In Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena (Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, Intervenor), published April 12, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed in part and affirmed in part a trial court ruling on attorney fees in a reverse-PRA action (a suit challenging a public agency's decision to produce documents under the California Public Records Act). A group of organizations made a California Public Records Act request to the defendant city for a report concerning a police shooting. While the request was pending, two city police officers and the plaintiff Association filed a reverse-PRA action seeking a restraining order barring release of the report. The Los Angeles Times later intervened in the action on the side of those seeking release of the report. After the trial court concluded that a redacted version of the report could be released, the appellate court issued a writ petition holding that the redactions went too far. On remand, the trial court released the report with additional information unredacted. The Times moved for fees and costs. The trial court granted the Times attorney fees from the city under the CPRA, but only for the period that the matters was before the appellate court. It denied the Times private attorney general fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, applying a rule that section 1021.5 fees were not available against a party that was attempting to protect the party's private interests--here, the officers' privacy interests.
The appellate court reversed the decision on the section 1021.5 fees. The policy applies only when fees are sought from a private individual who seeks a judgment that determines only the individual's private rights and did nothing to adversely affect the public interest besides being on the losing side of an important case. Here, the police officers and the Association sought a judgment preventing the report's release for the benefit of all of the associations' members, as well as police officers in general. Further, the individual police officers essentially acted as public officials in seeking to keep the report private. The case therefore involved public officials and a public employee union pursuing litigation designed to expand the ability of police officers and departments to withhold information from the public. Because the Times met the other requirements for obtaining fees under section 1021.5, it was entitled to fees from the officers and the association.
The appellate court affirmed the ruling that the Times was entitled to CPRA fees from the City only for the time that the action was pending before the appellate court. The trial court's exercise of its discretion in determining the prevailing party and the reasonable period for fees was supported by substantial evidence.
Comments