Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCP00988, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP00988, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Three Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed this petition for a writ of mandate compelling the City of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or the “City”) to produce all public records responsive to Petitioner’s California Public Records Act (the “CPRA”) request. The City produced more than 1,800 pages of responsive records after the litigation was filed, and Petitioner does not argue that the City improperly withheld or redacted any records. Petitioner “has determined that the City’s completion of its production of records following the filing of this action has rendered the lawsuit moot” and “does not oppose the dismissal of the Petition.” Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition as moot. Petitioner now moves for an award of “prevailing party” attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code section 7923.115(a) in the total amount of $218,564.46. The City opposes the motion. The Court does not have sufficient information to issue a tentative order on the motion for attorneys’ fees.

On June 22, 2022, the City Council passed a motion, at the recommendation of the Los Angeles Police Department (the “LAPD”), to initiate nuisance abatement proceedings against Petitioner’s business, “Crazy Girls Strip Club,” which is located in Hollywood. The Department of City Planning (“City Planning”) set the proceedings for hearing before the Zoning Administrator on November 10, 2022. (Freedman Decl. ¶ 2.)[1]

On November 5, 2022, Petitioner submitted a CPRA request to the LAPD seeking: “copies of any and all records, including any and all evidence of communications, relating to or referencing (i) 1433 North La Brea Avenue; (ii) ‘Crazy Girls’ or ‘Crazy Girls Strip Club’; or (iii) case no. DIR-2022-3752-RV” for the period “July 14, 2021 through … November 5, 2022.” (hereafter, the “CPRA Request”) (Orocio Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. 1.) On November 7, 2022, the LAPD searched through its “Web Focus” database and identified four pages of responsive “Calls for Service” records. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 15; Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 58.)

On November 21, 2022, the LAPD informed Petitioner that it had performed a search of the LAPD email database for the terms of the CPRA Request and that the search “resulted in 23,999 items not including attachment file(s) that exceeds the maximum gigabyte (GB) that our system would allow to export” and “therefore, [the LAPD was] unable to search for and identify emails responsive to your request.” (Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 61.) The LAPD asked Petitioner to narrow the scope of its request. (Ibid.)

On November 22, 2022, Petitioner agreed that with respect to emails, the LAPD could rely on search terms: (1) “Crazy Girls” and “1433 La Brea;” and (2) “Crazy Girls” and “club.” (Consoli-Tiensvold Decl. Exh. 5 at 56; Lee Decl. ¶ 6.) Petitioner did not agree to modify the request in any other way. (See Lee Decl. ¶ 6.)

On December 12, 2022, having not heard anything since the LAPD’s last communication, Petitioner’s counsel asked for an estimate of when the records would be made available. (Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 60.) According to Ryan Lee, a CPRA analyst with the LAPD who worked on the request, the LAPD’s Information Technology Bureau (“ITB”) performed a search based on this modified request on or about December 12, 2022, “but the results were still voluminous and too large to extract.” (Lee Decl. ¶ 6.) On December 22, 2022, the LAPD produced the four “Calls for Service” records that it found on November 7, 2022. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 15.) On this date, the LAPD also updated Petitioner as follows: “[The] LAPD continues to search for and identify records responsive to your request. We will provide another response regarding more records within a couple of weeks.” (Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 59.)

On or about January 4, 2023, Lee requested that Petitioner further narrow the CPRA Request. Petitioner’s counsel declined to further narrow the CPRA Request. Lee informed Petitioner that “even if ITB broke up the search by date ranges … continuing to use the requested search terms could still yield voluminous results that might take quite some time to review and complete.” Petitioner’s counsel responded that Petitioner was “ok with this.” (Lee Decl. ¶ 8; Consoli Decl. Exh. 5 at 44.)

On January 24, 2023, the LAPD informed Petitioner that it “estimates that it will be able to provide you with an update and/or copies of responsive, non-exempt records by March 24, 2023, and on a rolling basis thereafter.” (Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 57.) On March 23, 2023, LAPD informed that that it “continues to review potential records that may contain confidential portions that are exempt from disclosure” and that the LAPD had revised its estimate such that it would start providing responsive records by April 25, 2023. (Id. Exh. 4 at 56.) Other than the four calls for service records, LAPD did not produce any responsive records before the petition for writ of mandate was filed. (See Ibid.; Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.)

On March 28, 2023, Petitioner filed its petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in this action. The City made one production of documents on June 7, 2023, which was before the first trial setting conference (“TSC”) on July 7, 2023. (See Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.) The City made additional document productions on August 10, August 17, and August 31, 2023. (Ibid.) At the TSC on August 11, 2023, Judge Beckloff ordered the head of the LAPD’s Discovery Unit, Detective Philip Orocio, to appear at a continued TSC on September 1, 2023 “to explain the delay/process/procedure” with respect to LAPD’s response to the CPRA Request. (Consoli-Tiensvold Decl. Exh. 10.)

In August 2023, Petitioner finally agreed to narrow the scope of the search of the LAPD’s email database to 27 identified officers. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 18.) According to Orocio:

[T]he search results for the email queries the 27 Officers was significantly less voluminous than the results of any of the multiple ‘any and all’ email searches LAPD had previously conducted using the parameters specified in the Request, which Petitioner had previously declined to narrow or focus. Accordingly, LAPD was able to spend substantially less time reviewing the emails from the August 2023 search, and could spend more time on other searches it believed were called for by the Request.

(Id. ¶ 19.) These searches had the same search term limitations. (Id. ¶ 18.) According to the City, “[t]hese searches were complete by early September 2023. (Ibid.) The City made document productions on September 8, September 20, October 6, November 3, November 9, and November 13, 2023. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 12; see also Freedman Decl. Exh. 4.)

At the TSC on November 17, 2023, Judge Beckloff, apparently frustrated by the City’s lack of completion of the document production, stated:

I think I’m done micromanaging your case. I will set it for trial. I don’t know what else to do. Mr. Freedman, every time we are together we spend an hour. We’ve spent three or four hours together trying to work this out. The deposition was taken, apparently that officer didn’t connect any search. I know that the City may view it differently. I have many, many cases and I can’t baby-sit forever.

(Consoli-Tiensvold Decl. Exh. 14 at 4.) Judge Beckloff set a trial date, and the City made another document production on November 30, 2024. (Ibid.; see also Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.) The City made one final document production, on May 10, 2024. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.)

C. Petitioner Requests Extensions of the Deadline to Submit Evidence to the Zoning Administrator in the Nuisance Abatement Proceedings

On November 10, 2022, after a hearing, the Zoning Administrator took the zoning abatement matter “under advisement” and left the record open for two months to allow Petitioner to submit additional evidence in response to testimony offered against it. (Freedman Decl. ¶ 6.) On December 23, 2022, May 1, 2023, and June 16, 2023—before the LAPD produced all responsive public records—Petitioner requested extensions from the Zoning Administrator to submit additional evidence that it was seeking in the CPRA Request and this writ action. (Id. ¶ 7 and Exh. 1-3.) The Zoning Administrator granted such requests. (Id. ¶ 7.) After several extensions, the administrative record in the zoning abatement matter was closed on April 5, 2024. (See Lum Decl. ¶¶ 18-24.) Between November 7, 2022, and April 5, 2024, City Planning did not receive any additional evidence from Petitioner to add to the administrative record for the nuisance abatement proceeding. (Id. ¶ 20.) Petitioner also did not request to reopen the record after receiving all responsive, non-exempt records for its CPRA Request on May 10, 2024. (Id.

It is undisputed that the LAPD completed production of all responsive, non-exempt records on May 10, 2024. (Orocio Decl. ¶ 12; Freedman Decl. Exh. 4 at 1.) Petitioner has not challenged LAPD’s decision to withhold and/or redact certain responsive records as exempt. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as moot. “[I]f the respondent has complied with the petitioner’s demands … , the petition should be dismissed as moot.” (See Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 671.)

“If the requester prevails in litigation filed pursuant to [the CPRA], the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the requester.” (Gov. Code § 7923.115(a).) Under the CPRA, an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff is mandatory. (Fontana Police Dept. v. Villegas-Banuelos (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1252.)

A petitioner prevails within the meaning of the CPRA when the petitioner “files an action which results in defendant releasing a copy of a previously withheld document.” (Belth v. Garamendi (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 896, 898.) “A plaintiff is considered the prevailing party if his lawsuit motivated defendants to provide the primary relief sought or activated them to modify their behavior, or if the litigation substantially contributed to or was demonstrably influential in setting in motion the process which eventually achieved the desired result.” (See Belth v. Garamendi (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 896, 901.) “The appropriate benchmarks in determining which party prevailed are (a) the situation immediately prior to the commencement of suit, and (b) the situation today, and the role, if any, played by the litigation in effecting any changes between the two.’” (Id. at 902.) “[A] plaintiff need not achieve a favorable final judgment in order to be a successful party.” (Id. at 901.)

Here, it appears that Petitioner’s broad CPRA requests were the reason for the delays in this case. Petitioner’s first request sought “any and all records,” including communications, relating to or referencing the physical location or the name of the club for approximately 16 months. Petitioner’s modification of the request did not limit the number of document custodians but merely limited emails based upon certain search terms. It was not until Petitioner limited the searches to 27 document custodians that the request became reasonable. Indeed, as soon as Petitioner did so in August 2023, the searches were completed in September 2023, and the productions occurred on September 8, September 20, October 6, November 3, November 9, November 14, and November 30, 2023. (See Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.) The City provided a privilege log on December 8, 2023. (See Mot. 12:15-16.) Therefore, it appears that Petitioner’s decision to limit the request to something reasonable—not this petition for writ of mandate—compelled the City to respond.

However, the court cannot rule on this motion because it is unclear what was produced on May 10, 2024. (See Orocio Decl. ¶ 12.) Nor is it clear why additional documents were produced so long after the City completed its search in September 2023.

[1] On September 29, 2022, in order to prepare its defense, Petitioner submitted a CPRA request to the City Planning for records related to the nuisance abatement proceedings. The City produced 2,107 pages of responsive record on October 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 3.) The CPRA request to the City Planning is not at issue in this writ petition.