Judge Mary H. Strobel, Case 21STCP00312 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Hon. Mary H. Strobel

The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.

Respondent County of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or “County”) moves “for the entry of a protective order in relation to the County’s disclosure or production of the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (‘LARCIS’) user guide in response to Petitioner’s request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (‘CPRA’) dated February 26, 2021 and this Court’s ruling and orders dated March 22, 2022, April 8, 2022, and June 16, 2022.” (Mot. 1.)

Petitioner Jane Doe, in pro per (“Petitioner”) moves for enforcement of the judgment and for sanctions.

On February 2, 2021, Petitioner filed her verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”).

On March 22, 2022, the court partially granted the FAP. More specifically, the court granted the FAP as to Petitioner’s CPRA requests dated February 2, 2021, February 9, 2021, February 26, 2021[1], and March 23, 2021 (CPRA Requests Nos. 1-2, 4, and 9).

On April 8, 2022, the court entered its judgment on the FAP. The judgment states, in pertinent part:

The court grants the petition as to Petitioner’s CPRA requests dated February 2, 2021, February 9, 2021, February 26, 2021 (the CPRA request with respect to the Manual of Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System and User Guide of Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System only), and March 23, 2021. The court orders County to produce all records responsive to those requests and without any redactions.

On April 21, 2022, Respondent filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial. On May 12, 2022, Respondent filed a memorandum of points and authorities. The court received Petitioner’s opposition to the request for new trial and Respondent’s reply.

On June 16, 2022, after a hearing, the court denied Respondent’s motion for new trial.

The court has no indication that Respondent has sought any appellate review of the court’s decisions.

On July 13, 2022, Petitioner filed her motion for enforcement of judgment and sanctions. The court has received Respondent’s opposition and Petitioner’s reply.

On September 14, 2022, Respondent filed its motion for protective order. The court has received Petitioner’s opposition and Respondent’s reply.

Respondent seeks a protective order: “(1) permitting the County to redact personal information from the LARCIS user guide before disclosing the guide to the Petitioner; and (2) prohibiting the Petitioner from disseminating or transmitting the LARCIS user guide (whether in redacted or unredacted form) to any third persons not involved in this lawsuit, i.e., to persons who are not percipient witnesses, expert witnesses, or actively providing legal assistance to the Petitioner in the present matter.” (Mot. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is made too late and is procedurally improper.

In its brief in opposition to the writ petition, Respondent made a one paragraph argument that the LARCIS user manual was exempt under Govt Code section 62549, as software developed by a state or local agency. Respondent did not argue that the user manual contained any personal identifying information. On April 8, 2022, after a hearing on the writ petition, the court entered judgment ordering disclosure of the LARCIS user guide “without any redactions.” Subsequently, Respondent filed a motion for new trial, in which it argued inter alia that the court should authorize redaction of the personal identifying information found in the LARCIS user manual. In support of that argument, Respondent filed a declaration from an IT Special I who stated in one sentence “The 187 LARCIS user guides also contain identifying personal information which must be redacted.” No other evidentiary support or argument was provided. As Respondent admits in its motion for protective order, the County “argued perfunctorily that there was personal information in the LARCIS user guide that the County should be allowed to redact. However, the motion did not provide details as to the extent or nature of that information, nor did it argue that disclosure of the information would violate any statutes required such information to be kept confidential.” (Opening brief, p. 4.)

On June 16, 2022, the court denied the motion for new trial, finding that Respondent had not made the showing of reasonable diligence required by CCP section 657(4). The court also ruled that “Respondent’s evidence regarding any personal identifying information is conclusory and lacking in any detail.” (Ruling dated 6/16/22 at 3.)

Respondent does not cite a case or statute authorizing this court to grant a post-judgment protective order after denial of a motion for new trial. Respondent states that the court has authority to impose such a protective order pursuant to discovery statutes in CCP sections 2019.030 and 2031.060. (Mot. 8, citing City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272.) The court disagrees. While CPRA actions are subject to the Civil Discovery Act, the parties are not engaged in discovery. CCP section 2031.060(a), upon which Respondent relies, states that a party may move for a protective order “when an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded” under the Discovery Act. CCP section 2019.030(a) similarly authorizes the court to “restrict the … use of a discovery method.” Petitioner’s request for documents under the CPRA was not a discovery request or discovery method.

Respondent also partially relies on the court’s authority to order redactions in a CPRA action. (Mot. 8, citing Gov. Code § 6254(f)(4)(B).) However, the trial on the writ petition and the motion for new trial were Respondent’s opportunities to show that redactions to public records should be made. As the court stated in the ruling on the writ petition, “the agency bears the burden of showing that a specific exemption applies.” (Ruling dated 3/22/22 at 4.) Respondent failed to meet that burden, as set forth in the court’s ruling on the writ petition and motion for new trial. Respondent cites no authority for the court to re-open a CPRA case and conduct further proceedings under the CPRA after judgment has been entered and a motion for new trial denied.

Finally, Respondent’s request for a protective order “prohibiting the Petitioner from disseminating or transmitting the LARCIS user guide” directly conflicts both with the court’s judgment and the CPRA itself. The purpose of the CPRA is for members of the public to obtain copies of “public records.” (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) Article 1, Section 3(b) of the Constitution affirms that “[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.” The court found, after a trial, that the LARCIS user guide is a public record subject to disclosure. Accordingly, Respondent’s request for an order preventing Petitioner from disseminating such public record is improper. The court also notes that Respondent has filed a redacted version of the LARCIS user guide in the public court record, thereby disseminating it to the public. (See Morsi Decl. ¶ 11 and Compendium of Exhibits, Exh. 1.) Thus, the request for a protective order against dissemination of the redacted version is moot.

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Respondent’s motion for a protective order “permitting the County to redact personal information from the LARCIS user guide before disclosing the guide to the Petitioner” on procedural grounds.

The court also denies Respondent’s motion for a protective order “prohibiting the Petitioner from disseminating or transmitting the LARCIS user guide (whether in redacted or unredacted form) to any third persons” on the same procedural grounds, and also because the request is improper under the CPRA and conflicts with the judgment in this case.

Petitioner moves for enforcement of the judgment and for sanctions. In her notice of motion Petitioner does not identify against whom sanctions are sought, in what amount, or under what statutory authority. Toward the end of her points and authorities in support of the motion, Petitioner argues monetary and non-monetary sanctions are warranted pursuant to CCP section 1218, one of the provisions governing contempt proceedings. (See page 4 of 5 of the points and authorities).

Respondent contends that Petitioner has not followed the required procedures under the civil contempt statutes. (Oppo. 7-8.) The court agrees. The civil contempt procedures are set forth in CCP section 1209, et seq.

“A contempt proceeding is commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a request for an order to show cause. (§ 1211, subds.(a), (b).) After notice to the opposing party's lawyer, the court (if satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit) must sign an order to show cause re contempt in which the date and time for a hearing are set forth. (§ 1212; [citations].The order to show cause acts as a summons to appear in court on a certain day and, as its name suggests, to show cause why a certain thing should not be done. [citation.] Unless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. ….” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.)

Petitioner has not followed the procedures to initiate contempt proceedings. Petitioner did not file an affidavit requesting that an OSC re contempt be set by the court, nor was an OSC personally served on the County or its attorneys against whom she seeks contempt.

At the end of her points and authorities, Petitioner “requests that this Court consider all available sanctions under law, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1218 and 177.5 Petitioner has not otherwise developed an argument that sanctions in any particular amount should be imposed under Section 177.5. CCP section 177.5 states:

A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both.

Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.

Petitioner did not give notice of her request for sanctions under 177.5 in her notice of motion or until the end of her points and authorities. Further, she did not develop her argument that Counsel could properly be sanctioned under this section.

As presented, the court denies Petitioner’s request for sanctions. The court notes, however, that had the motion been procedurally proper, Respondent’s argument that it satisfied the judgment by attaching the redacted LARCIS user guide to its motion for protective order is rejected for the reasons discussed. For that reason, the court orders the County to comply with the judgment by providing an unredacted version of the LARCIS user guide. Given Respondent’s argument that its compliance with the judgment would cause it to violate other laws regarding disclosure of personal information, the court orders Respondent to comply within 10 days so that Respondent may file a petition for stay or other relief in the Court of Appeal.

Respondent’s motion for protective order is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion for an order enforcing the judgment is granted. Respondent must comply within 10 days. Petitioner’s motion for sanctions is denied.

[1] Petitioner made two CPRA requests on February 26, 2021. The FAP was granted only with respect to the request for 1. Manual of Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) and 2. User guide of Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS). The FAP was denied as to the other request made on February 26, 2021.