In Edais v. Superior Court (Foucrault), published January 17, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 3 reversed a decision by a trial court on a writ petition brought under the California Public Records Act. A police officer died in his home, of hanging. The coroner’s office published a report classifying the death a suicide. The decedent’s parents, suspecting foul play, hired a forensic pathologist to undertake a forensic autopsy review. The review requires examination of scene photos, autopsy photos, coroner reports, notes and recordings taken by the coroner’s investigator and the pathologist who examined the body, and recuts of microscopic slides of any tissues retained. The parents served a CPRA request on the county coroner. They requested all documents received or generated by or currently in the possession in connection with the decedent’s death. For physical evidence that could not be reproduced, they requested an in-person inspection. The coroner’s office produced various reports, but declined to provide photos of the scene or autopsy, and declined to provide the full summary and investigation notes report prepared by the coroner’s investigator, on the ground that the decedent’s widow had not consented to the disclosure. The petitioners sought a writ of mandate to compel production, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court denied relief under the CPRA petition. On its own motion, the trial court required the respondents to produce to the parents the requested photos and investigation report. It relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 129(a), which authorizes a court (on good cause and after notice to the District Attorney) to order the release of a coroner’s photos of the deceased. The court ordered the parties to negotiate a protective order to prevent the documents’ further release. The parents petitioned the appellate court for an extraordinary writ, directing the trial court to release all of the public records it generated or received in connection with the death investigation.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court had erred in denying the CPRA request in its entirety. Coroner and autopsy reports are public records. The CPRA exception for investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes is not at issue in this case. All of the requested records, including the photos, are public records for purposes of the CPRA. Certain postmortem and autopsy photos are exempted from disclosure under Government Code section 7927.704, which exempts documents exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law. Among the statutes listed in the CPRA that may exempt or prohibit production is Code of Civil Procedure section 129, postmortem or autopsy photos. These provisions together exempt from disclosure under the CPRA postmortem or autopsy photos whose disclosure section 129(a) prohibits. The court declined to resolve whether the requested photos fall with the scope of section 129(a)’s prohibition on disclosure, since the trial court ordered the photos produced under a protective order, respondents do not challenge the ruling and have already turned over the photos. While records released to one requestor under the CPRA generally must be made available to other members of the public, records released pursuant to section 129(a) are likely not subject to the same requirement. As to the investigation report, the court addressed whether the exemption for medical files and the “catch-all” provision exempted it. When applying the medical files exemption, the court balances the public interest in disclosure against the individual’s interest in privacy. The public interest in releasing the coroner’s office documents is significant. It would assist members of the public in assessing whether the coroner’s office investigated the death thoroughly and competently. The public interest in correctly distinguishing suicide from homicide is patent. As for privacy, the decedent has no more privacy interest. The family has a privacy interest, but the parents are the ones requesting the records, and the widow has not objected. Another important fact is that the documents to be produced are not photos and videos of the deceased, but technical documents such as coroner’s notes and observations. The state law recognizing the extreme sensitivity of death-scene and autopsy photos does not protect the other coroner documents (except the decedent’s medical information). Further, it is common practice for coroners and medical examiners to perform a secondary review of medical evidence. The public interest in disclosure therefore outweighs any individual privacy interest. The “catch-all” exemption requires weighing the public interest in disclosure against the public interest against disclosure. The respondents did not establish any public interest in withholding the documents that is any more substantial than the private interests the court found insufficient.
Comments