Transparency in Government Petition for Writ of Mandate

8/12/2019 Transparency in Government Petition for Writ of Mandate

1/7

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NE IL L. SHAPIRO (State Bar No. 5 154 7)LAW OFFICES OF NEILL. SHAPIRO2 100 Garden Road , Suite CMonter ey, Ca l if ornia 93940T eleph one: (83 1) 372 -3700Fac s imil e: (83 1) 372 -370 1

Attorneys for Pet itionerIRAN PAREN CY IN GOVERNME T

FILEAUG 0 5 2 14

TERES A RISICLERK OF T HE SUPERIOR C OURT

EPUT Y

C RMEN B OROZC O

UPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MO TEREY

11 TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT , anun in corpo rated assoc iat ion ,

Case No.: 2 87PE T ITION FOR WRIT O F MANDATE2

13

14

Petitioner,

V

C ITY OF CARMEL-BY -T H E-SEA , and15 Doe s 1 throu gh 10 , inc lus ive

16 Re spo nd ents .

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pe tition er Transpa rency in Gove mm ent ( Petit ioner ) com pl a ins of Re spondent C ity of

Carmel-By-The-Sea ( C ity or Respo nd ent ) as follow s:

PA RT I ES

1. Petitioner Tran spa r enc y in Government is a n unincorporat ed association of

ind iv idu al s w ho bel ieve that gove rnmen t represents it s consti

tuen ts be st whe n it opera tes open ly,

and when the pub li c h as read y access to the information it n eeds to monitor th e actions of its

governmenta l repr ese ntative s. Pe titioner s also believe th at gove rnmenta l entitie s shou ld be

requir ed t o comp ly wit h laws pr o tec t in g the ir ri ght to such access , includ ing t he Ca li forn ia Public

Record s Act , Government Code 6250 el q (th e PRA'' ).

I

PETI TI ON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE


2/7


3/7

vo luminou s amoun t of se p a rate a nd di stin ct reco rd s that are demanded in a single req uest, the C it

2 requires a n extension of tim e pursuant to Ca li fornia Government Co de Sec tion 6253 in order to

3 adequately de termin e wh e th er the R eco rd s Requ es t, in who le o r in part , seeks co pi es of disc losab

4 public r eco rd s in the po ssess ion of th e City and provide noti ce of the r easons therefore. That

5 lette r ( the Second Exte nsio n ) also said that th e 'City expects to provide its detem1ination no lat

6 th an Augus t 15 , 2014.

7 7. The City has not allowed Petitioner to have access to , or to obtain a cop y of, a

8 si ngle one of th e pu blic recor ds so ught by an d de sc rib ed in the Req ue st.

9 APPLICABLE LAW

1 8 Und er the Public R eco rd s Act, Government Code 6250 t seq. the City as a

local age ncy is o bli ga ted to gr ant publi c access to , and fo r a fee of no more than the ac tual cost

12 of copy in g to pro v ide copies of, any public record s to a m embe r of the pub lic w h o prope rly

3 requ ests s uc h access or co pi es, unl ess any specific rec ord is exempt from disclosure by the

4 provisions of Government Code 6254 e l seq or 6255 . Governme nt Co de 6252 (e) prov ides

5 th at the term public record s in c lud es any writin g co ntainin g in f ormation relat in g to the con du c

6 of the publ ic's business prepared, owned , use d, o r r etai n ed by any state o r local agency rega rdl ess

17 of phys ica l form o r ch arac te ristics. Pet itioner i s in f ormed and be lieves that reco rds described in18 th e R equ es t we re used a nd r etained by th e C ity to reco rd an d document its rece ip t ofPR.A requ est

19 and res pon ses th ereto and its paymen t of tax dollar s to outs id e counsel in co nnection w ith such

20 rece ipt and responses. As such , th e reco rd s desc rib ed in the Request are publ ic records ' and are

2 n ot exemp t from di scl osure by the term s of the Pub lic R eco rd s Act.

22 9 Peti tioner p erfo rm ed a ll requir em en ts placed on it by law to entit le it to access to ,

23 and to cop ies of , th e reco rd s desc ri bed in the Requ es t by makin g the request sufficiently spec ifi c a

24 to its sco pe, and by giv in g C ity th e ten full days arguabl y spec ifi ed in the PRAt o res pond t o th e

25 requ es t and to pr ov ide co pie s of the req uested reco rd s . Because of Petitioner ' s complia nce w ith

26 th e app licab le lega l r equ irement s, a nd becau se th e reco rds so u gh t are not exempt from d isclos ur e

27

28 3PETITION FOR WRJT OF MANDATE


4/7

1 und er the law , P etition er ha s a clear, pr ese nt , and substantia l ri ght to the performance by th e C ity

2 o f its du ti es with respec t to acces s to and cop ies of those records.

3 10 Becau se Pe titioner h as in a ll res pect s comp lied wi t h th e requ irement s placed on it

4 by the PRA , and beca u se th e records to whi ch it soug ht and seeks ac cess a nd of whic h it so ught

5 an d see ks cop ies , were not and are not exempt from di sclo sure under th e provisions o f t he P RA ,

6 th e Ci ty has a cl ear, pr ese nt and a bso lute dut y to pr ov id e acces s to tho se documents and, for the

7 afo rem enti one d fee , cop ies o f t h ose do cu m ent. Re spond ent C ity failed to perform its dut ies in tha

8 reg a rd b y refus in g to pro v id e Pet iti oner access to , or cop ies of, d oc um ent s req uested.

9 11 P e ti t io ner is informed and b e li eves th at the C it y's grantin g to itself of the Fi rst

10 Extens ion , oste nsibl y becau se of " the n ee d to sea rch for , co ll ec t and ap p rop ri ately exa min e a

vo lumin ous amo un t of separate a nd di stinct records th at a re demande d in a s in g le reque s t," was a

12 s ta llin g tact ic by the Ci ty that lack s legal ju stifi catio n and co n st itute s a v io lati on of the PRA by

13 impr oper ly purportin g to extend th e statutory response time mandate d by th e PR A . Petition er is

14 in formed an d beli eves th at a ll of th e reque sts and responses so ught are logged , and retained , by a

15 s ingle indi vidual - the C ity C ler in a sing le location. or did the City nee d add itional tim e to

16 determine th at reque sts mad e pur s uant to th e PRA and the C ity's responses to those req u ests a re

17 th em se lves public record s that mu st be di sclo sed u nder th e PRA.

18 12 . Pe titi o ne r i s info rm ed an d b elieves that the City ' s g ran ting to it se lf of th e eco nd

19 Ex ten sion , ostensibly o n th e sa m e bas is as it g rant ed itself th e First Ex tensio n , equ al ly lac k s lega l

20 ju st ifi ca tion an d vio lates th e PR A . Mo reove r, Gove rnm ent Code 6253(c) , w hi ch authorize s an

2 1 ex ten sio n of tim e beyo nd th e initial ten-d ay s ta tu t ory dea dlin e for res po n se in limit ed, " unu sua l

22 c irc um stances ex p res s y pr ov id es that [n] o noti ce [of an extensio n] sha ll sp ec ify a date that

23 wou ld result in an exte nsion for mo r e than 4 da ys" fo r determina ti o n and, if ap pr opri ate , access

24 and the provision of cop ies. The Seco nd Extension tha t the C it y purport ed to grant it se l f res ult s i

25 an ex ten sion o f m ore th an 14 d ays in v io lation of the cite d s tatu tory provi sion ; the PR \ doe s no

26 p ermit seq uential ex te ns ion s to ex tend th e s tatutory d ea d lin e by more than a total of " 14 d ays.

27

28 4PETITIO N FOR WRIT OF MA NDA TE


5/7

13. Th e Publi c Re co rd s Act grants P et iti oner the r igh t t o seek the re li ef soug ht her ein.

2 Governmen t C od e 625 8 pr ov ide s that [a)n y p erso n ma y institute proceeding s for injunctive o r

3 dec larator y relie f or w ri t of man date in any court of competent jur isd ic tion to enforce h is o r her

4 ri ght to in spec t or to re ce ive a copy of any publi c record o r class of publi c rec ords und er this

5 chapter.

6 14 . Pe titio ner has no pl ain , spee dy, and adequ ate reme d y at law o ther than th e rel ief

so ught by way of thi s Petition . Without the i ss ua nce o f a Writ of Mandate as p rayed herein,

8 ne ither P etiti one rs nor oth er member s of th e publi c w ill be granted access to o r a copies of

9 docu ments th a t conta in su bstan tive information abo ut the o p era tion and conduc t of n impmt ant

1 part of the public 's gove rnm e nt - the Citys compliance w ith , or lack of comp liance w ith , the

PRA .

12 15. Goverr m1ent Code 6 259( a) pr ov ide s that [w ]henever it is made to appea r by

13 ve r ified p etiti on to the super ior court of the coun ty where the reco rd s or so m e pa rt ther eof are

14 situated that certa in public reco rd s are b e ing improp er ly withhe ld fro m a member of the public , th

15 cou rt sha ll o rd er th e office r or p erson char ge d wi th w ithh o ldin g th e re c ords to d isc lose the pu b li c

1 6 recor d o r show cause why h e or she s hould not d o so . This Court s h ould i ss ue an Alternative

17Writ , compe llin g Res p ond en t t o di sclo se th e record s descr ibed in the Requ es t, o r to show ca use

18 be f ore th is Co urt w hy it sho uld not be requ ired t o do so.

9 WH EREFORE, PETIT IO ER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:

2 1. Th at thi s Co urt iss ue an A lte rnati ve Writ of Mandate , commanding Respon dent

21 City to a llow th e in sp ec ti on of , and upon payme n t of th e s tat utory fee to provide cop ies of, a ll

22 req ues ts m ade pu rs uant to th e Publi c R ec o rd s Ac t and rece ived by th e C ity of Carmel during the

23 period Januar y 1, 20 14 , th r o ugh Jun e 30 . 2 014 , (2) the re spo nses, if a ny , to ea c h ofthc requests

24 ref erenced in (1) , and (3) recor ds re fl ec tin g the am o unt o f le ga l fe es in c urred by the C ity of Ca rm

25 w ith r espec t to th e reque sts refe rence d in 1 ), indi v idu a lly and in the aggregate, o r t o s how cau se

26 be f ore thi s Co urt at a da t e an d time to be spec ifi ed by the Court why it has not done so, a nd w h y

2 7

28 5PETITI ON FO R WRJT OF MA DATE


6/7

1 sh ou ld not be compe lled to d o so; and

2 2 . That on the return of th e Alte rnati ve Writ and t he hea r in g o f t hi s Pet itio n, thi s Co u

3 iss ue its Pere mp t or y Wr it o f Mand a te command ing R es pon dent C ity to a llow inspec tio n of and ,

4 up o n p aym ent o f th e s ta tut o ry fee to pr ov ide c o p ies of, a ll requ es ts ma de pu r s ua nt to th e Publ ic

5 R ec o rd s Ac t and rec e ive d by th e C ity of C arm e l durin g t he p e riod Jan ua ry 1, 20 I4 , th ro ugh J une

6 30,2 0 14, 2) the res po n ses, if a ny, to eac h of th e requ es ts re fe ren ced i n 1) . and 3) reco rd s

7 refl ec tin g th e am o unt of lega l fees incurr ed b y the C it y of Cam1e l w ith r espec t to the requ es ts

8 refe renc ed in 1 ), ind ividu a ll y a nd in t he agg regate.

9

1

2

13

14

15

6

1 7

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

2 7

2 8

..

.J .

4

5.

For a n awa rd of atto rn ey s fee s to P etit io ne rs p ur s ua nt to Gov enm 1ent C ode 625 9

For c os ts of s ui t in c urr ed h erein ; a nd

For s uch ot he r and furth e r re lief as thi s Co urt d eems ju st a nd prope r.

D ated: Au g ust 5, 2014 NE IL L. SH A PIRO

6

LAW OF F ICE S OF NE ILL. SH A PIRO

Att o rn eys for P e titi onerTRA N SPARE N CY IN GO Y E RM ENT

PET ITI ON FOR W lT OF MA NDA T E


7/7

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

15

6

7

18

9

2

2

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

I Ne il L Shapiro declare :

I am cou n sel o f record for Tran spa rency in Gov e rnm ent the Petitione r in this actio n. I

exec ute thi s Verification on beh alf of Petitioner beca use I h ave greater knowledge o f th e factuaJ

mat1ers a ll ege d above th an do es any m emb er o f P et ition e r I have rev ie wed the foregoing Petition

for Writ o f Mandate and know the conte nts thereof. I know of m y ow n per so nal knowledge that

the fa cts set forth above are true and COITec t except for those a lleged on information and b e li ef

and as to th em I believe them t o be tru e and correct.

xec ut ed at Mont e rey Ca li fornia thi s 5th day of August 2014. I decl are under penalty o

perjury tha t the fore go in g is true and correct.

7PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Transparency in Government Petition for Writ of Mandate

Documents