In Sukumar v. City of San Diego, published August 15, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed a trial court decision denying a fee motion brought by a California Public Records Act petitioner whose petition was defeated. The petitioner sought records about his property and his neighbors. Not satisfied with the city's production of documents, the petitioner brought a petition for writ of mandate under the CPRA. The city objected to discovery the petitioner propounded, contending that discovery was not available in CPRA actions. At a hearing on a motion to compel, a deputy city attorney stated on the record that the city had produced all responsive records. She offered to provide a declaration to that effect. The court ordered a deposition of a person most knowledgeable to confirm the city had produced all responsive documents. The city undertook additional searches before and after the PMK deposition, It located more responsive documents, and provided them to the petitioner. The petitioner's CPRA petition was ultimately denied on the ground that the city had produced the responsive documents. The petitioner moved for his attorney fees. The trial court found that the petitioner was not the prevailing party, because the litigation had not motivated the city to produce the additional documents produced after the case started.
The appellate court ruled that no substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding. A CPRA petitioner who loses the petition is nevertheless the prevailing party if the litigation results in documents responsive to the CPRA request being produced. It is not enough that the documents are produced after the litigation begins; there must be a causal connection between the litigation and the production, so that the agency produces documents it would not have produced if the litigation had not taken place. Here, the deputy city attorney's representation that everything had been produced, and then the additional production of documents after the PMK deposition was ordered, indicated that the city undertook additional searches in response to the PMK deposition order and discovered documents it had mistakenly not produced before. That established that the petitioner was the prevailing party, and entitled to his fees under the CPRA.
Comments