’ …; and (2) the record is ‘in the possession of the agency.’” (Anderson-Barker v Sup.Ct. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 528, 538.) “Whether a record falls within the statutory definition of a ‘public record’ involves a ‘distinct inquiry’ from whether the agency is in possession of that record…. The duty to disclose applies only when the petitioner has satisfied both elements.” (Id. at 539.)

CPRA exemptions must be narrowly construed, and the agency bears the burden of showing that a specific exemption applies. (Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System v. Superior Court (2013) 195 Cal.App.4th 440, 453.) A public agency also has the burden to demonstrate that it properly withheld records on the grounds they are non-responsive to a CPRA request or do not constitute public records. (ACLU of Northern Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 83-86.) ““Because the agency has full knowledge of the contents of the withheld records and the requester has only the agency's affidavits and descriptions of the documents, its affidavits must be specific enough to give the requester ‘a meaningful opportunity to contest’ the withholding of the documents.” (Id. at 83.)

IV.     Analysis

            After the filing of the instant Petition for Writ of Mandate, respondent provided requested records. (Aguirre Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13; Henriks Decl. ¶¶ 10, 17.) After the filing of the opening brief, respondent provided additional records. (Sheldon Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. M.) Based on the reply, it appears that the following are still in dispute:

A.           Employee Numbers

Petitioner argues that redacting employee numbers is unwarranted. (Reply at 5:6-20.) With respect to employee numbers, the CPRA does not require “the disclosure of an information security record of a public agency, if, on the facts of the particular case, disclosure of that record would reveal vulnerabilities to, or otherwise increase the potential for an attack on, an information technology system of a public agency.” (Gov. Code § 7929.210(a).) Respondent avers that the employee numbers “give access to certain confidential law enforcement databases, such as the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (“CLETS”), which contain confidential information such as criminal history and driver records of members of the public.” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 15.) Respondent also avers that LASD employees use the employee number “to access Human Resources databases containing their confidential personnel records, such as performance evaluations, medical benefits, 401 K, and the like.” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 15.) “Disclosure of the employee numbers would reveal part of the login information used for these confidential databases, and therefore increase the potential attack on an information technology system of the County.” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 15.)

Even though the employee number reveals only “part of the login information,” as emphasized by petitioner, the CPRA does not require disclosure of records that would “increase the potential for an attack on” an information technology system of a public agency. (Gov. Code § 7929.210(a).) An increase in the likelihood of an attack is sufficient to justify withholding of disclosure. Releasing a portion of the login information of employees involved in the Incident reduces the amount of information that must be ascertained to access the employee’s confidential personnel records or confidential law enforcement databases.

Based on the foregoing, respondent is not required to produce employee numbers.

B.           Face of Undercover Officer

Petitioner also argues that deputies’ faces, including the undercover officer, cannot be redacted. Petitioner does not directly dispute respondent’s assertion that with respect to LASD deputies, the only deputy whose face was redacted was an undercover officer. (Opp. at 11:21-26.) Accordingly, the Court addresses whether respondent is required to identify the undercover peace officer, including providing records showing the face of the officer.

“‘A mere assertion of possible endangerment’ is insufficient to justify nondisclosure.” (Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (CPOST) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 302, quoting CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 652.) Respondent avers: “At the time of the disclosure of records pertaining to the Incident, the LASD peace officer was conducting undercover operations on international cyber and financial crime syndicates. In these operations, crime ring operators often attempt to unmake and use investigators’ Personal Identifiable Information (PII) or financial information to influence the investigation or target investigators’ families. The peace officer also works with federal law enforcement agencies on classified investigations with national security implications. Release of the peace officer’s information or identity would jeopardize the integrity of many ongoing investigations and threaten the safety of the peace officer and local and federal partners. Therefore, if the LASD peace officer’s identity is released, there is a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer.” (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 16.)

“An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section…[w]here there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.” (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(6)(D).) “[S]ome officers…because of their particular responsibilities…require anonymity in order to perform their duties effectively or to protect their own safety,” including undercover officers (CPOST, 42 Cal.4th at 301.) Respondent provides specific information concerning the undercover peace officer which demonstrates that disclosure of the identity of the officer would pose a significant danger to the officer.

Based on the foregoing, respondent is not required to provide records showing the face of the undercover peace officer.

C.           License Plates and Faces of Witnesses

Petitioner argues that the potential witnesses whose license plates and/or faces were captured in LASD footage had no reasonable expectation of privacy. (Reply at 6:11-17.) Regardless of any privacy rights of the witnesses, or lack thereof, respondent “shall redact a record…[t]o preserve the anonymity of…witnesses.” (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(6)(B).) Under statute, respondent was required to redact license plates and faces of witnesses.

Based on the foregoing, respondent is not required to provide records showing the license plates or faces of witnesses.

D.           Attorney Fees

For the reasons stated above, respondents are not required to further produce records in response to petitioner’s CPRA request. Petitioner nonetheless requests attorney’s fees in an unspecified amount. A requesting party who prevails on a claim brought pursuant to the CPRA is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  (Gov. Code § 7923.115(a).)  “A plaintiff prevails in litigation under the Public Records Act if the litigation motivated the defendant to release the requested documents.” (Motorola Communication & Electronics, Inc. v. Department of General Services (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1344.)

Here, the Court does not find that the filing of the instant petition is what caused respondents to produce the requested records.  On December 20, 2022, petitioner made her CPRA request. (Henriks Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex 1; Aguirre Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.)  On March 1, 2023, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of mandate. 

In accordance with Government Code § 7923.625(a), respondents were entitled to delay disclosure of audio and video recordings of the incident if disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation of the incident. Consistent with that provision, respondents produced audio and video records on March 10, 2023, and May 8, 2024, upon determining that releasing such records would not substantially interfere with the active criminal investigation.  (Aguirre Decl. ¶¶ 11-13; Sheldon Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. K.) 

With respect to non-audio and video records relating to the incident, pursuant to Penal Code § 832.7(b)(8)(B), respondent were entitled to delay disclosure until the time for petitioner to withdraw her guilty plea to the charge arising from the incident expired.  Here, on November 29, 2022, criminal charges were filed against petitioner relating to the incident. (Siddall Decl. ¶ 4.)  On December 15, 2023, petitioner pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer.  (Siddall Decl. ¶ 5.)  On June 15, 2024, petitioner’s time to withdraw her guilty plea expired.  (Siddall Decl. ¶ 6.)  On June 17, 2024, respondent produced outstanding records from the LASD Homicide Bureau. (Sheldon Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. M.)

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that the instant writ petition caused respondents to comply with the CRPA.  Rather, as discussed above, respondents have produced records responsive to petitioner’s December 20, 2022 request, and any delayed production was made as respondents were able in accord with Government Code § 7923.625(a) and Penal Code § 832.7(b)(8).  The Court thus finds respondents’ compliance with the CPRA occurred irrespective of the instant petition.

Petitioner is accordingly not a prevailing party entitled to fees and costs.

V.      Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED.  Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), respondents shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment in accordance herewith.