City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.

96 Cal.App.5th 818

314 Cal.Rptr.3d 681

CITY OF GILROY, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent;

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Real Party in Interest.

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Petitioner,

v.The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Respondent;

City of Gilroy, Real Party in Interest.

H049552, H049554

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

Filed October 23, 2023

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 20, 2023

Attorneys for Petitioner, City of Gilroy: William D. Ross, Los Angeles, David Paul Schwarz, Costa Mesa, Kypros Gabriel Hostetter, Los Angeles, Law Offices of William D. Ross

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: Annette Denise Kirkham, San Jose, Nadia Aziz, Oakland, Hai Tri Dao, Erika Kay Fairfield, Mountain View, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Thomas Philip Zito, Disability Rights Advocates, Neel Chatterjee, Wendell Lin, Santa Monica, Megan Deanne Bettles, San Francisco, Faraz Behnamjou, Monte Cooper, Redwood City, Goodwin Procter LLP

Attorney for Amicus Curiae, League Of California Cities, California Special Districts Association: Donald A. Larkin, Office of the City Attorney

Attorneys for Petitioner, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: Nadia Aziz, Oakland, Hai Tri Dao, Brian T. Nichols, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Thomas Philip Zito, Disability Rights Advocates, Neel Chatterjee, Wendell Lin, Santa Monica, Megan Deanne Bettles, San Francisco, Faraz Behnamjou, Monte Cooper, Redwood City, Goodwin Procter LLP

Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest, City of Gilroy: William D. Ross, Los Angeles, David Paul Schwarz, Costa Mesa, Law Offices of William D. Ross, Andrew L. Faber, Jolie Houston, San Jose, Berliner & Cohen

Attorney for Amicus Curiae, League Of California Cities, California Special Districts Association: Donald A. Larkin, Office of the City Attorney

Greenwood, P. J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Law Foundation of Silicon Valley (Law Foundation) is a "nonprofit legal services organization whose mission is to advance the rights of under-represented individuals and families through legal services, strategic advocacy, and educational outreach." During its investigation of complaints by homeless persons that their personal property was being destroyed during cleanups of homeless encampments, the Law Foundation made numerous public record requests to the City of Gilroy (City).¹

Dissatisfied with City's responses to its public records request, Law Foundation filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief alleging that City had violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq. )² In the October 1, 2021 order, the trial court denied the petition for a writ of mandate and granted declaratory relief in part, finding that City had violated the CPRA in responding to Law Foundation's public records requests but rejecting Law Foundation's request for a declaration that City had violated the CPRA by failing to preserve responsive records it claimed were exempt while Law Foundation's public records requests were pending.

Both parties filed writ petitions in this court challenging parts of the trial court's order. In case No. H049552, City of Gilroy v. Superior Court , City contends that the trial court erred in granting declaratory relief, failing to find that Law Foundation's claims of CPRA violations were moot, and tentatively finding that Law Foundation is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs and attorney fees. In case No. H049554, Law Foundation v. Superior Court , Law Foundation argues that the trial court erred in denying Law Foundation's request for a declaration that the City violated the CPRA by destroying responsive records after it received the Law Foundation's CPRA requests.

For the reasons stated below, we determine that (1) the trial court erred in case No. H049552, City of Gilroy v. Superior Court by granting declaratory relief on the basis of its findings that City's past conduct in responding to Law Foundation's public records requests violated the CPRA; and (2) the trial court did not err in case No. H049554, Law Foundation v. Superior Court , by denying Law Foundation's request for a declaration that City violated the CPRA by failing to preserve responsive records it claimed were exempt while Law Foundation's public records requests were pending. We will therefore issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the October 1, 2021 order and to enter a new order denying Law Foundation's petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in its entirety.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Records of GPD Body-Worn Camera Video Footage

Gilroy Police Department (GPD) receives complaints about homeless encampments that have been established on private or public property, including the property of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District). When requested by the Water District, GPD assists with the cleanup of homeless encampments (also known as sweeps) on Water District property. According to former Chief of Police Scot Smithee, "[d]uring an encampment cleanup, GPD officers proceed in advance of the Water District crews. The GPD officers locate and investigate individuals who have failed to comply with the prior written and oral notices to vacate the premises. Officers make contact with these individuals to investigate potential violations of the law, such as trespass or illegal storage, and direct individuals to collect their belongings and immediately vacate the property prior to the Water District personnel arriving to complete the cleanup." The Water District is responsible for collecting belongings left at the cleanup site and either disposing of them or leaving items of apparent value at the site for homeless persons to retrieve later. GPD collects and stores a few items, such as identification cards.

According to Smithee, GPD officers assisting with homeless encampment cleanups have body-worn cameras (bodycams), which they activate "if they are engaging in a criminal investigation or enforcement action." Video footage generated by GPD officers' bodycams is collected and stored in accordance with GPD's record management system. David Boles, GPD's records manager, is responsible for the collection and maintenance of all GPD records, including video footage from bodycams. Boles is also responsible for responding to public record requests for GPD records. City's records retention policy for GPD records requires bodycam video footage to be retained for one year, then automatically deleted by a computer system unless flagged for preservation. Once a bodycam video is automatically deleted, it cannot be recovered or viewed by GPD.

B. Law Foundation's 2018 Public Records Requests

After receiving complaints from homeless persons that their personal property was being destroyed during cleanups of homeless encampments, the Law Foundation began an investigation that included making numerous public record requests to City. Relevant here, Law Foundation submitted an October 9, 2018 request that included the following: (1) "Request 11: Any and all public records constituting, reflecting or relating to the proactive enforcement of Quality of Life violations between January 1, 2015 through the present"; (2) "Request 18: Any and all public records constituting, reflecting or relating to the number of encampment sweeps conducted between January 1, 2015 through the present"; and (3) "Request 24: Any and all public records constituting, reflecting or relating to the Zero Tolerance Policy regarding the homeless and Quality of Life violations between January 1, 2015 through the present."

City provided responsive materials to Law Foundation's October 9, 2018 public records requests with an October 29, 2018 response from the assistant city attorney that stated in part, "[t]he GPD's law enforcement records generally, and Quality of Life criminal code enforcement records specifically, are exempt from disclosure under the [CPRA]."³ GPD did not provide any bodycam video footage in response to Law Foundation's October 9, 2018 public records request, or in response to Law Foundation's subsequent public records requests to GPD dated October 15, 2018, and November 8, 2018, that similarly sought records related to cleanups of homeless encampments. Since GPD's bodycam video footage was determined by the City Attorney to be exempt, Boles did not search for or review any bodycam video footage after receiving Law Foundation's October and November public records requests.

C. Law Foundation's May 2019 Public Records Requests

Law Foundation staff attended a May 2019 homeless task force meeting at GPD where, according to Law Foundation, Chief Smithee stated that all homeless encampment sweeps are videotaped. Law Foundation then submitted a May 20, 2019 public records request to City that requested (1) "All videos taken by the Gilroy Police Department during sweeps in Gilroy conducted between January 1, 2016 and the present;" (2) "All videos taken by the Gilroy Police Department of the encampment sweep behind the Compassion Center on April 26, 2019;" and (3) "All audio recordings by the Gilroy Police Department during sweeps between January 1, 2016 through the present." Law Foundation later initially agreed to limit its request to video and audio recordings produced from January 1, 2019, through the present.

After City received the May 20, 2019 public records request, City and Law Foundation engaged in a series of communications regarding the scope of the request and City's need to review the videotapes and audio recordings to determine if any fell outside the exemption for records of investigations and investigatory files. City subsequently provided some responsive materials with a June 11, 2019 letter from the assistant city attorney, which informed Law Foundation that its request for GPD bodycam video footage from the homeless encampment sweeps was denied because the...