Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2022-00052082-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Hearing on Petition 37-2022-00052082-CU-WM-CTL PEASE LAW APC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Petition for Writ of Mandate, 12/29/2022

Petitioner's Petition for Peremptory Writ and Declaratory Relief is GRANTED. (ROA 18.) Under the California Public Records Act ('CPRA'), the City is required to 'promptly' make public records available, except those records which are expressly exempt from disclosure by law. (Govt. Code § 7922.530(a), effective Jan. 1, 2023; formerly Govt. Code § 6253(b), effective Jan. 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022.) Petitioner submitted a request for public records to the City on December 18, 2021. The request sought '[a]ll documents from and communication with the San Diego Housing Commission (including any consultants, agents, and representatives acting on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission) regarding the 2021-2029 Housing Element, including the Appendices. The request includes information regarding the lawsuit/case described on page HE-A-212 of Appendix A: [link provided].' (Maghsoodi Decl. at Exh. A.) Many, many months went by with the City periodically notifying Petitioner that its search was ongoing.

On a few occasions the City requested clarifications from Petitioner, which Petitioner provided. On a few occasions a partial production was made, including one 5,000-page production that turned out to be a mistake. (Maghsoodi Decl. at Exh. A.) This proceeding was eventually filed on December 29, 2022. As late as February 2023, the City was still sending Petitioner periodic notifications claiming its review of responsive records was ongoing, before eventually closing the request due to the litigation.

In its opposition, the City indicated it provided discovery responses in this proceeding which state former Planning Department employee Vickie White drafted the relevant portion of the Housing Element. (Opp.

at p. 4.) The City's opposition brief did not provide the court with a citation to evidence to enable the court to review the purported discovery response. According to the opposition brief, the City searched its records and identified no responsive records related to Ms. White's drafting of the relevant portion of the Housing Element.

By other means, including a 2023 CPRA request to the State and a 2023 CPRA request to the City, Petitioner became aware of records responsive to its 2021 CPRA request but which were never provided in response to its 2021 CPRA request (nor in discovery in this proceeding).

The City attempts to assert records were produced in response to the second (2023) CPRA request that were not produced in response to the first (2021) CPRA request because the 2023 request was broader.

The court is not persuaded.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2932310  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PEASE LAW APC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00052082-CU-WM-CTL Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide all records not exempt from disclosure.

Petitioner's requests for judicial notice are granted.

Petitioner is to submit a proposed Judgment within five (5) days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2932310  18