Voice of San Diego v. Teacher 1

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO, Intervenor, Real Party in Interest and Appellant, v. TEACHER 1, TEACHER 2, AND TEACHER 3, Plaintiffs and Respondents.

VISTA TEACHER 1, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent;

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO, Intervenor, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

TEACHER RETIREE 1, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant;

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO, Intervenor, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

D075148

D075424

D075428

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

June 23, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00007640-CU-WM-NC)

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00011807-CU-WM-NC)

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00011822-CU-WM-NC)

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego, Ronald F. Frazier, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Felix Tinkov and Felix M. Tinkov for Intervenor, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Smith Steiner Vanderpool and Jon Y. Vanderpool, Dyland Griffith for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Vista Unified School District.

Adams Silva & McNally and Dean T. Adams, Kerrie E. McNally and Laurie E. Kamerrer for San Marcos Unified School District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents, Teachers 1, 2, and 3.

Appellant, intervenor and real party in interest Voice of San Diego (Voice) appeals from a judgment in part denying its motion for Code of Civil Procedure¹ section 1021.5 private attorney general fees in cases stemming from Voice's California Public Records Act (CPRA or the Act; Gov. Code, § 6250 et. seq) request for records from respondents San Marcos Unified School District and Vista Unified School District (the districts). Following Voice's records request, petitioners who are active or retiredteachers brought so-called "reverse-CPRA" litigation,² in which Voice intervened, to enjoin the records' release. The court ordered the records disclosed after reviewing them in camera, and eventually Voice received the requested documents without limitation or redaction. In denying attorney fees, the trial court ruled Voice did not show its intervention had an impact on the public's rights so as to entitle it to an award of section 1021.5 attorney fees in part because Voice did not show what the districts' efforts would have been had it decided to not intervene.

Voice contends in these consolidated appeals³ that the court applied an improper standard to determine whether private enforcement was necessary. It maintains it met the necessity standard, arguing it led the successful effort to obtain full production of the unredacted documents over the districts' acquiescence to the petitioners' delay tactics. According to Voice, the court's ruling runs counter to public policy encouraging private parties to work on behalf of the public's interest when there is a need to intervene.

Applying the required abuse of discretion standard and reviewing the result, not the court's specific reasoning, we conclude the court reasonably rejected Voice's privateattorney general fee request on grounds Voice's intervention did not significantly contribute to the outcome of the litigation. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 2017, Voice made a CPRA request to the districts for "public records relating to any substantiated claims of sexual misbehavior and related misconduct for any employee, official, contractor, agent or volunteer of the District arising within the last 10 years." In mid-December and early February, the districts notified petitioners and other teachers about the records request and forwarded documents they proposed to disclose. Both districts advised petitioners' counsel that they would disclose the documents unless petitioners sought judicial review via a reverse-CPRA action. The Vista Unified School District advised Vista Teacher 1's counsel that barring legal action, it proposed to disclose the documents with teacher and student names redacted. After petitioners objected to the disclosures, the districts agreed to delay production so petitioners could file reverse-CPRA litigation.

In February and March 2018, petitioners sought preliminary injunctive relief and writs of mandate under section 1085, seeking to enjoin the districts from disclosing their confidential personnel records. Petitioners cited case law, including Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222 (LAUSD), in which the Court of Appeal held the names of teachers associated with student test scores were exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. (See LAUSD, at pp. 231, 253.) At about the same time, without objection from the districts they obtained temporary restraining orders preventing the districts from disclosing the sought-after records.

Both districts opposed petitioners' requests for preliminary injunctive relief and asked the court to deny the motion. They argued petitioners did not demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, the CPRA mandated disclosure, and petitioners did not show the records were exempt from disclosure. The Vista Unified School District invited the court's in camera review and guidance. The San Marcos Unified School District distinguished the LAUSD case protecting disclosure of teacher identities, arguing its facts were distinctly different.

In late March and early April 2018, the petitioners and the districts stipulated to protective orders designating documents as confidential and authorizing disclosure of the documents to Voice subject to the protective order's terms.

On March 29, 2018, the parties appeared for a joint hearing in the Vista cases, at which petitioners represented that Voice had been given an initial set of documents. Vista Unified School District's counsel advised the court that the district sought to comply with the CPRA and agreed a majority of the records were public records, but remarked the district was "stuck in the middle" in the matter. Counsel told the court the district had originally sought to provide records with teacher names redacted, which Voice had rejected. Both counsel asked the trial court to review the records in camera to resolve the situation. The trial court granted a 30-day injunction and set a hearing for its in camera review of the records with counsel for the districts present.

Petitioners in the Vista cases then filed a brief in advance of the court's in camera hearing, seeking to have the court limit disclosure under certain criteria and CPRA exceptions. The Vista Unified School District opposed the petitioners' requests to applyvarious privileges to bar production of the records, but argued under LAUSD, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 222 there would be harm in releasing the teacher names and there was no public interest in disclosure. At about the same time the Vista petitioners notified Voice they would not object to the district's production of their records so long as their names and identities were withheld.

On April 20, 2018, per the parties' stipulation Voice was permitted to intervene in the litigation. That day, Voice filed a brief agreeing with the Vista Unified School District but arguing the law required that the teacher identities be disclosed. In part, Voice argued petitioners could not rely on LAUSD, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 222 as a basis for withholding their identities.

On April 23, 2018, the court (Judge Ronald Frazier) conducted an in camera review in both the Vista and San Marcos cases. Petitioners' counsel advised the court that petitioners had stipulated with the districts and Voice to withdraw their objections to disclosure of their records with the exception of their names and identities, for which petitioners still sought protection. He told the court his clients were objecting to disclosing their identities under LAUSD, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 222 and the lack of any public interest in their names. Voice's counsel sought to distinguish the LAUSD case. After that hearing, Voice filed a supplemental brief concerning the "standard under which the identities of [p]etitioners . . . must be disclosed by [the districts]." Voice also pointed out a recently decided case, Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 147, 159 (PPOA), held a real party in interest in a reverse-CPRA case was entitled to recover attorney fees under section 1021.5.

On May 3, 2018, the court considered the parties' and Voice's arguments. At the outset of the hearing, the court expressed its appreciation for counsel's assistance on educating it on the law, then summarized the state of the proceedings, pointing out Voice's assistance was to "a certain lesser extent because you [Voice's counsel] weren't in the in camera . . . ." In the Vista cases the court authorized release of the requested records with teachers' identities redacted. It then took all of the matters under submission.

In mid-May, the court denied the teachers' motions for preliminary injunctions and ruled case law required disclosure of their names "because their identity is an integral part of assessing the district's performance of its duties." By the end of the month, Voice received the entire set of unredacted documents sought in its CPRA requests.

Voice moved for an award of section 1021.5 private attorney general fees and costs in all three actions.⁴ It argued it enforced important rights affecting the public interest in prevailing against the petitioner teachers, maintaining petitioners attempted to shield their identities and school children's accusations of sexual misconduct against them, or conceal government investigations and...